Hi, My name's Jayze - 23 - pan/grey-ace/non-binary (they/he) - this is the place where you can see how nerdy I am - I love Spiderverse/Marvel, Horror Games, Anime and other werid shit - I'm chaotic and I'm queer, so ENJOY! - (icon provided by Hexaes on Picrew!! Go check them out!!)
So this has actually been cited by academics as part of the major draw to online spaces is the fact that just existing in public is reacted to with hostility and punishment. Gretchen McCulloch discussed this is in her book Because Internet, citing research that shows teens and young adults want to be outside! We want to spend time in social places, it’s just that there aren’t any places to exist in public without being charged for it.
When I was homeless as a kid my little brother and I loved to go to the library. We would keep warm in there reading good books all day long. Until residents of the town complained about us “loitering” at the library each day. The library staff then told us we were no longer allowed to stay more than an hour at a time. Imagine seeing two homeless children spending their entire days quietly reading just to keep out of the cold and having a damn problem with it.
Even the fact that teens use all kinds of social networks at higher rates than twenty-somethings doesn’t necessarily mean that they prefer to hang out online. Studies consistently show that most teens would rather hang out with their friends in person. The reasons are telling: teens prefer offline interaction because it’s “more fun” and you “can understand what people mean better.” But suburban isolation, the hostility of malls and other public places to groups of loitering teenagers, and schedules packed with extracurriculars make these in-person hangouts difficult, so instead teens turn to whatever social site or app contains their friends (and not their parents). As danah boyd puts it, “Most teens aren’t addicted to social media; if anything, they’re addicted to each other.”
Just like the teens who whiled away hours in mall food courts or on landline telephones became adults who spent entirely reasonable amounts of time in malls and on phone calls, the amount of time that current teens spend on social media or their phones is not necessarily a harbinger of what they or we are all going to be doing in a decade. After all, adults have much better social options. They can go out, sans curfew, to bars, pubs, concerts, restaurants, clubs, and parties, or choose to stay in with friends, roommates, or romantic partners. Why, adults can even invite people over without parental permission and keep the bedroom door closed! (page 102-103)
The source I’d really recommend for lots more on this topic is It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens by danah boyd, a highly readable ethnography spanning a decade of observation of how teens use social media. Here are a couple relevant excerpts:
I often heard parents complain that their children preferred computers to “real” people. Meanwhile, the teens I met repeatedly indicated that they would much rather get together with friends in person. A gap in perspective exists because teens and parents have different ideas of what sociality should look like. Whereas parents often highlighted the classroom, after-school activities, and prearranged in-home visits as opportunities for teens to gather with friends, teens were more interested in informal gatherings with broader groups of peers, free from adult surveillance. Many parents felt as though teens had plenty of social opportunities whereas the teens I met felt the opposite.
Today’s teenagers have less freedom to wander than any previous generation. Many middle-class teenagers once grew up with the option to “do whatever you please, but be home by dark.” While race, socioeconomic class, and urban and suburban localities shaped particular dynamics of childhood, walking or bicycling to school was ordinary, and gathering with friends in public or commercial places—parks, malls, diners, parking lots, and so on—was commonplace. Until fears about “latchkey kids” emerged in the 1980s, it was normal for children, tweens, and teenagers to be alone. It was also common for youth in their preteen and early teenage years to take care of younger siblings and to earn their own money through paper routes, babysitting, and odd jobs before they could find work in more formal settings. Sneaking out of the house at night was not sanctioned, but it wasn’t rare either. (page 85-86)
From wealthy suburbs to small towns, teenagers reported that parental fear, lack of transportation options, and heavily structured lives restricted their ability to meet and hang out with their friends face to face. Even in urban environments, where public transportation presumably affords more freedom, teens talked about how their parents often forbade them from riding subways and buses out of fear. At home, teens grappled with lurking parents. The formal activities teens described were often so highly structured that they allowed little room for casual sociality. And even when parents gave teens some freedom, they found that their friends’ mobility was stifled by their parents. While parental restrictions and pressures are often well intended, they obliterate unstructured time and unintentionally position teen sociality as abnormal. This prompts teens to desperately—and, in some cases, sneakily—seek it out. As a result, many teens turn to what they see as the least common denominator: asynchronous social media, texting, and other mediated interactions. (page 90)
Anyway, more people need to read It’s Complicated, danah boyd really takes young people and technology seriously and doesn’t patronize or sensationalize, and it was a huge influence on me in figuring out the tone for Because Internet so I want to make sure it gets credit!
When I went to uni I nearly immediately started hanging out with people irl way more, even though all of the people I had known for less than a year. It’s genuinely just way easier for adults living on their own to hang out, especially in a uni city. Sure we can go to the pub or something, but we can genuinely just go to someone’s house and stay for as long as we like because everyone there are adults. We can stay up till 1 or 2 playing jackbox or watching Spider-Man or whatever. It’s great. It’s gotten me to start hanging out with my friends at home more, which lets me see the disparity even more.
[A short essay where I explain why I think this theory doesn't make sense - and why believing it CONTRADICTS ourselves]
The idea that Miguel isn't Spider-man is erroreous in my eyes for one reason: it's hypocritical.
Miguel's biggest error and problem is that he doubts Miles is Spider-Man.
Miguel puts strict limitations on what Spider-Man is and isn't, and because Miles falls out of the definition, he treats him differently. That's a problem.
By questioning if Miguel is Spider-Man, you're doing the exact same thing.
By saying 'Miguel isn't Spider-Man because x,y,z' (he wasn't bitten, he has different powers, he needs shots, etc, etc) YOU are putting strict limitations on what Spider-Man is - and treating him differently for it.
That's why Miguel was chosen as the Society Leader.
In SM2099 Miguel is a geneticist - there's really nothing in his comic books that suggest he could time travel of all things.
The writers chose Miguel as the leader because fundamentally, his story makes him different from all other Spider-people.
That difference invites you to question Miguel's authenticity, effectively tricking you into making the exact same mistake he is.
Miguel is an outsider looking into Miles story, questioning his legitimacy, and trying to determine his personality and destiny based on that.
By questioning Miguel, you BECOME Miguel. You become the outsider looking into Miguel's story, questioning his legitimacy, trying to determine his personality and destiny based on your limited idea of what a Spider-Man is.
The entire point is : ANYONE can be Spider-Man regardless of their story, the way it came about, or the powers they have.
Many people question that if Miguel wasn't bitten never consider the question:
Was MARGO bitten?
Margo, like Miguel, uses technology to acquire most of her powers. Her powers are fundamentally different than most Spider-people. She can teleport and directly interact with technology in a way others can't. We have no idea whether she was bitten or not, but from the looks of it, the answer might be 'no'.
But no one ever questions her legitimacy. Only Miguel's.
Because questioning Miguel confirms their bias against him.
The same way Miguel questioning Miles confirms his bias against him.
Miguel thinks Miles is the universal anamoly, so he begins to pick apart why he's not really Spider-Man. When you theorize that MIGUEL is in fact the anamoly, you begin to pick apart why he's not really Spider-Man - effectively putting you in Miguel's position, turning you into the same thing you were judging him for to begin with.
The whole point of ATSV is that anyone can put on the mask.
PLUS with the inclusion of the trans!Gwen hints throughout the movies - questioning Miguel because he takes shots in order to confirm his identity as Spider-Man becomes even more questionable.
Just because he needs an outside force like shots to confirm his identity, doesn't make him any less of that identity. People who are 'biologically/naturally' Spider-people aren't 'more' of a Spider-person than Miguel. The same way cis guys aren't more 'manly' than trans men who take shots.
But Miguel's story being an allegory for transness is another conversation for another day.
The point of the movies isn't 'Miles is Spider-Man'. The point is 'Anyone can be Spider-Man. No one can decide your story or identity for you.'
By questioning Miguel's identity as Spider-Man you're ignoring the message Miles keeps trying to hammer home.
When you question Miguel, you become Miguel.
In short: Miguel is Spider-Man, Miles is Spider-Man. They're all Spider-Man. There is no one definition of Spider-Man.
MIGUEL IS SPIDER-MAN AHHHHH
I rest my case.
(actual photo of me defending Miguel in court. I am his lawyer.)
This isn't me trying to shit on people who believe this theory, but it's just my personal two cents of why I think it doesn't add up in the general scheme and message of the movies. 💖
vaporwave
andulkaphoto
dededos
germansingergirl
jbbartram-illu
jacobvanloon
pixelskylines
ellievsbear
dailybridgerton
theartofmadeline
