#and maybe instead of labeling and disregarding things as simply toxic

[illgiveyouahint]

I'm catching up on the last 4 episodes of HOTE (I am always waiting for @isaksbestpillow's subs 'cause this story is too precious to have it be misinterpreted by bad Gaga subtitles).

I am so fascinated by both of the characters. They're so traumatized and yet there's this hint of hope that can be built upon. They're trying to find something healthy among all the cruelty of their life. Their relationship is at times incredibly toxic and yet it is the best thing that happened to either of them. They're so desperately trying to cling to the bit of good that's there. I do not know whether it will end well but I am fascinated by the characters and the story being constructed here.

[anarmorofwords]

Hi! You're probably not going to like this ask, but before getting into it I'd just like to say that this isn't meant as Kamala hate or anything, and I don't really want to offend.

Having said that, wouldn't it make sense that we get to see how Kamala treated Anna after she came out? It's in all likelihood one of the things that's weighing on Anna the most.

Obviously Kamala had her valid reasons: her parents aren't as liberal as the Lightwoods, she believes (knows?) their love is conditional as she's adopted, she's not white and not being heterosexual could further any treatment she's suffered from being different... Her reasons have already been listed multiple times by multiple people. Kamala has the right to stay in the closet and fear coming out. And while that shouldn't be villianised, we can't forget that closeted people can harm those around them.

If Kamala had kept treating Anna like a good friend, rumour would've sparked, and even if it was denied, she'd have been harmed by merely associating with Anna. Especially with the life Anna began leading; she could have been labelled as one of Anna's 'conquests' by the Clave. That, as we've established, is detrimental for her safety.

But at the same time, it would create a breach between Anna and Kamala. And Anna had the right to be hurt by it and weary of it when Kamala said she wanted a relationship.

If we look at it from that perspective, Anna's actions (though inexcusable in how they treated Kamala --who was also at fault for not accepting a negative for four months) make sense. Kamala wasn't only a fling of a week*, but also the girl she lost her virginity with, who asked her to be her secret (until she married Charles, after which Anna's affections would be discarded), who hid her sexuality for two years and sat back while Anna suffered from homophobic commentary, and who now wants a relationship hidden from most of the people that know her.

Kamala shouldn't be forced to come out; but the harm that can do to the women she may engage with is reflective of what happens nowadays. I can mostly think of examples with gay men, so my apologies in advance. But how many women have seen their marriages ruined by their husband having affairs with men?

Creating characters that reflect a toxic part of the 'hidden' LGBT community shouldn't be seen as hating or villinifying. Thomas isn't out and he isn't labelled a villain by the narrative --because his actions don't harm anyone. The hate Alastair gets in-universe is because of his past as a bully, not because he's gay. Matthew's not fully out and he isn't villianised --like Thomas, because the decisions he makes to keep his sexuality hidden don't impact anyone negatively.

I'll even go as far as saying that not even the narrative villianises characters like Kamala and Charles. If it were, they'd be seen more like Grace in Chain of Gold. We'd see how Kamala's actions are affecting Anna's in more ways than anger (that in itself put the fandom against Anna), and the characters would note so. We wouldn't see scenes were Cordelia empathised with Charles, nor Matthew said he loved him.

Be it as it may, Kamala and Charles represent ugly parts of being closeted that can naturally occur when someone is in their position. LGBT people are human. Humans, when put into very difficult situations (and Charles risks his career; Kamala her safety), can make decisions that harm those around them. Consequently, the people they're harming have a right to feel, well, harmed in whatever range of ways --this goes mostly for Alastair, and very partly for Anna, whose treatment of Kamala was horrible.

Readers need to understand what is pushing these 'villianised' characters to harm (again, mostly for Alastair) the more prominent characters and go beyond how they are instantly depicted. Because these are complex characters based on complex real people influenced by very ugly realities we will move on from someday, but sadly not yet.

By the way, Charles and Kamala's situations aren't that similar beyond the closeted thing, but I crammed them together because of a post I saw you reblog.

Please understand I'm not justifying Charles's actions; that I understand the pain he's put Alastair through, and know that he shouldn't ever be near Alastair. Nor am I trying to justify Anna's actions nor hate on Kamala.

I'll just finish my pointless rant by adding that I do think cc has sensitivity readers. I think she asked a gay man to go through tec (I don't know if he still revised her other books, though), and know she asked POC's input when writing someone for their culture. I don't know much beyond that, but I doubt who revises her stuff is up to her. Wouldn't that be something the publisher is responsible for (honest question)?

*I've also noticed people using the argument that they didn't know each other long enough for Anna to harbour such ugly emotions towards Kamala, but Kamala also remembered Anna pretty deeply and is 'in love' with her. I just wanted to say that considering cc writes (fantastical) romance where someone can ask a woman they met two months ago marriage, stressing over time spaces doesn't make much sense. Just my take.

hi!!

alright, where do I start? probably would be best with stating that while I can analyse Kamala's situation with what I know/see/read about racism and discrimination and reasonably apply things I've read/heard from PoC to the discussion, as well as try to be as sensitive about it as possible, I'm still a white woman, so not a person that's best qualified to talk about this.

that being said - if someone wants to add something to this conversation, you're obviously more than welcome to, and if there's something in my answer that you don't agree with or find in some way insensitive or offensive - please don't hesitate to call me out on that.

back to your points though: (this turned into a whole ass essay, so under the cut)

I don't think Anna shouldn't be able to reminiscent on Kamala's behaviour/reaction to her coming out, or be hurt by it. what bothers me is the way CC talks about it - I can't remember the exact phrasing, but the post where she mentioned this suggested something along the lines of "you'll see how Kamala sided with the Clave and didn't defend Anna after her coming out", therefore putting the blame on Kamala and completely disregarding the fact that Kamala wasn't in position to do much at all. It suggest that their situation was "poor Anna being mistreated by Kamala". therefore I'm afraid Kamanna's main problem/conflict will remain to be portrayed as "Anna having to allow themselves to love again and forgive Kamala", while Anna's shortcomings - and Kamala's vulnerable position - are never discussed. I think it would be possible to acknowledge both Kamala's difficult situation and the possible hurt her behaviour caused Anna without being insensitive towards Kamala's character, but it would take a really skilled - and caring - author to do both of the perspectives justice. CC would have to find a balance between being aware of the racism/prejudice Kamala faced/ writing her with lots of awareness and empathy, and still allowing her to make mistakes and acknowledging them. As it is however, I'm under impression that she's just treating it as a plot device, a relationship drama.

I'd say no one expects characters of color to be written as flawless or never making mistakes, it's mostly the way these mistakes are written and what things these characters are judged/shamed/

And that's - at least in my understanding and opinion - where the problem is. it's that the narrative never even addresses Anna's faults, and portrays Kamala as the one that caused all - or most of - the pain, without ever even acknowledging her problems and background.

White characters in TLH make mistakes and fuck up - because they're human and they're absolutely allowed to - but the thing is, non-white characters aren't afforded that privilege. Anna's behaviour is never questioned - none of it, shaming Kamala for not being able to come out, dismissing her desire to be a mother, or any of the questionable things she did in ChoI. Same with Matthew, James, Thomas. Alastair and Kamala however? they're constantly viewed through their past mistakes, and forced to apologize for them over and over, forced to almost beg for forgiveness. Moreover, those past mistakes are used as a justification of all and any shitty behaviour the other characters exhibit towards them now, which is simply unfair and cruel. They're held to a much higher standard.

So I'd like to say that yes, Kamala was in the wrong to keep nagging Anna after numerous rejections, and she was in the wrong to not inform Anna about Charles prior to them having sex - but that doesn't give Anna a free pass to constantly mistreat Kamala. And let's be real, Anna isn't stupid - while at 17 she could be naive and uninformed, I can't imagine how after years of hanging out with the Downworlders and numerous affairs and being out and judged by the Clave she's still so ignorant about Kamala's situation. I definitely think she's allowed to be hurt, but to still not understand why Kamala did what she did? Anna isn't blaming her for not telling her about Charles earlier - which would be fair - but instead for refusing to engage in an outright romance with her. She's being ignorant - and consciously so, I think.

Overall, I think you're definitely right about how coming out - or staying closeted - can be messy and hurt people in the process, especially in unaccepting environments/time periods, and I've seen enough discourse online to know there will never be a verdict/stance on this that will satisfy everyone. I, for one, would really like to refrain from putting all the blame on a single person - but, at least the way I see it, CC is pointing fingers. maybe not directly, but she is. Kamala, Alastair and Charles have no friends or support systems, and the only people in the narrative that defend them are themselves (ok, Cordelia does defend Alastair from Charles, but not from shitty takes about him and his "sins"). Also, sorry, but I don't like how you say "hid her sexuality for two years and sat back while Anna experienced homophobic comments" - it sounds very much judgemental. Kamala had every right to do that? The fact that she slept with Anna doesn't means she owed her something, and certainly not coming out and most probably destroying her life, or even defending her at the - again - expense of her own reputation, or more possibly safety.

As for Charles - it's a different issue here, at least imo - I fear that it'll be implied that his refusing to come out will is his main "sin", and therefore not something he can be judged for, which ironically, will be villainizing, but mostly will mean his actual sins are dismissed. This is where the scene with Cordelia feeling a pang of sympathy for him comes into play, and it worries me. I've never hated Charles for not wanting to come out, but rather for, let's see - grooming Alastair, disregarding Alastair's needs and feelings, disrespecting his mother, being a sexist prick, being low-key far-right coded "make Shadowhunters great again" etc.

As for sensitivity readers - I'm no expert, so I don't think my input is worth much. From what I've gathered from multiple threads/discussions on twitter, tho it is probably consulted/approved by the publisher, many authors push for that - and authors less famous and "powerful" than her. I'm not a hater, but seeing fandoms' opinions on much of her rep, I think she could do better. Because if she does have sensitivity readers, then they don't seem to be doing a great job - maybe they're friends who don't wanna hurt her feelings? Or maybe she thinks a gay guy's feedback will be enough for any queer content - which, judging by the opinions I've seen from the fans, doesn't seem to be true.

Again, these are mostly my thoughts and I'm more than open to reading other opinions, because *sigh* I really don't know how to handle this.

Bottom line - I really really don't want to be hating on the characters in general, playing God in regards to judging the struggles of minorities, or even criticising the characters too harshly for being human, flawed etc. What my main issue is is how CC handles those complex and heavy topics.

I hope I make sense and this answer satisfies you somehow - I also hope someone better equipped to answer might wanna join this conversation.

* I desperately need a reread of TLH before I engage in any more conversations like this, but I didn't wanna leave you hanging. So yeah, I might be remembering things wrong. Again, let me know, I'm very much open to being corrected as well as to further discussion.

* I use she/her pronouns for Anna because that's what she uses in canon

[woeismyhoe]

I read the Grey thing and she's right. It's basically unanimously agreed that Azula is abusive. But the whole point is that Azula changes herself first and then gets into a relationship with Ty lee based off of love and trust, not intimidation. It's a lesson on changing as a person and forgiveness, which is literally what atla is about. And bdsm isn't abusive at all, it's fairly normal. It seems like people who bashed her either hated tyzula to begin with or minors that didn't understand contxt

I’m fine with the BDSM thing. I know it’s not abuse lmao I was pretty much fine with the whole thing till I realized something about the abusive part lmao most people would advice someone to NOT return back to their abuser, because abusers don’t and can’t change. Sure, with someone new in their life, maybe they can try to change, but that takes years and a lot of intense therapy BUT it rarely ever succeeds.

Abusers are aware that what they’re doing is wrong, but they still do it because they selfishly want everything to go their way and completely disregard the other party’s voice. They DON’T feel remorse for their actions because they literally don’t care about their victim. They want their victim to only listen to them, depend on them— basically obey them for every second of their life. There is no ounce of freedom for the victim of abuse and the abuser will break them mentally and emotionally (sometimes even physically) to make sure the control will be effective. They don’t care about their victim’s happiness. They only care about themselves, and when confronted or triggered, will retaliate by demeaning and gaslighting and guilt tripping their victim. Everything they do and say is part of their calculated plan to ingrain self doubt and destroy their victim’s self-esteem. By the end of the humiliation rant, the victim will feel like utter shit and think it’s their fault, and THAT is the abuser’s aim. Abusers are different from those who have anger issues. Abusers are absolutely in control of their self 24/7. It is control which they pride themselves for, so they are fully aware of what they’re doing and fully aware of the effects on their victim. In their mind, it is never their fault and always the victim’s. There doesn’t need to be an actual reason or ‘trigger’ for their abuse. They just do it whenever there’s a slightest desire of freedom from their victim. And while abusing their victim, they will actually enjoy it— enjoy the control and enjoy the power, hence not feeling any ounce of remorse at all. This isn’t a habit that can be changed. It’s rarely ever changed. It’s a behavior that can be prevented in the first place, but abusers just don’t care. Abusers are pretty much close to being monsters. They just murder the person’s soul instead of the body.

This is a prime example of abuse:

1. Petty trigger ✓

2. Insert self doubt ✓

3. Destroy self-esteem ✓

THIS is abuse. And Ozai doesn’t even feel a shed of remorse or guilt for how he treated his family. At all. Because in his mind, he is right and has always been right. He believes that it is his actual RIGHT to control his family. This is what a abuser does, and this is what they will always be.

The problem now here is that labeling Azula’s behavior to be abusive, means that she literally did not see Mai and Ty Lee as friends, but simply objects that belonged to her. Calling her to be abusive would mean that did not want them to befriend or be engaged with anyone else but her. HOWEVER. What happened in the series contradicts this. Azula intentionally set up Mai and Zuko together (she and Ty Lee have been literally shipping them forever), Azula also was more than fine with letting everyone go their separate ways when they went to Ember Island simply as ordinary teenagers and more importantly, she never once demeaned her friends.

The thing about Azula is that there’s the 14 year old teenager Azula, and then there’s the Warrior Princess Azula. Notice how when she was off duty in Book 3, there was absolutely no display of ‘abusive’ behavior, or even toxic or an ounce of manipulation and fear. Yes, she occasionally used her advantage of being Princess to make Mai leave to have a private conversation with Zuko, but is that enough to call it abusive? Not really.

Now, the evidence that people usually use to say that Azula was abusive is when she threatened Ty Lee into joining her mission and then the famous exchange between Mai and Azula: “I love Zuko more than I fear you.”

Consider that Azula was in her Warrior Princess mode in both times. She treated them just like she would to any other soldier. She approached Ty Lee as a friend, and that failed, so she switched to her military tactics which was using fear to set her soldier to the right direction. Was it wrong? Definitely. Was it ethical? No. But was it logical at that point? Yes. But was it abusive? Debatable. The control and fear factor was obviously there, but the intention and role that Azula undertook was different from an ordinary abusive person who wanted control simply for their own benefit. In that point of time, Azula didn’t see them as friends, but merely soldiers who were meant to be led by their leader: Princess Azula.

But like I said, her behavior around them differed from in Book 2 and Book 3 because of the roles she was playing. Book 2 was Warrior Princess Azula, and then Book 3 was just Azula hence her being just ‘normal’ around them. Let’s not forget that Azula actually felt remorse for her actions which is unusual for abusive people, even when confronted. Azula believed that trust does not exist because she’s been betrayed and disappointed whenever she did give her trust. She never selectively used fear against people like abusers do. She literally treated everyone the same (except her own abuser and family), because that’s all she’s ever known her entire life to actually work. Family loyalty means something to her, which is why she didn’t feel the need to do the same to Zuko. Azula never demeaned or destroyed anyone’s self esteem either like Ozai did (playful taunting is normal).

I think it’s also important to mention that while yes, most abusers have been abused themselves during their childhood so they carry it with them in their life— Azula’s case seems to just be relying on the belief that fear and control is the most reliable way to get what she wants. And she is in a position of power, so that works out perfectly for her. Azula abuses her power, but not her friends.

Calling Azula abusive would mean that Azula was actually Ozai, except the younger and female version. A lot of people today find Azula redeemable. No one thinks Ozai the same because he is abusive.

Azula is toxic, but certainly not abusive. The word abusive carries a heavy meaning so I’m very nit picky whenever the word is thrown around. Abusers don’t deserve redemption, but evidently Azula does. So, personally, I can’t label her as an abuser because of reasons mentioned above. If someone still ships an abuser with their victim despite so, that just doesn’t feel right and tbh it’s a dangerous mentality to have.

[gtgrandom]

I don’t ship R*ylo, and I agree that Zutara is a completely different (healthier) enemies to friends to partners to (potential lovers) arc. It bugs me when it gets compared to R*ylo for the exact reasons OP stated. BUT....

I also don’t judge anyone for shipping enemies to lovers (even without friendship in between).  Everyone identifies with different characters and interprets “chemistry” differently.  Everyone projects their own life history onto a certain character (for better or for worse).  Sometimes a relationship starts off with sexual tension, despite two people being on opposing teams, and only after a sexual relationship develops and vulnerabilities are displayed do romantic feelings begin to fester.  Sometimes adults just want to smash and relieve their stress. 

“Lovers” doesn’t always encapsulate “love.”

What IS “toxic” is when two people continue to hurt and abuse one another (as enemies) after they’ve entered a romantic relationship.  Once a character crosses the threshold of “I’ve developed true feelings for this person” and the love interest still treats them like crap, that’s when this term is applicable.  By entering a relationship, they’ve signed a contract of mutual respect and love, and it’s when that contract is violated over and over again that we see a toxic relationship develop.  A lot of the time, people also have varying spectrums of what’s okay and not okay in a relationship.  Some might excuse a little more drama because of the nature of the story (e.g. vampires going ballistic due to cravings).  Some might consider a ship a NOTP simply for a red flag they’ve experienced in their real-life relationship.  

For example, Aang displays some possessive / entitled behavior in season 3 of ATLA that turns me off of Kat/aang big time.  Him kissing Katara after they discussed their confused feelings is way more of a concern to me than anything Zuko did back when they were enemies. Because they were enemies at that time. 

I also want to add that what’s “toxic” depends on which narrative you’re following (canon or headcanon).  It might sound silly to make this distinction, but most of the time, fans flesh out an “enemies to lovers” trope to make the ship healthier and more developed.  Fans on the outside only ever see what canon reveals, so they might think something is super rushed or unhealthy. Meanwhile, shippers have constructed an entire world around this ship (fanfic, fanart, headcanons, etc) and to them, it’s a saga of love, growth, and mutual understanding.  Which is why we see so many ship wars.  “MY ship is toxic? What about YOURS?”

The solution here?  I think we all need to stop labeling entire relationships and fandoms “toxic” and instead, point out canon behaviors that don’t sit right with us.  Most of the time, shippers can agree that certain character actions aren’t something they’d support in real life.  Most of the time, it’s something that happened in the “enemy” stage of their ship, and in their mind, antis are disregarding seasons of growth and forgiveness.  

(E.g. maybe you don’t like that Zuko taunted Katara with her mother’s necklace in season 1.  That’s valid.  We don’t like that either, but we’re happy he grew up and apologized for his past behavior.  And we’re glad Katara accepted his apology).

It’s 2021. Let’s stop demonizing entire groups of people for the fictional things they enjoy. 

when people recognize the difference between enemies to lovers and enemies to friends to lovers, i’ll know peace