#because we can't be granted the opportunity to actually have personalities outside of our suffering.

[apollos-olives]

before october 7th this blog was a meme page btw.

[horizon-verizon]

You probably misunderstood me. You are right that from a purely objective view Rhaenyra should have been a Queen. But as a reader, I see a woman who was given that unique chance and blew it. Blew it so hard that her ancestors are ashamed of her. You know, it is like if a young woman is enrolled to some college where traditionally only men are applied (imagine this hypothetical major). She was given that chance but instead of studying, she took drugs, partied, cheated and missed her lectures. She was expelled from college and they banned from enrolling all women. Unfair? Yes. But I can't say that girl was a pure victim.

*EDIT (5/31/24): Rhaenyra suffers from really bad sexist writing on GRRM's, not just the maesters', part and it undermines his own point.* And no, she doesn't need to be necessarily "moral" like Dany to be a deserving ruler.

The point of her story was to highlight how no matter how good or evil or morally ambiguous a person you are, if you are female, you are subject to losing a power men are just granted. Or usurped. And this is inherently wrong. Rhaenyra chose to go to war rather than give up. This is valuable. Visenya was not thinking "for the realm" or for the benefit of smallfolk or outside of her family, yet she as so many fans bc she was not passive or restricted by "madness". She has less sexist writing.

In light of all the above, there is something weird with characterizing the "opportunity" as something a woman can have if she just acts like a "good woman-ruler", as this asker actually pointed out back in January:

A war that has once again been started / provoked by the Greens, because they have fomented a usurpation and usurped the rightful heiress. From the moment the Greens began a plot, war was all but inevitable if they achieved their goal, as it was inevitable that the Blacks would retaliate. They are responsible for this war, it is a fact. [...]

The fact is, the Greens attacked the FIRST, then fought hard, until it led to the fucking war in question. In this scenario, how does Rhaenyra have a real share of responsibility in the birth of the conflict / war? Or even Blacks more generally?

[...] Also, why would Rhaenyra have to be a "revolutionary feminist" according to some, to deserve this fucking throne exactly? Seriously, when I argue that the Greens attacked first, with power greed and misogyny as their primary motives, and are therefore by extensions the antagonists/villains of the story, this bullshit of "but Rhaenyra n 'isn't a feminist who will revolutionize Westeros' is almost systematically released as a response, as if it were a real argument? We do not care ? That's just not the point of what they're saying. Again, there's this completely dumb notion that since Rhaenyra is a woman, then she must earn her inheritance. She has to prove that she will be better than the others, and not just be a ruler who will keep the kingdom possibly stable, etc. This argument is simply another mani manifestation of the misogyny of some fans. The problem being that we have no idea how Rhaenyra's reign would have actually been, simply because she wasn't herself when she got the throne, and she was getting worse and worse because of of all that she had taken in the face and what she continued to take. We don't have the means to know if she could have improved certain things for women, if she would have simply kept the kingdom stable and prosperous, or if she would have been a bad queen anyway.

If she acts according to our (the patriarchal "lords"/the greens) standards and purview, she is a good leader.

I'm not saying that she should have never tried to be more strategic, pragmatic, and/or active in the politics and court of KL. That she should just not learn how to chess-move people so she could prevent, say, Alicent's green council.

What I am saying is that Alicent had effectively made KL an environment hostile to her children's development and has undermined Rhaenyra's ability to practice power since the woman was 10 and Rhaenyra had some reasons to not stay in KL even after Viserys cut his hand and grew worse.

AND

That she didn't is GRRM's fault, not really hers, because in real history luxurious and "entitled" noblewomen like Olga of Kiev, Urraca of Castile, Elizabeth I, etc. still did stuff and participated in war even when they didn't fight with any of their soldeirs just as many male nobles didn't actually fight w/their soldiers [read the post I linked above in the "EDIT" space, I explain!!!]

AND

If you begin a group/community/etc.'s hostility or disfavor and suspicion against a person since their childhood, they are going to have a very difficult time in independently gathering followers.

Basically, if you are in a setting that makes it that much harder for people to just either be or to do what they want without being castigated or threatened, you increase the likelihood of that person being incompetent or of worse moral character bc that person will default to selfishness real quick in a world that already says you must be authoritative and cruel and selfish to "win". You are definitely accountable, but you have also been shaped. you've been shaped and cornered and developed into a worse moral character, but to blame things that were out of the person's hands on them is unfair.

A)

You: "You know, it is like if a young woman is enrolled to some college where traditionally only men are applied (imagine this hypothetical major). She was given that chance but instead of studying, she took drugs, partied, cheated and missed her lectures. She was expelled from college and they banned from enrolling all women."

The issue, anon, is that the privilege to be a monarch has its legitimization from militaristic quasi-religious beliefs. It's not about deserving based on merit, and the prize is not a career but the total domination of a whole group of groups of people.

Both situations have women entering an institution of some sort historically & traditionally granted only to men, but feudal monarchies are never as altruistic as we want. Being a leader of a nation based on the right of blood; it's almost inevitable that your claimants be monarchists and not feminist democrats or the like. You're likely going to get people who believe in at least some crucial parts of the ideologies their world organizes itself on. Doesn't excuse rape or racism, for example, it's just that I find it strange how one expects most/all persons put in front of them in a text or real life to be as progressive as they want them to be. Again, we're talking about human behavior & recognizing constraints/social norms being used against women for the sake of power and social control, not how her moral fiber defines how much we sympathize with her and if she deserves help based on how sorry we feel for her.

1.

Because this modern 19th-century/20th-century girl/woman already voluntarily enrolled in the school to fulfilling both her personal career and sociopolitical goals, having known through her experience, observation, and education.

A girl in your scenario having a psychological breakdown is likelier due to outside/societal pressures not wanting her to succeed and trouble male privilege and authority's norm (thus she faces near-ubiquitous censure since she still lives in a society where both men and women take exception to a woman doing "man" things) or an intentional evil plot/conspiracy. She already knows what she's up against, why would such a thing happen if not for external forces?

2.

I think that there is a thin, subtle line between making women a monolith/a female individual a representative of all women's capabilities and discerning how a woman's capabilities are perceived to exist through an already patriarchal understanding of women=less-than.

On the one hand, the world of this woman--she is the first woman to be in a male field/space--makes her sit so that people eye her for her ability to go against expectations of her abilities. Materially, she has some sort of responsibility that she makes it through so that other girls and women can feel that such is possible for them, that if they press hard enough they can also achieve things and resist patriarchal pressures against their desires. However, at the same time and once more, much/enough of the audience observing and watching the boundary-crossing is looking at it hoping and actively compromising so they may "prove" how women "like her"/all women should be barred from male-given things AND Rhaenyra cannot be much of an example if people have usurped her and totally blocked her for just being a woman.

In other words, this one woman is made to stand for all women because society already makes "woman" into an entity without diversity, without personality, with personhood and human vulnerability or grace of development and psychology. If a woman breaks apart publicly, it's likelier she'd get called "crazy" or be described as "throwing a tantrum" while also expected to not handle huge responsibilities without male accompaniment, as if she were a child that's also meant to conform her behavior entirely to what others want from her in their own designs, no matter the inspirations for her feelings and goals.

Rhaenyra is not reviled for her taxes in broader/later history, but because the councilors of Aegon III's regency saw that "risking" the throne for a woman was not worth it. Especially with what happens to Baela, with Aegon's council trying to marry her off and criticizing her for acting "unseemly" by hanging out with men, drinking, maybe sleeping around, and definitely flirting and daring to run away and choosing for herself a husband. Munkun saw her actions as "proving" that the woman ruling was chaotic by nature.

3.

Let's consider what happened with the first female marathon runner, Kathrine Switzer, in the 1967 Boston Marathon. She was "allowed" to run but discouraged and criticized for it by her boyfriend and even her own coach at turns before and during the actual run. The organizer, John Semple, shouted and tried to intimidate her, even hitting the coach show trying to protect her and stop him from running her off--during the race. Other people actively tried to stop her from running or felt it was their right to slow her down to get pictures.

Later this same guy (Semple) would try to make it as if he only wanted her to not "mess up" "his" race and was afraid she'd ruin it. Do we actually think that your female student at a male college would not face such discrimination and scare tactics almost daily? Kathrine Switzer, while doing the rune and a little afterward, even blamed herself for much of the abuse she faced. But I don't think that makes her a bad person or even weak. And since she is human, I'm sure she had her moments in her private life. Does this then mean that she wasn't a victim of misogyny and active attempts to disempower her? No, she still faced people trying to deny her autonomy, therefore she was a victim, but a victim who continued and managed to find some

Switzer definitely managed to actually finish and show female autonomy on her own terms by racing despite these things, but she, unlike Rhaenyra, this form of social backlash occurs from the time a girl understands social cues. What happens with Switzer is, I think I can say figuratively, a high-intense microcosm of what happens to girls and women all the time: constant intimidation, belittling, discouragements, and even manipulations to get them to over-compromise or give in to hidden/semi-unconscious desires for control over them/exclusion. How one finds and maintains that strength and focus is always subject to circumstances that shift in constant reflections and response to the environment, which .

If it feels like Rhaenyra was overly unaware, it's because GRRM made her too unwilling to respond to things a bit quicker or anticipate making her fall concentratedly and quickly. I say this because it was necessary--writing-wise in his vision--for Rhaenyra to begin to fall by some sort of action-inaction (Othello and tragedy writing).

4.

What is a "pure victim"? One that does no evil or questionable actions independently with or without provocation at any point in their life, or one that only ever is victimized without trying to take control back after victimization?

At first, there is no such thing as a person, someone who hasn't done something at least amoral once in their lives. In the second option, what do you truly expect a victim to do, sit and take it? And what happens when humans try to take back control after being victimized?

Some like Alicent do worse evils and abuse others, some do more serious things but also strive to be more altruistic, and some aren't so altruistic. In all of these options, there are always mistakes being made, errors, and misunderstandings because that person is navigating how to gain and keep power, riding the line of self-reservation vs helping others without expectation of immediate gain. This is not as easy as it seems since you first have to have an understanding of who you are, which might have been messed up from your trauma and which you must entangle while living life and surviving. In other words, it's a treacherous road of going back and forth by itself. Some will falter, some will "fail", and some will "succeed"; but I don't think what makes you less human is that failure/faltering. Of course, Rhaenyra is not "perfect" nor a "perfect victim"--why should she, for me feel even somewhat bad for her, or blame most of her troubles on the patriarchy that denigrated her in the first place and had set up several of every same challenge that she had to directly face in order to gain power?

There is no such thing as a "pure" victim and there never will be (as in a victim that has no accountability for their own actions, as they are still human beings of some intelligence and cognition). There is just victim who must live on with their traumas and make a life for themselves. Again, Rhaenyra became a tyrant towards the end AND the act against Nettles was still blood purity rearing its head so she can take back control during paranoia, as I state in this Twitter thread. At the same time, she definitely came to the point she was at from misogyny and direct attacks from childhood. Two things are true at once.

B)

There is a kind and level of scrutiny on Rhaenyra and woman who take on traditionally male-reserved positions (context here, Westerosi monarchy) that has two sides: the woman-as-social-troubler has to work harder to stay in power AND yet, why should she have to "convince" others that she is worthy, esp when many will never be convinced and she will always be less preferred than a mediocre man? The story presents us with this question. She "works harder" precisely bc people will doubt her and try to stymie/block her hypothetically made moves. So there's going to be a perennial back-and-forth. And as we see with Cersei, Catherine the Great, & Elizabeth I, one even can see that a female ruler decided to/pressured-by-circumstances to eschew "ordinary" femininity and claim NLOGness.

That scrutiny she gets is still a colored one, one that is made from an idea of what leadership looks like and it is a masculine/militant and assertive-aggressive kind. Even Alicent's directing the city is publicly not for her but for her son, so it's acceptable. that what Alicent wants and sees her way to power, through her son. People in Westeros are not looking at Alicent as a leader in her own right; they're looking at her as a mother and wife to Kings who hang back and think of ways to defend those men's properties.

C)

I agree that there was a kind of "opportunity" for Rhaenyra or any woman there but (scroll down to section D to get to the main point faster) and think or imply that all or most of her ancestors were primarily interested in female leadership and the death of blood purity is false.

Check this post out by la-pheacienne, who writes how like in Greek Tragedy Rhaenyra is the protagonist: "Both characters [Alicent & Rhaenyra of HotD] have reasons behind their actions but there has to be only one character that is in the right, and that is Rhaenyra. Both characters will be punished for their errors, the hero will suffer because of the antagonist first of all, and their own errors of judgement (tragic flaws) and the antagonist will then suffer for their vile deeds in relation to the hero. That's a Greek tragedy. Simple."

I feel like Rhaenyra was in a place similar to a glass cliff sort of thing:

University of Houston psychology professor Kristin J. Anderson says companies may offer glass cliff positions to women because they consider women "more expendable and better scapegoats." She says the organizations that offer women tough jobs believe they win either way: if the woman succeeds, the company is better off. If she fails, the company is no worse off, she can be blamed, the company gets credit for having been egalitarian and progressive, and can return to its prior practice of appointing men. Haslam and Ryan say their studies show that people believe women are better suited to lead stressed, unhappy companies because they are felt to be more nurturing, creative, and intuitive. These researchers argue that female leaders are not necessarily expected to improve the situation, but are seen as good people managers who can take the blame for organizational failure.

While Rhaenyra is not subject to a capitalist company of main men, there is the same pattern of using women to mark women as unnatural leaders but also using their labor.

There was also an "opportunity" for Aenys I, Maegor I, Alyssa Velaryon, and Jaehaerys I to all push forward female candidates for the throne or heirship...but all decided against it to hold onto power. It's funny how this never gets mentioned in this discussion of their introducing a female ruler into the Westerosi society, that it rested on this one woman. you know some of those ancestors mentioned as having been "disappointed" in her because she supposedly was just not up to snuff. IT doesn't really matter that for generations, women have been purposefully barred from taking the throne and that over time, the Andal preference and precedence of amel-only got stronger and stronger, thus making more problems for any female official heir, later on, to be seen as worthy enough even before she ever attempts to present herself. It's like we have forgotten what happened to Rhaenys, how she and Corlys both worked hard to convince the lords and it still not working out for them, with th votes going nearly unanimously for Viserys!

Yeah, she could have seen the chance to make sure that women could rule easier everywhere else...but you're underestimating how gruesome that task was.

D)

You: "Blew it so hard that her ancestors are ashamed of her."

Anon, which ancestors? Jaehaerys? He would have been more upset that Viserys dared to name her, even over Daemon! He refused to name his firstborn, a girl, his heir, he rather call a council to make sure others chose a mal heir for him than name Rhaenys heir, he passed over her the first time by naming his son as heir and would have kept right of the first night if he hadn't been pressed by both Alysanne and Septon Barth, and it was Septon Barth who finally convinced him. He refused to give as much attention to his daughters as his sons, didn't give them any military or political training or made sure they had equal training so that Alyssa, who wanted to be a warrior, eventually focuses more on birthing Baelon kids. He psychologically tortured Saera in a way to make her submit to his designs on her marriages, when her actions obviously come from him not fully considering her a true agent or full person. He rushed Daella into marriage and pressured Alysanne to marry her off to just anyone, thus the girl married a man more than 20 years her senior before she ever reached 17. And she died in childbirth. Had no relationship at all with Gael.

Again, you must notice how Targ women lose more and more confidence in their rule/autonomous rule/political education with each new generation, right? Naerys and Rhaella are martially raped and have no power to their names whatsoever, relying on male relatives or having none and totally exposed to abuse with little-to-no haven. That's Aenys, Maegor, and Jaehaerys' fault, which I already stated. Maegor would have done what he did to Rhaena and denied her power by marrying her or just imprisoning her. Aenys would not have named her heir at all, thus Rhaenyra doesn't get to even acrue power for herself.

None of her ruling male ancestors would have wanted her to even rule in the first place! They would be "disappointed" no matter what. Maybe except for Aegon I, but again what happened with Rhaenyra is so much more than these individuals' expectations and resulted from their actions.

And as for the female members: Visenya would have hated that Jaehaerys compromised so hard like Aenys, and removed so much of female power. What would she have done after Maegor killed his own nephew, Viserys, after torturing him for days to draw Alyssa Velaryon out with Jaehaerys and their kids? What would Visenya have done if she saw Maegor

Maybe her sister Rhaenys has some "disappointment" in Rhaenyra not seeing, not going to hold you, over Rosby and Stokeowrth. The thing is that even with the rule of six and thumb that she herself enacted, it didn't completely erase men beating their wives because a total raze of Andal traditions would not be politically expedient to her and her sibling's new rule and hold on power, so Rhaenys would have some hypocrisy for her disappointment. Since Rhaenyra was thinking of her own hold on power during a civil war where anything could happen and had a true competitor, unlike the first 3 conquerors, at her door, I think Rhaenys might also consider this and look more broadly, recognize the similar-to-worsened conditions present. But I also think she would see how far women fell off in the dynasty and think of more than just Rhaenyra's personal decisions.

--Digression?--

Visenya and Rhaenys would be horrified that Rhaenyra had to fight at all for her position while side-eyeing her dumb choices, but still going for her and approving of her sentence of her claim of power despite those against her. Visenya would definitely be less understanding of her paranoia, as she's all about strength and competence. Then again, she herself gave too much advantage to Maegor even before he became king because she loved he was technically more hers to love and be loved by. What would Visenya have done if Maegor had died prematurely? Would she also have gone bloodthirsty and raze the earth (figuratively and literally)? By how she reacted to Rhaenys' death, if Maegor died prematurely, there's a chance she's going ballistic?

No Visenya could have insisted that Rhaenyra marry Aegon. But with Rhaenys being 10 years older and having to wait at least until Aegon was 13 (Maegor was 13 when he married Ceryse and Viserys II impregnated 19-yr-old Larra of Lys when he was under 13), how long until then would Alicent have plotted and undermined her, cutting away her influence or going against her more and more, turning Aegon from her as she does in canon and what then? Or would Visenya force/convince Viserys to train Rhaenyra to become a better leader all her own so she could rule over the incompetent Aegon/Westeros, because again she hated incompetence and Rhaenyra would be the actual adult doing things?

--END of Digression--

Alysanne has her own complicated issues with women expecting/seeking power through her relationship with her older sister, and her other daughters. She also tried hard to get women and girls in her family to have the same access to power as the males. She was also intelligent enough to become a maester (as the maester-written account categorizes "intelligence"). If she looked at Rhaenyra, she'd likely be glad there was a female heir but prefer it to be Rhaenys, true, because Rhaenyra is younger and it should have gone to Rhaenys anyway. But ALysanne asserted girls' right to rule not from t heir inteeligence or lask thereof--bc boys don't have to be to be "n0minated". She never expressed conditions on the firstborn girls she wanted to be Queen.

And all of these women and men simply did not live as Rhaenyra lived or lived during a time when misogyny was so set in the systems and against them that they could judge Rhaenyra impartially. Truly, we can't 100% rely on any of these people's perspectives of her. And all of them still did sibling/incest marriages for the sake of keeping their blood "pure" just as Westerosi/Andal peoples did. this is a feudal dynasty, anon.

E)

These posts: #1; #2; #3.

*EDIT* (8/21/23):

THIS is a great post by mononijikayu about medieval queens, female rulers, the history of how women in leadership positions were made and seen as threats to the very structure of social "order", and contextualizing Rhaenyra thru Empress Matilda. I didn't even know about Matilda's husband being comparable to Rhaneyra's Daemon! PLZ READ!!!!

Excerpt:

just as much, along with these fictitious portrayals, more lies are depicted. these women are considered vixens that cause havoc to men by shifting them into desires and danger. through the written word, we see how women are cast in roles of villains in men’s lives. it is because by their conclusive thoughts, women are the only creatures that are able to turn ‘good honorable men’ into despicable creatures who do shameful, deplorable acts for the sake of women’s pleasures.  [...] it is within this narrative that ancient chroniclers declare that women were in fact the doom of men. if they were not able to control the dangers posed by the wiles of women, then the foundations of the mighty society they had built would be up in flames.  [...] as i mentioned, these factors of community are written down and preserved. and with that, the example of the ancients were the foundations by which medieval society built itself. the same concepts continued to cause the same issue within society and that was the exclusion of women from participating in the bigger picture of community and state, much so with governing states in their own right—without judgment or disapproval. 

[bigskydreaming]

I was about to say, I can't see Jason letting his guard down as much as intoxication would. I CAN see Jason drinking apple juice and pretending to be drunk. (Funny how I can remember Dick drinking, never more than one or two drinks, and Jason refusing wine, but the fanfic writers get it al wrong.)

Yeah, tbh, I don’t really see any of the Batkids ever being or becoming even casual drinkers. They all value control too much, and have too much experience with mind and mood-altering substances for it to be appealing to them in my personal opinion. 

Just my personal headcanon is like, they tend to treat drinking as like, another skill to acquire. They try it to maybe just have enough experience with it that they can fake it undercover and know what they’re doing, or that if they end up in a situation where they have to take at least a quick drink to sell their cover like, they’re not going to be totally blind-sided by the taste or sensation, especially because most of their reputations don’t or aren’t likely to lend themselves to being completely unfamiliar with alcohol. And maybe they occasionally make an point to build up a tolerance in case for some reason they need it, but I honestly can’t really ever buy any of them as casual drinkers.

I mean, I focus a lot on Dick’s times brainwashed or under someone else’s control, and also his rigid insistence on self-determination in his life, and I just can’t honestly see any mindset where he’s like yes, lowering my inhibitions and lessening my ability to be in control of myself is exactly what I’m looking for. Its kinda like how I drastically disagree with takes on him as submissive in any kind of dom/sub fic, lol. Its not about the partner, its about the fact that Dick isn’t the kind of control freak who looks for opportunities to take a break from the stresses of holding such an iron control over his self.....rather, IMO, Dick is that way BECAUSE of how often he’s had virtually NO control of himself or what happens to him, and how much that always....sucks for him. 

He tries to maintain self-control and control stuff in his life wherever and whenever he can because he’s not about to lose any of the basically rare opportunities to not HAVE to push back against someone else’s will or expectations for him, where he can just be uncontested in being in charge of his autonomy and own destiny. And I honestly have never seen anything in his character that suggests he’d ever remotely be looking for or welcome to opportunities to basically just....willingly hand over the control of himself that he fights soooo damn hard to obtain and maintain....because when has that EVER ended well for him, you know? So I just....don’t buy sub Dick and never have, and I don’t buy Dick as a casual drinker even, for pretty much the same exact reasons.

Jason I see as a bit more complicated, because of a couple factors. First, there’s the presence of drugs and alcohol in his early life and how much that affected his life as just a bystander, essentially. And its not like every child of an alcoholic parent grows up to be hostile to alcohol, etc. But in Jason’s case I feel that he would be, like he’d almost personify drugs and alcohols as an actual antagonist in his life that have made him suffer, been the actual enemy that prevented him from having a real go at a family with his first parents. And thus he’d just be viciously opposed to them in their entirety, like even as a expansive, nebulous concept of them and everything related to them. Which would also play into things like his insistence that drug dealers in Gotham not sell to kids, etc.

Also, there’s the fact that Jason kinda ended up with....gap years in his development, where the normal linear timeline of developing as a teenager was derailed by his death and then supplanted by a very unorthodox later development that was guided by assassins and influenced by an external-turned-internal force that had a definite influence on his emotions and thought patterns at times. So Jason kinda missed out on a number of years where he could have potentially worked through a lot of his childhood issues with abuse, his parents and drugs and alcohol to a degree further than he did in canon, but just......never got the opportunity to. So it was like....hitting pause on all of that and then unpause when he actually came back to Gotham and rejoined society in his own way, as that put him around these kinds of things again and forced an internal confrontation with how he felt about them now.

And then there’s also the matter of the Pit itself.....much like Dick, but in entirely different ways, Jason has been extremely impacted by things that are not his fault or choosing, that originate OUTSIDE of him and end up controlling or influencing him internally, again through no choice of his own.....and thus, same as Dick, I don’t see how any substance that lessened his control over himself during the times he actually HAS it, would like....remotely appeal to him.

But then again on the other hand, I do think Jason is very self-destructive at times, not more so than Dick, as he can be very self-destructive as well, but just in different ways. Like, Dick IMO is someone who self-destructs quietly and over time. Suffering in silence, not availing himself of any of the opportunities he has to get help from others in various matters because he either doesn’t trust that they’ll prioritize him or he doesn’t feel that he deserves to be, or a combination of both. Jason, IMO, is neither innately more self-destructive or less, its just that....his tendency towards self-destruction manifests pretty explosively, like, in singular burning bright kind of instances that flare up, are just colossally bad decisions that he very quickly regrets, but then die back down and leave him cleaning up the aftermath, but at least having gotten whatever caused that particular turn towards self-destruction like, kinda out of his system.

So his means of self-destruction tend to just be LOUDER, and more.....in your face...but they also come and go more quickly, IMO. And one of those are pretty much the only time or reason I can see for him ever engaging in drinking or voluntarily giving up control.....like, the appeal specifically is a kind of self-punishment, and thus makes for an ideal weapon of choice at least once.....BUT again, the caveat there is like I said, I view Jason as someone who cycles through periods of self-destruction, but then he like...moves past it (or at least on a surface level, like, he FEELS like he has, though the initial problem often stil remains under the surface). But the point is, I think he regrets these instances of self-destruction soon after they happen....and I also think he’s someone who believes very strongly in not making the same mistakes twice. 

Like, he knows not to take things for granted better than anyone. Shit doesn’t go according to plan, my personal headcanon for him is his ideal followup is the immediate realization well, that didn’t work, time for something completely different....and then he does something completely different in the hopes of getting closer to his actual desired result. So I could see him doing something like getting black out drunk, etc, as one of these bouts of self-destruction....but the key in my mind, is I could only see him doing that ONCE. Once he’d done it and regretted it, it’d be crystallized in his mind as a Mistake and like, nope, not doing that again. Even when having another tendency towards self-destruction at a later date....I think he’d do it in a different way.

Also, I’ve never bought Jason as a smoker, like, I could see him faking it for The Mood or whatever, lol, but like.......this is a kid who grew up malnourished and thus had to take on criminals as a very under-sized Robin. He comes back after the Pit like, over six feet tall and well-oiled muscle that makes it SO much easier to kick ass as a vigilante? Why the FUCK would he ever screw that up by messing with his lungs or anything else, you know? If anything, I see Jason as being like, as much a ‘my body is my temple’ kind of guy as Dick is, just for different reasons.

I’ve always said I see Dick and Jason having a lot more in common than they’re usually credited with, and all of this is a huge part of why. They both just have HUGE issues with control in regards to themselves and their lives, and just being able to HAVE it and to take advantage of it, do what THEY want to do rather than constantly being moved about by the whims of others and having to always adjust or adapt to whatever everyone else was doing or the box they were being forced in by situations, etc. They’ve BEEN without control, self-autonomy, in ways and to degrees most people couldn’t imagine, so, like....its IMO more likely to be that much more precious and valuable to them than it is even to most people? Like, these are two men who I don’t see ever giving it up without a fight, and thus, they’re just like.....I’m gonna hard pass on the alcohol, etc.

And its got nothing to do with judgment on their part, I don’t think, like, other than the fact that they can’t personally relate to seeing the appeal. Its just the end result of lowered inhibitions/loss of self control or autonomy that they’re like...yeah, that’s what we’re not on board with, thanks but no thanks. Not for us.

I don’t have as strong of headcanons about the other kids just because they’re either too young or it just doesn’t come up as much, such as with Cass (though you can probably guess my headcanon for Cass there given that I talk about the similarities ALL three of the eldest Wayne kids share in a lot of ways, lol) but honestly I think it’d be more of the same with all of them, even if not always for quite the same reasons or quite as strong of reasons. Like, they’ve all been raised with too much reason to value self-control and too little cause to see lowered inhibitions as appealing, so the Batfam as a whole I personally headcanon as being nah, we get our highs from adrenaline and being weird as fuck, thanks though.