hey, so. people on twt (ugh, I need to delete that account) started to compare Zuko and Azula’s relationship to Sokka and Katara. So, I jump in like “they are not comparable in any way” then people are like “Sokka and Katara do have issues even though it’s not the same as Zuko and Azula” (even though the original tweet did imply that but, whatever). and I’m all like “sure, they both have trauma from their upbringing and they fight like siblings and that trauma probably has effected their relationship but it’s still no way like it’s being compared… they love and care for one another” and then they’re coming back like “it’s not the same but they still have issues” and citing the southern raiders (which I have my own opinions about and I feel like people totally miss read that scene) but all in all to say; I’m annoyed because I feel like people are being disingenuous and I feel like your thoughts would be interesting
okay yeah obviously I don’t know what the full arguments were (and I never will because I loathe twitter. I mean X sorry) but i can definitely talk about this more generally. I mean they are the central sibling pairs configured in a similar way for obvious reasons. they are definitely comparable.
sokka and zuko have superficial similarities as older brothers who feel undervalued, struggle to live up to a harmful patriarchal standard of gender (specifically masculinity/manhood) as shaped by imperialism/colonialism/war and the expectations their fathers placed on them to “be a real man” within a very limited framework, and ultimately find their worth via other avenues beyond the limited scope of patriarchal imperialist logic. azula and katara have superficial similarities as younger sisters who are placed on a pedestal by their culture community, are the best benders of their respective elements and outclass all the older more established (male) masters who dismiss and look down on them for being teenage girls, and who feel a deep sense of grief due to the loss of their mothers that informs everything they do and fundamentally who they are as people. and then obviously the REAL foils who are foiling are katara and zuko, and sokka and azula. these pairs are each very obvious mirrors, both in terms of their personalities (as developed differently by their respective environments) and their arcs. zuko is fire nation katara. azula is fire nation sokka. so obviously their relationships are similar in this way. they are narratively constructed as parallels.
that said, I think the key primary difference between these sets of siblings is that zuko and azula are directly opposed due to being pitted against each other by ozai’s abuse, whereas sokka and katara are extremely codependent, to the point that sokka’s entire identity is shaped by his role as katara’s brother and protector. so if you read zuko as a foil to sokka (which he certainly somewhat is, but is not the primary foil to sokka) you’ll get confused because he doesn’t live for others and he doesn’t look out for azula at all. but azula, like sokka, does define her identity through her loyalty and her ability to best serve others, so she does try to help zuko as best she can, which is obviously hindered by the incredibly limited of scope of what she considers “helpful” (much in the same way that sokka’s protection of katara is often limited by his own narrow worldview and unhealthy sense of duty as it corresponds to his identity). azula wants zuko to be a “perfect prince” in the way that she is a “perfect princess” because she refuses to acknowledge how specifically harmful that paradigm is to both of them until it is too late. so her intentions are actually good (don’t @ me), but she’s just deeply misguided and her level of cognitive dissonance is off the charts generally (again, much like sokka).
meanwhile katara and zuko, despite loving their families a lot and feeling defined by their families in many ways, are still very self-focused. which isn’t to say that’s a bad thing or that they’re selfish (they are both defined by an incredibly passionate and outspoken sense of justice for others, of course), but rather that they understand that what they want is to further their own interests for their own benefit even as they are seeking justice for the entire world. (in katara’s worlds: “me. me, personally!”) but like. if anything, the fact that azula and sokka never think in terms of the ego but only in terms of servitude to the point that they are actually detached from their own humanity is deeply unhealthy and awful, which is why so much of sokka’s arc is about getting him to understand his intrinsic worth as a human being and the value of accepting help, and azula’s tragedy and downfall is precipitated by her acknowledgement that she has been deliberately isolated her entire life and now she is alone and utterly helpless.
I do see katara and zuko as quite heroic, inspiring characters, to azula and sokka’s quite tragic, heartbreaking characters (especially azula of course, but like. I don’t think sokka’s deep-seated, copious issues have somehow been magically resolved just because “the boiling rock” is his apotheosis. you get it). but katara was always the “valued” sibling whereas azula began as the valued sibling and zuko rose above her by disrupting/transcending the paradigm that valued her only to end up in the position that she felt teleologically entitled to (not to say that she thought she would become fire lord, but that he does become the most powerful player in the fire nation, at least in name). and a large part of that is the fact that katara and sokka grew up in extremely different conditions than azula and zuko did, even if both their worldviews are informed by imperialism and patriarchy in some way. so katara was valued as a sort of cultural artefact who represents the last hope of a dying people, whereas azula was valued as the obedient daughter of a powerful abusive patriarch. it’s still a way of ascribing “value,” but the criteria are completely different in both cases. which is why I still think that azula and sokka are functionally more similar, because even if azula is valued, it is with the expectation that she function in the same way that sokka is expected to function, as a depersonalized vessel for the good of their people.
so there are similarities for sure, but also those similarities are constantly being complicated through locating their respective cultural contexts as they informed their upbringing, psychologies, and sibling relationships. I will say that it’s true that both of these relationships are unhealthy (to an extent), and both sets of siblings parallel each other in very significant ways, but the ways in which their relationships are in fact “unhealthy” are nonetheless almost diametrically opposed.
110 notes
·
View notes
“Who’s the big spoon?”
1K notes
·
View notes
I think fans want Jason to be a good person or be becoming one. To have a character that is well meaning and compassionate but decided murder is ok and to stand against main heroes who’s beliefs and actions go against the people he cares about and wants in his life. It’s confusing for people. People want their fav characters to be happy. But Jason can’t have his family’s support and follow his moral code. He’s cares about people and Gotham, and he’s an asshole who kills. It’s messy. It’s not black and white. I don’t even think Jason cares about being a good person or in the right anymore. I think he cares about what will save the most people instead.
Oh my goodness gracious I’ve been bamboozled
Batman’s definition of Good is not synonymous with absolute good/right no matter how much dc insists it is. Torture, battery/assault, surveillance, those are all condemnable actions too. I won’t get into the exhausting and frankly dumb debate of comic book morality wrt killing because I’ve already reblogged plenty of posts from other people who explained my thoughts on the matter far better than I ever have the patience to sit down and articulate. I also just think the notion that there’s something to be done about fictional characters who kill nazis and senseless murderers is stupid. Jason’s point is that the “main” heroes’ sanitized definition of right has its unaddressed holes and flaws which ultimately result in more preventable fatalities, and that he’ll work to correct those missing spots.
He doesn’t not care about doing what’s right. What he doesn’t care about (at least during his Winick characterization) is whether Batman thinks he’s right or wrong, because he sees the flaws in Batman’s methodology (and since he has a mind of his own). Batman’s methods alone cannot address Arkham’s revolving door and the rogues that come and go through those doors who have no intention (or capability from the doylist pov) of ever changing or undergoing redemption. Jason knows that he’s minimizing the number of preventable deaths by killing his targets, typically Characters Who Simply Do Fucked Up Shit Just Because, Why The Fuck Not?
Secondly, Jason is compassionate … to a fault. That was his fatal flaw. If he wasn’t so hell-bent on saving his potential birth mother he just met from that bomb despite everything she did to him prior, he could have protected himself instead, however slim his odds of survival were. What about his relationship with his other parents? He was a caregiver during his early childhood years for Catherine, until her death. Even mature adults who are financially stable find being a caregiver to a dying parent to be extremely burdensome on their bodies and minds, but he never complained about it or resented Catherine for being unable to care for him. Despite how none of his parents have really been what he needed them to be, he doesn’t blame them for their failings, and even continues to think highly of them (Bruce included).
And post-death? Enter Lost Days. Despite being dead set on plotting his revenge on Bruce, he constantly sidelines this in order to save other victims who are helpless like he once was. His own anger, trauma, and mission don’t remain his priority. (Sound familiar? Something something my own trauma above my son’s, mission above all else, etc.). Why would he waste precious time and risk his own life to do this if he wasn’t empathetic towards these victims or didn’t care about doing the right thing. He is simultaneously horribly traumatized and full of rage, and also incapable of ignoring what’s happening to victims around him (even as he claims that it’s indeed not his priority). And in that same vein, the entire premise of his rebirth outlaws run was that he doesn’t care if the public views him as a villain, an outlaw, so long as he can protect Gotham. And anyway where is this portrayal of him not caring about being in the right anymore. Almost every modern Jason story is about him grappling with where he stands with Bruce/Batman. During the early 2000s was probably the last time he did not care (hello, tentatodd??).
Jason has very evidently been portrayed as a kind and compassionate character. He is also simultaneously a calculated killer who doesn’t hesitate to kill when he deems necessary, and does so without remorse. It’s called being a Complex Character With An Edge™ that as you said, people so often claim to love. However when he fulfills that latter part, that seems to upset people because “killing bad”, and they then try to shave off and round out all his edges and claim he shouldn’t be that angry. In that case I guess you should just stick to liking traditional one-dimensional characters instead of claiming to like Jason but then encouraging his character assassination attempt by dc. Lol.
Lastly, who said anything about the batfam making Jason happy? Just because he’s written nowadays to want acceptance from Bruce (a shoddy attempt at forcing a non-existent nuclear batfamily), doesn’t mean that it’s a sound decision or that it does his character justice. I certainly don’t empathize with the idea that Jason needs the family’s approval or acceptance to be happy. (And anyway he has enough outlets for angst and pain aside from the batfam hello explore his other sources of trauma and do more deep dives into how he thinks when he’s alone). I don’t want them to magically make up and become one big happy family. This is not disney Lol. Besides, there are plenty of stories from dc that have that type of “wholesome” (hate that word utilization) characterization for Jason (Li’l Gotham, Tiny Titans, wfa, and even new stuff like the brave and the bold mini) and that is sufficient imo. Jason fans who are invested in the character deserve accurate, nuanced characterization and well-written stories, whether they be from his robin days (e.g., Batman: The Cult) or as red hood.
162 notes
·
View notes
having seen the post earlier about stede's rings post-coitus i wondered when he took them off and if they're still there when he closes the curtains.
so of course, in my very sane ways, i made a gif!
now, enhance!
looks to me like the ring on his right hand is off already.
considering he wore his rings when he grabs ed...
means stede took his rings off before he closed the curtains!
83 notes
·
View notes
unsure how to word this but there is something about having ocs with unsavory events happening in their past where it's like. talking about it, even when asked, seems almost gratuitous and inappropriate. and i'd much rather describe it through the oc themself and/or draw Them saying it. which is like. fitting for the subject matter? like of course its weird to talk about somebody else's business...!
and falls back into humanizing em/exploratory writing and development where u consider the impact of words said/words unsaid/HOW those words are said etc etc
68 notes
·
View notes
Mike calling El his superhero and that being the grand climax of his love confession, tells me all I need to know.
58 notes
·
View notes
one day people will stop looking at misogynistic men and saying they're secretly gay, and finally realize implicitly associating non-queer men's hatred with queerness as well as disregarding the patriarchy's pervasiveness helps (checks notes) literally nobody
15 notes
·
View notes
Nah that James and Sirius kiss was 100% cheating 💀💀 even tho regulus said they’re not dating they are and you can’t just kiss someone else while dating someone even if you didn’t mean it romantically🤯 how is this any different then Remus and Sirius kissing while remus is dating Fabian? I think the only one here obsessed with cheating is you
it is sad to me
that this is how you think
but you are entitled to your opinion
105 notes
·
View notes
Day 9. Friendship
Friendships through the ages.
I! Included! My! OCs!!! Their names are Sammy Oswald-Wright and Ruben Fridman, one was adopted by Tim at age 12 after being homeless for two years and the other met the former for the first time as a child and held onto those interactions for the rest of her life. Together, they're going to kill The Operator with bombs :]
Also, they're in love. They are in gay love and kiss each other all the time
Here's the unfiltered version of the bros
23 notes
·
View notes
I sometimes wonder if Miguel ever tried recreating that sense of family he had with Gabriella with Miles and Gwen...except Miles and Gwen only received that toxic parental side from him and not the healthier, wholesome part he had with Gabi because he's mentally unwell and grieving and punishing himself daily as penance.
This is a really good thought cause Gwen alludes to this in her rant at Miguel during the Go Home Machine sequence, “Maybe you weren’t hard enough on him!”. Miguel views his actions based on being Spider-Man not as being Miguel. Either way, he is acclimated to loss in grief in such a unique way that it just seems difficult for him to understand that others aren’t or don’t become susceptible to his alternative to grief/guilt.
It would be plausible that Miguel is sort of worried about gaining a connection with members of the society (especially the younger ones) as he’s lost a lot in his life (if his backstory is any similar to his comic + gabi) and the healthier side would undoubtedly led to a less formal work relationship and something that bleeds into what little life he has outside of Spider-Man as Miguel.
For all intents and purposes Miguel genuinely believes that he is being reasonably protective of Miles and Gwen by over-protecting the canon as he doesn’t want them to experience the pain of over-stepping cosmic and normal boundaries like he did along with dampening his emotional investments in them by being harsh. I mean, recently people have been pointing out he tears up when Miles tells him he can’t not save his dad.
His intentions and sentiments towards these kids are pure and based in altruism but his actions and executions of them are destructive if outright hostile.
44 notes
·
View notes
will says that el has a book of letters from him because he’s just pointing out that they kept in contact regularly whereas he and mike didn’t but somehow mike interprets that as if will was implying there should be something romantic between them too and it stumps will bc that’s not what he meant at all and he doesn’t realize yet why mike is actually so mad or who he’s mad at, and while we clown mike for being oblivious i think will is oblivious too bc this isn’t the first time mike’s done that and yet. will doesn’t question it. he never does and they never talk about it. he just continues with what he’s saying about how they used to be best friends. they never talk about the fact that when will fights to salvage their friendship mike talks about it as if it was more than what it was and as if continuing as they were would get between his relationship with eleven. which implies that he himself feels that their relationship is inappropriate if he wants to date eleven concurrently and explains why it’s the only friendship within the party that seriously falls apart and why will is the only party member that he completely changes his behavior n actions towards and why he’s the only party member that he no longer touches once he dates eleven. which again also explains why after they start dating it’s only when eleven isn’t around that he allows a softer, more open and present mike to reappear around will. it’s just like. why would he do any of that if he’s not projecting? will is literally the one with a canonically confirmed interest in him and yet he’s mad at the roller rink because will is ignoring him [or so he thought at that point]. he’s not mad that eleven lied. he’s not mad at what those bullies did to her. he’s mad that will didn’t talk to him. he’s so mad and hurt by will that he doesn’t even console his girlfriend who was encircled, taunted, and had a milkshake thrown on her all on tape. he stays by will’s side despite everything, even when she’s fidgeting and crying to the side of them. to top it off he even makes a passive aggressive bitchy little comment at dinner afterward because he’s still. mad. at. will. will is the one that ruined his day. not those bullies being cruel to el, but will. it clouds his vision so much that he can’t even pretend or begin to attempt to entertain the idea of being there for her when she so clearly needs him. how does anyone fucking watch any of that and not get what’s going on. HOW????
299 notes
·
View notes
sometimes. people on here will say things where i know if i point-blank asked them "hey, do you like butches, femmes, and people that do not 'look' or 'act' queer?" they'll of course say yes duh. and i know if i asked them, "cool. do you think that an androgynous person or 'very gender nonconforming' (for lack of better phrasing) is more queer than someone that isn't?" they'll say no of course not.
but then you read the things they've said about how queer people present themselves, how they "should" present themselves once they've reached a fully realized state, and how it relates to gender and relationships and its like Hmmmmmmmmmm. i don't think you do like any of those three groups i mentioned actually if that's how you really feel on those issues lmao.
it's the same school of thought behind the perplexingly popular idea that because noah wears athleisure, he couldn't possibly be gay (before he came out, this was the common sentiment; and even now, people act like finn is more queer than noah, just because he "looks and acts" like it according to them). this idea that you have to look and act a certain way to be Actually Queer or Queer Enough, and if you don't, then that's because you've fallen victim to conforming or you just aren't as comfortable with your identity. (what? as if there's a single queer identity to begin with?)
that if you're a queer guy and you behave or look masculine, then you just haven't come out of your shell and accepted yourself or experimented enough. that if you're a queer woman and you're feminine, then the same applies, or you're not as queer as a butch woman, who does exhibit gender nonconformity, for example. and if you're butch or femme (+ other equivalents), or in a relationship with your counterpart, then you're perpetuating heteronormativity, as if that's even possible, and we all know that's so very, awfully, terribly Bad, you're a stain on the community, and you have issues you need to work out.
people don't have to look or act in a particular way to be acceptably queer enough. we don't all gravitate towards certain expressions of gender nonconformity or androgyny just because we're queer, and a failure to do that doesn't suggest that we're uncomfortable with ourselves and our identity. you can continue to be yourself as you were even after realizing you're queer. that's not impossible or a bad thing.
femmes and gay men that are masculine in any capacity are not traitors, confused, or less gay. some people are the way that they are, regardless of their sexuality. we don't all morph into the same person when we realize we're queer. that shouldn't be a difficult concept to understand? that's literally just... being a human and treating queer people as such.
those evil gay people who are in "masc/fem" relationships aren't perpetuating heteronormativity either. just because they exist outside of your realm of understanding, or have the kind of relationship that you wouldn't personally want for yourself, that doesn't mean that they aren't members of your community—which is the queer community, in case you forgot—and don't deserve respect, too.
like. it's just so demoralizing lmao. what's so hard to understand about accepting that people are all different and that just because we may belong to the same community, that doesn't mean that we are all the same and must fall in line? it's so tone-deaf, insulting, and just plain unrealistic. you may not mean it that way, but it is. that rhetoric just is.
feminine gay women exist. masculine gay men exist. sometimes they may experiment with their gender expression once realizing this, but they don't always and they don't have to to be considered queer. butch/fem relationships and other similar relationships are not imitations of heterosexuality, because they're fucking gay, and they do not adhere to traditional heterosexual roles, because, again, they're fucking gay.
your experiences and beliefs are not universal. gay people are not clones of each other. stop invalidating or speaking down on other queer people just because you can't relate to them personally. i know some people don't mean to insinuate these things, but you do. you are. constantly. and the people that fall in those categories you've deemed unacceptable and other, see it.
it's so... exhausting to face that in this space, which is supposed to be a respite from the physical world where that happens, too. and those actions, those beliefs that people share, they also bleed into the physical world and how you interact with other people in your community. it's not just little words that you write and have no meaning. it doesn't start and end with a fictional character. the things that you say matter and sometimes they're very troubling.
people who have been in those "fem/masc" relationships, or that identify with any kind of similar label, have not lived a life that's an imitation of heterosexuality, nor are they any less queer than you just because you haven't been in/participate in relationships like that.
20 notes
·
View notes
really enamored with vbnmw types lately saying "yeah biden is supporting genocide, but if you DONT vote for him, you'll still be supporting genocide!!" like hello you've effectively said there is no way to not support genocide. how has that not driven you insane (as it should).
8 notes
·
View notes
Me whenever someone on this app says that ji and ks aren’t close 🥲:
5 notes
·
View notes
It feels like I’m at a park watching a toddler eat rocks because they saw another kid do it. I’m not responsible for that kid, but I sure as hell don’t want to be around when the ambulance shows up and the parent is crying about how they had no idea eating rocks wasn’t good for a kid. the other kids all died but they thought it was just a coincidence or that they’re kid was built different.
Except the parent is multiple adults with college education looking at strategies that burned every other social media site to the ground and they’re all nodding and saying yes this is great. the light your child on fire strategy helped Twitter stay popular look at all the attention it’s getting. let’s do that - I’m sure there’s no way this could be detrimental to the child’s health or how we’re perceived by the child.
7 notes
·
View notes