#anti bernard

[sinnbaddie]

Ppl on twitter are crazy, TIMBERKON?? On top of erasing Kon’s entire character just to make him about Tim, y’all are gonna force my Jewish husband with that lil Aryan boy ??? wtf !!!

[christopher-bryant]

i swear if this fucking show makes me suffer through a tim x b*rnard romance im gonna vomit🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮

[glitter-stained]

What do you like about Tim Drake?

His boyfriend. Next question

[middle-earth-mythopoeia]

(source, 11/30/22)

KING

[punkeropercyjackson]

Tim Drake,they(Batfanon stans and Batcestcels)could never make me hate you

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jessica Valenti at Abortion, Every Day:

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita says that abortion reports aren’t medical records, and that they should be available to the public in the same way that death certificates are. While Rokita pushes for public reports, New Hampshire lawmakers are fighting over a Republican bill to collect and publish abortion data, and U.S. Sen. Tommy Tuberville has introduced a bill that would require the Department of Veterans Affairs to collect and provide data on the abortions performed at its facilities. Just last week, Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly vetoed legislation that would have required abortion providers to ask patients invasive and detailed questions about why they were getting abortions, and provide those answers in a report to the state.   All of these moves are part of a broader strategy that weaponizes abortion data to stigmatize patients and to prosecute providers. And while most states have some kind of abortion reporting law, legislators are increasingly trying to expand the scope of the data, and use it to dismantle women’s privacy.

Rokita’s ‘advisory opinion’, for example, argues that abortion data collected by the state isn’t private medical information and that in order to prosecute abortion providers, he needs detailed reports to be public. In the past, the state has issued reports on each individual abortion. But as a result of Indiana’s ban, there are only a handful of abortions being performed in the state. As such, the Department of Health decided to release aggregate reports to protect patient confidentiality, noting that individual reports could be “reverse engineered to identify patients—especially in smaller communities.” Rokita—best known for his harassment campaign against Dr. Caitlin Bernard, the abortion provider who treated a 10-year-old rape victim—is furious over the change. He says the only way he can arrest and prosecute people is if he gets tips from third parties, presumably anti-abortion groups that scour the abortion reports for alleged wrongdoing. He wants the state to either restore public individual reports, or to allow his office to go after abortion providers without a complaint by a third party. (Meaning, he could pursue investigations against doctors and hospitals without cause.)

Most troubling, though, is his insistence that women’s private abortion information isn’t private at all. Even though individual reports could be used to identify patients, Rokita claims that the terminated pregnancy reports [TPRs] aren’t medical records, and that they “do not belong to the patient.” [...] As I flagged last month, abortion reporting is becoming more and more important to anti-choice lawmakers and groups. Project 2025 includes an entire section on abortion reporting, for example, and major anti-abortion organizations like the Charlotte Lozier Institute and Americans United for Life want to mandate more detailed reports.

[...]  As is the case with funding for crisis pregnancy centers and legislation about ‘prenatal counseling’ or ‘perinatal hospice care’, Republicans are advancing abortion reporting mandates under the guise of protecting women. And in a moment when voters are furious over abortion bans, anti-choice lawmakers and organizations very much need Americans to believe that lie. We have to make clear that state GOPs aren’t just banning abortion, but enacting any and every punitive policy that they can—especially those that strip us of our medical privacy. After all, it was less than a year ago that 19 Republican Attorneys General wanted the ability to investigate the out-of-state medical records of abortion patients. Did we really think they were going to stop there?

@jessicavalenti writes a solid column in her Abortion, Every Day blog that the GOP's agenda to erode patient privacy of those seeking abortions is a dangerous one.

[ghost-bxrd]

“I want to buy a gun.”

Bernard’s head flies up, the pack of vigilante game cards slipping from his fingers and skidding underneath a nearby shelf.

“You what!?”

Bruce can’t help the way his lips twitch at the absolute horror on the other boy’s face.

“A gun, Bernard. Do keep up.”

“No, nononono, hell no!” Bernard exclaims, arms pin wheeling comically.

[humblefryingpan]

Sometimes I forget how angry people get about ships that aren't harmful 😅

Tim Drake is canonly bi and he has a boyfriend. People ship him with his ex girlfriend. Both of those ships are completely fine, I think timbern is cute and I don't ship timsteph but I get they were together a while and people like them.

That being said I made a poll to see which Tim ship is most popular (I enjoy seeing what people think yk, it's entertaining) and Steph was one of the options but so was Bernard and someone rebloged it saying if timsteph didn't win it would be misogyny?

Neither of them are winning btw lol, connor is which is its own weirdly controversial thing

The thing is-

Timsteph isn't a bad ship. They were together a while, they were cute. Lots of people grew up with timsteph and like them.

Timbern isn't a bad ship. Just because Tim's dating a guy now doesn't mean he hates Steph or anything, he just moved on (and so did Steph!) and he's bisexual, he isn't just suddenly gay. They're cute too, and it's nice to see representation.

Timkon also isn't a bad ship. They're close friends which is the base to a good relationship, if they got together it'd also be good.

You know what is a bad ship? Tim and Jason. Or Damian, or Dick, or Bruce. And yet I see more people mad about shipping Tim with his boyfriend or his ex girlfriend or his best friend than I see people mad about shipping him with his siblings and his dad.

[eretzyisrael]

[mooblemin]

Tim is my second favourite DC character to be mean to

@lazaruspiss I drew the fedora Tim vaping!

[zedreh]

Okay, time for another opinion.

Now, before I begin, I would just like to say a few things, just so no one gets the wrong idea of me.

I have no real problem with Tim Drake being made bisexual, even if most people who worked on the character probably did not intend on him being so. I feel that the only real problem with changing a pre-established character's sexuality is that you're retconning what came before. If it's done well, then I'm pretty much fine with it.

Also, while I'm not a fan of it, I'm cool with people shipping Tim Drake and Connor Kent.

Now, with that out of the way, I would just like to say... I can not stand Tim with Bernard. Bernard is such a flat and boring character. He feels like pre-death, non-revisionist Gwen Stacy, and I can never understand how people were actually upset with that woman being killed off. But at least she had some personality, unlike Bernard ever since they started having him and Tim go out. Granted, all Gwen really had going for her was being kinda mean at times, a daddy's girl, and hating Spider-Man after her dad died, but still, at least it was something. Sorry to those who like Tim with Bernard, but I, for the life of me, just can not bring myself to like these two together.

Also, to clarify, if anyone reading this hasn't seen my last post, this isn't a timsteph thing. I think Tim and Steph are fine, but I'm honestly not that big a fan of them. I don't hate or dislike them like some people do, and while sometimes, the two can be written as pretty toxic, I think when they aren't, they're great. It's just that for whatever reason, they just don't quite click with me. At least I like Steph as a character. She's great, and I wish she was in more adaptations so that more casual fans could see that, too. It's just that while I like her and Tim together, I guess I just don't, for lack of better term, love her and Tim together.

Ok, with all that said, I noticed that somehow, looking at Tim's current relationship and then also his longest reoccurring one, I find myself carrying less about them, and more about his short-lived romance with a member of the X-Men that admittedly, could have used a little more time for development... so maybe I'm just weird.

[sinnbaddie]

You want to complain that people ship Kon with gay men because he’s “straight” yet there is WAY more evidence to support queer Kon than Jewish Kon which has 0 panels that suggest he might be Jewish. The irony is real

That was not the point of the post so let me break it down for you

1. My reasoning for why Kon is Jewish is because he is literally related to Clark Kent who is canonically Jewish so when you add 2 to 2 it = 4, also I am literally Jewish and if I wanna say a certain character who can very much be explained to be Jewish because of his relations I can, and I damn will

2. If you read my post, I never once said Kon was straight, I was saying that I feel as a real QUEER man, timber is a gay ship for straights. I hc Kon as bisexual and I am a gay man myself so no I’m not shitting on gay men. You should’ve moved on with your day and or block me instead of insinuating that I’m being homophobic when I’m literally gay

Anyway Kon is a bisexual Jew stay tf mad 🫶

[notfeelingthyaster]

i've started seeing mc bernard fanfics and even posts w/ the detriment of tim (making him a cheater, or neglectful, or abusive, even) and i'm very confused about the way people are latching on to a two dimensional love interest and using his only canonnical relevance - his romantic interest - as an villain or an enemy, in detriment of his own characterization

like ig you can do anything in fanfic/hcs, idc, it's just really weird for me personally, bc bernard dowd has the depth of a rain puddle, i honestly don't see what people latch to

[nando161mando]

Time to celebrate: Bernard Marcus, The Home Depot billionaire fascist, has died.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/05/business/home-depot-bernie-marcus-death/index.html

[punkeropercyjackson]

The absolute disrespect to even imply Jason 'Realest of the real' Todd would be a part of the Batfam if Duke 'Signal of Hope and Chaos' Thomas isn't in it.The rest of the Bats tried to get him back for a decade with no budging but the SECOND Duke joined it,he stayed with zero protest and even liked him and was nice to him on first meeting unlike how he was with literally every other member and he's just as important to Duke as Duke is to him-We don't need any aus of Jason having his own Robin or to speculate who Duke's Batfam best friend is,because Duke and Jason are already,canonically eachother's Robin and favorite sibling.Their relathionship was the first time since Under The Red Hood Jason written with respect to his history and the first time Duke had somebody consistently riding for him that hard after growing up bullied and they've even got Joker victim solidarity(Ditf + the Jokerization of the Thomas').Their interactions might be minimal compared to other more prominent Batkids duos but they're no lesser,especially with how cut-off Duke gets in newer Batlore for no reason and how Jason's most long-standing dynamic is the one that ruined his character for years to come while Duke fixed it and Jason gives Duke so many interesting posibilities.Jason would choose Duke over anyone,he DID choose Duke over everyone else in the Batfam despite knowing them way longer and i'll bet if he had to pick between Duke and re-joining the Batfam,he'd be eating at Batburger with him to discuss apartment hunting before the second option was even presented.This all applies twice as hard to afrolatino Jason-which is regular Jason to me anyway as an afro-dominicana and if you headcanon Jason as afrolatino but post without Duke either your own content or others',you're a poser who fetishizes black men and dosen't actually care about representation.'I don't know enough about Duke to post him' isn't a valid excuse since you(yes,you specifically)don't even read Jason's comics yet dedicate your blog to him and it costs nothing to simply ask Dukecentric blogs for info on him so you can get to know him but you aren't willing to take initiative to engage with black characters and pretty obviously not black Batfans either.Stephanie dosen't count as 'the diverse Robin' because she's white,Cass isn't a stand-in for a black Batkid and Batgirl!Babs only exists out of the writers' ableist erasure of her disability.Jason needs Duke more than he does the other Batfam members and Duke deserves Jason more than anybody in the entire DCverse.Stop complaining about Bernard ruining the chance for Tim to get with some other white boy and your age gap siblings-coded Damian and Jon yaoi or whatevs instead of actual dc problems

[haggishlyhagging]

While male prophets were devising more varieties of marriage, some of the female prophets were arguing against it altogether. There were several bases for their stance. Some, like Roxanne Dunbar, argued against marriage because revolution was a full-time occupation, leaving no time for purely personal concerns. They called upon women to leave houses, brothers, sisters, father, mother, children, land, to give single-minded dedication to their salvation. It sounds absurd. Still, how does it differ, when you come to think about it, from the same rationale for celibate religious orders?

Other radical female prophets objected to marriage not only because of what they felt it did to women but also because, like their conservative opposite numbers, they saw it as a major support of the status quo. But whereas conservatives argued for strengthening marriage because they wanted the status quo protected and preserved, the radical women argued against it because they did not. They were against marriage precisely because, as Judith Brown put it, it did shore up and support the status quo:

The institution of marriage ... is a potent instrument for maintaining the status quo in American society. It is in the family that children learn so well the dominance-submission game, by observation and participation. Each family, reflecting the perversities of the larger order and split off from the others, is powerless to force change on other institutions, let alone attack or transform its own. And this serves the Savage Society well.

Still others argued against marriage not only because it was conservative, but also because it was antirevolutionary in the sense that it deflected the righteous anger of workers against their exploiters. The wife who offered an emotional refuge to her husband from the jungle warfare of occupational competition was supporting a nonhumane system. Fran Ansley is speaking here:

Women serve as "lightning rods" for men's frustrations at other factors in their environment. This can be especially serviceable for the ruling class. Often it is the man of the family who experiences most directly the real power relationships in the society. (He sells his labor to a capitalist who then exploits him; he has a direct relation to industrial production; etc.) When wives play their traditional role as takers of shit, they often absorb their husbands' legitimate anger and frustration at their own powerlessness and oppression. With every worker provided with a sponge to soak up his possibly revolutionary ire, the bosses rest more secure. Chauvinist attitudes help to maintain this asocial system of tension-release.

But it is once more a case in which the woman pays. The mental health of men, their balance, is preserved by the ministrations of their wives, who salve the wounds inflicted on them by the outside world. The real beneficiaries in this framework are employers and exploiters of men against whom the aggression of unsoothed men would wreak itself. All is at the expense of wives, says Beverly Jones: “the inequalitarian relationships in the home are perhaps the basis of all evil. Men can commit any horror, or cowardly suffer any mutilation of their souls and retire to the home to be treated there with awe, respect, and perhaps love. Men will never face their true identity or their real problems under these circumstances, nor will we.”

Some argued against marriage because it was so oppressive for women. They translated the material presented in chapter 3 into polemics. This was how Judith Brown saw it:

The married woman knows that love is, at its best, an inadequate reward for her unnecessary and bizarre heritage of oppression. The marriage institution does not free women; it does not provide for emotional and intellectual growth; and it offers no political resources. Were it not for male-legislated discrimination in employment, it would show little economic advantage. Instead, she is locked into a relationship which is oppressive politically, exhausting physically, stereotyped emotionally and sexually, and atrophying intellectually. She teams up with an individual groomed from birth to rule, and she is equipped for revolt only with the foot-shuffling, head-scratching gesture of "feminine guile." ... Marriage ... is the atomization of a sex so as to render it politically powerless. The anachronism remains because women won't fight it, because men derive valuable benefits from it and will not give them up.

Some argued against marriage because it did not provide a suitable unit for the rearing of children. "There is," said Roxanne Dunbar, “little reality in the human relations in this society, and least of all in marriage. Ask the children what they think of the institution which supposedly exists for their upbringing, their beneft. All the love between ‘man and woman’ in the world will not make that tiny unit any less lonely, any less perverted to the child who is raised within it.”

A few, finally, fought marriage because they hated men. In reply to the "official" position against man-hating among the female prophets, one of them— Pamela Kearon—made a plea for open recognition of its existence in the displaced form of hatred of other women: "there is no dearth of hatred in the world. I agree.… People do not react to oppression with Love.... When women take their hatred out on others, those others are likely to be other women.... If hatred exists (and we know it does), let it be of a robust variety. If it is a choice between woman-hating and man-hating, let it be the latter."

It is doubtful whether these antimarriage arguments had much effect on the marriage rate. But the fact that they could be articulated, whether accepted or rejected, cannot help but affect the future of marriage. The idolatry of marriage was finally being challenged.

Jessie Bernard, The Future of Marriage