#A disabled character treated with the respect he deserves?

[heart-of-a-rebel16]

the more Star Wars stuff that Disney pumps out the more I am shocked that rebels is as amazing as it is

[birbfeeder2artisticboogaloo]

imw atcing this film about an autistic lil boy and his mum just said 'can't u be normal for just one second' and i

im not ok with that actually??? these parents are. not great

overall, NOT what i expected of a film called 'come play' 😔

[ystrike1]

Betrayal of Dignity - By KIMPA (8.5/10)

Sometimes, bad men make great Kings. This particular Duke is absolutely a yandere, but he's also after the throne. He's also one of the few obsessive male characters I can actually imagine in power. He knows how to plan ahead. He's horrible. She's a good and forthright woman. The drama is killer.

Two sisters.

The pretty pink one and the disabled one.

What do you think their relationship is like?

You're wrong.

Chloe is disabled, yes, but she is a capable older sister. Her father, servants, and her sister all treat her with respect. Even when those who discriminate do not.

Alice is a romantic girl, with no brains in her skull. She's supposed to save her family from debt by wedding a wealthy Count....but she cheats on him. Her lover impregnates her, and they run away together...happily? Yes, Alice was never cut out for life as a noble wife. Her husband treats her well. They're passionately in love. Chloe loves her too much to force her to do anything. Their father feels the same.

The spoiled, beautiful daughter leaves the picture.

What about the debt?

There's only one child left. Chloe. She is respected in the walls of her mansion, but nowhere else.

No sane man would marry a woman with a crippled leg.

(This setting is painfully realistic. A couple hundred years ago disabled people had little to no rights. Chloe is a rare exception as a noble daughter who is loved and protected by her father.)

Chloe has no idea, but she does have an admirer.

His name is Duke Daimien Thisse. He fell in love with her three years ago, but she has no clue. He bullied her. He called her naive. Arrogant. He ripped her cane from her hands to show her how weak she was. She naturally assumed he's just another man who dislikes disabled people.

She met the Duke when he was at war. His men camped in her forest, behind her home. She nursed some of his fghters back to health.

Naive Chloe was unaware. As she treated the men they ridiculed her, and they tossed more inappropriate comments on top. They did not deserve her help, but she gave it.

Duke Thisse stole her cane because he was frustrated. He hated watching her care for the boorish men in his army, who whispered behind her back. So, he insulted her to her face to test her true character.

Chloe was too perfect. He suspected she was acting, as an excuse to get close to him and seduce him. He does know about her monetary situation after all.

She rejects him and proves that kindness isn't a weakness. She didn’t know the men were insulting her, but it doesn’t matter to her. They were protecting her country. Her land. She felt obligated to help, as an upstanding noble lady.

Duke Thisse is smitten.

He does get worse though. This guy is every single red flag. His fascination with Chloe stays a secret. A real one. Nobody knows he loves her. Chloe thinks he's marrying her to weaken his position on purpose, because he wants the Crown Prince to look stronger. She thinks she's a tool and she's half right. Marrying Chloe does give the Duke camouflage. He looks like a loyal dog...but he's been planning this marriage and a rebellion for three years.

Chloe won't be his Duchess.

She will be his Queen.

Daimien is also the most jealous and vindictive man on earth. He does bully and plot against his own wife when she pays attention to other men. He's un-fucking-unbearable. He threatens to kill her and her family more than once. She thinks it's because of his honor or something but no. He just does that when she mentions another man too many times.

He even throws a hissy fit when she tries to visit her own father.

This handsome servant, Gillies, figures out how twisted the Duke is. He's purely in love with his kind lady, and the persistent hero actually succeeds in exposing the rot.

Chloe finds out how deep the corruption goes far too late.

Duke Thisse doesn't tell Chloe anything. This mistress??? Fake. She's a royal spy and he feels nothing for her, but he uses this fake lover to torment Chloe. To test her and embarrass her. To see her pure true self once more. Chloe maintains her dignity, even when she must invite said mistress to a tea party.

Duke Thisse uses the death of this fake mistress to trick Chloe into loving him. He frames Chloe. He makes it look like she murdered the other woman out of jealousy, and then he saves her from life in jail.

That "selfless deed" earns her love.

Chloe earnestly lavishes love on the monster that has been tormenting her for years.

Even the Crown Prince is a pawn.

Duke Thisse needs him to to die at the right time, in the right place.

The mad prince realizes that Daimien married Chloe for love, and he gets more suspicious.

His feelings mess with the plan.

The rebellion will come regardless.

Romance begins to blossom when the Duke actually says I love you. It's not cheesy. It makes perfect sense. Chloe doesn't want money or promises. She wants to know if he saved her from a murder charge out of love.

(If only she knew)

He says yes.

It would have been so romantic if we, the readers, didn't know what was going on in his head.

By the way they don't consumate their marriage until they confirm their love. The Duke gets some points with that. He only wanted to lay with her if she felt the same way. He avoided all intimacy until that day. Now she does reciprocate....but he's been planting those feelings for almost four years.

Their love blossoms into something beautiful.

Chloe is pregnant and they all live happily...

The Crown Prince is a mentally deranged maniac. The people are turning against him.

The Duke wants more than love.

He wants to protect the nation he fought for in war.

He wants power. He wants to be King, and he has chosen a Queen.

Side note he only wants Chloe to have one baby, because he's familiar with the dangers of childbirth. I'll give him points for that one...again. He sucks but he's not the worst husband to have.

They don't live happily ever after.

Duke Thisse has more goals to strive for beyond happiness, and that's awesome. He's not a nice man, but he's obsessive and he's not bland. He's not boring on screen. That's for sure.

Chloe is an extremely cool woman, without superpowers. There is no secret ingredient. She's just a hard worker. One of her legs doesn't freaking work, and she's still more imposing than most.

Lots of people hate this one.

I think they need to read the fine print. Maybe one or two more times. On the surface this is a tale of abuse and manipulation...but remember there's no magic. Chloe never wanted to marry for love. She has no lover waiting for her.

Being the wife of a Duke isn't supposed to be easy. It's extra hard if he's ambitious.

That's conveyed very well.

[canonmisogynyvictimstournament]

PROPAGANDA

KATHERINA MINOLA (THE TAMING OF THE SHREW) (CW: Domestic Abuse)

1.) We had to read this for English my senior year. I got so mad at the way she's treated. She's the titular "shrew" of the play. She has to be married off before her younger sister can get married, because that makes sense.

Then the most dogshit man imaginable comes along, and everybody thinks they're perfect. He literally gaslights her and denies her food and water.

Fuck Petruchio and Katherine Minola deserved better!

2.) Literally the whole play is about how she is so awful that the main guy needs to change her entire personality, which he does as a challenge not because he likes her, and then proceeds to her abuse her for the rest of the play. Yet, he is portrayed as the hero, not a villain and she is shown to have "improved" at the end. People will say, oh it's open to interpretation, it can be played different ways, it's satire, but i don't find abuse funny and there is a distinct lack of commentary in the play to count as satire imo. Taming of the Shrew is a tragedy not a comedy, I will die on this hill. Kate deserves better!

3.) The title isn’t joking, ya’ll. She literally gets broken like a rebellious feral animal and it’s treated as a happy ending.

BARBARARA GORDON (DC COMICS) (CW: Ableism)

1.) Famously fridged in 1988, which was so popular with misogynists it became canon. After almost 2 decades of being one of the only disabled characters, was rebooted to a younger, more fun version of herself whose only history is that she was fridged but not disabled by it.

2.) The Killing Joke is one of the biggest comic examples of a female character getting hurt to motivate male characters. Also tbe way different cannons will trade off who her romantic intrest is out of Batfamily is pretty disturbing ranging from Bruce Wayne in Batman the Animated series universe (ew) to Tim Drake in the Arkham games (ew). Not to mention DC now is not letting her grow out of being Batgirl taking away her legacy of other young female heroes taking up her mantle and her getting to mentor them instead forcing her into a Batgirl cycle of purgatory when she was always better as Oracle (Its a little more complicated in the new Batgirl book but its still not solving the issues in a way that feels meaningful enough to make up the damage).

3.) Was shot as angst value for Bruce and her dad, implied to be sexually assaulted in The Killing Joke with absolutely no respect for her long career as Batgirl. When Alan Moore asked if he could, the editor said "cripple the bitch." She became paralyzed from the waist down. THankfully, an actually good writer picked her up from there and then wrote one of the best stories ever written (Oracle Year One: Born from Hope). Was one of the most iconic disabled characters in comic book history, hell, as Oracle, she was definitely up there as one of the most iconic disabled characters ever as well as a fantastic character, period. There were a few moments where people kept trying to make things out of her disability and had her be shitty to other women for no reason but for the most part, she was awesome. During her time In 2011, Dan Didio and some other misogynistic/ableist comic book writers were responsible for "curing" her disability and forcing her back into Batgirl, despite her having shown absolutely no desire to do so, as part of the New 52. They also made it an editorial mandate that she couldn't have glasses, a cool secret base, and her time as Oracle couldn't be referenced. This was because those writers were nostalgic for the 60s Batman show where Babs was played by an actress they all had the hots for and couldn't accept she'd grown up and moved on. That was bad enough, but over time, she's been increasingly deaged and reduced even further to just Dick Grayson's on and off again girlfriend and a generic girlboss. Batgirl of Burnsides burn in hell.

[is-the-owl-video-cute]

Saw your Neil Gaiman post and as someone that found comfort in Good Omens (and got hyperfixated on it), I'm finally glad that some people are finally talking about how he isn't that great.

Even as a Fan, GOmens fandom is so...weird. See, in other fandoms people won't give much of a flying f/ck about the authors besides some mild respect or praise, but GOmens praise Neil SO HARD, despite giving off some iffy vibes (that now I understand why, after that big post) Never liked how almost every single POC character in GO has such a minimal role, same with women characters, the fact he's been caught (and that can be easily checked) lying about his ideas surrounding GOmens, the way he went from "Is not a romance, but it can be if you want to" -> "i always wrote it as a love story" also how he went from "There won't be another season because of Terry and because the ideas for the next book were incorporated in the show" -> "It was in 2019 when I finished writing S2 with the ideas I discussed with Terry before he died" and like seriously no one never noticed how much of a clown he his lying and backpedalling all over again again? Then there's how bad rep for fat people Sandman was and instead of accepting criticism he just keeps giving some "vague intelligent answer" and sits and waits for his legion of fans with a parasocial relationship to defend him. But somehow he's treated as a world treasure and a genius with a big brain. And this is less problematic and more petty but I'll be honest. He isn't that much of a good writer anyway? The prose is okay is good, but the worldbuilding and lore and characters is mostly edgy and lacks deepness. His fans seriously want to make a sea out of muddle puddles,,, and that's fair! Is such a big part of fan culture to dig into the smallests of things and make an universe out of a cardbox background character, but please, don't give Neil the credit that he doesn't deserve. And what proves more to me that he isn't that good of a writer, is just...take a look at that mess of a S2 of Good Omens, it was so bad that some people had to THEORIZE that it was bad on purpose. I have such a beef with S2, characters like Muriel, Saraqael and Michael and Maggie and Nina were so heavily promoted and of course everyone was hyped, finally more POC, more disabled characters, and yay, women! And they're lesbians! And and...and hold on, how it is that Muriel didn't do that much at all? How it is that Saraqael after being so hyped BARELY had almost nothing to do, is really that all the disabled rep we got? How is it that Michael and Uriel barely had anything to do and were just background characters again? It just angers me with how with so many fem-presenting characters, and POC and disabled persons cast, they literally add nothing to the series, AND NO ONE EVER TALKS ABOUT IT. Is just this endless praise for Neil and his oh big brain. All praise Neil Gaiman, our lord and saviour of queer people. HOW IT IS, THAT THE TWO LESBIANS HYPED ROMANCE WAS ALL RELATED TO AZIRAPHALE MEDDLING WITH THEM TRYING TO SHIP THEM? And it also was bad, very badly done, is really this the women representation we got, seriously??? Talking about misleading advertising.

S2 was such such a mess, it just shows how much Good Omens needed Terry to be, well, Good Omens. I really suspect Neil stole ideas from the fandom because S2 was just a trainwreck of all the fanfic tropes you could find in GO fandom and is almost disrespectful to Terry's work in Good Omens, and I don't care for how much Neil makes his friendship with Terry as a pity party and as a "it gives me so much joy, Terry would be so happy", because seriously it's almost manipulative. Talking about Manipulative. His meddling with fandom is starting to feel unprofessional, but this ask is already long... Sorry lmao, something on me snapped after getting finally the solid evidence that Neil .Is. Not. Great

Oh he’s always been completely unprofessional but since he types in a mixture of corporate-speak and “cool dad” talk his fanbase doesn’t notice.

Here’s the thing about Neil, he’s both petty and extremely insincere. People criticized lolicon sin his presence and he was so offended on the behalf of weirdos who pleasure themselves to Hentai depicting child molestation that he wrote a several paragraph long response dismissing simulated child pornography as simply being “icky speech” that should be protected by the sacred American constitution despite, you know, the fact he’s not even American so his weird obsession with the first amendment and only ever really bringing it up to defend simulated child porn is and always has been suspicious.

As for his backpedalling, the man sees $$$$ and just goes for anything he can find to make more. People love to say “oh but he donates tens of thousands to charity!” yeah, usually to HIS charity for bailing out pedophiles. With funds typically out of the wallets of his fans due to fundraising it rather than coming out of his own checkbook so it’s not exactly a charitable action as much as it’s an empty gesture. And frankly he almost certainly just does it for tax benefits if we’re going to be honest here. He continued good omens because it would make money and generate more attention towards him and he’d be the brave hero who brought back show that did well. That’s it.

He’s just discount, off-brand Elon. Rich white man who thinks he’s gods gift to man despite bumbling through even the most basic concepts because his fans would walk into traffic blindfolded to defend him from even the mildest of criticism.

People on here just like him because they’re starstruck that a creator of a popular IP is active on this site and because he produces media that’s adapted with white middle aged twinks who are dubiously romantically affiliated.

[uncriticalbunny]

me whenever I see people desperate for the writers to make sydney asexual and/or a lesbian.

long post ahead.

as a black woman who is ace, I don’t think sydney being asexual would be revolutionary or interesting. it would actually be so incredibly, hugely, profoundly... boringggggg. and people who insist on sydney being asexual get a massive side eye from me. especially white asexuals, because fuck your representation, and cishet people because who the fuck are y’all? 

so rarely are black women in tv and film treated with respect and nuance, much less when it comes to romance. so rarely are we treated as a person to be desired. to be loved. openly. warmly. carnally. even less so when it’s a darkskin black woman. writers pick from one of two things when it comes to black female characters: hypersexualized vs desexualized. superficially, for all outward appearances, there are lots of asexual black women in media. that is to say, they are certainly almost treated that way. unintentionally. intentionally. maliciously. void of sexuality or sensuality. no romance because she’s a Strong Black Woman who doesn’t need a man. or a relationship so pathetic that it can hardly be called a romance. would it be nice to have an asexual black female character who has a storyline that treats asexuality with respect? yes, yes it would. but that’s not really the point of this increasingly wordy essay. if the creators/writers are to be taken at their word that sydcarmy is strictly platonic, and they had her reject marcus because he misread their interactions, then it just shows they’ve developed nothing for sydney romantically. all the shots of carmy looking at her like she hung the moon and the stars are simply because she's his #bro. marcus really only liked her for her personality and simply confused that for romantic longing. platonic connections and a one-sided pursuit with zero heat. how groundbreaking. 

every fucking white character can have all of the romance-related things though. they can kiss each other, be shown as desirable, etc. etc. nat can be cuddled and cherished by pete. richie can go on dates in a nice suit with dirt caked under his nails, be loving with his then-wife, and ostensibly be wanted by jess. tiffany can still be yearned for by her ex-husband as she prepares to marry a new one. carmy can skip around like he’s in a romcom while neglecting his responsibilities to make out with claire and call her beautiful. claire can be shot in soft, dreamy sequences with closeups of her face and have a convo with her ass out for no reason other than to say she’s desirable and fucked carmy. claire and carmy can have screentime set aside for their relationship and a tender lovemaking scene. it’s expected for white people. it’s the norm. no romantic love for sydney though. because she’s driven. because she deserves better. because romance is unimportant. because she wants that star. because she can have no distractions. because asexual. because representation. [audience cheering]

sydney being a lesbian would also bore me immensely. too often are black female characters treated by writers as russian dolls with every diversity point they can think of. books, comics, tv, film, etc. she’s black, she's lesbian, she’s trans, she’s disabled, she’s poor, she’s this, she’s that. the diversity and representation everyone wants. why is every other character surrounding this ~pinnacle of diversity~ straight, or white, or a man? yes, because that’s who’s mainly writing and casting and greenlighting these things and maybe it’s silly to expect otherwise, but still, what the fuck? congrats on being represented by this fictional character. but it doesn’t feel genuine; it feels spiteful and lazy and self-congratulatory. like where's the other black women and diverse characters lmao. to be clear, I do want to see all the black lesbians in media because there's still not very many. and black women with one, or two, or all of those “diversity points” do exist in real life. we are lesbians, we are bi, we are disabled, we are trans. we're all of those and more. and we are loved and adored. on screen? maybe with a nonexistent or poor romantic storyline. or perhaps a decent and maybe even good storyline that eventually crashes and burns. there's a popular twitter thread right now about the disposable black gf trope and the examples that keep pouring in are bleak af.

the black lesbian character headcanon/canon increasingly feels like just another way to fridge us romantically. #notalllesbiantruthers but too many tbh. a black female character will simply exist without uttering a word and a slew of white women will be there to loudly proclaim her as the lesbian representation they want, need, crave, and adore. especially if there’s zero indication of the character being a lesbian. just stereotypes and vibes. hollow, insincere proclamations. bi black women don't even exist in their world. all these things I’ve observed with sydney. she's a bro, she's butch, she's a top, she's so husband-coded. babygirl is only reserved for the most woeful, pitiful white male characters. it's hilariously #coded. and no one will push back because after all, any gay representation is a good thing.

you’ll see hit tweets about how they know deep down sydney's a lesbian or how it will be so funny when the writers make her one. really, why is that? she can't be bi lest she actually gets with carmy. carmy can't be gay because they want to fuck him too badly. yeah I’m not so convinced all the lesbian sydney truthers earnestly want to see her loved, adored, cuddled, kissed, or fucked by another woman. because would that really be the writers’ objective or finished product? or will they just make her a lesbian and pat themselves on the back for doing only that. a throwaway line? maybe give her a cute romance built largely off-screen? lesbian sydney is a win for diversity and that’s enough. and who really wants to see sydney loved on loudly or be sexual anyway? that's not who she really is! she wears minimal makeup and oversized shirts and sweaters. let’s just focus on her working herself to the bone and getting that star. and I think deep down a lot of these truthers know her storyline possibly wouldn't be done justice. that's why it's going to be so funny to them when they make her one.

it all feels so shallow. fanfiction of sydney x fem!reader or original female character or nayia (the gorgiana black chef from s02ep03) is quite literally nonexistent [!!!]. sorry, y'all are not progressive or galaxy-brained. we get a black female character who’s multifaceted and fascinating, a deuteragonist even, in a show with a fandom that barely considers her as a person, and you’ve set your grubby paws upon her to be shelved romantically. bffr, the writers are already flailing romance-wise when it comes to sydney; they would not do an asexual/lesbian storyline justice. and even if they somehow make a halfway decent attempt, maybe they should have made it clear from the very beginning. not in season 3 or 4 or 5 or wheneverthefuck after they’ve given all the white characters romantic angles and developed her strongest and most important relationship with carmy, the main white guy or possibly because they hate the fact that people ship her with the main white guy. because then it just feels reactionary. and spiteful. and lazy. anyway, this ended up being way longer than I wanted. thanks for reading. fin.

[ginger-snap-talkin-nonsense]

Why do the writers at King of the Hill expect us to see Cotton Hill as anything other than evil (and not in a "funny"/"love to hate him" way) when he sexually abuses Luanne and almost sexually abuses Bobby in the first episode that he's formally introduced? Shouldn't it reflect badly on Hank as a guardian that he allows Bobby to be alone with his abuser after that?

This can't even be blamed on the better writers leaving the show in the later seasons. This was in the first season, and Cotton never gets better considering that he tortures Bobby by putting him in solitary confinement for three days in season 7.

Okay, so just to clarify off the bat, the sexual abuse anon is referring to is in Cottons debut where he smacks Luanne's ass and then is immediately responded to with a threat if he tries it again, and a failed attempt at taking him to a place he remembers being a brothel, but I think this anon is getting at the heart of a bigger issue regarding how people think critically about character writing.

Cotton Hill is a bad person. Full stop. He was an abusive husband and father when Hank was a child and even in his shallowed love of his new wife and kid, he's still repugnant, misogynistic, bigoted, etc.

But that's a feature, not a bug because Cotton exists in relation to Hank.

You see, King of the Hill has a running theme (at least in the pre flash era) of change and how we confront trauma in the face of that change. Cotton as a character was abused himself-first by his military boarding school which the mere thought of puts him in the only tears we see him in in the series, then by enlisting in World War 2 at age 15 where he was physically disabled, watched his friends die, was ripped from the woman who he fell in love with, and then discharged and left broken and impoverished.

And Cotton does anything he can to run from accepting that he was traumatized by all of that. He treats it like it's made him strong and better, he wears his misery like a badge of honor and refuses kindness and sympathy as a result.

Thanks to this idea of what iteams to hurt, he turned those ideas onto Hank growing up. Cotton was a lot of things but he wasn't (as far as we know in the show) physically abusive, but he was mentally and emotionally abusive and that led to Hank believing a lot of negative things about sharing feelings or gender roles.

And then he meets Peggy who starts dismantling the stigmas about the gender binary and has Bobby who dismantles his feelings about feelings. A lot of Cotton episodes are in relation to how Hank is raising Bobby right by unpacking the unhealthy environment he grew up in with his wife and striving to be better. This happens with Peggy and her mother as well but to a far lesser extent.

Beyond that, Cotton represents how complicated emotions can be in regards to bad people you have sympathy for. Hank, despite learning to see the many flaws with his father, still wants a healthy and positive relationship with his dad. The show never knocks for wanting this or continuing to strive for it, rather it tells Hank that he can't force anyone else into his shit like his wife or son.

Meanwhile Peggy despises Cotton for all he's done to Hank and how he treats women, and the show never knocks her either. Peggy is entirely within her rights to hate him and the closest they ever get a mutual respect for how strong they've been while getting past their hardest moments.

Cotton may deserve sympathy for what he's been through, but does that mean you can forgive him for all the terrible things he did as a result of his unchecked trauma and the time he grew up in? The show doesn't have an answer, it's up to each individual person, and no answer is wrong.

That's why Cotton is a strong character. There's nuance to him and how he interacts with the other characters. He furthers the shows central theme and introduces his own.

A written bad person does not equate to bad character writing

[serialreblogger]

the thing about the joker

is that - well, even canonically, he’s not actually “insane.” in the most canonical version of his backstory (bc there are many conflicting incarnations, but this one is the touchstone for a lot of later canon), he was part of a street gang before falling into a vat of Nondescript Toxic Waste that damaged his melanin production and That’s It. he supposedly “lost his mind” after seeing his reflection, which is absurd on many levels. no. he’s not “insane.” what he is, is an angry white boy.

the thing about the joker is that he exults in his own uncontainability. He laughs, because all of gotham - all the world - is built to be his playground. the only lunatic thing about him is the lunacy of ~Society~, to borrow from the joker’s own playbook; the lunacy of the joker lies in the world that grants him power: in the inheritance of loss: in white privilege, and what it means for everyone else.

“to prove a point.” those were the joker’s exact words, when he shot and paralyzed Barbara Gordon. she asked why: he laughed. “to prove a point.”

because that’s all he ever does. he hurts people because he can. and because all the power in the world can’t save him from getting hurt - and isn’t that just peachy?

because the thing about the joker is that he can get hurt. he has been hurt. but he has so much more capacity to harm than to be harmed. he is immortal. he and he alone will never have to face the consequences of the hurt that he inflicts on other people.

so then: why not hurt them? misery loves company, after all.

the joker is the embodiment and end result of our own social system: the madness of the exception: the laughter of the white man: the imprecation to smile, as he kills you.

(no one ever says it, i find, but it’s still true: barbara deserves to kill him.)

and who, then, is the batman? if the joker is the yin to his yang? if they’re two sides of one irredeemable coin, if they represent the “balance” of an unjustifiable system - who is he if not another white man?

because he is. Bruce Wayne is a white boy born into unspeakable privilege and forced to endure suffering anyway; who copes with his suffering by taking it out on others; who copes with his suffering, not by taking advantage of the world as it is, but by attempting to reshape it. to make it in his own image - as if it isn’t already his, as if claiming it further will crush out the pain.

the batman is the benevolent oppressor to the joker’s malevolent one. he changes nothing, in the end. two privileged white boys with their own respective navel-gazing grudges - where, after all, lies the difference between benevolence and malevolence?

because they are not “chaos” and “order.” not really. They are laissez-faire laughter and law. Joker exults in the disease of the system, Batman seeks to treat its symptoms, but neither of them will ever change anything about the root cause. because they may have suffered the faults of this system, but they still benefit so much more from it as it exists. Uphold it or break it, neither of them wants to change the law.

but the law is only as good as the people it’s made to protect. and who does that law protect, really?

waylon jones is, in one issue, explicitly depicted as Black. between that and his skin disorder, there has never once been room for his character to be any more than a monster: king croc is, always, a character to be violated and brutalized, over and over and over and still - always - written as the villain. (he tried so hard to scrape out a place for himself, so many times, in so many incarnations, and each and every time he finds himself relegated once more to the sewers. he will never be anyone’s king. there is no place under the sun for people like him.)

victor fries only ever wanted to save his wife, and a capitalist mogul decided a few extra numbers on his eight-digit paycheck were more important than the people whose lives depended on that money. fries’ body was damaged to disability by that choice, left without the resources to find a cure for his wife, and he robbed banks because there was no other option available to him. we seem to have forgotten, or maybe never really understood, why that matters. why a desperate man trying to save his life and that of his loved ones under the crushing gears of capitalism is a villain, and the one who stops him is our hero. why, under the law batman upholds, a bank vault and a CEO’s hoard is worth more than a life.

poison ivy just wants to live, too. wants a life not defined by the devastation of her body, of the beings that exist as extensions of her, a life where green and growing things are not commodities to be plowed up and poisoned and destroyed for the sake of another man’s profit. these are villains; they are written as such. these are their motives.

who does batman fight for, really? who is our hero, this emblem of our law?

is he our hero? ours, the broken and bleeding members of the world he claims to protect?

who does the law protect, except him - him, and the joker?

[simplyender]

If it's asks you want, asks you shall get! I remember you mentioning that you think Spot will probably die in the next movie. However, Miles says something like "Spot only wants to be respected, like everyone else," before he gets interrupted by Miguel. Maybe this could hint at Spot making it out alive. Or this is just wishful thinking on my part. And if he really does die in the next movie, then it will be due to his own actions, like using up all his powers or smth like that.

tbh, my reasoning for spot dying can be boiled down to a few points. but first, i wanna talk about...

why i absolutely believe spot shouldnt be killed off.

1. the current narrative is that miles is effectively breaking the cycle that is "canon", giving a big 'ol Fuck You to whats defined as fate and inevitable pain. spots trying to force miles in to the narrative hes made up in his head (which coincides with whats meant to be "canon"), but things dont have to be that way and miles KNOWS that. i think itd be thematically appropriate if miles breaks this cycle of cruelty and allows spot to survive, making him have to face his own actions and crippling lack of self worth and actually work to make things better, for himself and everyone hes hurt.

2. im overly attached to spot being disability-coded, for more on that, please read this amazing post that opened my third eye. anyway, the tl;dr is that spot behaves and is treated a lot like a newly, visibly disabled person, subject to the same prejudices as they are as well as being forced to navigate an entirely new body, as somebody might have to if they were to receive a workplace injury that left them disfigured and permanently disabled. this is also why id like it if he doesnt get turned human again/"cured" at the end. it just doesnt feel like itd be satisfying for things to end like that for him. if anything, the most satisfying conclusion to his arc would if he got stopped, and then be given the opportunity to finally take responsibility for his own actions, and acknowledge his own fault in what happened to him and that it ultimately wasnt miles that did this to him and that even so, one of the things thats NOT spots fault is how he got treated for what happened to him so he really should get understanding and validation in that department. he also deserves to learn how to accept himself (beyond seeing his new form and powers as a tool to pursue revenge) as he is instead of it being framed likes hes only worthy of respect and recovery once he becomes human again.

3. i like him a lot and thinks he deserves better than to just be killed off.

why i think that despite it all, spot will be killed off:

1. any form of redemption or willingly giving up entirely depends on if spot can bring himself to listen to reason and take responsibility for his actions. something weve seen that hes notoriously bad at.

2. why would spot willingly choose to give up and back down when hes got absolutely nothing left for him in life? theres literally nobody waiting for him on the other side of this if he does. no family. no friends. no job. nothing. he might consider himself too far gone.

3. while 90s cartoon spot DID redeem himself, he did it through a heroic sacrifice...

4. lbr spiderman villains usually either get jailed or killed off. why would things be different for spot. because hes sympathetic? a lot of villains are. hes also insanely powerful and this could end up as a "destroys himself"" situation.

5. spot might be about to commit mass murder, which...definitely makes it harder to consider him as somebody "worthy of redemption".

6. ive watched so many of my favorite characters die. im not kidding i have the worst luck. 98% of them have been killed off and i think spot might be next in line bc its unlikely the writers care about him as much as i do. :(

so...yeah.

[ann3ofabyss4lred]

tw: mention of r4pe and SA.

.

.

.

.

I really love Medusa, outside PJO, and she is a great character of greek mythology, however i'm kinda conflicted and between the sword and the wall, with some of Rick's decision,the reaction of pjo fans and ppl who love Roman and Greek myths

I get that Rick wanted to explore the narrative of the roman version (Poseidon r4p1ng,SAd or abuse her and Athena blamed her and turned her into stone), because it got popular for the narrative of the women and victims getting blamed and villianized and punished for the actions caused by men and abusers, in religion, and it got turned into a symbol of "me too" and causes more ppl to want to raise awareness.

Nothing wrong with the purpose,I'm all for BRINGING AWARENESS to others about r4p3,SA,sexual violence,etc. Everyone who is not sick, wants those non consensual acts that harm ppl to dissapear

but I think he could have used another myth to explore those topics,because using that portrayal of Medusa and Poseidon, makes things weirder??, for these reasons:

1. The book portrays Poseidon's and Percy's father-son dynamic: Percy's anger towards his father, but VERY deep down,craving for some of his attention,shifting towards a neutral, polite leaning towards a positive relationship, and the book portrays him like a man that is trying to be a cool father,despite his mistakes. And the book sometimes praises him for that??

Having in mind, the pjo series is supposed to teach and make kids,no matter their gender,sexual and romantic orientation,race and nationality,neurodivergencies and disabilities, we all can be amazing,smart,talented in our own ways, and deserve the same respect, wouldn't the parent-child dynamic Percy and Poseidon be weird? If ur main character keeps contact with someone like that??.

Wouldn't that normalize more than already is, of ppl,but mostly men, of keeping contact with nasty men,just because he is a relative or a friend?? and didn't hurt you?.

2. Why THE Sally Jackson, dated someone like Poseidon or even finishing in good terms?? like if my ex bf was an abuser with other ppl and not me. It doesn't matter,that relationship is ending in bad terms??

"Rick said he wanted to explored it. But he didn't say Medusa got r4ped,maybe he just abused of power. Or athena blamed Medusa because Poseidon crushed on her, pg-13"

Come on, Medusa's lines and way of wording references the roman version,besides everyone even kids ranging from 10-12 know what happened to Medusa

"But myths changes and develop, just to send a message,provides awareness"

You guys literally CHANGED the ORIGINAL myth of Persephone/Hades/Demeter, which HADES KIDNAPPED PERSEPHONE, AND DEMETER SEARCHING FOR HER DAUGHTER., and rewrite it with Persephone going WILLINGLY WITH HADES, just for u to fit the narattive of a "goth bad boy scary looking with bad reputation,but is chill and dates a flower softy girls,that he treats like queen".

and the reaction that the pjo fandom had to Medusa's backstory, is similar to any other fandom when a traumatised character exists, that can be harmful, it feels like a way of romanticizing? and I'm tired of it

"I'm glad they gave Medusa more depth"

Can we as a society stop acting like being victim of mental/physical/sexual abuse?, or any kind of trauma, gives you more depth??. No, trauma doesn't give us depth or make us more complex. Our point of view, our philosophy,our interests, our talents,our personalities does.

Because of that, I have seen middle schoolers and teenagers wanting some sort of trauma,just to be complex?? Which is sad and alarming.

I'm not sure what Riordan is planning or how is going to not mess up,but I hope I can see more of the cast acting more scenes of the book.

[sokkastyles]

I saw another take related to my previous ask. It was about how the narrative goes out of its way to get you to sympathize with Zuko, but always demonizes Azula. Apparently Zuko even gets more sympathy than the rest of the Gaang for his situation and is constantly excused and coddled by the narrative, which means he doesn't really work for his redemption so much as it is just given to him. They also added in the age thing, where Zuko and even Mai and Ty Lee are depicted as victims and child soldiers who were forced into the war, like in The Beach. They were depicted with respect for the fact that they were children fighting a war and the narrative emphasized the fact that they were children and how awful it was for them to be sent into battle, but the Gaang doesn't get that same courtesy. I'm wondering what you think about this take that Zuko is offered more sympathy for his circumstances while the rest of the Gaang's struggles/Azula's struggles are not?

The thing about these claims is that they are so vague as to be meaningless. Zuko gets sympathy vs Azula being demonized where, exactly? Because most of the time when people say this, they ignore that Azula is demonized for hurting others, which she should be. Where is it shown as more okay for Zuko to hurt the gaang? In fact, when I think about Zuko hunting the gaang, I remember a lot of humor at his expense, which he deserves because what he's doing is wrong. He's treated as a lot less of a threat than Azula because she's shown to be more deadly, both because she's more successful and because she is more ruthless.

Zuko, Mai, and Ty Lee are depicted as victims because they are being forced to fight by Ozai and Azula. The three of them are shown to have times where they tried to say no and were forced into it anyway. Azula doesn't have that because she is shown to want to take part in Ozai's imperialism, hence also why she is given less sympathy. It would be extremely troubling if that were not the case, if a character who was never shown to disagree with causing harm, and was shown to be very good at it, were treated as sympathetic.

But they still are not depicted as child soldiers. They are depicted as characters in a fun fantasy adventure story. They are frequently depicted as having fun fighting, just as the gaang are, because this is a story meant to entertain children, not a nonfiction story meant to educate about the horror of child soldiers. Even stuff like Zuko's abuse or Mai and Ty Lee being coerced by Azula cannot be treated with the weight it would have if it happened in the real world. Many people have pointed out that if Zuko sustained a burn like that in a realistic story, not to mention being sent out to sea shortly after with minimal time to heal, he would most likely end up severely physically disabled if he even survived, not to mention the psychological effects that would have. Ty Lee and Mai would be a lot less well-adjusted, they wouldn't be making snappy banter. These characters are technically children and talk like American teenagers, but fight like and frequently think like adults. They are not real children and their situations cannot be compared to that of a child soldier, because they are fictional and everything they are came from the mind of an adult with the purpose of telling an entertaining story for children about children saving the world.

[just-late-roman-republic-things]

Just finished Suetonius' biography of Claudius, and I can absolutely see why Robert Graves wanted to write a novel about him. The first sections made me feel so bad for Claudius, and somehow people kept bullying him even after he became emperor. Even Suetonius mocks him, dismisses his accomplishments, and actions that were neutral or positive in Augustus' biography become negative when applied to Claudius.

I don't know much about Claudius, so I pulled up Wikipedia's article on him as a starting point. Some possible historiographical issues Wiki brought up:

Claudius was the first emperor chosen by the praetorian guards, rather than formally approved by the Senate, and this may have prejudiced the senatorial class against him.

Claudius expanded the imperial administration, relying more heavily on his freedmen for duties traditionally given to senators, and this increased senatorial resentment. Suetonius' portrayal of him as dominated by his wives and freedmen may be a a warped portrayal of this.

Claudius was seen as vulnerable, and several attempts were made to overthrow him; he responded by executing the senators involved and taking greater precautions with the rest.

The Flavians partly rehabilitated his image - at least in comparison with Nero - but overall he was mostly treated as forgettable.

I also wonder if people may have judged him for not performing masculinity "correctly" or for his disability. It's hard to tell. Suetonius' account might have exaggerated that in the same way he otherwise portrays Claudius as ridiculous.

The wiki article paints a much more competent picture. Conquered Britain (via his generals), built aqueducts, tried to improve Italy's food security, expanded citizenship, and was actively involved in courts and public administration. And there's no doubt that he was intellectually capable, given his extensive scholarly writings. I don't know enough to judge if he was a good emperor overall, but he was clearly trying.

He might have been forgetful, scatterbrained, a poor judge of character, or good at sticking his foot in his mouth. Some of Suetonius' examples there may be real. But those traits aren't the same as being generally incompetent. In fact, considering how many conspiracies Claudius managed to foil, perhaps he was more cunning than Suetonius gives him credit for...

I'll have to read more to have a proper Take™️here, but so far, my best guess is that Claudius was no fool* - his family just assumed he was because of his disability and/or quirks. And that lens may have spread to how other people viewed him, too. It's very common for adults to slot kids into a role, and the kids learn to behave in ways that confirm that role: the golden boy, the class clown, the tomboy, the nerd, the delinquent...that's why you often have to leave your childhood home, and join a community where nobody knows you, to really find yourself. But Claudius, who spent his whole life in the public eye, couldn't do that.

(*Of course, even if he did have an intellectual disability, he'd still be deserving of respect, just like anyone is. A person's dignity shouldn't be dependent on how "able," productive or useful they are.)

Incidentally, @theromaboo, what are your thoughts? Both on Claudius' abilities and accomplishments, on his potential health issues or disabilities, and on how historians portray him?

[iamafanofcartoons]

Defending RWBY’s Writing: Why Yang does not owe Ironwood for her prosthetic arm.

So apparently R/RWBYCritics decided to take a line from Avengers: Civil War and claim that Yang Xiao Long betrayed Ironwood by not being grateful for the prosthetic arm she received in V4. As people want to simplify things and call Yang a traitor/terrorist, I am once again going to make a post/discussion defending Yang’s character.

For those wishing to see my Yang Xiao Long Defense Post? https://www.tumblr.com/iamafanofcartoons/693045544855207936/yang-xiao-long-defense-post 

For those wishing to see the mindset of R/RWBYCritics? Just look at the end of this post for the screenshots I took of the rampant sexism towards Yang and Robyn, and the sheer worship of Ironwood.

I WILL HOWEVER point out some criticisms that I feel are valid. Of course those criticisms are ones that are going to be looking at both Yang and Ironwood’s perspectives, rather than be a statement trashing female characters like every RWBY Criticism video that licks Ironwood and Adam’s boots.

10 Reasons Defending Yang’s Actions and Debating Ironwood’s.

1. Just as much as Cap deserved to use the shield after Civil War. Just because James (Or should I say Pietro) gave her the arm doesn't mean she is bound to serve him. They had a serious disagreement about how to protect Atlas and Mantle and any goodwill she felt towards James about the arm wasn't enough to bridge the gap. To look at it another way, if James had given her the arm in Vol 8 as a peace offering would she have taken it and changed to his side?

2.  If you were given a wheelchair by a dictator and then joined a resistance movement. Should you then have to crawl on the ground?

3. Yang was asking Robyn Hill to trust Ironwood. She was asking Robyn to stop taking back the supplies that Ironwood bled from Mantle. And Robyn listened. Ironwood refused to trust people he cannot control or have leverage over. Yang took a risk in trusting a person who had always stood up for the people.

4. Dear people claiming that Robyn could have been one of Salem’s moles. HOW? Lionhart was trying to save his own skin. So was Raven. So was Roman. Robyn only served the people. So dear Ironwood apologists who call anyone opposing Ironwood a terrorist? Just stop....the fails in your logic are why I cannot in good faith treat Ironwood apologists with respect.

5. Ironwood didn't made it himself. He requested Penny's father who was much happy to be of help to her daughter's friends. Pietro? Who along with Penny defended Mantle and lived in Mantle, trying to care for the 99% while Ironwood sat in a cushy chair in the clouds and called Pietro and Penny’s home “a few city blocks?”  Second, Yang lost her arm because of Ironwood in the first place cuz his "military protection" wasn't good enough to prevent the attack. Third, Jimmy compensated  people because of his guilty conscious and her arm was of them.

6. Yang’s wearing an arm from a man who: Declared Martial Law Shot Dissenters Shot down escape vessels Threatened to bomb his own civilians Executed a Prisoner (Though she doesn't know this) It's like keeping an arm from a totalitarian. Yang lied to Ironwood. Is that reason to do any of the things he did? No? Then she's not at fault. The best case scenario is she gets a new arm down the line. Until then, She should keep it for its utility.

7.  Yang is a disabled person, there's no thing such as not deserving to live her life with full body autonomy. Ironwood did indeed make a selfless gesture by gifting her the prosthetic, but it precisely being a selfless gesture means Yang is in no way in debt with him. That’s not to say Ironwood doesn’t have good intentions. But just because you make a selfless gesture doesn’t mean people owe you anything.

8. A disabled character's prosthetics shouldn't be factored into this. Whatever you think about Yang's handling of the whole situation her having a prosthetic to help with her disability isn't a matter of "deserving" it. It's not like Yang asked for the arm, either.  Ironwood gave it to her as a gift. Gifts are typically given with the assumption of not getting anything in return.

9.  Taking away her prosthetic over a disagreement seems pretty ableist. She doesn't really owe him anything. It was a gift. Gifts are (or should be) given freely without the expectation of anything in return. That's what makes it a gift and not an exchange. "You don't agree with me? Well that means you don't get to use two arms"

10.    Yang was a 17-year-old girl who lost her arm defending a friend during a terrorist attack she was given the choice (by Ironwood) to shamelessly flee from. I think if anyone deserves an arm it’s her, plus it’s only fair to give disabled people a chance at normalcy if the technology allows, and they so choose to accept it.

Acknowledgement of criticisms

We don't really see anything to indicate that RWBY as a whole felt a sense of loyalty to Ironwood beyond just a kind of work partnership.

This could be in keeping with the idea of huntsmen not being loyal to any one kingdom, but there is a bit of difference in being loyal to a government, nation, or even town and being loyal to a person.

One you tend to put the good of that place or group above other concerns and with the other, the person may come before other considerations.

What can be overlooked is that there are cases where you oppose someone out of loyalty because you fear the path they are going down or even because you are trying to keep them from doing something they'll regret.

It would've been nice if the two of them had talked about it or Ironwood even asking how she was holding up after everything that happened, especially as he probably knows some stuff about trying to mentally process physical trauma. It may have even made the idea of going behind his back harder for Yang, maybe leading to Blake pushing more for telling Robyn about Amity rather than arrest her.

But those are valid criticisms, and I do not see much of that in discussions. What I DID see? Was more along these lines from R/RWBYCritics.

Reasons why I felt the need to put up this post after looking at R/RWBYCritics.

R/RWBYCritics, Their love of Ironwood, and their hate of Yang.

If you wish to see what R/RWBYCritics thinks of Yang? 

Just so you folks wouldn’t have to wade into the toxic sewer that is R/RWBYCritics...or Twitter. Did you know that at least 2 of the people in these mentions are Yang-hating fanfic writers who write fanfics involving Yang being beaten up? And as you may have noticed, their hate for Robyn is also there.

This weekend I will go into defending Robyn Hill.

[fefairys]

I cannot fucking stand Mituna myself. I hate him so much actually. I guess it's mostly irrational but I dislike him for the same reason I'm not a big fan of Tavros; I hate that they exist to be Hussie's disability punching bag and that's reflected in how the people around them treat them

see but i dont think thats what mituna is, really. thats not how i interpreted what i just read, idk.

here is what we see:

meenah expresses surprise that latula and mituna are still together, because she thinks he sucks, and latula says "he's more than the terrible shit he's always saying, and also i feel like he kinda needs me" and meenah is like "well ok then" basically lmao and thats that

in the next dancestor flash, meenah has a couple conversations with mituna wherein she calls him "the worst" and says she "doesnt know how latula deals" because of all the inappropriate things he says. mituna calls her a "wader" which makes kankri come in and start talking about how mituna is "bad representation" for existing. then meenah defends him and says "vantas youre being a shit dont talk about him like that"

THEN cronus takes his anger out on him and verbally abuses him, blames mituna for ruining his chances at romance or whatever, cuz, yknow, he's terrible and we are supposed to think he's terrible, while he just stands there and says "im sorry", until meenah comes and defends mituna again and calls cronus out for being a shithead.

and then, when aranea gives her exposition on mituna, meenah says something like, wow that was genuinely interesting for once, thanks!

like she sees him as a person who deserves to be treated with respect, but she cant just ignore when hes shouting obscenities and sexually harassing her either. its complicated. like at the very fucking least, he is given some defense by the pov character of these sections.

how i see it is that the narrative is not particularly trying to Say anything about mituna (or tavros for that matter) or what they are "deserving" of or viewing them as "punching bags", i think it is just showing some fucked up shit for the spectacle of it without taking any sort of solid stance.

like, who do we see actively treating mituna badly? meenah, kankri, and cronus. i dont think i need to explain how those three are like. absolutely not "people we are supposed to agree with" NO ONE in homestuck is "person we are supposed to agree with on all things" and i think that trying to ascertain how hussie feels about how people should be treated, or ascertain any of hussie's opinions by looking at the things the homestuck characters say, is not going to work out.

even the homestuck book commentary where they speak in their own voice is a mixed bag of sincere and insincere statements CONSTANTLY. it is often very hard to parse when they are being serious and when they are trolling. so like. i dont know man. maybe hussie IS an ableist asshole who thinks disabled people should just, like, get over their disabilities and stop being so weak. i guess who is really to say.

i do think that regardless of how they actually feel, the jokes are distasteful and shouldn't be made. it certainly makes me uncomfortable.

tl;dr: i dont think that mituna and tavros are necessarily "disability punching bags". i think everything in homestuck is mostly just A Fucked Up Spectacle that we are supposed to ogle at and not take moral lessons from one way or the other. regardless of the intent, the content is distasteful and makes me uncomfortable and its valid to be upset about the treatment of these characters.

[tigger8900]

The Heaven & Earth Grocery Store, by James McBride

⭐⭐⭐⭐ 1/2

In 1930s America, Chicken Hill was a community of immigrants, with recent Jewish arrivals living and working side-by-side with the Black descendants of slaves taken from Africa a hundred years ago or more. Most residents would agree that the heart of the community was the grocery store run by a Jewish woman named Chona. But when Chona intervenes to protect a deaf black boy from institutionalization, a series of events are set in motion that would lead to the discovery, 40 years into the future, of human remains at the bottom of an abandoned well. The question of whose body it is and how it got down there can only be answered by tracing the actions of the entire community, as they come together in response to crisis.

This was the first book by James McBride that I've ever read, and if the rest of his books are anything like this one, I understand why he's so popular. This is a story that takes its time, circling repeatedly around the same events to examine them from multiple perspectives, before moving swiftly to cinch the plot tightly around the conclusion. But through all of the plot circling I never felt bored with it, because it was fascinating to get to know the community through the eyes of so many different individuals. I wouldn't go so far as to say the pacing is off, but you will need to bring patience for the slow build-up. It pays off in the final quarter of the story, but it's a journey to get there.

It's worth mentioning that, despite the dark elements in the story — and there are many — this book has a sharp sense of humor. It has to, because if we'd had to read through all of that heavy, grim subject matter without the tension breaking with a chuckle now and again, it would have been too much. That said, the dark parts are incredibly dark. Aside from the obvious racism and white supremacy present throughout, there's some not-so-obvious content, so I encourage readers to check warnings. Despite the negative attitudes expressed by many of the characters, I found the various groups depicted — Black people, Jewish people, and people with disabilities — to be treated with respect by the author.

Despite all the good, there were a few things I wasn't a huge fan of. First, there were some dangling plot elements that seemed to be set up and then forgotten about. For example, there was an ominous deal made out of the half of the note that Fatty dropped, but it ultimately seemed like it didn't matter. And there was also a recurring character who seemed to be set up for a big role in the events, but ultimately he re-entered the plot just before the climax kicked off only to chill off-screen. Don't get me wrong, the matter of who wound up down the well and why was answered in a completely satisfactory manner. But I got the vibe that some additional clarifying scenes had been cut, leaving me with lingering questions about some of the background action.

The other thing that stuck out to me were the occasional preachy asides, where McBride nudges aside the fourth wall to speak directly to the reader on some matter or another. I can't decide if I thought they added to or detracted from the narration. As much as I feel like the story's message should stand on its own without needing to be explained to the reader, I do realize that sometimes we have to hammer the point a bit more obviously to make sure it lands. So I'm conflicted on this.

Ultimately, this was a very good book that deserves every best-of spot it's been landing itself on. I went into it expecting a book about a combined Jewish and Black community standing up against white supremacy, but found a story about the power of community to come together when it matters to take care of each other, regardless of ethnicity or ability.

[gamerdog1]

Dororo Review

What is ‘metal’? ‘Metal’ is a phrase I see tossed around a lot lately, though its a bit hard to define. There really is no one definition of the phrase, because its more of a feeling than a true concept. Its something that, when you see it, you know what it is. To me, ‘metal’ means fighting against unbeatable odds, triumphing over something that seems impossible, and basking in it’s glory. It’s slicing the head of a dragon, and bathing in it’s blood. ‘Metal’ is not about the result, but the fight. With this in mind, the 2019 anime series Dororo is without a doubt a perfect example of ‘metal’.

The anime follows the tale of a lord in the Muromachi period, who, to bring prosperity to his lands, makes a deal with 12 demon gods that curses his son. He is born without eyes, ears, voice, skin, and limbs, and is left floating down the river, baby Moses style. He is rescued by a woodcarver, who fits him with high-quality prosthetics, allowing him to blend in with others. He is joined by the titular character, an orphaned boy who he saves, and the two travel the land to hunt down the demon lords and get back the teen’s body parts. 

Their journey is long, full of fearsome yokai that would make any monster enthusiast giddy. The designs of these monsters are rooted in Japanese mythology, yet feel fresh, like an old dog after a good haircut. They mix and match iconography, creating monsters that I’m a bit upset that I won’t be seeing them anymore, since they’re dead. A kitsune made of flame, a weasel with scythe-like claws, and a beetle that lives in a sand vortex are just a few of this series’ frightening and fascinating creatures that will stick in my mind for weeks to come.

What is most ‘metal’ in this series, though, goes beyond its gripping fight scenes and dramatic twists. Rather, it comes from it’s messaging, which clashes with its time period and the general culture of anime as a whole. Dororo is a series that explores the concepts of gender identity and disability with surprising grace and respect, something I wish a lot of other anime did.

Hyakkimaru’s story is one of struggle and identity. From the moment he is born, his body is viewed as an object of derision by his father and servants. Despite his lack of typical body part, though, he lives, by some sort of miracle. He is weak and vulnerable, but when given prosthetics by a kind and fatherly woodcarver, he is empowered, giving him the weapons he needs to slay his foes. While he cannot see in the typical sense, his view of the world allows him to detect hidden enemies that his allies are fooled by. Where other series would see a weakling who is one step away from death, Dororo shows that strength doesn’t come from your physical body, but from your fighting spirit. 

Hyakkimaru is not defined by his disability, though. The series is quick to dispel that idea as well, showing his prosthetics get destroyed or lost again and again, never slowing him down. At one point in the series, little Dororo gets his arm caught in some rocks after a landslide, and Hyakkimaru quickly rushes to try and push the rocks out of the way. When his prosthetic arm cracks, he keeps pushing, until it’s completely destroyed, and even then he keeps trying. Every time he defeats a demon lord, a prosthetic part painfully rips out and is replaced with flesh, reminding us of his struggle. Hyakkimaru’s path may be accomplished through the blades on his arms, but is perfectly capable of fighting without them. Though his iconic look may come from his artificial parts, his true strength goes beyond his disability. 

The most interesting part of this anime’s discussion of identity is with Dororo himself. Dororo is assigned female at birth, but for the entire series, identifies as male. The source manga treats this as a delusion, portraying Dororo as ‘confused’, and his ‘eventual’ womanhood as an inevitability. This anime, however, throws that out the window, and gives this character the proper respect he deserves, never once questioning his identity or forcing him to ‘become a woman’ in the end. Its refreshing to see an anime character who identifies as something other than what they were assigned at birth, and isn’t portrayed as incorrect for doing so. After years of transgender characters being the butt of every joke, I can smile knowing that the anime industry is starting to learn and grow in its portrayal of trans people. I can only hope that this is the start of a brighter future. 

So, what is ‘metal’? Perhaps the most ‘metal’ thing of all is the struggle against the body you were given ,to fight that which society tells you is unchangeable, something as old as you yourself. This body is yours, but you are not your body, this anime proudly says. If that isn’t ‘metal’, then I don’t know what is.