Female Mind Control Heroine
CLICK HERE === https://shurll.com/2tlApt
Tessa Thompson previously mentioned this potential all-female MCU movie in a different interview while promoting Thor: Ragnarok, where she mentioned a Marvel comic team known as the Lady Liberators, that were formed in December 1970, appearing in just one The Avengers #83. The team was lead by Enchantress, who would disguise herself as Valkyrie and use her mind control on other female characters like Wasp, Scarlet Witch, Black Widow and Medusa. The team was later re-formed in 2008, lead by She-Hulk, in an effort to discover the identity of Red Hulk and get revenge against him. That team included Invisible Woman, Storm, Valkyrie, Thundra, Spider-Woman, Tigra, Black Widow and Hellcat. Tessa Thompson revealed these details in a new interview with Comic Book Resources, although it remains to be seen if this will actually happen or not.
That night, Roulette announces a double-match: Huntress and Canary vs. Vixen and Hawkgirl. With difficulty, the two manage to remove the others' communicators and free them from the mind control, but are unable to call for backup due to Roulette disabling the communicators. Then Roulette reveals her final contender: Wonder Woman, who's more than powerful enough to take all of them down.
As Vixen and Hawkgirl fight a losing battle to hold off Wonder Woman, Canary and Huntress break out of the ring's cage and make their way to the control center. Sonar stuns Canary with his ultrasound equipment, while Huntress is surprised to find that Roulette is actually a skilled and deadly martial artist herself. She gains the upper hand, however, disables both her and Sonar, and orders the latter to switch off the mind-control signal. Below, Wonder Woman has Vixen and Hawkgirl thrashed and helpless, and the signal is interrupted only a split second before she smashes their skulls together.
Readers of The Unnatural Tragedy will be struck by the similarities between the play and John Ford's 'Tis Pity She's a Whore (published in 1633). Both plays stage a young man who is afflicted by incestuous desire for his sister. Furthermore, in the two tragedies this incestuous desire results in sexual consummation between the brother and sister. Finally, at the tragic closure of both plays the sister is assassinated by the brother. However, as will be pointed out in the first part of this paper, Cavendish has reworked Ford's plot significantly. In contrast to Ford, who confirms the conventional tragic association of female utterance with sexual lasciviousness and who takes up the traditional tragic plot according to which the once outspoken, assertive female character is silenced for good, Margaret Cavendish defies the gender discourses idealising female voicelessness which had dominated tragedy in the two decades preceding the Civil war. She dissociates woman's self-expression from wantonness and exposes the ideology of feminine silence as a tool through the male sex oppresses women. Cavendish points out that a woman's silence leads to her disempowerment and victimisation, whereas wit and self-assertion result in a woman's control over her fate.
As far as her tragic heroine is concerned, Cavendish has reworked Ford's plot significantly in order to dissociate women's words from wantonness. Cavendish's virtuous Soeur, who is carrying legitimate offspring, abhors her brother's incestuous desires, and Frere can only satisfy his lust for her by raping her. By contrast, as we have seen, Annabella feels sexually attracted to her brother, and therefore consents to have sexual intercourse with him. [8] In addition, Annabella and Soeur differ as speaking women. Annabella openly expresses her sexual desire for her brother, so that her discourse is connected to sexual immorality; Soeur also openly speaks her mind, yet she does so in order to purify her brother's mind: \"Brother, speak no more upon so bad a subject, for fear I wish you dumb: for the very breath that's sent forth with your words, will blister both my ears (5.31). Furthermore, Soeur asserts her voice in order to defend her honesty: \"No Brother, I never was wild nor wanton, but always modest and honest\" (2.12).
The positive, unconventional tragic portrayal of woman's self-expression in The Unnatural Tragedy is endorsed by the contrast between Soeur's pious speeches and Frere's blasphemous discourse. When Soeur asserts her voice in the play, it is not just to protect her own and her brother's sexual honesty, but also to defend God's laws. Like Ford's protagonist Giovanni, who tells Annabella that the \"holy church\" (2.2.254) condones their incestuous desire, Frere attempts to convince Soeur that it is no sin to submit to his sexual passions for her, since the laws which have forbidden incest are \"foolish binding Laws which frozen men have made\" (4.25). Frere's defiance of God's laws in this respect is countered by Soeur's passionate refusal to give in to his desires, which at the same time constitutes a defence of God's heavenly doctrine: \"Heaven hath taught that Doctrine; wherefore we cannot erre\" (4. 25). Cavendish's Soeur uses biblical references and positions herself as a speaker in relation to God and Heaven with honourable ends in mind. For instance, Soeur adopts religious discourses when she confesses her sisterly affection for Frere: \"I do vow to Heaven I love you better than ambitious men love power\" (4. 25). Linda Payne argues: \"Not only can Cavendish 's heroines envision life without marriage, but they can also envision life without men\" (\"Dramatic Dreamscape\", 25). [11] She refers to heaven in order to express her concern about her brother's moral well-being: \"Heaven bless your soul: for sure you are possest with some strange wicked spirit, that uses not to wander amongst men\" (4.25).
In her depiction of religion in the play, Cavendish again rewrites Ford's plot. In contrast with Soeur, who invokes God to defend her sexual virtue, Ford's Annabella engages with blasphemy, employing religious imagery to describe her transgressive sexual desire for Giovanni by calling him a \"celestial creature\" with a \"blessed shape\" (1.2.137-38). Furthermore, Ford's heroine alludes to the account in the scriptures of the Virgin Mary's impregnation by God in order to celebrate her incestuous relationship, and to cover up the name of the child's father. When Soranzo argues with her about the bastard child in her womb, Annabella implies that her child was begotten by a high spiritual being: \"The man,/ The more than man that got this sprightly boy-…This noble creature was in every part so angel-like, so glorious\" (4.2.31-46). The expressions \"more than man\" and \"angel-like\" create the impression that Annabella was impregnated by a God-like creature. Annabella's abuse of biblical discourses in order to legitimise her sexual immorality contributes to the negative portrayal of woman's speech in the play, a representation that contrasts with Cavendish's association of female utterance with sexual and religious honour. Victims through voicelessness: Cavendish's deconstruction of the ideology of feminine silence
In The Unnatural Tragedy Cavendish not only undermines the common cultural equation of female utterance with sexual looseness; she also undermines society's idealisation of feminine silence by exposing it as a tool of oppression through which women are victimised. The play stages several female characters who suffer immensely as a result of men's abuse of them. Madame Bonit embodies the chaste, silent and obedient wife. She never contradicts her husband, for she readily parts with her jointure upon his request, and argues that she \"will strive to be more fashionable drest\" (1.6) when Monsieur Malateste criticises her clothing. However, submitting to her husband's wishes, Madame Bonit falls victim to her own goodness. Her husband starts an affair with their maid Nan, who comes to dominate their household. Yet, Madame Bonit is determined to observe a feminine silence even when her husband is unfaithful to her. She will not attempt to persuade other people of the wrongs that her husband afflicts on her, to pity her cause and he her, out of fear of becoming \"the publick discourse of the Town\" (1.5). Since Madame Bonit will not speak up against her husband, nor publicise his maltreatment of her, she cannot regain control over her life and improve her circumstances. Thus, Cavendish suggests that a woman's silence leads to powerlessness and victimisation; a suggestion which implies a criticism of the cultural idealisation of the voiceless female.
In most English Renaissance tragedies the once outspoken, witty female characters lose their former discursive power at the tragic closure, being reduced to silenced objects by the male characters and/or by death. Furthermore, before dying, these female dramatis personae are denied transcendence over their deaths: they are usually not granted a last moment of self-assertion and self-representation before their identities are obliterated by death; they lack control over their fate and do not obtain a lasting presence in memory after death. For instance, in Titus Andronicus Tamora has no control over her life, being killed by Titus, and she is not allowed to respond to Titus's revelation that her two sons were \"baked in that pie; Whereof their mother daintily hath fed\" (5. 3. 60-61), for she is immediately stabbed to death by him. By contrast, before he is put to a stake to be famished to death, the villain Aaron voices protest against his submission, and thus, attains a moment of self-assertion while facing the threat of elimination. Aaron raves that he is \"no baby,\" that he refuses to repent of \"the evils I [he] have [has] done,\" that he would perform \"if I might have my will…Ten thousand worse than ever yet I did\" and that he would regret \"If one good deed in all my life I did\" (5.3.185-190). In this way Aaron clearly sets himself apart from the outside world. Michael Neill's statement that Renaissance tragedy offered a fantasy \"to overcome…fear of erasure of identity, by representing death as a moment of distinction and self-assertion\" (Neill 32) appears to be true of the tragic villain rather than the villainess. In addition, the transgressive woman, Tamora, is denied the rituals of reminiscence: \"No funeral rite, nor man in mournful weeds/ No mournful bell shall ring her burial/ But throw her forth to beasts and birds of prey\" (5.3.196-198). Since her body is to be eaten away and no monument is erected for her, the wanton, wordy Tamora is relegated to the realm of absolute oblivion. Thus, the threat that she poses to the gender norms is appropriately eradicated. 59ce067264
https://www.lsany.org/group/remote-learning-support/discussion/a8c9231c-d7fc-4ef3-ab8e-17928cdbddb8