Little Margaret Beth

That title was only half serious but listen UP!

Everytime people talk about Batman being the Justice League cryptid, or Batman’s kids meeting the Justice League, I think it’s over worn.

So, as an alternative, I’m gonna focus on Wonder Woman cause she’s cool.

Diana’s the member of the League who goes on the most sidequests. She always shows up on time, but then she’s all “I was almost late” and the reason can be anything from “My pet kangaroo needed to go to the vet” to “I needed to speak to the UN again” to “The door to hell back home reappeared again so I had to kill a bunch of demons to close it” to Sorry guys, I got trapped waging a 1000 year war in Valhalla again” (that’s canon btw), to “I had to go help the Katepalises move a piano” to “It’s my moms’ wedding anniversary and I was there giving a speech” to “my new friend I just met needed me” and she’d treat all of those things with the same care and attention.

Another thing: Nobody actually knows Diana’s age. Cause she’ll make casual references to things that happened in WW2 or start talking about how the stars look a lot different than when she was a child.

Another thing: She’s been a God. Multiple times. Diana never uses this to belittle anyone (probably), but she’s been a god of (respectively) Truth, War, and rebuilt reality. And there she is, all golden and glittering and joyous, talking to you about if anyone would want to start a bowling team. She’s also lost all of her powers a couple of times, worked at Taco Bell, gave Darkseid a piece of her soul, went to hell, almost married Hades, cut her own eyes out, and has personal beef with half the Greek gods (and more Gods). She has a giant pet kangaroo. And can talk to animals.

▋What always gets me about a “Claire fans should chill, Leon was there too” type of post is the condescension of it. Of course you get to say that from a position of comfort when your favorite is already the most protected, centered, and popular character in the series.

And that is exactly why these posts are so annoying: they keep shrinking the discussion down to the safest, smallest possible point. “Leon was there too.” Okay. Nobody is confused that Leon was physically present in RE2. That is not the issue.

The issue is bigger than that, and Claire fans have been talking about it for years. It is about franchise priority, character allocation, and Capcom’s long-running habit of letting Leon absorb more and more of the emotional and narrative space around other characters while Claire gets less follow-through, less payoff, and less continuation of the arcs that were naturally hers.

Yes, in the original RE2 Leon was there too. Fine. But Sherry mattered to RE2 above all as part of Claire’s story. Claire is the one whose scenario is emotionally structured around protecting her, caring for her, and getting her out. That is the heart of Claire’s arc there. So when later material keeps circling back to Leon & Sherry while Claire & Sherry is neglected, of course Claire fans are going to be annoyed. That annoyance did not come from nowhere.

And that is why the fake-neutral “well Leon was there too” line is so irritating. No one is saying Leon was nowhere in that story. The point is that Claire had a specific, meaningful role that people are constantly trying to flatten, minimize, blur, or reassign, and then acting like Claire fans are unreasonable for noticing it.

What makes it even more obnoxious is that people like this act as though Claire fans defending Claire’s place and Leon fans defending Leon are the exact same thing. They are not. One is defending a character whose importance is constantly being absorbed into Leon’s orbit, and the other is defending the franchise’s golden boy, who already gets handed everybody’s traits, dynamics, and narrative weight by fandom and often by Capcom itself. Those are not equal positions. One is defending against erasure; the other is protecting the most comfortable, dominant reading in the fandom.

And that is the part that never gets acknowledged: Leon only gets to have all of this sustained connection, follow-up, and emotional continuity with Sherry because Capcom chose to keep building it around him. That is the whole point of the criticism. Claire fans are not stupid. We know Leon was “there.” We know RE6 and later material exist. What we are angry about is why the franchise kept choosing to build on Leon’s connection while neglecting the character who was the emotional anchor of Sherry’s story to begin with.

So when people say “but Leon was there too,” it feels beside the point at best and condescending at worst, because they are treating the later franchise output like neutral proof instead of part of the very pattern Claire fans are criticizing. Leon gets more games, more visibility, more narrative continuation, and then people turn around and use the results of that favoritism as proof that his bond matters more in the first place. That is exactly the problem.

And yes, the tag situation is part of why this gets so exhausting. You go into the Claire tag looking for Claire and so much of it is Claire in relation to Leon, posts defending Leon in Claire discussions, or just Leon-centric framing parked on top of her. So then when Claire fans push back, suddenly we are the ones who need to “chill”? Please.

So no, the frustration is not “pretending Leon and Sherry don’t matter.” It is asking why Capcom kept rerouting long-term emotional payoff away from the natural Claire-centered continuation and toward Leon instead, and then expecting Claire fans to accept that as organic. At a certain point it stops looking organic and starts looking like erasure dressed up as continuity.

This is Money Snake. She only appears every 312 years. 

Women also had vocations and forms of income unrelated to their husband. The nature of these jobs changed over time but many women did things like weaving, embroidery, crafting, beer brewing, chicken tending and laundress work to bring income. Women with skills were seen as better marriage candidates because they’d make money for their husband.

My great-great-great-great grandmother told fortunes and did farm labor, my great-great-great grandmother was a midwife, my great-great grandmother worked in a textile factory for most of her adult life and my great grandmother was a school lunch lady.

What I think needs a little more spelling out as well is the way that historically, what we grammatically speak of as being the man's occupation was often in fact the entire family's occupation, with which parts of the necessary work each person did conventionally divided up along gender lines.

Just some random examples (the gender splits here are pretty typical but I can't say they're true of all cultures; I'm primarily familiar with western European history and especially the British Isles):

men fishing, women preparing the fish for sale and selling them at a market ("fishwives")

wives as salespeople and managers of the financial side of the business was also common for many male-coded artisan crafts; the man who is the 'silversmith' is actually smithing the silver (possibly with the aid of sons, apprentices and/or hired labourers), while his wife is taking care of everything else that is necessary for this to translate into a money-making business

husbands underground mining coal with a focus on speed over purity of product, children transporting it to the surface so he doesn't have to leave, and wives sorting the coal from the worthless rock on the surface. The entire family contributes to the pay check, which is based on the amount of sorted coal delivered.

wives as writers, editors, secretaries and research partners to male academics, scholars and politicians - also frequently doing much of the work associated with the networking that was neccessary for success in these careers. (It was not uncommon in some periods for wives to handle a lot of their husbands' correspondence, and of course a lot more socialising used to involve being hosted at peoples' homes. Wives of the relevant social classes for these careers were unlikely to be handling e.g. the cooking themselves - their job here is more like event manager and line manager of the staff doing the work.)

servants who were married were typically married to servants in the same household (and servant occupations were highly gendered)

"farmer's wife" and "baker's wife" and so on are properly understood as occupations, traditionally taking on parts of the work that a modern baker would need to hire someone for