I just refuse to give any hypocrites and power-abusers any kind of quarter, be they male, female, other, divine, mortal, human or otherwise.
...Let´s just say that I am not misogynistic at all and simply would prefer not being used as ideological target practice by either side of the "Us against them" warfare current debatting culture has become.
There are ways to express profound hostility towards an abuser (and you can make a fairly solid case for Calypso's conduct being abusive) while avoiding specifically misogynistic language.
Example:
Calypso's conduct is grossly abusive. Jones' prolonged service and obedience was made in the expectation that Calypso would hold up her end of a bargain. She did not. This bargain was supposedly made (or so Calypso led Jones to believe) within the context of mutual love, making it all the more important and all the more enhancing Calypso's responsibility, which she did not uphold. Her excuses for this profound lapse, which she has done little or nothing to make up for, boil down to "it's my nature." Her actions in the aftermath boil down to laying curses on Jones that act to punish him for trying to make an independent life without her, and trying to enlist others to aid her whenever he manages to acquire any degree of advantage over her. It is obvious that she expects and feels entitled to his compliance, and his forgiveness for her own offenses. Her conduct is manipulative and abusive, I don't think she is sincere in having any degree of remorse for leaving Jones to his accursed fate, and I think she is far less sympathetic than the movie makes her out to be.
There. See? Not a single slur against female promiscuity ("tart," "bint," and by implication "illoyal ass") in the bundle, as is appropriate. Especially when it's not actually clear whether Calypso had other romantic partners or just... y'know, didn't show up on time like she was supposed to.
A specific suggestion that tone or language be moderated is not necessarily a case of you being "used as target practice." The way we choose to describe bad people can reflect strongly on the way we think about those
categories of people.
So a disenchfranched group is flocking to one demagogue to not be opressed by another? *Great*, that´s only most of human history repeating itself...
I'm not sure Queen Maleficient counts as a demagogue. Her power base is magocratic, not populist.
I don't think Genie overwrote anything, that don't seem like something Genie would do, what I think happened, is that Genie made Ababwa somewhere that was unpopulated/sparsely populated with no government in the pre-isot world, but when the isot happened, multiple worlds were combined, and while where Genie put Ababwa was unpopulated in Alladins world, it wasn't in the other worlds.
Yeah.
Like, there was inevitably going to be a lot of overlay in the setting.
For example, some of the factions (Atlantis, the Elite Huntsmen, everyone from
The Princess and the Frog, many of the lost individuals from settings like
Young Indiana Jones and Sherlock Holmes) come from a world where there is a gigantic sea-level
ditch running nearly 200 kilometers across the Sinai Peninsula: the Suez Canal.
We can go there. Even without Carpet, it's not
that many days' ride if you have a fast camel. And I'm pretty sure that if we go there... We'll find that there's no gigantic ditch there. Why?
Because from
their perspective,
our reality (in which the canal never existed) has overwritten theirs, so the Suez Canal was overwritten by a pile of dirt and rocks from an
Arabian Nights fantasyland.
From
our perspective,
they were transposed here from a future (or multiple mutually contradictory futures) in which someone dug a gigantic canal there, overwriting specific bits of our reality, but as it happened
not that one.
So the question of who overwrote who is...
tricky.