#he doesn’t need to solve all society’s issues

[moash]

i feel like the vibe of the wob is kind of just that brandon hasn’t really thought about it or considered that people still care, but the more people ask these kinds of things the more he will know we ARE waiting for him to deliver on these issues

[anarchywoofwoof]

People in the U.S. are preoccupied with voting to an unhealthy degree. This is not to say that everyone votes, or thinks voting is effective or worthwhile; on the contrary, a smaller and smaller proportion of the eligible population votes every election year, and that’s not just because more and more people are in prison. But when you broach the question of politics, of having a say in the way things are, voting is just about the only strategy anyone can think of—voting, and influencing others’ votes.

Could it be this is why so many people feel so disempowered? Is anonymously checking a box once a year, or every four years, enough to feel included in the political process, let alone play a role in it?

But what is there besides voting? In fact, voting for people to represent your interests is the least efficient and effective means of applying political power. The alternative, broadly speaking, is acting directly to represent your interests yourself. This is known in some circles as “direct action.”

Direct action is occasionally misunderstood to mean another kind of campaigning, lobbying for influence on elected officials by means of political activist tactics; but it properly refers to any action or strategy that cuts out the middle man and solves problems directly, without appealing to elected representatives, corporate interests, or other powers.

Concrete examples of direct action are everywhere. When people start their own organization to share food with hungry folks, instead of just voting for a candidate who promises to solve “the homeless problem” with tax dollars and bureaucracy, that’s direct action.

When a man makes and gives out fliers addressing an issue that concerns him, rather than counting on the newspapers to cover it or print his letters to the editor, that’s direct action.

When a woman forms a book club with her friends instead of paying to take classes at a school, or does what it takes to shut down an unwanted corporate superstore in her neighborhood rather than deferring to the authority of city planners, that’s direct action, too.

Direct action is the foundation of the old-fashioned can-do American ethic, hands-on and no- nonsense. Without it, hardly anything would get done. In a lot of ways, direct action is a more effective means for people to have a say in society than voting is.

For one thing, voting is a lottery—if a candidate doesn’t get elected, then all the energy his constituency put into supporting him is wasted, as the power they were hoping he would exercise for them goes to someone else. With direct action, you can be sure that your work will offer some kind of results; and the resources you develop in the process, whether those be experience, contacts and recognition in your community, or organizational infrastructure, cannot be taken away from you.

Voting consolidates the power of a whole society in the hands of a few politicians; through force of sheer habit, not to speak of other methods of enforcement, everyone else is kept in a position of dependence. Through direct action, you become familiar with your own resources and capabilities and initiative, discovering what these are and how much you can accomplish.

Voting forces everyone in a movement to try to agree on one platform; coalitions fight over what compromises to make, each faction insists that they know the best way and the others are messing everything up by not going along with their program. A lot of energy gets wasted in these disputes and recriminations. In direct action, on the other hand, no vast consensus is necessary: different groups can apply different approaches according to what they believe in and feel comfortable doing, which can still interact to form a mutually beneficial whole.

People involved in different direct actions have no need to squabble, unless they really are seeking conflicting goals (or years of voting have taught them to fight with anyone who doesn’t think exactly as they do). Conflicts over voting often distract from the real issues at hand, as people get caught up in the drama of one party against another, one candidate against another, one agenda against another. With direct action, on the other hand, the issues themselves are raised, addressed specifically, and often resolved.

Voting is only possible when election time comes around.

Direct action can be applied whenever one sees fit.

Voting is only useful for addressing whatever topics are current in the political agendas of candidates, while direct action can be applied in every aspect of your life, in every part of the world you live in.

Voting is glorified as “freedom” in action. It’s not freedom— freedom is getting to decide what the choices are in the first place, not picking between Pepsi and Coca-Cola.

Direct action is the real thing. You make the plan, you create the options, the sky’s the limit.

Ultimately, there’s no reason the strategies of voting and direct action can’t both be applied together. One does not cancel the other out. The problem is that so many people think of voting as their primary way of exerting political and social power that a disproportionate amount of everyone’s time and energy is spent deliberating and debating about it while other opportunities to make change go to waste. For months and months preceding every election, everyone argues about the voting issue, what candidates to vote for or whether to vote at all, when voting itself takes less than an hour.

Vote or don’t, but get on with it!

Remember how many other ways you can make your voice heard. This being an election year, we hear constantly about the options available to us as voters, and almost nothing about our other opportunities to play a decisive role in our society. What we need is a campaign to emphasize the possibilities more direct means of action and community involvement have to offer. These need not be seen as in contradiction with voting.

We can spend an hour voting once a year, and the other three hundred sixty four days and twenty three hours acting directly! Those who are totally disenchanted with representative democracy, who dream of a world without presidents and politicians, can rest assured that if we all learn how to apply deliberately the power that each of us has, the question of which politician is elected to office will become a moot point.

They only have that power because we delegate it to them! A campaign for direct action puts power back where it belongs, in the hands of the people from whom it originates.

(Crimethinc, 2004)

[codenamesazanka]

With this new mystery person I’ve been people saying a lot of things from it’s tenko to it’s the new afo the kids are gonna stop by preventing him from ever being a villain. Among all that there’s been a fair amount of people saying this is showing hero society is doomed now that shigaraki and the league are gone. My question though is how would shigaraki and the league winning or teaming up with deku and the heroes for the future prevent this? Like what could have actually been done to prevent this? Like tenko says he’s gonna be the hero to the villains but that doesn’t change the problem, he’s still one guy the league members are a finite amount. Even if every single fighter on that battlefield decided hey let’s all work together for a better future, how does that stop people from falling through the cracks? Like short of a totalitarian surveillance state where every single person has a twice clone with them in case something happens there’s still gonna be incidents where no one that can help is around for some reason.

So it's true that as much as I hype up the League and Shigaraki and insist they are right (and they are! to a point), they were indeed less interested in the new world they will be building, and more just interested in tearing down the old world. The world that comes after destruction was at best vague, at worst just pure lawless chaos, a quirk free-for-all. But for them, in their imagining, it would've been a freer world in some aspects, in that the rules and norms they felt trapped in can be destroyed. Heroes as a civil servant/law enforcement job wouldn't exist; they're free to use their quirks; the standards that called them inhuman and crazy and the such and rejected them could be abolished. It's true that it wouldn't have been a better society for everyone - which is why the League and the Villains had to be defeated.

What would've been (and still would be) ideal is the Heroes taking lessons from this - hearing out the League's discontent of the deep structural issues of their current society, and doing something about it. But see - here, its not about Heroes or fighters. It's about change on all levels of society. Change in attitudes and cultural mindset and institutions. You stop people from falling through the cracks by getting rid of the cracks the best you can; by building multiple safety nets above the cracks; and finally by having people who reach into the cracks to pull out those who've still managed to fall in.

A lot of the issues the League went through really could not have been solved by Heroes; did not need to be solved by Heroes, if the proper cultural progress was made and the social support services were available. So like, Toga:

Her parents seemed to have been very concerned about abiding by the prevailing norms of society. This could be because society values conformity and ostracizes those who can't fit into a neat, little box - despite the fact that quirks should've broaden and redefined those boxes, after a whole century since quirks appeared. Change the need and the pressure to conform - educate people to be more tolerant and accommodating - and her parents might have felt less fearful of having a child that wasn't 'normal'. Heck, change the definition of 'normal'.

I've always wondered what exactly a Hero can do about the emotional abuse Toga's parents inflicted on her. For one thing, I doubt they were screaming 'inhuman demon child' at little four-year-old Toga in public at a frequency and volume that would make a Hero take notice. (Remember, they wanted to be seen as a nice, normal, middle-class family. All the abuse was probably kept at home, behind closed doors.) And I wonder if someone did try to intervene, the parents might not have tried to claim it's simply discipline, because after all, Toga has an instinct to drink blood - relying on the Heroes' own understanding of human taboos and preconceived notions of 'villainous' quirks. Plus, no one in this situation is using their quirk - no law is being broken. For this to be addressed, we go back to the point above - education about the definition of 'normal' - as well as a more robust child welfare system.

Quirk counseling! When the lady said Toga had "deviant behavior" and said "Let's get you all reformed, nice and normal" and promised Toga's parents that "we'll be sure to iron it all out", that's her doing her job. A job that the government supports, given how they have general quirk counselings at schools. A job that UA Hero Factory Principal Nedzu probably helped developed in some way, since he's apparently an influential and world-renown expert in 'quirk morality education'. Quirk Counseling Lady is there to give Toga therapy. She was probably incredibly nice and professional about it. She was probably properly following all procedures. There is nothing you can arrest her for. No, the issue is the goal of quirk counseling itself - to make someone 'normal'. And we're back again to point above.

And then there was all the teachers throughout the 9 years of Toga's public school education that could've taken notice of anything wrong at home. Probably should've paid more attention to the bite wounds at Toga's wrists.

Hell, there probably could've been a hotline for Toga to call or a youth center for Toga to go to, if she felt she was struggling and reaching a point of break. Why didn't she go? Maybe because she was afraid she'll be called inhuman, that she'll be turned away. Why does she think that way? See first point above.

She stabbed Saito, but even then, I think the right response could've stopped her from stabbing more people. After the stabbing, Toga went on the run, and she's been fearful ever since that she would be killed by Heroes. Instead of turning herself in, expecting to still be treated as a person and that the justice she’ll receive is appropriate, she figured it was better to throw her lot with Villains and the underworld at 15 years old. She believed that she had a better chance surviving homeless on the streets with harden criminals, than with Heroes and whatever juvie they put her in. I think there's an image issue there that Heroes and police should fix. Yes, criminals should feel guilt and horrible and prison has to be unpleasant in order to be a deterrent to crime, but in the interest of harm reduction, maybe rethink that.

Also maybe if the media didn't go and put her parent calling her a demon child and disowning her on air. Kinda feels like the type of thing that burn bridges and makes her feel she can't return, even if she might have wanted at some point. Who the heck authorized that segment???

This is a lot of speculation, but I don't think it's illogical. I don't think the problem just started when Toga stabbed Saito and a Hero failed to beat her up and arrest her, a 'fighter' that couldn't be there to prevent the incident. I think the problem started when her parents freaked out at seeing her quirk manifest and their first instinct is to slap her and accuse their 3-year-old of catching a bird to kill it and drink it's blood and then proceed to worry about 'my child is not normal!!!', instead of gently taking the bird away, be concerned about germs, and giving her unconditional love but also firm parenting.

Consider the mirror opposite: Iida, who went rogue and tried to get revenge on Stain.

First off, I think UA - Aizawa specifically - failed so badly in it's job as teachers. Iida's brother is attacked and paralyzed by Stain; Stain was last seen in Hosu; Iida wrote on his Internship form he wants to intern at an agency in Hosu (and left it as his only choice in a form that give three choices). That's a giant red flag??? And they let the kid go??? So that's a missing safety net.

Manuel seeing just how obvious it was that Iida was after Stain. He gave him a talking to, which is good, but that was it. Should've ordered the kid home immediately. Second missing safety net.

Iida goes and attacks Stain. This is where Iida starts getting helped. Deku and Todoroki figured out his plan and went to help him, instead of, say, deciding that, 'Wow, he's breaking the rules. Maybe he's not such a good guy after all. Should disassociate myself from such a person if I want a successful school and Hero career.' But they helped, and so Iida and Native aren't dead in a alley - or 'worse': Native dead, but Iida is alive, and part of the responsibility possibly put on him.

Biggest help: The police chief deciding to help out these kids by not pressing charges, by making sure the story is not released to the public, and ensuring that the small number of eyewitnesses stay hush.

His family also didn't disown him or become estranged from him for getting caught up in all this. They love him, so they wouldn't.

I get that Iida is an excellent student and promising Hero student who made an error in judgment when he was caught in whirlwind of emotions regarding his beloved brother, and Toga was less so. (Maybe. She was a year younger and we didn't know her grades and we weren't quite sure the exact sequence of events the led to her stabbing Saito, which was due to her getting caught in the whirlwind of a romantic crush, perhaps her first taste of love after receiving none at home). But had he not had the support he had, he would've kept falling. And where would he have landed then?

You don't need a Twice to prevent these incidents. You don't even need Heroes, exactly. You needed understanding and caring citizens, in a supportive community. Now make it a culture that produces such citizens.

With Mystery Person. We don't know what their deal is, or what their past. But if they are a victim of abuse and confinement from their parents who couldn't handle their quirk, then a Hero saving them is a Hero coming in after the damage has been done. I think the better fix is to stop the damage before it happens - making sure parents never conclude they should be zip-tying their kids as a solution to anything.

Sorry for the long response! And sorry for how pseudo-sociologist it got. Don't trust me on this. It's only my thoughts. Thanks for the ask!

[merrivia]

hi, do u know why some ppl in the fandom think laurent and damens first time was r*pe? i get that damianos was selfish but i just can’t see it as *that*

I went back to read chapter 19 of Captive Prince just to make sure of my stance on the chapter. I honestly can’t tell you exactly why people think that, but I have my theories.

If you were going to superficially read this scene in that way, I would have thought people would question the master/slave dynamic Laurent has over Damen, more than the other way round.

It could very well seem like it’s Laurent who pushes Damen into it to begin with:

Damen says “I-don’t-“ and Laurent speaks for him. Laurent acts as if Damen is a slave and has no choice.

Now, to be clear, Laurent doesn’t rape Damen either. But if you read this bit in isolation, you might get concerned about consent. That’s why it’s important to read the chapter in its entirety (syncing it up with the bonus chapter 19 and a half) and making sure you contextualise it within the wider plot of the novel. They’re both still pretending in this scene, and that pretence is what allows them license to sleep with each other. Enemy princes, one of whom killed the other’s brother, cannot lie together. But a Prince can lie with his bed slave. So they both keep up this pretence to be able to have this.

Look at the pain it causes Damen, who is someone who is aching desperately for physical intimacy with Laurent, to try and clear his head and stop. It saddens him so much that Laurent might be trying to reward him with sex:

Pacat had difficult choices to make in this scene. She wanted it to be almost unbearably private and intimate. It needed to stay true to the characters and their arcs and the world she had created. Sex isn’t always an easy cheerful tumble as Damen has experienced it to be. This is intensely personal as it’s also about two people falling in love, and who in this moment cannot see a way as to how they could possibly be together.

The scene progresses in such a way which shows the two communicating- as much as one can, when one is lying about his identity, and the other is feigning ignorance. When one is sexually liberated and experienced and the other, hugely traumatised and repressed. In a novel whose invented world is modelled on societies from centuries ago.

Damen stops and checks for what Laurent wants:

Damen literally asks Laurent to tell him his own pleasure, because he wouldn’t just roll him over and mount i.e he literally would never rape him.

He lets Laurent control what he wants at numerous points, such as kissing and double checks that he’s okay with actual penetrative sex:

I really don’t know what person imagines that Laurent, a victim of sexual abuse, who as a consequence was probably unable to feel any kind of sexual feeling in himself until Damen and might even be enormously terrified of sex, could just casually open up verbally about what he wants. Pacat makes it clear multiple times that Laurent gets turned on by Damen and has no idea how to deal with that vulnerability, when sex is tangled up in his mind with all that happened to him.

Damen literally double and triple checks as to what Laurent once and Laurent directly asks him for sex:

I just can’t see where people are getting this idea from.

I have also read that Damen ‘fantasises about Laurent as a slave’ as part of this but…he doesn’t.

In CP he acknowledges Laurent would fetch a fortune at a slave auction, which is a material reality in his culture.

Later in KR, he wishes Laurent’s body didn’t have to be extensively prepared each time and was more like a slave or a pet, because they have no oil as lubricant (he smashes an oil lamp to solve the issue). In PG he thinks about the fact that if he turned Laurent over to the nearest Akielon army, it would lead to Laurent being given not to Nikamdros but to him. However there is no elaboration at all on what that may entail. It’s very much a hmm that would change our power dynamic, and I actually think Damen is a little turned on by the thought that Laurent could be in that role but its made very clear in the text that Damen is not a rapist.

In this scene in particular, Damen sees his first time with Laurent as incredibly meaningful:

A moment he wishes to be “worthy of”. It’s an expression of love not violence.

So why do people think this then?

Damen doesn’t pick up on Laurent’s psychological state because he doesn’t know that Laurent knows he is Damianos the man who killed Auguste. He is being selfish by sleeping with him and taking what Laurent is giving him, yes, but he really does think this is his last night with Laurent and isn’t strong enough to resist his yearning for him.

Which still is all categorically not rape.

So again, where does this come from?

Well…I do think a lot of people read a little carelessly? I’ve done it sometimes, though maybe more rarely as someone with a background in literary study. Not everyone reads closely, not everyone remembers everything that happens in a book and they form some half-baked theories due to this.

But why misread this scene to that extent, where I’d go as far as to say that it stands in direct opposition to what Pacat intended and how the scene actually reads?

If you want my theory on it, I think many white readers (and non-white) have unconscious prejudices. The darker, muscular character evokes highly racist stereotypes of rape and assault; the fair, blond characters are the idealised objects of beauty and desire (who clearly need saving from dark men and their brutish sexuality 🙄).

I do think some people must surely be mapping these prejudices onto this scene and making it fit. It’s the only plausible reason I can think of.

I sometimes wonder whether some of the Auguste/Laurent shippers are people who want the fantasy of two blonds together. Like *ugh get that dark man away from Laurent*. I am not one to morally police the fiction people write and consume, I’m just saying the personal is the political and I can’t help but feel there might be some who think that…

So yeah that’s what I think! Hope that helps.

[sleepingpopplio]

Toga and her happy ending

I think after taking some time to process the latest chapter I can finally verbalize what feels wrong about it. First, I think it’s really good to be hopeful that Toga isnt dead, but I also feel like a lot of the fandom right now is trying to not think about Toga being dead because if she truly is then they might end up like how I’m feeling. So, let’s just say hypothetically she is like truly, really dead without a shadow of doubt. 

Now, The first Issue I see with this writing is that it arguably goes against the themes of the story. In order to make a better society, our heroes need to be able to win AND save (hehe Bakugo and Deku at the core of the story once again). Otherwise, saving the league would feel hollow. So, Ochako DID win the fight between her and Toga by talking toga down from the edge and bringing out the goodness in her. But did she save her? 

I would argue no. 

Toga may be able to go out “her way”, but she still ends up dying before taking any further steps to heal and find her place as her authentic self within society. Ochako thinks she has a cute smile, but will everyone else? We are stripped of the negotiation process to get Toga the proper help she needs instead of throwing her in jail. We are deprived of Ochako standing up for her and helping her finally be the happy schoolgirl Toga always wanted to be, without the mask this time. We, the audience, are denied of seeing toga take accountability for her actions. Therefore, while Ochako may have saved Toga on a one-to-one level, and she still deserves credit for that btw, Toga ultimately died without witnessing society as a whole changing for the better. She was not saved— She was only helped… and is that a satisfying conclusion after years of buildup? After all the work to make Ochako come to value winning AND saving of everyone? Is that satisfying?

The fact that so many people refuse to believe Toga is dead points to this.

One more thing I would want to add here is a comparison to another member of the lead, someone that I have seen a lot of members of the fandom fight back against the notion that they should die. That character is Tomura Shigaraki. I’ve seen people say that Tomura should die in a sacrificial way in order to redeem himself, but then in response many fans push back and speak about how that wouldn’t solve any of Shigaraki’s problems and instead it would only leave shigaraki in a state of limbo in terms of reaching a satisfying and logical conclusion for him. Deku wouldn’t have achieved his goal to the fullest extent, society wouldn’t get to accept Tomura and show that even he is design of forgiveness after what he was put through, and we wouldn’t get to see how a reformed hero society would handle the league of villains moving forward. Sound familiar? My point in bringing this up is to show that it seemingly doesn’t make sense how you can argue how one villain should survive while the other should die because either way the death of one villain, even if it’s a heroic sacrifice, is still an incomplete rescue. It’s still an incomplete narrative, as it had framed itself to be a hopeful one, despite all the dark aspects. So, let’s just keep that in mind. 

My next point is going to be a heavy one, so buckle up. Let’s keep going with the hypothetical of Toga being really, truly dead, ok? Toga being dead has so many implications and undertones.  You can make an argument for, if she is the only league member that dies, how she is written in an upsetting way as both the only woman and canonically queer member of the league. Furthermore, the ‘Bury Your Gays’ trope is defined by killing off LGBTQ characters at an alarmingly higher rate than their heterosexual peers, and their death is usually because they entered some sort of queer relationship, or if someone has to die it might as well be the queer one. Am I saying that Horikoshi has malicious intent and hates queer people in stories? ABSOLUTELY NOT. DO NOT GO AND HARASS THE MAN BECAUSE IT ACCOMPLISHES NOTHING. But, there could be some internal bias because of Japanese society as a whole’s view of queer people. There also could be some push from editors to kill the queer character for this exact reason. Of course, this is all speculation and it’s not ok to jump to conclusions and assume the worst of writers. But Toga meant something to people. She meant something to queer people. If the reformed hero society could accept Toga for who she is, then wouldn’t that include her queerness? In a world where homophobia is increasing again at an alarming rate, kids need to see that being queer doesn’t mean that they have to be the “villain” in society’s eyes. Queer people deserve saving. But as my previous point discussed, Toga was not fully saved. Queer kids reading the manga will not get to see how Toga could find her sense of belonging in society while still living her truth. The queer subtext behind her relationship with Ochako will end in of of their deaths. Therefore, as someone with experience with living in a homophobic household and having to hide themselves, this does not feel like a happy ending.

Furthermore, I’m going to make another comparison just like I did in my previous point. But this time, I’m going to use a character from a different franchise that also involves superhero’s and is a heavy inspiration for Horikoshi’s writing. That character is Black Widow from the MCU. She was a beloved character, but often underutilized by the writers. The only female member of the avengers, Black Widow was often sexualized and used as the object of desire out of the bunch. She was badass, but always tied to her male counterparts. She was not allowed to exist without the other male avengers around. This was the pattern of her character writing for many years, up until Avengers: Endgame premiered. When that movie came out, Blackwidow played a key role… that role was to sacrifice herself. She did this so that her best friend, Hawkeye, wouldn’t have to sacrifice himself instead. He didn’t want her to sacrifice herself. He was fine with dying and tried to stop her. But despite his efforts, Blackwidow still sacrificed herself and died. This happened before she could get her own movie, and specifically before she could confront her past trauma and heal from it. She went out her way on her terms, but the audience still lost the vital piece of representation that she gave to the avengers and still suffered from never seeing Blackwidow’s character get to heal and overcome her pain. Does all of this once again sound familiar? Women often are the first to get hurt or die out of their hero or villain groups in the superhero genre. One good thing about Toga, however, is that she died alongside another female companion. A well written relationship between two women was front in center, instead of one between a man and woman. Despite that, however, Toga was often used as the sexualized member of the league and tended to revolve around Izuku a lot, just like Blackwidow. That is why it was amazing to see her bond with Ochako, and then devastating to have that taken away without letting the audience witness Toga’s complete healing.

Therefore, dying “your own way”, is only empowering if the female character had already had time to complete their character arc and heal their trauma in the same way that their male peers were allowed. Otherwise, it feels fake.

This chapter was overall amazingly well written. I enjoyed it a lot. Honestly, I enjoy MHA as a whole a lot!!! I’ve hyper-fixated on this story and tis characters a lot, and have a lot of faith in Horikoshi as a writer. I have no doubt that he’ll do a great job writing the other characters in this final arc give the audience a satisfying conclusion. I also hope that I’m proven wrong and somehow Toga ends up ok.

But the ending reminded me of how far writing has to go in order to accurately portray the female and queer experience, and to give such characters hopeful endings like everyone else. Toga deserves to find  acceptance. She deserves to find love from society as a whole, not just Ochako. 

Toga Himiko deserves a happy ending. Queer women deserve happy endings too.

Sorry to be a downer, everyone. If you want a more hopeful meta for this chapter, then please go check out @pikahlua’s blog because their meta on this chapter was spectacular and mind blowing.

[communistkenobi]

(genuine question, sorry if any of my language is incorrect/outdated) I was reading that post you reblogged about the distinction between gender and sex and how both concepts are linked and oppressive & the ask you answered where you said that we should abolish sex distinctions on medical records. and I don’t disagree with your point, but I’m wondering how feasible it is? Or I guess, how we would then navigate the medically differences between different groups of people. Because the unfortunate truth is that some biological factors do affect your predisposition to certain diseases or how you’ll react to medication.

For example, Black people in the US are more likely to have diabetes. and obviously a lot of this is due to poverty and other socioeconomic problems, but if we were to abolish the concept of race (before solving the underlying issues), it could lead to people not being diagnosed with the correct illness as quickly, since there’s no longer that demographic information available (I’m realizing that diabetes was a bad example for this specific problem, but I’m drawing a blank on a better example).

I remember for years growing up that there was a push to recognize that the stereotypical “pain in left arm” depiction of a heart attack was more common among cis men, and cis women usually presented differently. And I’m a cis woman with ADHD, but when trials were being conducted to prove that medications were effective, they focused only on cis men, so now I just have to deal with my meds being way less effective whenever I’m on my period.

The example you gave of a trans man’s insurance denying him coverage for a pap smear seems more like an issue of the insurance company linking gender and sex, rather than respecting that someone saying that they are a man on government forms doesn’t inherently describe what organs they do or do not have. Which seems like it would be a point in the favor of people who draw a distinction between gender and sex. Yes, he is a man, but he has organs that need to regularly be screened for cancer, the same way a trans woman might need to be checked for prostate cancer.

The medical field is definitely sexist and transphobic (and just about every other -ist and -phobic), but couldn’t abolishing both gender and sex exacerbate these issues? The only thing I can think of is, like, checkboxes for what organs you have, but that seems like it’d still be the concept of “sex”, just in slightly different language.

so, a couple points before we get into this conversation:

Current gendered distinctions in the medical field to address health issues are not nearly as helpful as you are suggesting

You cannot abolish the concept of race (or gender or class or etc) without addressing the underlying systemic violence and inequality that gives those social categories power in society

Like, baseline - how helpful is it to sort all of humanity into 2 bins, male or female, medically speaking? To use a hypothetical, if you were to sort all human beings into 2 categories, either “young” or “old,” what medical information about those people could you glean from that alone? The answer is probably more than zero, but it’s still not a lot, and if we were to construct an entire insurance and medical apparatus on the basis of whether you’re young or old alone would be very silly.

Now what you’re talking about is using a collection of demographic information - gender, race, age, weight, etc - to construct standard benchmarks by which to measure medical outcomes in people. However, the origins of things like gender and race are not medical, they’re social, and are used to enforce social positions in society that may produce specific medical outcomes as a result of either oppression (eg, certain racial minorities are more predisposed to certain health conditions) or inference (eg, “only women can get pregnant”).

You, as a cis woman, telling your doctor you’re a cis woman, does not actually describe your ability to get pregnant, only a rough probability. If we want to describe the group of people in society who can get pregnant, we should call them “people who can get pregnant.” then we’re including everyone who can, and not including anyone who cannot (infertile cis women, some intersex people, trans women, some nonbinary people, people who have had their uterus removed, post-menopausal cis women, etc). That results in a de-gendering of pregnancy, and allows for a more precise description of what medical resources those people may need access to.

Additionally, race is not a biological determination of health (it is not biological at all). It is a social position that we all occupy different positions in, which, by virtue of being in those positions, gives us access to different social and physical environments that produce varying health outcomes. If you are black and live in a food desert, and suffer health problems as a consequence, that is not a biological difference on the basis of your race, that is purely a social one. The solution there would not be to codify race as a biological determinant of health, it would be to alter the built environment so that no one lives in a food desert. White supremacy is what produces these outcomes.

To use your ADHD trial example - the problem there is that it is assumed that the gender of cis men is medically trivial while treating all other genders as significant; they are presented as the human default, and anyone who does not fit that standard (ie, roughly 50% of all human beings) is a deviation from normalcy. We see this most especially with race, where white people are assumed to be non-racial, existing outside the construct of race, and therefore we act as a handy baseline by which all other races can be measured (which is bad). The solution to this problem is not to draw more precise gender or race boundaries around symptoms, conditions, or medical trials, but to decouple gender and race from it entirely and describe in exact terms what affects whom. Race does not affect health outcomes; white supremacy does. Gender does not affect health outcomes; patriarchy does.

This is where systemic solutions come in! These are tricky because they’re comprehensive and require mass upheaval of existing institutions and norms. To use a historical example - the USSR* instituted a policy whereby women would be fully compensated for all reproductive labour (child-rearing, domestic labour, etc), effectively making housekeeping a full time job. Does this abolish patriarchy? No, but it certainly helps reduce misogyny in society by offering economic equality and enshrining domestic labour as being on par with productive labour. This also does a lot to help women medically, socially, legally, etc. by reducing economic dependency on their husbands and therefore reduces abuse, unhappy marriages, all of those things. this is the kind of policy that acts as a handy starting point for thinking about systemic solutions to systemic problems.

When talking about the abolition of a given social category (gender, race, etc), addressing the violence that social category does to the people who end up on the bottom of it is how abolition works. It’s not merely changing language or expanding existing norms (which are not useless of course, but they’re insufficient). Doctors offering HRT to trans people after we receive a mental illness diagnosis is like, better than not having access to care at all, but it still sucks! Trans people, in some countries, are in the process of being folded into the medical institution and are being constructed as a special medical class of people. That doesn’t get rid of transphobia and it doesn’t help all trans people, just those lucky enough to access it, and then the even smaller group of us who are lucky enough to convince doctors and psychiatrists to write the prescriptions and diagnoses and referrals required for us to be respected as our own gender. I could not legally change my name and gender marker until I had the sign-off from a doctor who was treating me medically for gender dysphoria, a professional person who knew me for at least five years, and a lawyer - and I’m in the incredibly privileged position to be able to get all of their signatures. That’s not freedom, that’s just paperwork!

The institution of medicine does not exist external to societal pressures; phrenology and eugenics are medical concepts that are deeply destructive and violent. Accounting for human variation does not require us to rely on social constructions of gender and race; we have precise terminology that we can use that will more accurately describe those things. I’m not a medical doctor, so I don’t know what those terms will all be, nor can I pretend to know what a fully equal medical institution looks like. but for example, I’ve seen people describe human bodies in terms of “estrogen dominant endocrine systems” and “testosterone dominant endocrine systems.” Is that better? Maybe! It’s probably a lot more useful of a description of a human body than man or woman is.

*me invoking the USSR as an example is not an endorsement of the entire state across its 70 year lifespan, nor is it an invitation for people to tell me how bad it actually was

[basket-of-radiants]

Proposal for Re-working the Kholins’ Character Arcs - a semi-coherent “essay” by me (feat. @akpaley​, thank you for your contributions and for your attempts at editing.)

Hey guys. Different kind of post this time around, compared to my usual brand. It’s time for some fix-it fanfiction masquerading as literary critique. I won’t be using a readmore, I dunno, probably to punish anyone still following this blog or something. So! In this post I’m going to solve the all the issues of racial theming associated with the Kholin family.

I’m often very harsh on the Kholins for benefitting so much from exploitative power structures while doing little to help those below them. But then I’ve also criticized them for actually addressing these very problems in-universe. How can I be upset at them for their inaction and then also be annoyed when Jasnah ends slavery? The short answer to all of this is just that the ways these topics are addressed all feel very inauthentic. For example, in real life history it took over a century of protests, slave revolts, political campaigning, and civil wars to legally end slavery in Europe and America, and abolitionists were met with fierce opposition at every turn. A fictional world need not follow our same historical trajectory, but it still seems a little disingenuous for a monarch to just decide to end it within her first year of power because it doesn’t mesh with her philosophical framework. It’s more like trying to wrap up a subplot than actually address the topic.

Ultimately however, there’s only so far this line of criticism can ever take me because the Kholins are the protagonists and you can’t get rid of them without turning the whole story into something else entirely. And Sanderson shouldn’t have to, these are characters that he created and he’s allowed to tell a story about them. And I actually like a lot of their personalities and arcs and outlooks quite a lot. I do think it’s...unfortunate...to have used slavery and racism as disposable props in a story that ultimately turned out to be about a bunch of royals learning to be better people and saving the world along the way. So I guess what I’m interested in is if there’s a way to keep the premise, keep the characters, keep the general story beats, keep the themes of honor and personal growth, keep the basic structure of everything, and still handle those themes with grace. You know, could this be a compassionate story about addressing racism told from the point of view of nobility? Is such a thing possible?

Well, I’m going to try my best. And I’m going to be imperfect about it, obviously, so if you actually care enough to read all this shit, I welcome discussion and disagreement. 

Jasnah is the most obvious example to point to as being indicative of the problem, but I also think she has the easiest character fixes. She’s already been established as an outspoken dissident on many of her society’s deeply ingrained values. Just add to her atheism and feminism that she’s also always been an outspoken abolitionist. Give her ties to an ongoing reformist movement. Have her lecture Shallan about it in Way of Kings. Make that a reason she’s butted heads with her family so much. I do think it’s poor writing to have a ruler end slavery on a whim, but I won’t deny that having the right person in power can make a huge difference. It’s not as cathartic as having Kaladin lead a slave revolt (or as having Moash destroy society <3) but that doesn’t make it inherently bad so long as the topic itself is still treated with weight. Have her moralistic ideology be firmly pre-established so that when she has to explain why she’s abolishing slavery, her reasoning can be purely pragmatic. The reason she’s moving so fast is because this is a historical point of heightened change, and so her reforms are more likely to work, but if she waits too long and things settle back into a new status quo, she may have missed her window. Not to mention, when her nephew comes of age, her own legitimacy as a ruler might be challenged, so she needs to do as much as she can in what may be end up being a short reign. As a character, Jasnah has always been able to girlboss her way past political realities through sheer force of personality, and that’s great and all, but I think it heightens her character’s competence if she does have to deal with real backlash, not just to her but to her policies as well. The narrative doesn’t even need to linger on her opposition, but acknowledging it and acknowledging that she’s simply a member of a preexisting and ongoing movement would have done wonders to portray slavery as a real and prescient issue. Then again, this is a topic which people have fought and continue to fight wars over, so it wouldn’t be unreasonable for her to have receive major backlash either; perhaps when the Kholins hear in Words of Radiance that she was assassinated, the news could come as tragic but not entirely unexpected so as to imply that her opposition has attempted such in the past. All this is to say, I don’t think it’s at all wrong for Jasnah to do what she did. I also don’t think her entire stance on abolitionism should have come down to a comment where she tells her uncle she’s trying to rule according to ethically consistent values. The fact that slavery was insultingly easy to end not only delegitimizes is as a topic worthy of discussion, but also is a really scathing indictment of literally everyone else in the ruling class who didn’t even think to try.

Jasnah done, easy, Dalinar next.

Dalinar is probably the most complicated character for me to discuss and form coherent statements on. He’s just so rife with contradictions down to his core. That’s probably why I continue to like him so much, why he’s still my favorite, even though I still consider him to be a Bad Person over all. I think deep down I’ll always lean a bit too pacifistic ideologically to ever consider a warlord/general to be a good person, no matter how honorable he may be or how much growth he may undergo. Don’t get me wrong, I still do love his growth. Dalinar is characterized by his constant change and forward momentum, even moreso than the rest of the cast. So for discussing him, at what point can I point to him and say “this is Dalinar, this is who he is, this is what he believes and what he cares about”? Of course, during any point in his arc, you’re going to have to grapple with the fact that all of his lofty rhetoric about honor and striving for personal betterment is ultimately going to be pretty useless to all the people whose lives he’s meaninglessly thrown away across his military career. For me personally, when I talk about his character I like to take the end-of-oathbringer approach, where I acknowledge everything he did in the past as Blackthorn, I agree that it was pretty fucked up, and I forgive him and grant him a clean slate. All this to say that even if I’m judging him purely by his behavior as the current Dalinar within the present day continuity of the books, he’s still a massive hypocrite with horrific amounts of blood on his hands which he’s never even bothered to consider. I dunno, when I first read Way of Kings and I first got to meet this general who’s leading an army in a literal genocide campaign, I sort of figured he’d get some kind of “wait am I the bad guy” moment at some point in the future. And he did get a moment in Oathbringer where he has to fully confront his guilt over past actions, it was great, I really really loved it! But it was also all about actions he took before the series even started, so I guess wiping out the listeners wasn’t a sin he thought needed any atonement. I’m not going to get into the narrative’s treatment of singers and listeners on this post (for no other reason than because I have waaaaaaay too much to say there) but the point I’m getting at is that however good Dalinar’s growth is and whatever direction it takes, it’s always going to have poisonous roots to me. And his treatment of class/racial issues is no different. 

Fixing Dalinar is going to take a lot of what Dalinar does best: introspection. In Way of Kings, Dalinar dislikes how Sadeas treats his bridgemen because he believes it to be dishonorable, because he believes Sadeas is forcing others into a situation that he himself would never put himself into. He also has various sympathetic reflections here and there about how sad it is when soldiers die, and about how without the benefit of the Thrill, violence is actually kind of bad. You know how it goes. But I don’t think he ever put himself at risk to actually help or protect any of the people who are dying. Whether he wants to end the war or not, he still continues to participate in it. And he’s still willing to set aside the lives of literally everyone beneath him so he can pursue his dream of unity. The book ends with Kaladin and the rest of bridge four saving him and Adolin, and in gratitude, he purchases their freedom and gives them honored positions in his household. You know, because he’s so honorable. Everyone loves this scene, so I’m going to make it the catalyst for Dalinar’s new and improved character development. The problem with saying Kaladin helped Dalinar so Dalinar helped Kaladin is that when I’m being reductive and uncharitable (like I’m being right now), I can argue that their relationship basically started as a quid pro quo. This scene is meant to prove that Dalinar really is the most honorable person in Alethkar, just as Syl thought, only it doesn’t actually do that. See I don’t actually want Dalinar to start treating Kaladin as an equal. I want Dalinar to, in that moment, realize that Kaladin is better than him. That for all of his pontificating about honor, he would have never even considered risking his own life and the lives of his own family to rescue a bunch of bridgemen. I want him to see Kaladin’s honor, and rather than be validated in his beliefs, I want him to be thoroughly humbled. Let him spend all next book reflecting on all the lives of darkeyes he’s destroyed. Let it shame him, as Evi’s death shamed him. He already flirts with these lines of thought, and he already has an arc about confronting his past actions. Let the racial injustices he’s participated in be a part of that. Let him abandon his books and traditions instead look to Kaladin to learn what honor truly means. I don’t know how any of this would translate to his actions, because if we’re being honest his ideals are already quite incongruous with his actions, but the fact that he manages to have such strong theming regardless makes me think maybe that’s okay. I guess ultimately it would be enough for me if his character, as someone who symbolizes the ideals of a nation, was able to look at a darkeyes publicly be a follower rather than always trying to lead by his own personal example.

That’s Dalinar. Elhokar next?

I actually don’t think there’s too much wrong with Elhokar’s writing, especially in the first two books where a much greater emphasis on these themes were placed. He’s not a protagonist and we the audience aren’t supposed to endorse his actions. Most of what I’d change about his story is more about Kaladin and Moash than it is about him. I definitely don’t love that he can throw away the lives of his own people by the thousands in the genocide campaign that was the vengeance war, and then have the narrative just ignore all that in favor of him being sad about his own incompetence. If Elhokar is meant to be a sympathetic character, then when he calls himself a bad king, that’s what he should be thinking about, the number of lives he’s wasted over these years. I actually like him a lot more as a less sympathetic character, and I think I would have preferred if in oathbringer the narrative and the other characters would have stopped making so many excuses for him. Back to Kaladin and Moash, those are the two characters defined by their experiences as members of the downtrodden caste, so I personally sort of judge the problematic-ness of the whole story by how they get treated. Everyone loves to talk about how those two are foils. So. In order to strengthen Kaladin and Moash’s characters, either Elhokar needs to be as much of a monster as Amaram, or Amaram needs to be just as sympathetic and conflicted and having-of-a-toddler as Elhokar. Don’t get me wrong, I genuinely love the trope of finding at the end of a revenge quest that the person you hated has changed and grown. But I hate how this means that Moash’s hatred is wrong and unjustified, whereas Kaladin’s is validated at every turn. I don’t actually dislike Elhokar. I mean I think he’s a bad person, but I like a lot of characters who are bad people. I just think that if this story really wants to grapple with class and race (because it sure brings them up a lot for a story that doesn't want to talk about them), then Moash is a much more important character than him, with a lot more to add to that kind of discussion, which is why I think Elhokar’s characterization would have to come second to Moash’s development. (Obviously if this series were being reworked to be better on this topic, Moash would have to be written with a lot more compassion in general, but this post isn’t about him.)

Intermission time. Gavilar.

Gavilar is already perfect, 10/10, great character all around, what a guy, no notes, no wonder he’s so universally beloved among all of the fans, social justice icon.

Okay onto Navani.

I may not be the best person to talk about Navani. She has never been a favorite character of mine, and so compared to the others I haven’t thought as much about her values or the way she thinks or the narrative impacts of her actions. Someone who has more love for her would probably write better criticisms of her. (I’m going to reject any premise that falls along the lines of “Navani isn’t racist because she feels X,” but I’m not wholly confident in my analysis here, and I welcome any good faith critiques both of my own thinking and of her character when come at from other angles.) It’s hard to say where she should have grown from how she starts out viewing darkeyes because I don’t actually know how she starts out viewing darkeyes. I know I’m probably meant to assume she just treats everyone equally because she’s a Good Person on Team Good Guys, but it’s hard to just accept that she had all around good values when she married a warlord and was in love with his more violent brother. I dunno, was her “good guy” status meant to have always been an element of her character, or did she get it secondhand from her association with the new and improved Dalinar? With someone like Adolin, we got to see what shitty values he held at the start of Way of Kings (I’m talking about the Alethi warmongering, not his interest in fashion) but we also got to see how his father gradually won him over throughout the course of the book, and then later on we get to see him develop further on his own. For someone like Navani, I find it strange how she’s always so proactively supportive of Dalinar in everything, even when his own goals and values are in flux. I assume her character is just meant to be super ride or die when it comes to her family, and I do like that in a character, but that also means that she’s been wholly willing to support or at the very least excuse her family’s oppression and exploitation of darkeyes without comment. (See, Lirin is a much better parent than Navani, he would never have let his son start a whole genocidal vengeance war for fun and profit (I say this as if I’m joking but I’m kinda not.)) Some people have reminded me that she was pretty much shut out of the political process by Gavilar and Elhokar, and I agree with that, but I don’t really have any evidence that she would have cared much about darkeyes even if she had been more involved. In general it just seems like the whole topic doesn’t matter much to her. So what I would wish for the narrative would be to lean further into this. Draw attention to her cognitive dissonance and try and make the readers feel conflicted about her as a person. Highlight the fact that she’s willing to overlook the suffering that befalls other families if it means success for her own. I think one of my issues with her is that to me, this is a major (and interesting!) character flaw, but the books never seem to treat it as such. Honestly I think if this were intentional, I’d probably find her character really interesting, but from my reading of the text, I feel that I’m supposed to think of Navani as a generally decent person who’s by and large on the right side of things. The thing is, with the caste system playing such an integral role in their culture, I think she needs to have some sort of feelings about it, or else the fact that she doesn’t should be an issue to overcome. Otherwise she becomes another factor delegitimizing racial oppression as a real and important problem. If she’s a good guy and she doesn’t care about racism, then that’s saying you don’t have to be antiracist to be a good person in this world. 

Probably could have done that one better. I dunno. Leave me angry and hateful comments if I’m totally misrepresenting your favorite character. Moving on.

Adolin already has some great character development across the books. And he already has kind of engaged with this stuff in his story. Unfortunately, that’s less used in the “this person was racist but is becoming better sense” and more used in the sense of “Kaladin learns that #NotAllLighteyes are bad” which is pretty unfortunate for a number of reasons. Especially since, if he actually was going to prove he’s different from other lighteyes, out of all the Kholins I think Adolin is the best candidate for being a full on class traitor. I’m serious, looking back over the events of his plotlines, it would suit him shockingly well while disturbing the overall narrative shockingly little.

Adolin’s current plot is loosely as follows: in Way of Kings he likes all the things someone of his station is supposed to like, clothes, violence, dueling, warfare, swords, hangtime with the guys, all the good stuff. At the beginning of the book he doesn’t understand why old, stuck-up Dalinar can’t just let loose and be a relelntless war-monger like everyone else, but by the end of the book he’s come to understand a certain value to honor and thus has begun to become a better person himself. Words of Radiance has him lose his popularity, fall out of favor with all of his friends, grow disillusioned with his society, perform a prison sit-in in solidarity with Kaladin, and murder Sadeas. Most of this is done again, because of his father, and how Adolin now wants to help and support him and his ideals. In Oathbringer he mostly isn’t involved in courtly politics, being away on a mission for much of it, but he does make a pretty big move by rejecting the throne. In Rhythm of War we see the schism that’s formed between him and his father until he leaves on another long-distance mission. Summary over. In general I reject the idea that making the Kholins be individually less racist makes for a better, or more nuanced and compassionate discussion of the topic, but if anyone is primed for a “lighteyes learns racism is wrong” character arc, I think it’s Adolin. Imagine him following a bit less in Dalinar’s footsteps and a bit more in Jasnah’s. You almost don’t even have to change any story beats: in getting to know Kaladin, something clicks in Adolin where he realizes that if he wants to treat Kaladin as his equal, he has to treat all darkeyes as equals, and so he realizes to his horror that he and his entire caste of friends and family are all monsters for treating them the way they do. (Actually, there is one plotline in WoR I’d probably scrap, and that’s his slowburn bromance with Kaladin. I mean I get what Sanderson was going for with the ribbing and then eventual friendship, but Kaladin was an absolute stranger who risked his own life to save Adolin and his father from certain death, and so I feel there should probably have been a bit more overt respect upfront there.) In pushing for his newfound belief in equality, he ends up burning through all of his intracaste goodwill and political capital, causing all of his friends to drop him. When he kills Sadeas, it doesn’t have to be about protecting Dalinar or about personal revenge, it could also be that he’s gotten to know Bridge 4 and learned firsthand about the atrocities they’d gone through, and so there’s no way he’d allow such a pioneer of human rights violations to stay in power. In the following books, maybe he’s become so politically toxic due to challenging the very foundations of his own power, his own family has to send him away on missions so he can’t rock the boat too much at home. Maybe refusing the throne was more of a political statement than a personal one, because he’s come to understand that being a ruler means oppressing thousands of others. Maybe this is another form of hypocrisy he criticizes Dalinar for, how Dalinar might claim to value darkeyes but how he still retains power bought with thousands of their corpses. None of this has to modify actual events very much, it just affects the reasons for them. And it would also meaningfully show why he gets to be a “good lighteyes” if he actually engaged with his status and rejected it, knowing it comes at the expense of others.

Okay, enough about that. Renarin maybe?

I won’t say too much about Renarin here, because I’d probably just end up repeating a lot of the same criticisms of how he’s used as a “good lighteyes.” From a narrative standpoint, all those criticisms hold for him as well. You know, he wants to join Bridge Four, and future-villain Moash doesn’t like the idea because he doesn’t trust lighteyes, but Kaladin reassures him that Renarin is a good boy, so don’t worry about it, and everything works out fine in the end, proving that lighteyes are good people just like you and me. This isn’t a problem with him as a person or character, it’s just more of that general theme of “the caste system is fine so long as nice people are at the top” which I clearly think should be interrogated. Thus far, in contrast to the rest of his family, Renarin is very young and has had much less of a political presence, not to mention fewer POV chapters anyway, so I think delving too much deeper here will feel a bit hollow to me.

Does Shallan count as a Kholin? I’d like to talk about her super briefly.

Unpopular opinion, but I actually think Shallan is one of the better characters on the topic of race insofar as how she’s written, especially compared to the other Kholins. But wait, I hear you say, what about all of her dozens of instances of casual racism? Yes, that’s what I’m referring to. I like how Shallan demonstrates how ingrained these harmful ideologies are in their society. I like how every time she has a distasteful thought, we the audience are reminded that racism still exists and even good people will continue to promote it if they don’t view it critically. I like that Shallan is problematic, because their society has problems! At least with her it doesn’t feel like the story’s trying to sweep the fact under the rug. There are plenty of issues with her writing, plenty of jabs at Kaladin that probably shouldn’t have been treated as cute. She’s actually the main character whose racism and classism I see criticized the most. And I think that’s a good thing! My issue with the Kholins isn’t that I think they should all be less racist, my issue is that their positions are inherently oppressive, and it seems as though the narrative doesn’t think that matters so long as deep down they’re good people. When people critique Shallan in specific instances, I tend to see a fair amount of consensus and agreement there, but when I critique the Kholins people will argue with me by pointing out that Dalinar/Adolin/Navani/whoever actually treats darkeyes as equals, so my arguments are invalid. Purely my own anecdotal experience of course, but it tends to make me think that there’s something in Shallan’s writing that’s working right, something that isn’t working for the other lighteyed characters.

Now obviously with all of this, I’m not saying I want these books to have more racism in them. What I’m arguing is that if the books are going to explore the topic (which they do) then they should treat the topic with an appropriate amount of gravity rather than acting as if it can be solved by having aristocrats become nicer people.

If you’re still here with me, thank you for reading, I love you, I hope you enjoyed yourself through my descent further and further into rambly nonsense. If you just scrolled to the bottom, that’s fair enough, there won't be a tl;dr but you’re welcome for filling your dash with massive text blocks.

[fumiku]

Chloe as Ladybug and Nath as Chat Noir - chlonath AU

Ok so I know this concept isn’t revolutionary or whatever, but strap in I have a lot of thoughts-

So in this, where for Marinette and Adrien getting a miraculous and becoming a superhero helps them through their issues, for Chloe and Nathaniel they instead enable unhealthy coping mechanisms. Let me explain:

Where in canon, becoming Ladybug helped Marinette grow into herself more, build self-confidence and assurance when in her citizen life she’s clumsy and the mousy classmate, for Chloé it’d be her gateway to getting the attention and validation she craves. But the thing is that seeking this sort of attention to fill a void never actually does that, you’re always only left wanting more.

Where for Adrien, having the chance to become Chat Noir made him be able to drop his perfect son model persona and be wild and free and laidback, get some freedom, for Nath it’d become a power fantasy, being able to be strong and respected like he’s always dreamed, but it’d also make him adopt a fake persona. Becoming one, instead of shedding one.

In short, instead of truly being all in it to help other people and/or doing the best job they can, it’s all bad coping with their citizen lifestyle & focused on their own self.

And you’re going to say; Well that doesn’t sound so bad. Oh no, oh no trust me it is. Being superheroes and feeling important for a bit will not in any way sort their issues out.

Chloe indeed getting positive attention from being Ladybug will def not act like therapy with her and won’t solve the shit ton of issues she has, and ultimately what she needs isn’t fame at all, or support relying on how much she does (aka transactional support), that’ll only shift her world view from "to be important(aka respected and "good") I need to be like my mother 24/7" to "to be important(aka liked) I need to excel as a superhero 24/7". What she needs is to allow herself to be imperfect and vulnerable and getting a good support system.

And Nath is so much worse oh no my boy. Imo he’s very much the sort of bully victim to fantasize about suddenly growing incredible strength or magical powers and slamdunking on their bullies with it, I see him as having some anger issues, mostly bc of the ep where he’s quick to assume Marc is ill intentioned and snaps at him + his Evillustrator episode. Of course though, like with Chloe, their issues stem from trauma. But all this to say that as a superhero? It would be the biggest ego trip for him. He’d put on this act of what he thinks the "cool, appreciated" jokester superhero behaves like and ultimately, like with Chloe, the validation he gets from being a superhero won’t truly feel like validation for him. His service to the city would (like Chloe, yeah they do have similarities ngl) make him feel entitled to more recognition and things in his citizen life. He’d want to randomly use his powers to get attention from citizens, etc etc, and fighting and being in a situation of power would enable him to let out his anger and resentment in unhealthy ways.

Yayy say hi to our heroes!! They do seek to defeat akumas and protect the city & citizens tho.

On the first meeting as superheroes they wouldn’t like each other, but after that Nath would become smitten with Ladybug, and not out of idealism either. It’ll be so ironic that he’s so in love with her as Ladybug but absolutely loathes her as Chloe. I think Chloe might have tried one of her flashy tricks like endangering the train for attention, but then she’d get demolished by the akuma, and then when she ultimately wins and defeats it, the saved citizens cheer for her so much more than they did when she faked a problem. So, she thought, here actions actually matter instead of pretenses and appearances like in high society and politics? Wild. And getting demolished actually gives her a wake up call that this isn’t play-pretending, it’s serious, and so in my AU as ladybug she’d be pretty no nonsense and straight to the point, liking to be valued by her merits because she does put in efforts.

Tikki’s adherance to rules and moral righteousness does rub off on her, but honestly Chloe doesn’t see future consequences all that much. Her reason for rejecting Chat Noir’s advances (besides her not liking him that much, no love square bc I don’t think in this AU Chloe would have a crush on Nath, at least not until he gives her a chance ) and request to know each other’s identities isn’t because of rules or safety at all, but because she’s terrified that he’ll reject her if he knows who she is. And she’s right to be, because when the identity reveal does happen, Nath is pissed and refuses to see her for like one or two weeks. But yes Tikki does imprint in her the importance of rules and plans of action, and that… Ends up making her more bossy in her citizen life. Akuma attacks? Chloe will be telling her classmates how to act as she gets a special free pass to leave because of her father, pissing everyone off.

Now where it’d get fun is that Chloe would slander the shit out of the Akuma’s costumes, and Hawkmoth’s if she ever sees it. Like Marinette doesn’t does that in canon and she’s an aspiring fashion designer hello??! I guess that comedic potential will have to go to our meanest girl critic then. Also she def does banter with Chat Noir. Like, the nickname chaton? She tries it once condescendingly, saying and Chat Noir goes "Don’t call me kitten" understandably peeved, and she goes "Well, what am I going to call you then? Chat Noir is so alleyway tomcat, ew. Hmm, how about tiger?" Pointing to his hair, and that makes him feel kinda fierce and badass so he agrees lol

But also, I think he’d start giving more chances to Chloe in citizen life and in turn it’d surprise Chooe and encourage her to be more vulnerable with him and in general. They form a tense but non-hostile acquaintanceship. When asked why, Nath just goes "Someone taught me that giving second chances can surprise you." aka Ladybug because he disliked her at first (she reminded him of Chloe lol). Chloe would be super curious about and interested in the superhero comics Nath makes, centered around Ladybug and Chat Noir’s adventures, some suspiciously accurate and some very obviously made up. When poiting at his comics, she calls Chat Noir ‘tiger’ and Nath is SO disturbed about it, but Chloe’s like "?? Well it’s know Ladybug calls hom that, so um, like, everyone calls him that now you know? Get in with the times"

The relationship between the miraculous holders and their kwamis would be crucial.

Like, we know that Chloe admires Ladybug in canon a bunch, but I don’t remember why exactly, so I don’t think Chloe would necessarily be overjoyed at first to get such a huge responsibility dropped on her. But all that Tikki would need to say is "I chose you, no one else can do it", aka, "you’re special" and Chloe is instantaneously sold. Once she realizes it’s not a game she’d feel a lot of pressure on her shoulders, but ultimately she’ll end up feeling like it’s her duty and hers alone and she can’t give it to anyone else, because she’s special. But as time goes on, Tikki becomes someone Chloe really leans on. She sort of replaces Mr. Cuddly for her: Tikki is a supportive presence that offers unconditional advice and affection. Of course Tikki will scold her on a bunch of things, helping her see the errors of her way and acting as a sort of moral compass, BUT! Tikki will also be the only person that she can truly just be with, even Jean can’t do that fully because ultimately he’s a hired worker and doesn’t want to be fired, or be super attached only for his contract to end y’know. With everyone, even Adrien imo, she has some expectations to uphold or effects she wants to have, but Tikki? Tikki’s seen her bawling her eyes out, saying ugly things out of anger, covered in mud, she’s seen everything. Tikki knows everything about her and her situation in both halves of her life, and she hasn’t left, and that just means that Chloe can truly have no filter with her. And Tikki takes care of her holder.

Needless to say Nath jumps onto the opportunity as soon as Plagg so much as utters a word. I think it’s often forgotten or undermined, but while Plagg is generally laidback, he also has a strong sense of morals and he 100% will bluntly confront Nath if he tries or does anything shitty or anything for the wrong reasons. He will 100% call out Nath on it if he’s not taking being a superhero seriously enough (I know, god forbid Plagg to be the pne to do that lmao). Plagg is that type of influence that will encourage Nath to stand up for himself and become more self-confident (in a healthy and genuine way) in his citizen life. He’ll tell him to stand up to his bullies, and he’ll hype him up like "You’re epic! Yeah!! You can do this!! YEAH!!!" which will be SO good for Nath. But, if Nath is thinking of getting revenge on, say, Chloe, in a cruel way, Plagg will def be the first to say it’s wrong and will only make everything worse for everyone. He’s a sort of firm but incredibly warm older brother. In a similar way to Chloe, Plagg’s seen how Nath is and doesn’t mind it at all, is still the same supportive way, and that helps Nath with his insecurities, that maybe if Plagg still likes him then that how he really is isn’t lame or plain or boring.

Tikki is the supportive and present parental figure she needs. Plagg is the emotionally & socially intelligent and encouraging friend he needs.

So in the end, the true remedy for shit self-esteem isn’t superhero powers but the friends we made along the way.

Chloe and Nath are such good mirrors of one another fr fr 😭😭💕

I hope y’all like this! I’d write it, but I’m awfuuul at writing longfics. Maybee one day. I do have another miraculous holder chlonath AU that I’d like to get to first though.

[fierceawakening]

So @ceanothusspinosis really likes to use replies not reblogs, even when they’re posting multiple paragraphs and even when they’re including links, which makes giving the whole context really rough when I’m on mobile. So my apologies for pulling this out like it’s everything they said but I only have so much patience for shit I can’t cut and paste.

But this is the core of the issue right here. The quote is saying that the number of people who pose an immediate risk is small, and suggests basically methods of deescalation plus some supervision to make sure the person has fully calmed.

That’s… not bad advice, if the issue is that someone is highly emotional and behaving irrationally as a result.

But there’s a lot of crime that is not that, and I think it’s a mistake to say those crimes or the people who commit crimes that are not that are “very small in number.”

Which is to me the heart of what’s going on. I think there are a lot of middle class (using the term very broadly) leftists for whom experiencing crime is very rare, the kind of thing that only comes up once or twice in their life, probably when the one family member they have with serious behavioral issues isn’t adequately supervised.

It’s very easy, if this is what you’re working from, to think that crime really isn’t much of a problem. You and your family can usually handle Cousin Jack, it’s just you thought Maude was watching him when she thought Vernon was. And anyway PRISON?! Would he even understand being there? He doesn’t hurt people, he just forgets things don’t belong to him sometimes.

This is an understandable thing to think! It’s a lot of people’s experience.

This is not the experience of a LOT of people, though. I’m going to talk about two different things in depth here and each may take a while

My major concern, as I e mentioned before, is powerful people who repeatedly harm or exploit others. I’m leery of the idea that such people will respond to “short term intensive supervision in the community,” or to “active therapeutic intervention.” I’m not a licensed mental health professional, just a case worker of various sorts over many years, but I shudder to think of the poor “therapeutic intervener” assigned to a Trump or a Nassar or a Weinstein.

So my strong suspicion is that people like this who have a vision of mutual aid and community support are compartmentalizing and don’t even see that they’re doing it. They have petty crimes in mind, perpetrated by young poor people, possibly with mild behavioral issues. Since there are good ways to solve those without prison, prison bad!

But you’ve put aside a whole massive category of crimes and of people who commit them, and aren’t realizing it because it’s not who you aim to protect.

There’s another group too though: people who aren’t powerful, but are recidivists. This can be anyone, but I have child abusers and rapists I. Mind specifically, because those are people whose crimes tend to hook into their belief system. Very often these are people who are taught that what they’re doing is right, or at least necessary. That people who say they’re being harsh or cruel are naive or silly or poisoned by liberal squishiness.

Which I don’t think is completely immune in all cases to “therapeutic intervention,” but once again I think we need a failsafe. What if the best damn social worker in the syndicate just can’t convince old Bob to put down his belt?

So again, I think the issue is likely one of compartmentalization. People aren’t sitting down and listing every bad action that falls under the category of crime, and thinking about how effective they expect health care providers in the community to reasonably be.

The existence of prison, as awful as it is, at least means society recognizes that there are some people it doesn’t know how to change.

[annisrealandsoami]

I have been thinking about Percy Jackson a lot lately. Specifically, Luke. Mostly because of the musical, not the show.

I haven’t read the books in a bit for several reasons all relating to the fact that I am an ‘adult’. So my information and ideas are a bit detached from the source material, so apologies in advance.

I relate to Luke in a lot of ways. Mostly in thinking. Tbh if a voice told me to get vengeance, I’m not sure I would argue with it. (Violence is the question, etc)

He was a ‘good kid’. He was nice. He never asked for anything. All he really wanted was some recognition from his dad, and when that finally happened and nothing changed, and he was obviously not okay. He was changed, not for the better. He fought hard, for something minor. He was permanently scarred from what was basically an errand.

The gods feel comparable to the political system (hold on, it’s time for my bullshit, also I’m an American if that needed for context). They have all the power, yet they can’t(won’t) fix issues that are actively hurting society. It’s constantly in turmoil. There’s always something happening, something horrible that can mostly be blamed by it.

Luke feels like he see the gods as they are: deeply flawed. So he comes to the logical conclusion to overthrow them, to remove them from power. Except he’s just trying to replace them with basically the same thing and hoping for a different result.

If the system is flawed, it doesn’t make sense to replace the gears without tweaking the design. However, that’s not something Luke can do. He doesn’t have that power to complete rebuild the system. No one does.

Percy, however, doesn’t take Luke’s route. He knows he can’t fix the system. Not completely. But he does get the opportunity to have ‘power’, what does he do? He, instead of joining the inherently corrupt system, demands a couple changes: for the gods to accept their kids, have cabins for all the minor gods, and to grant amnesty to innocent titians and such. These are all pressing issues at the time. Does it solve everything? No. Obviously not. But it helped, even if it’s not a lot.

So it makes you think, lol. We can’t really ‘replace’ the machine that is our government, but we can jimmy rig it until we can make a improved system. Or at least that’s my understanding. Sorry for the shit metaphor.

[dolphin1812]

I’m so glad that Cosette is safe now, but this chapter still feels so sad? There’s so much desperation in Valjean when he screams “a hundred francs.” On the one hand, this goes back to his tendency to try to solve his problems with money. This stems, in part, from his need to do so (he can’t have people get too close to him and start scrutinizing his life, or else he risks getting caught; this is very similar to what he did as Madeleine), but it also reflects so poorly on society. After all, who would demand 100 francs just to warm up a child by a fire? (I know the answer is the Thénardiers, but they’re not here, so let’s act as if it’s purely hypothetical). On the other, 100 francs is a lot of money, and that he would offer so much underscores just how scared he is.

It’s also so moving that Fauchelevent specifically addresses him as “Father Madeleine.” Valjean chose that name for himself (”He called himself Father Madeleine” - 1.5.1), but it also remained his preferred name after he became wealthy enough to be called “monsieur” and even after he became “monsieur le Maire” (”When he was known to be rich, "people in society" bowed to him, and he was called in the town Monsieur Madeleine; but his workmen and the children continued to call him Father Madeleine, and this caused him his happiest smile” - 1.5.2). Fauchelevent not only radically changed his opinion of Madeleine, but he addressed him as those fondest of him - his workmen and the children - would, showing not just respect, but affection. 

Fauchelevent is also so funny. Normally, I don’t want more criticism of Valjean, because society is harsh enough on him as it is (meaning, the criticism usually makes no sense and is about punishing his “criminality” rather than his actual flaws). Fauchelevent, though, targets his actual flaws in such an amusing way. I love that he’s “reproachful” of Valjean for not immediately recognizing him and for having forgotten all of the arrangements he made for him. It’s understandable to us as readers - he’s had such a chaotic experience that of course some details will slip his mind - but it also illustrates how in his rush to “do good,” he avoids making connections. He saved Fauchelevent’s life during and after his accident, but he didn’t actually bond with him, forgetting him as soon as he was gone as if good deeds occur in a vacuum and don’t impact others. Fauchelevent goes as far as to say this:

“ “Ah! Father Madeleine! You did not recognize me immediately; you save people’s lives, and then you forget them! That is bad! But they remember you! You are an ingrate!””

He’s not wrong, exactly. To Valjean, good deeds are part of his own moral journey to be “honest” and live up to the bishop’s command. While he does so much for others, that mission also makes it so that he’s very focused on himself, even though he denies himself (almost) everything. Consequently, he can’t fully process the extent to which he affects others. In this case, he can’t see how much his decision to rescue Fauchelevent made the other man care for and admire him and is, in a sense, an “ingrate” for not respecting Fauchelevent’s feelings. 

Spoilers below:

Valjean never really gets over this issue. When he isolates himself from Cosette at the end of the novel, his logic is very similar: he had to take care of her to do good, but she has other people to look after her now, and it would be selfish (and thus unacceptable) of him to continue to be in her life. He doesn’t realize that Cosette loves him and wants him to be in her life, likely even if she knew his past. His actions aren’t just good deeds to help him live as the bishop said to; they’re the basis of their relationship and an expression of love.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Q: What are the significant contributing factors to why suicide is such a prevalent problem for men?

A: Research is showing us that men who are suicidal don’t consider themselves having a "mental health problem." They have a problem that's out there, external. It will be things like debt, or joblessness, or experiences of abuse, experiences of childhood trauma, or bullying in school.

One in five suicides in the UK, of men, is linked to relationship breakdown, and child custody battles. A huge cohort of men fighting a losing battle against a sexist family court system, and a lot of them turn to suicide. They're not "mentally unwell." They've just lost their child. And in fact, they're responding in a way that actually makes a lot of sense. So, I’d say in general, we need to stop seeing suicide as an irrational decision, based on some sort of mental health problem, and start to understand suicide as a rational solution-based outcome, for many men, who are trying to solve a problem of which they can’t control, and they've got no choices left.

Susie and I described male suicide a bit like, a pot of water on a stove, and it's bubbling up, and it's about to pop off. That man talking is equivalent to taking the lid off that saucepan. You're taking the lid off, you're allowing it to breathe. You're allowing it to settle down. And talking, taking that lid off off, does help. It helps deal with the problem itself, but I don’t know if it solves the problem. We need to work out what is that, the thing that's creating that heat? Is it a man in debt? Is it a man losing his job? Is it a man losing his child? Is it some sort of relationship breakdown?

11% of men who are being abused, will attempt suicide. That is a massive problem. If one of those men goes to a talk group, and tells the people there, "I’m being abused... there’s nowhere for me to go. There are no shelters. I call up the abuse helpline... they think I'ma predator." If that charity listening to that man, doesn’t then go onto advocate for greater support for male victims of abuse; more shelters, more funding, a fundamental change in the way in which police handle abuse. Then that charity is not doing enough, in my opinion. Charities need to "talk" themselves, they're the ones that need to "talk," and actually do something about the problems that men are telling them about.

The vast majority of men who die by suicide do actually talk, and have actually sought help, but the help they got was not adequate, and it failed them, and they still died by suicide. So this meme of "men can talk," as some sort of silver bullet to suicide. It's just not good enough.

It highlights a very important generalised difference in how we look at women's and men’s issues. For women’s, for example, we say, "the problem is out there in society... we need to change society." For men’s issues, we only ever say, "he needs to change himself."

As well, we need to let men speak about what they want to speak about. So often men do talk, and we don't like what they've got to say, and we tell them to "shut up." So then we've got these two co-existing strands, one side is telling men "to talk," and the other is telling men to "shut up." And overall, we can all do better. And we have to do better.

And recognise male suicide is a massive, societal, epidemic problem, that we all need to help solve, and not just throw it at the feet of men. And until we start seeing men in the same way as women, the victim of issues that they are not fully in control of, then I don’t know what we can really do for male suicide.

--

It’s men’s mental health month, and as much as it’s important to raise awareness around #mentalhealth, and the importance of discussing it without stigma, it is also a time to speak about what mental health is not.

And no…’mental health’ is not the best lens through which to view and understand the epidemic of male suicide, which remains the leading cause of death in men below the age of 50.

No doubt in the week before this, and in the weeks to come, #mensmentalhealthmonth will be marked with many well-meaning calls, and kind words, to reduce male suicide.

Many will share numbers to call, a plea to ‘talk’, or offer a listening ear; but what few will speak of, is how most suicidal men don’t even conceptualise the problem they have as a ‘mental heath problem’, at all.

In fact, most of these men are of sound mind, viewing suicide as a rational and solution-based outcome, to ‘solve’ a problem they can no longer bear.

These men will point to debt, or joblessness, some kind of relationship breakdown, experiences of bullying, or abuse, sexual trauma, physical disability, loneliness, child custody breakdown…

And when it comes to such issues, each of which can lead directly to suicide, it is not men who refuse to talk, but society.

We refuse to talk about such issues men face, or even deny their existence entirely.

It’s a strange time to be an advocate fighting male suicide, because so many people claim to care, but when it comes to having the difficult, ugly discussions around the very things that cause male suicide, the room suddenly empties and the kindness evaporates.

The simple fact is, that male suicide has been in the limelight for years now; the campaigns have run, the money has been spent, and the problem is no better.

Something is not working.

Yes.

We are right to ask for “talk”, but not just words from the men needing our help, but “talk” from everybody else too.

So why are men doing this?

Are suicide interventions working?

And have we gotten our view of men’s issues, and male suicide, all wrong?

[sometimesiwritethingsilike]

I was bitten by the ASTV bug and went back to my Marvel fic roots for this:

Summary:

As it turns out, projecting his issues onto a fifteen-year-old doesn't solve anything. In fact, it kind of breaks everything, including Miguel. Now he has to figure out how to put things back together and make things right with those he's hurt. Or, 5 times Miguel redeems himself by saving a Spider. Learning to love again and building a family along the way? Total coincidence.

Snippet:

It’s exactly the assembly he’d been expecting, all eight of them — though he could’ve done without Peter having brought Mayday. 

“I’m not looking for a fight,” Miguel announces, tone carefully neutral. 

Hobie and Gwen react with immediate disbelief. Still, they move aside when Miles steps up. 

“Then why are you here?”

Miguel gestures to their roof. 

“It’ll be easier to explain if I’m not trying to shout across buildings.” 

Miles appraises him, wary in a way that makes him seem much older. The sight twists something in Miguel’s chest. 

Finally, Miles nods, stepping back to give Miguel room to swing over. 

Miguel lands as close to the edge of the building as he can, all too aware of the nervous energy that thrums through the group. He doesn’t want to set them off. 

Up close, he can see that Miles looks exhausted, and injured. There are gashes on his shoulder, climbing up to his neck. 

For a moment Miguel’s gut burns acrid with guilt until he realizes that the edges of the wounds are cauterized. He might’ve lost control, but he knows intimately well what his talons can do. These nasty cuts reek of Prowler claws, likely a souvenir from 42. 

“Well?” Miles prompts, crossing his arms. “You gonna talk or what?” 

So Miguel does his best to ignore everyone but Miles as he lays out the plan to defeat Spot and how Miles’ power is the key to doing so. When he’s finished, half the group’s eyes are on him and the other half are on a pensive Miles, who, for once, isn’t wearing his emotions on his sleeve. 

“Kinda convenient innit?” Hobie states, staring Miguel down, “a Spider’s gotta get up close and personal with the villain and it so happens to be the one you’re tryna get rid of.” 

“It’s not like that,” Miguel argues, keeping his temper in check. 

“Isn’t it?” Hobie throws back, sardonic and irreverent in all the ways that have always pushed Miguel’s buttons. 

“Trust me, if I could take Morales’ place, I would.”

“Don’t think you know the meaning of that word mate.”

Miguel bites down a retort. Hobie grins, surprised but happy to take the win. 

“Alright,” Miles finally says, “What’s the catch?”

Miguel’s brows draw up in confusion. 

“What?”

“No offense—”

“— ’e means full offense—” Hobie interjects.

“—But you’ve made it clear that you’re not the kinda guy to give something for nothing,” Miles continues, “So, what’s the catch? If you let us use your tech, I have to go along with what you want? I gotta let my dad die?” 

The others look away. Peter actually flinches. 

Miguel sighs. Right. He brought this on himself. 

“No.” He says, in a tone he hopes is very honest and very final. 

The others stare at him in shock. Miles’ gaze is softer. There’s something in his eyes, a glimmer of that young, infectious hope that was there before Miguel ruined the vision of the Spider Society for him. 

“It’s your world, Morales,” Miguel affirms, “It’s your story. You call the shots.” 

“So if I tell you to go right now, you’d do it?” 

Miguel swallows thickly. 

“I’d tell you you need all the help you can get but yes, I’d go.”

“And if I tell you I can do both things I gotta do, but I’m saving my dad first, you’ll listen?”

“Yes.”

“Then swear it.” 

[maylorscardigan]

I noticed you’ve spoken very loudly about Joe and his treatment of Taylor. You’ve discussed controversy with Matty. But I’ve never seen you mention the GG issue. Can’t defend him on that one can you? He’s a disgusting human being for that.

I knew this was bound to come up. I was hoping to save it for my blog I’m building on topics like this. But okay. I’ll address it.

Why am I not outraged by Matty and GG 🌽? Well…

My ex that I have mentioned before was a 🌽 addict. We aren’t talking normal levels of consumption here. We are talking hours spent a day looking for the right material. Self pleasuring 6-8 times a day on a good day. Being abusive towards me because of the addiction. Doing and saying things I would never, ever repeat to anyone. Even when he knew my history… it never stopped it. It just made the things he did to me worse.

I also have spent a lot of time working with victims of sex trafficking. I myself was a victim of it - for a few decades at that.

I know the harsh realities of the 🌽 industry. I know that most of what you see on 🌽 hub or any of the millions of sites - including NSFW Reddit or OnlyFans are trafficking. The fact that someone is verified and seemingly willing to do said things - doesn’t mean they are. It’s amazing what you will be forced to make people believe. All the controllers need is some weakness. Need it be a child to threaten to harm or worse, family, loved ones etc or a slew of other things. Or the fact that deep fake technology is used on even the most basic of materials in order to keep things like their bodies completely unrealistic as well as hide the victims identity better.

And I know what you’re thinking - this should make me even more enraged at him and to hate his guts for it. Is it something I necessarily like about him? No. Not at all.

However - Matty is the type of guy that if he knew the deep underbelly of the industry and what it was really like… he would step away from it as a hole or try to be more conscious about what he consumes.

Remember - we also don’t know what his sex life is actually like. There are people all over the world who engage in that sort of degrading and physically brutal sexual acts by choice - and I am not referring to what he may have been consuming. I am referring to the private of one’s home. He has been in a long term relationship with a woman of colour to which he said he was going to marry one day and again - we have no idea what they did behind closed doors. It could have even been curiosity and someone happened to walk in.

The point is - attacking one man and shaming them is not going to fix the problem. It’s a witch hunt. If we go after Matty for this then we have to go to the men and women around you each and every day of your life. Including family members or friends. Most of the world’s populations have watched and used 🌽 to get off. (I’m talking teenagers and adults) and some of those you interact with day to day have seen things that make GG look innocent and it’s far more popular.

The issue isn’t with one man - because there’s 40,000 other people subscribed to that channel in the hub. The views of these videos are multimillion. But we live in a society where we are told it’s normal and you’re a prude or a liar if you don’t watch it.

Me raging and going after Matty about this is not only going to do nothing to solve the problem but shaming someone is going to make them more likely to do so it. Shame is a driving factor in addictions and 🌽 is no different.

I chose too, instead, educate people on the realities of the industry and how real trafficking is when it comes to that kind world. I fight for change and awareness and I do whatever I can for victims getting out and trying to heal and be out in the world again. I also work with victims of trafficking directly as well as partners of those who have sex / 🌽 addiction.

All any of this is - is a witch hunt. And the people who watch these things casually are not bad or horrible people. They believe whatever you see on sites like 🌽 hub or many others is consensual.

If the people ripping him apart took even a 1/10000 of that rage for one man and put it towards awareness… it might be a very different reality.

[dirt-apple-productions]

Tomura shouldn’t have redemption by death. Not only would it fall into the same “encouraging suicide for characters who are very clearly mentally ill and already self-harming,” “no responsibility given for the villain’s actions,” “communicating that at a point you stop being human when you do bad things I personally don’t like” problems, but there’s something else I feel needs to be said.

A sacrifice arc, even one that doesn’t fall into those three issues above, doesn’t work for Tomura. It wouldn’t teach him anything, it wouldn’t solve the problems he caused, and it certainly wouldn’t help solve the glaring systemic rot that caused him to become evil in the first place.

Tomura WANTS to save people. He WANTS to be a hero. Did we all forget how he infiltrated the mafia - a very risky mission for his crew with a high chance of death - to avenge Magne and Compress? Did we ignore how he threw himself into a hopeless battle to save his broker of all people? How he bullied Re-Destro in large part due to how he messed with Twice’s emotions? How he tenderly said he believed in Toga and Twice during the Overhaul arc, how he used to play games with Spinner? Did all that just fly out the window?

Tomura’s problem isn’t that he’s selfish, at least not any more selfish than the average person. His problem is that he’s so broken that he thinks that he can’t be fixed. His only option is to use his Quirk to destroy because all the voices in his head - Kotaro’s, Hana’s, All For One’s, the Doctor’s, and even noble heroes like Gran Torino and Endeavor - have said is that he’s a destroyer and he has to die. He doesn’t go for community service to make the world a better place because no one has ever believed in him to be good. And thus, he destroys, because at least you can use rubble to rebuild society so it won’t remind you what a mistake you are for existing.

[squicky-fannish-discourse]

I probably should catch up with BNHA, but I simply do not want to at the same time. 

I just have thoughts about this series that I must let out into the void after all my past investment.

I don’t even like the characters of BNHA as much as I loved Shigaraki and pre-war League of villains and what they stood for, and the multitude of villainous factions. 

It’s been so chaotic since I left off in October post Bakugou’s death which was unneeded shock factor. 

The chaos of BNHA lies in it’s inability to make a point and stick to the point/explore the hero system. But rather, it oscillates between ‘here’s an interesting argument’ and here’s ‘the counter to it’ and it all ties together opaquely to the one final concept and idea: what it means to be a hero. 

This sounds all very vague. What does it mean?

This doesn’t mean either heroes are bad or good, but it brings up some very interesting points of the hero society, and then blankets it with the final answer.

Some things aren’t just left open-ended, where they should be. It’s better off open-ended, because your manga will thrive because fans love debates. 

Instead, I think it continues to malign the villains (who I believe have valid concerns about hero society) and starts to caricaturize their concerns. Shigaraki Tomura, a primary villain, was playing second fiddle to All For One. For what reason? 

Tomura has valid concerns about the way hero society actually may have not reached out to a 6 year old child. This is not inherently a hero issue but a societal problem, where if there is someone being hurt, no one will step in, because it’s a hero’s job to do it. 

This is solved by Deku apparantly reaching a metaphorical hand. Deku who embodies the next generation of heroes.

No, you’re missing the point. I wish this was delivered and simplified. 

Tomura wants a society where everyone reaches out a hand, not just the heroes. Hero worship means I do not have to do anything.

The same applies for Dabi. They have larger societal issues and problems that aren’t solved by “Hero reaches out a hand” and “Dad becomes a better dad”.

Ultimately, yes, Dabi is created by his father and family, but it is also a result of abuse and psychological abuse and neglect and ultimately the hero system and the ranking system which enable ambitions, power-hungry individuals, while also having a sense of false morality.

The ideal thing to do would be to remove a ranking system entirely. Hero work would be ultimately more lacklustre for people who want fame and power but it would be honest. 

Someone reading this would debate with me already, which is the point of the debate. Zero in on the issue, tackle it, and this would bring a lot to BNHA’s discourse.

Instead, it all gets muddled in the form of powerups and who fights the best, and meaning gets lost entirely, and we’re stuck watching Deku and his insane 6 quirks, and because of those 6 quirks, he tends to have a final say in everything (like Aoyama and Tooru. Why was he randomly there to catch it in the act? It could have been Tooru’s time to shine.) 

Society in BNHA does not give a fuck about the tough questions, which is really reminiscent of most human behavior. BNHA is a largely selfish society. But even in that, they aren’t entirely unreasonable. 

Society is not really allowed to partake in discussion, or are either painted as being complaining background characters, rather than intelligent people weighing in on the issues. Because eventually we must come back to the screen time issue.

Listen, no one listens and no one cares for the villains. When in reality, there are factions and groups of people who would listen to villains. If you have loud enough of a loudspeaker. 

Yes, BNHA is shounen, and it is for a younger demographic, and they do need to see their main characters, and we do need to simplify content, and have a conclusive ending where the hero is right, and we do need a villain to punch. 

But perhaps the fundamental and empathetic answer of BNHA really should have been ‘everyone should try their best to help other people, or hear other people in a world where their own bodies and quirks are working against them’ and eventually come to a conclusive end.