#anti-maiko

[yourhighness6]

I mentioned something about this awhile ago but it is absolutely incredible to me how Mai is an interesting and important character when the writers chose to explore her relationships with Ty Lee and Azula and the trauma she suffered when her parents tried to shove her into the role of perfect Fire Nation lady, but looses all of her dimensions the moment she was paired romantically with Zuko. It kind of reminds me of what happened with Katara in the comics.

[the-badger-mole]

"he'd be shockingly smooth"??? We saw him with Mai, he wasn't smooth. 🫤

I think basing that opinion on his relationship with Mai is selling him short. That relationship was bad because Mai didn't actually like him. She also didn't appreciate or reciprocate his small romantic gestures. That seashell thing? Absolute gold, and something that just came natuarally. But because Mai had a bug up her nose it went over like a lead balloon. That wasn't his fault. Like I said, Zuko in a relationship where his partner actually likes him would be smoother than a fresh jar of Skippy. I'm basing that on how well his date with Jin ended once he got out of his own head. Imagine if they'd been able to go out a couple more times. Jin would've melted over that lil' seashell. And that's exactly why I'm baffled by the amount of people who seem to think canon Maiko was the height of romance. She didn't seem to like the boy, and he felt it. And he acted accordingly. He was dating someone just like his father. Of course he was weird and awkward.

[iamfitzwilliamdarcy]

ok this one IS an explicitly anti-maiko post, I'm not sorry. The Beach is a great episode except that a lot of it doesn't actually land for me in terms of relationship dynamics, and the extremely obvious one is maiko.

This episode does a lot of work for trying to establish the Fire Nation kids group dynamics and their motivations and insecurities. It's really good, especially for Azula. It also is where Zuko first starts confronting returning to the Fire Nation was not going how he expected and his growing internal conflict. But background to this is also further establishing the Zuko/Mai relationship, and lemme just say-- I do not think the writers do a good job.

This got long esp because of transcript quotes, so I put it under a read more, but here we go

Throughout the episode, Zuko and Mai snipe at each other, culminating in a blowup argument and a breakup. And then they literally just kiss and make up at the end of the episode, without doing anything to fix the things that led to the break up in the first place.

So let's start with the argument, work backwards from there, and back to their resolution. This is the argument:

Mai [Angrily.] Zuko, what is wrong with you? Zuko What's wrong with me? Mai [Scolding.] Your temper is out of control. You blow up over every little thing. You're so impatient and hotheaded and angry! Zuko [Snapping back.] Well, at least I feel something, as opposed to you. [Frontal view from behind Mai.] You have no passion for anything! You're just a big blah! Mai [Turns away from Zuko.] It's over, Zuko. We're done.

Immediately preceding this, Zuko shoves the Fire Nation kid talking to Mai at the party. Zuko's been jealous of him all episode and it's frankly not entirely unfounded. Chan invites Ty Lee to his party, Ruon-Jian notices Mai and invites her too-- Zuko is ignored until Azula insists on getting them both invites as well. Zuko's jealousy is out of line, and getting suspicious Mai likes Ruon-Jian is too, I can see why Mai would be annoyed by that. I can also see why it would trigger Zuko getting so upset when he sees Ruon-Jian talking to her at the party.

I... have trouble believing Mai would actually be so mad/upset that Zuko shoved another guy. It's a little controlling, but it is exciting and she had just been saying she as bored. It would make more sense to me if Zuko had taken this out on her -- she can't talk to people, etc-- as a reason for being upset-- because that would go better with her personal family trauma revealed later in the episode about being controlled and stifled.

I also think it's interesting Mai says Zuko's temper is out of control because other then going after Ruon-Jian, he's not really angry in this episode? He's annoyed about being handled by his father, he's dismissive of Mai's negativity at the party, he is suspicious and jealous but he doesn't do anything outright and hot tempered until then. What is Mai basing this on?

(after this Zuko IS very mean to Ty Lee at the fireside but we have no in show evidence he was before)

We certainly address Zuko's anger later at the fireside-- he's in conflict with himself, he is angry at himself. They sort of address Mai not feeling things and being a big blah in the fireside scene -- I'm gonna put the long block quote here lol:

Zuko [Camera pans right. Getting up.] Yeah, you do not believe in anything. Mai [Close-up; sarcastically.] Oh, well, I'm sorry I can't be as high-strung and crazy as the rest of you. Zuko [Aerial view of campsite. Walking up to the campfire.] I'm sorry, too. I wish you would be high-strung and crazy for once instead of keeping all your feeling bottled up inside. [Frontal view.] She just called your aura dingy. Are you gonna take that? Mai [Aerial view of campsite. Leaning back.] What do you want from me? You want a teary confession about how hard my childhood was? Well, it wasn't. [Close-up.] I was a rich only child who got anything I wanted ... as long as I behaved [Cut to shot of the sky.] and sat still, and didn't speak unless spoken to. [Close-up of Zuko.] My mother said I had to keep out of trouble. We had my dad's political career to think about. Azula [Side-view of campsite.] Well, that's it, then. [Close-up.] You have a controlling mother who had certain expectations, and if you strayed from them, you were shut down. That's why you're afraid to care about anything, and why you can't express yourself. Mai [Frontal view.] You want me to express myself? [Stands up and yells.] Leave me alone! Zuko [Side-view of campsite. Frontal view of Zuko.] I like it when you express yourself. [Approaching, attempting to put a hand on her shoulder.] Mai [Frontal view.] Don't touch me! I'm still mad at you. [She sits.] Zuko [Side-view of Mai.] My life hasn't been that easy either, Mai. Mai: Whatever. That doesn't excuse the way you've been acting.

Anyway, again, "the way Zuko's been acting" isn't really obvious to me-- he's a little snide after their fight and that's mean. And even here, Zuko is (I think fairly earnestly) trying to give her an outlet and she's not moved by it. It's not until he confesses he's angry at himself that she seems to forgive him, and it's unclear exactly what has moved her about this --

Zuko [Close-up.] Because I'm confused. Because I'm not sure I know the difference between right and wrong anymore. Azula You're pathetic. Mai [View from behind Zuko.] I know one thing I care about. [Walks up to Zuko. Frontal view.] I care about you. [They kiss.]

Press X to doubt because the whole episode has not shown once that Mai cares about Zuko. In fact, it's shown her rebuffing all his attempts to connect with her and the arguing with him. The episode hasn't shown me one piece of evidence that Mai even likes Zuko. There's nothing that's changed between the start of the episode and now, except that Zuko's addressed why he's angry and who he's angry with-- but it doesn't explain why that would make Mai not mad at him anymore. They haven't addressed any of their earlier grievances, but once again the writers use a kiss to show us everything's all made up and fine now, I guess. A kiss isn't a resolution, but I mentioned in another post, Book 3 does this a lot!

Also it's weird to me to just ignore Zuko expressing his conflict-- Mai has no opinion about that? This becomes a point of conflict a bit later in The Boiling Rock episodes, where Mai tells Zuko he is betraying his country, but again it's never really satisfactorily addressed. Azula at least calls him pathetic -- which isn't nice but isn't ignoring it either.

I would even go as far to say Ty Lee is shown to care more about Zuko when she calls him out for burning the family portrait and it's Ty Lee who says "I know you." That line just really hits me as very meaningful, but they opted not to give it to Zuko's girlfriend, not even to his sister, but to Ty Lee.

SO that is all to say-- if this is supposed to be a Maiko episode, it doesn't land. All it does is lay seeds for their dysfunction and conflict, then refuses to resolve it.

[starlight-bread-blog]

💞🌷Find yourself someone who looks at you the way Zuko looks at Mai 🌷💞

[snogards]

I think it's really telling that the only ships I actively dislike and express disdain for in atla are 2 of the 3 canon ships

And sukka isn't one of them.

[mytoesfelloff]

Honestly what does Mai see in Zuko? He literally left her without a second thought and didn’t bother checking to see if she was ok after she risked her LIFE for him but he didn’t even have the decency to pretend to cry like that’s honestly not funny 😭💀 but it’s also kinda funny. He really let her rot in prison and she still took him back?? Girl what in the low self-esteem 🤦🏾‍♀️

[lilith-91]

Sometimes I do wonder if atla fandom like the REAL Zuko at all because the nonsense i'm reading about him....... 😭

"He's a prodigy" nope that's AZULA, that's the point of these two characters and he's also the weakest bender of the gaang

"He's friendly, charismatic and charming" that's Aang 😭

"He's the perfect boyfriend" he's possessive and jealous, that's why Mai dumped his ass and she was RIGHT

"He did nothing wrong" i'm not saying anything here lol

"He's the most mature person of the gaang" ??? PEOPLE BE SERIOUS

This character is crazy mischaracterized, like Aang actually 😭

[punkeropercyjackson]

I hate girlboss x malewife ships where it's a pathetic guy who's obsessed with a cool girl who's not nearly into him as he is her and people call it bisexuality.I want them BOTH down bad,i want them BOTH pampering eachother nonstop,i want them BOTH going to the ends of the earth for their love,i want them BOTH to be actual characters instead 'She's everything,he's just Ken' and acting like that's feminist instead of writing women as perfect and men as people.Forget girlboss x malewife,i want Equalit4ty

[burst-of-iridescent]

ana's meta masterlist

Pro-Zutara:

the official zutara dissertation: part 1 | part 2

zuko, aang and taking lightning for katara

zutara and romantic coding

"you rise with the moon, i rise with the sun" is a zutara line

zutara and thematic significance

zutara vs jetara

zutara parallels in the awakening

zutara's narrative culmination

zutara in the crossroads of destiny:

azula vs katara

love as resistance in the catacombs

zutara in the southern raiders:

the true source of katara's anger at zuko

katara bloodbending before zuko

the narrative relevance of zutara

zutara and bloodbending

zutara's narrative symmetry

why zuko had to betray katara in ba sing se

Anti Anti-Zutara:

the official zutara dissertation (p.3)

"zutara would face too much opposition from their countries"

"zuko and katara are a colonizer/colonized ship"

"zuko and katara would fight all the time”

"platonic zutara is better than romantic zutara"

"fire lady katara is racist"

“zuko would’ve taken lightning for anyone”

“katara is too traumatized by the fire nation”

ATLA Ship Criticism:

the official zutara dissertation: part 4 | part 5 | part 6

why mai.ko was never intended to be canon

mailee is a better ship than mai.ko

how kat.aang could've been fixed

kat.aang's lack of trust in the southern raiders

emotional labour in kat.aang

kat.aang’s narrative imbalance

comparing katara and aang's parenting

why the fortuneteller does not foreshadow kat.aang

ATLA/LOK:

azula/katara parallels

katara's choice in the crossroads of destiny

was zuko's betrayal in-character?

zuko's comments in the southern raiders

zuko's comments in the southern raiders (pt. 2)

zuko is not a “bad boy”

sokka didn't feel inferior to katara

did mai fear azula?

comparing mai and toph

sexism in the water tribes

thoughts on the atla comics

gratuitous violence in the legend of korra

The Hunger Games:

zutara and everlark parallels

zutara and everlark parallels (pt. 2)

gale's arc in the hunger games trilogy

the myth of humanity's inherent evil

the ending of lucy gray

Squid Game:

individualism under capitalism

the ethics of billionaires

[astriddestelle]

Unpopular opinion if Zuko wasn’t attractive Zutara wouldn’t be as popular as it is. There I said it. Zuko and Katara would be horrible together, aesthetically sure whatever but actually no.

Zuko who is known for his temper and impulsive tendencies with Katara who is just as impulsive and hot headed.

Lol they would crash and burn so fast. Water and fire don’t mix, opposites attract but that’s about it.

They would argue all the time after the honeymoon phase wore off, they both yell and get angry with their partners and wouldn’t stand to be yelled out without yelling back.

Aang and Mai both are for the most part calm when their partners get angry they help calm them down (more so Aang). Let them rant etc get it all out, take no offense to words said in anger (again more Aang than Mai)

Aang being rightfully distraught upon finding out he’s the last survivor of his people and that his only companion from his culture is gone isn’t the argument you think it is. Like who wouldn’t be mad. Also using Katara helping calm Aang down isn’t the gotcha you think it it. That’s what partners fucking do like. Bfs/gfs help each other clam down when acting irrational. It’s all oh I want a man who only I can calm down that’s such an ideal trope until it’s not your fave couple 🙄

I said what I said and this is coming from someone who used to love Zutara (still likes it? meh depend on the day)

[yourhighness6]

The writers really said, "Mai has felt extremely suppressed trying to fit into the box of perfect noblewoman" and then the m@iko fandom said, "Wouldn't it be so cute if she became fire lady and had to deal with the nobility for the rest of her life"

[the-badger-mole]

How do you see the friendship between Katara+Mai and Zuko+Aang

I don't see a reason why Katara and Mai would ever be friends. Mai is awful. She is a Karen stereotype. Katara's dislike of her would be sealed the first time she sees Mai ordering the servants around. Or when she sees how little Mai's opinion about Fire Nation supremacy has been examined or changed. Or when she sees how Mai treats Zuko. Mai wouldn't like Katara much either, after being on the receiving end of one of Katara's lectures about how people deserve to be treated, no matter what their job is. I don't believe that Mai and Zuko would remain friends post break up either, tbh.

As for Aang and Zuko, depends on the context. For instance, there's only a few of my own stories where Aang and Zuko would remain close. At best they'd be cordial, at worst, it would be on sight for Zuko. If you told me they remained friends in canon until Aang died, I'd say, "why?" I don't think Aang as he was written would've remained super close with any of the Gaang. He's not a good friend to any of them.

[iamfitzwilliamdarcy]

I really can't believe the writers had Ty Lee be the one to call out Zuko caring about the family portrait burning and say "I know you" and i'm somehow supposed to believe this is a maiko episode??

[starlight-bread-blog]

Zuko Doesn't Like 𝖬𝖺𝗂's Apathy

But I already hear you say, "These lines are from fights. He's angry and says things he normally wouldn't". I would argue that even though he's angry, his anger has to stem from some truth, but okay.

Here he's trying to appeal to 𝖬𝖺𝗂, appreciaying her, and is doing so through the one time she isn't her normal, apathetic self. Clearly he likes her, but he wishes she was someone else.

But you know who does have passion? Who does express herself?

[akiizayoi4869]

Can someone please explain to me why so many people in this fandom seem to take Mai’s joke to Zuko in the finale so seriously? I promise you it wasn't a serious death threat. Also, about her poking him being "terrible" because she could have hurt him even more than he already was....

She literally pokes his shoulder. The wound was on his chest or right below it, I can't really remember. Either way, she poked him nowhere near his injury. Also, Zuko himself very clearly didn't take her "threat" seriously at all, considering the fact that they both kiss immediately after she says this to him.

Had he actually felt threatened, he wouldn't have kissed her. But since ya'll are in the habit of taking a joke to the extremes, should we take Zuko's joke during the Southern Raiders episode about chasing the gaang around again to make it feel like "old times", seriously? Interesting to think about.

[sneezypeasy]

Why I Deliberately Avoided the "Colonizer" Argument in my Zutara Thesis - and Why I'll Continue to Avoid it Forever

This is a question that occasionally comes up under my Zutara video essay, because somehow in 2 hours worth of content I still didn't manage to address everything (lol.) But this argument specifically is one I made a point of avoiding entirely, and there are some slightly complicated reasons behind that. I figure I'll write them all out here.

From a surface-level perspective, Zuko's whole arc, his raison d'etre, is to be a de-colonizer. Zuko's redemption arc is kinda all about being a de-colonizer, and his redemption arc is probably like the most talked about plot point of ATLA, so from a basic media literacy standpoint, the whole argument is unsound in the first place, and on that basis alone I find it childish to even entertain as an argument worth engaging with, to be honest.

(At least one person in my comments pointed out that if any ship's "political implications" are problematic in some way, it really ought to be Maiko, as Mai herself is never shown or suggested to be a strong candidate for being a de-colonizing co-ruler alongside Zuko. If anything her attitudes towards lording over servants/underlings would make her… a less than suitable choice for this role, but I digress.)

But the reason I avoided rebutting this particular argument in my video goes deeper than that. From what I've observed of fandom discourse, I find that the colonizer argument is usually an attempt to smear the ship as "problematic" - i.e., this ship is an immoral dynamic, which would make it problematic to depict as canon (and by extension, if you ship it regardless, you're probably problematic yourself.)

And here is where I end up taking a stand that differentiates me from the more authoritarian sectors of fandom.

I'm not here to be the fandom morality police. When it comes to lit crit, I'm really just here to talk about good vs. bad writing. (And when I say "good", I mean structurally sound, thematically cohesive, etc; works that are well-written - I don't mean works that are morally virtuous. More on this in a minute.) So the whole colonizer angle isn't something I'm interested in discussing, for the same reason that I actually avoided discussing Katara "mothering" Aang or the "problematic" aspects of the Kataang ship (such as how he kissed her twice without her consent). My whole entire sections on "Kataang bad" or "Maiko bad" in my 2 hour video was specifically, "how are they written in a way that did a disservice to the story", and "how making them false leads would have created valuable meaning". I deliberately avoided making an argument that consisted purely of, "here's how Kataang/Maiko toxic and Zutara wholesome, hence Zutara superiority, the end".

Why am I not willing to be the fandom morality police? Two reasons:

I don't really have a refined take on these subjects anyway. Unless a piece of literature or art happens to touch on a particular issue that resonates with me personally, the moral value of art is something that doesn't usually spark my interest, so I rarely have much to say on it to begin with. On the whole "colonizer ship" subject specifically, other people who have more passion and knowledge than me on the topic can (and have) put their arguments into words far better than I ever could. I'm more than happy to defer to their take(s), because honestly, they can do these subjects justice in a way I can't. Passing the mic over to someone else is the most responsible thing I can do here, lol. But more importantly:

I reject the conflation of literary merit with moral virtue. It is my opinion that a good story well-told is not always, and does not have to be, a story free from moral vices/questionable themes. In my opinion, there are good problematic stories and bad "pure" stories and literally everything in between. To go one step further, I believe that there are ways that a romance can come off "icky", and then there are ways that it might actually be bad for the story, and meming/shitposting aside, the fact that these two things don't always neatly align is not only a truth I recognise about art but also one of those truths that makes art incredibly interesting to me! So on the one hand, I don't think it is either fair or accurate to conflate literary "goodness" with moral "goodness". On a more serious note, I not only find this type of conflation unfair/inaccurate, I also find it potentially dangerous - and this is why I am really critical of this mindset beyond just disagreeing with it factually. What I see is that people who espouse this rhetoric tend to encourage (or even personally engage in) wilful blindness one way or the other, because ultimately, viewing art through these lens ends up boxing all art into either "morally permissible" or "morally impermissible" categories, and shames anyone enjoying art in the "morally impermissible" box. Unfortunately, I see a lot of people responding to this by A) making excuses for art that they guiltily love despite its problematic elements and/or B) denying the value of any art that they are unable to defend as free from moral wickedness.

Now, I'm not saying that media shouldn't be critiqued on its moral virtue. I actually think morally critiquing art has its place, and assuming it's being done in good faith, it absolutely should be done, and probably even more often than it is now.

Because here's the truth: Sometimes, a story can be really good. Sometimes, you can have a genuinely amazing story with well developed characters and powerful themes that resonate deeply with anyone who reads it. Sometimes, a story can be all of these things - and still be problematic.*

(Or, sometimes a story can be all of those things, and still be written by a problematic author.)

That's why I say, when people conflate moral art with good art, they become blind to the possibility that the art they like being potentially immoral (or vice versa). If only "bad art" is immoral, how can the art that tells the story hitting all the right beats and with perfect rhythm and emotional depth, be ever problematic?

(And how can the art I love, be ever problematic?)

This is why I reject the idea that literary merit = moral virtue (or vice versa) - because I do care about holding art accountable. Even the art that is "good art". Actually, especially the art that is "good art". Especially the art that is well loved and respected and appreciated. The failure to distinguish literary critique from moral critique bothers me on a personal level because I think that conflating the two results in the detriment of both - the latter being the most concerning to me, actually.

So while I respect the inherent value of moral criticism, I'm really not a fan of any argument that presents moral criticism as equivalent to literary criticism, and I will call that out when I see it. And from what I've observed, a lot of the "but Zutara is a colonizer ship" tries to do exactly that, which is why I find it a dishonest and frankly harmful media analysis framework to begin with.

But even when it is done in good faith, moral criticism of art is also just something I personally am neither interested nor good at talking about, and I prefer to talk about the things that I am interested and good at talking about.

(And some people are genuinely good at tackling the moral side of things! I mean, I for one really enjoyed Lindsay Ellis's take on Rent contextualising it within the broader political landscape at the time to show how it's not the progressive queer story it might otherwise appear to be. Moral critique has value, and has its place, and there are definitely circumstances where it can lead to societal progress. Just because I'm not personally interested in addressing it doesn't mean nobody else can do it let alone that nobody else should do it, but also, just because it can and should be done, doesn't mean that it's the only "one true way" to approach lit crit by anyone ever. You know, sometimes... two things… can be true… at once?)

Anyway, if anyone reading this far has recognised that this is basically a variant of the proship vs. antiship debate, you're right, it is. And on that note, I'm just going to leave some links here. I've said about as much as I'm willing/able to say on this subject, but in case anyone is interested in delving deeper into the philosophy behind my convictions, including why I believe leftist authoritarian rhetoric is harmful, and why the whole "but it would be problematic in real life" is an anti-ship argument that doesn't always hold up to scrutiny, I highly recommend these posts/threads:

In general this blog is pretty solid; I agree with almost all of their takes - though they focus more specifically on fanfic/fanart than mainstream media, and I think quite a lot of their arguments are at least somewhat appropriate to extrapolate to mainstream media as well.

I also strongly recommend Bob Altemeyer's book "The Authoritarians" which the author, a verified giga chad, actually made free to download as a pdf, here. His work focuses primarily on right-wing authoritarians, but a lot of his research and conclusions are, you guessed it, applicable to left-wing authoritarians also.

And if you're an anti yourself, welp, you won't find support from me here. This is not an anti-ship safe space, sorrynotsorry 👆

In conclusion, honestly any "but Zutara is problematic" argument is one I'm likely to consider unsound to begin with, let alone the "Zutara is a colonizer ship" argument - but even if it wasn't, it's not something I'm interested in discussing, even if I recognise there are contexts where these discussions have value. I resent the idea that just because I have refined opinions on one aspect of a discussion means I must have (and be willing to preach) refined opinions on all aspects of said discussion. (I don't mean to sound reproachful here - actually the vast majority of the comments I get on my video/tumblr are really sweet and respectful, but I do get a handful of silly comments here and there and I'm at the point where I do feel like this is something worth saying.) Anyway, I'm quite happy to defer to other analysts who have the passion and knowledge to give complicated topics the justice they deserve. All I request is that care is taken not to conflate literary criticism with moral criticism to the detriment of both - and I think it's important to acknowledge when that is indeed happening. And respectfully, don't expect me to give my own take on the matter when other people are already willing and able to put their thoughts into words so much better than me. Peace ✌

*P.S. This works for real life too, by the way. There are people out there who are genuinely not only charming and likeable, but also generous, charitable and warm to the vast majority of the people they know. They may also be amazing at their work, and if they have a job that involves saving lives like firefighting or surgery or w.e, they may even be the reason dozens of people are still alive today. They may honestly do a lot of things you'd have to concede are "good" deeds.

They may be all of these things, and still be someone's abuser. 🙃

Two things can be true at once. It's important never to forget that.