#idk why I wrote all this

[milfjagger]

one thing about the “cannibalism as a metaphor for love/desire” spike on this website is that there really aren’t that many examples of this trope. you can say it all goes back to hannibal but that is fundamentally not how hannibal lecter operates - he doesn’t care about the people he kills and eats even a little bit and he says as much in the show. in the terror, most of the heroes literally do NOT resort to cannibalism - even though james begs francis to use his body after he dies (selfless love?), francis (as well as the other men) cannot bear to do it and bury him instead. goodsir, probably the most saint/martyr coded character, also refuses to eat human flesh and even weaponises his own body against those who do, killing himself and the perpetrators of cannibalism rather than continue living like that. and no matter how you look at it, hickey does not kill and eat gibson (or anyone else for that matter) because he loves them. he is literally asserting dominance in a survival situation to avoid becoming a victim himself.

yellowjackets is complicated because of the specific homoerotic nature of the relationship between shauna and jackie, and you could argue there’s a certain seduction that happens when jackie’s corpse is “talking” to shauna. the frenzied scene when the girls eat jackie is portrayed as some kind of dark force taking them and there are a lot of emotions tied up in it but it’s not straightforwardly “they love jackie and jackie loved them and would want them to live”. ravenous has a similar homoerotic tone and ives’ seduction of boyd into a life of cannibalism could easily be a metaphor for gay desire, but the film also explicitly critiques “manifest destiny” and colonial greed through the lens of physically consuming anyone who stands in your way.

now let’s talk about actual examples of this trope. in raw, cannibalistic desire IS actually combined with the emotions of sex, and the most moving scene in my opinion is the ending in which the dad reveals a heavily scarred torso from his wife’s bite marks, indicating that he still loves her in spite of, or maybe because of her nature. in society of the snow, and indeed in actual accounts from the survivors of the andes plane crash, many of the boys who initially hold out from eating the dead are persuaded by the comparison to the eucharist - jesus gave his body so they could have spiritual life, and their friends died so they could have physical life. the dead and consumed are conceptualised as ultimately loving and selfless; if everyone had survived the crash, all of them would have starved to death. and in my personal favourite cannibal movie, bones and all, it’s kind of a mixture of all of the above. the first time maren consciously bites someone with intent to eat them, it’s framed as this sexual awakening (again tied up in gay desire with the way it evokes fear and disgust in others). lee is also presumably bisexual and faces homophobic comments from his family. one of his early experiences with cannibalism was eating his own father (do i need to explain this). there’s so much i could say about maren’s mother and how she is portrayed as an “addict” who physically cannot control her impulses to eat people. and then of course there’s the ending where lee dies and begs maren, who has been denying her true nature for so long, to eat him and have him become part of her forever. because he literally loves her and he wants her to eat well

tldr is that hannibal and the terror aren’t even close to portraying cannibalism as love and idk what you guys are talking about half the time

[penelopecruzcoded]

i fell into watching this stay at home mom of 3's content on youtube shorts and my god... the kids sure look cute and the content is "cozy" and all but good god that is a LOT of labor. the government should pay all sahm's doing this shit for free on top of everything else is like, what am i, a slave? the daily cooking, the cleaning, the tidying up after, the laundry loads, the looking after them... plus she said her kids go everywhere with her like literally everywhere, on coffee runs, to the gym, to see her mom etc. personally i would have a mental breakdown, even if these were the people i loved the most you still need a break from that, need you time?? where's my "chill and go to the mall for a day, shop and catch a movie" day?!? what do you mean i can't do that anymore? it's enough to make me go crazy just watching this shit. like i'm sure the end goal and outcome of raising 3 healthy, well adjusted adults (but also lol no one can ever account for death disaster or trauma so even that's not guaranteed) must be great, but like you're getting old in the process and that's so much of your own precious time going down the drain. i couldn't do it. nope. i've decided. the only way i'm doing kids (ever) is gonna be with a cook, a nanny, and a maid. like, i'm too neurodivergent to handle it all myself i would snap for sure. i'd love the idea of cooking the kids breakfast but maybe 1 morning out of the week. the rest somebody else can handle, i can't. i can't do it. i got my own life and my goals and my career dreams and work to do and i don't ever want those things to suffer just because i brought life into this world. that life can get by without me doing all that labor. call me selfish idc, i'm gonna have my life no matter what because i refuse to be one of those "where did my life go" / "wow i used to..." people. fuck that.

[inkskinned]

okay is she being actually immature or is it just a woman over 30 expressing a human experience you find to be immature.

like yeah. at certain ages... let shit go. im not defending the real immature shit. im not defending the karen you're picturing. i worked in retail i hate those people too. (once somebody got mad at me because she didn't like how our winter window decor was a snowman smoking a pipe. i wish i was joking).

but men at 57 will write books about how 17 year old girls are soooo sexy. they will invent worlds where women have to be naked for "armor reasons." they will write songs that treat women as objects. people rush to defend them. meanwhile a woman at 35 will be like "heartbreak is hard, actually" or "i feel betrayed by a friend" or "i am struggling with something emotionally." immediately people will say stuff like this woman is 35 by the way. by the way this woman is SO OLD to be experiencing this. BY THE WAY.

im 31, almost 32. the other day a poet was blasted online because at her "big age", she had written a poem about feeling unloved. top comment was "this woman is 29 by the way." this woman is too old to still be useful, by the way. she has to behave better . maybe if she was a good wife and mother she could stop existing loudly, and the story could continue on without her. this woman has served her purpose, by the way. she's so cringe, by the way. at 29 - so old! - she still hasn't figured out that her existence should be one of shame.

[sleepywyrldbuilder]

I was talking to a friend of mine that has pretty serious anxiety, and a terrible relationship with their parents, in large part because they don’t understand their anxiety. They tell my friend to just “not be a downer” or “try and think more positively” and it hurts my friend every time.

And it got me thinking about other cruelties, other bad things people do to each other. Because their parents aren’t being evil, they aren’t sitting down, cackling about how to best bully their child into having another mental health spiral. They’re just pre-occupied with their ideas of how to deal with a bad day, or pre-occupied with the idea that you shouldn’t show negative emotion, or pre-occupied with their work and not putting their full attention on their child and working out exactly what they actually need.

And I think that’s true a lot of the time, when cruelty happens. When bad things happen. The person who did it isn’t malicious, they’re just pre-occupied. Pre-occupied with a certain way of looking at the world, or another thing they think needs more attention, or their own personal troubles. If they stepped back and did a full, no holds barred analysis of what it was they were doing and what they wanted and what they want to be standing for in the world, they’d probably recognise things they do which they don’t like.

It started as a thought about homophobic parents, parents so pre-occupied with the fear of their child being seen as gay, or the demand that they strip away all sense of joy and self-expression that deviates from the norm, that they will go so far as to hurt and berate and bully their children. Because those parents sometimes do change, if they decouple from those pre-occupations. It’s not always an epiphany for them, just a gradual shift of focus.

Then it moved onto more political thoughts. Fascism, Genocide, Imperialism among other things. How a citizen of any nation can support their government doing those things- because they don’t. They don’t like it, they’re just pre-occupied with something else. Pre-occupied with getting to work on time, or feeding their children, or making sure they don’t look odd or break with the status quo or their local community, and it’s not that those things matter more than genocide to them, or that they don’t care about the big picture and other peoples suffering, it’s just that they aren’t focused on it.

People don’t focus on things just because they’re important, they focus on things because it’s what they normally focus on, or it’s what they were already focusing on. If someone supports something awful or does something wrong or participates in something cruel, it doesn’t always mean they don’t believe in the evidence that it’s wrong, or truly believe what they’re doing is right on the scale of principles and morality. It just means they’re focusing on a single aspect of it that they can justify. “For my community”, “For my safety”, “Happiness is Good”.

I’m partly writing this as a guide to dealing with people like that. Work out what they’re pre-occupied with, find out what one thing they’re hung up on, acknowledge it, but note that it’s not the most important part of the conversation.

But also it’s partly a reminder for myself. I’m pre- occupied with a lot. Doing exams, having fun, trying to analyse everything about what’s going on- sometimes to the point where I forget to be kind. I’ve gone through that with the friend I talked about in the beginning. Sometimes I spend so much effort trying to analyse what they’re anxious about that I forget my job in that instant is to just hear them out and let them have someone to talk to. The same goes with political things- I don’t pay attention to what’s going on in the world as much as I should, and I have instincts about political situations that jump out before I actually learn about what’s going on.

I don’t really have a conclusion here. Just thinking about it in general. Reminded of that one quote “never attribute to malice what can be explained with ignorance.” Basically just another take on that, really.

[birthisacurse-and]

Boycotts and why we don't partake

This is a random thought that came to me while watching a Contrapoints video and spiralled into something random.

I've been thinking about why people choose not to partake in boycotts. At first glance, it seems like a simple desire over morality argument; one's desire is stronger than one's moral will. But thinking about JK Rowling and Harry Potter has made me think, instead, from the perspective of why we do boycott, and why it comes so easily to some.

I have a set of videos from my favorite youtuber that I never watch because they feature an old friend of his who was outed years ago for grooming several minors. This youtuber, I love his content and have for years. I associate his videos with high school, with college, with the struggles and the highs. I watched them while I ate, when I got home from class, when I got home from work. I rewatch many of them today, I listen to them while cooking, I fall asleep listening to them multiple times per week. And yet, some of his funniest and some of my favorite videos - those with his old friend - remain untouched since the grooming allegations were confirmed. I skip them in playlists instantly when I hear the friend's voice, I don't dare to relive the pleasure and nostalgia and youth I associate with them. And the emotion that pervades me in those moments when I am briefly reminded of this man's existence, is disgust. Pure, unfiltered disgust.

What is disgust? To me, it stems from an intense fear, a visceral fear of something that can harm coming near you, of something you find thoroughly unpleasant threatening you with its existence. We are disgust by certain things and people because of the threat they pose when they enter our minds, our peripheries, our mental or physical locations. I am disgusted by vomit whether in thought, smell, or sight, whether it comes from me or another, because it threatens to touch me with its texture and odor and bacteria. I am disgusted by cockroaches, whether in video or picture or reality because the image can remind me of their existence, of that feeling of having a cockroach crawl over your leg, of that horror of finding them near rotting and dead things. I am disgusted by some people because they are a threat to my peace, peace of mind or the peace of physical safety. We are disgusted by people who enact perversions, by those who are a little too different, by those who commit atrocities - and none of these disgusts are necessarily good or bad. But they all stem from that same fear- the fear of our peace ending. Homophobes are disgusted by gay people because their existence, whether in thought or reality, threatens the homophobe's peace of mind, that fragile peace they find in their version of normalcy and an idle, moral, and "correct" life. The public is disgusted by warmongers, by totalitarians, by billionaires and colonists and slavers, not only because of the threat they pose directly to the physical peace of those they target, but morally, socially, emotionally, and psychologically as well, because reminding the public of their existence and making the public witnesses to their atrocities murders the peace of mind they so value.

This, I think, is one of the fundamental reasons people boycott, at least, when it is easy to do so. Boycotting for many is a conscious effort borne of duty, empathy, and/or morality. But for many others, it is driven by something more primal and is more innate than conscious. Levels of disgust, I believe stem from proximity to the targets of the disgusting object's destruction. On average, a woman will be more disgusted by the actions of a male sexual predator than another man will be. An Arab will be more disgusted by the actions of a Zionist state than a non-Arab. A transgender person will be more disgusted by the actions of a transphobe than a cisgender person. This is an average, not a rule, but it exists nonetheless. Despite all the emotional cues urging me to rewatch videos that were once an ingrained part of my adolescent memories, I was once a teenage girl, and so, my level of disgust is too high and compelling to be combatted by meer nostalgia and comfort when faced with a sexual predator who targetted teenage girls.

This brings me back to this: why don't people boycott? Why do morally outstanding citizens drink Starbucks? Why do transgender allies read Harry Potter? Why do gay allies eat Chick Fil A? The non-boycotter's proximity to the target demographic of the disgusting object's destruction is a factor, but not the only one. I think another is the predominance of the disgusting object's disgust-inducing actions, and those actions' ability to induce disgust. When the disgusting object's actions fade into the memories of the past, leave the broader social consciousness, are forgotten by the potential boycotter, are hidden and barely spoken of - or, when the disgusting object their self can be easily forgotten about in relation to the subject of a boycott - it becomes easier to limit or repress one's disgust, and allow desire to win out. If you forget that JK Rowling is the author, when you don't even know what Chick Fil A's CEO looks like, when you haven't seen a video or article about Palestinian deaths in a few months, your disgust naturally wanes, and your desires to return to the nostalgic world of Harry Potter, eat a delicious chicken sandwich, and buy a customized iced latte supercede it.

In short, boycotting fails where disgust does not sufficiently prevail, and those who do not boycott are those who are not sufficiently disgusted by the actions of the boycotting target.

[adriles]

when we’re done with our overwhelming grief we’ll eat i guess

[autismsupersoldier]

biblically accurate columbo

(alt text in image ID)

[midnightsslut]

religion is one of the most prominent recurring themes on the album, and it has been present in some capacity for quite a few records now. taylor previously compared love to religion: her saving grace, her belief system, and a fated divine intervention (false god, cornelia street, and cruel summer are the best examples of this). ‘sacred new beginnings that became my religion’ and ‘we’d still worship this love even if it’s a false god’ are two of the defining statements about her philosophy on the lover album.

taylor doesn’t want to leave all of that behind on ttpd, at least not at the beginning. the first supernatural force she mentions is the spaceship on down bad, which she compares to a skylight of freedom in the epilogue. *something* has finally come to save her from her life of suffering. she doesn’t care if it’s a force of good at first; if anything, she’s just fine being taken away by aliens. she views this man as her destiny. it isn’t until guilty as sin? that taylor starts to ponder the moral implications of what she’s doing. is she guilty as sin for wanting to leave her previous religion and relationship behind? she comes to the conclusion that, even if she rolls the stone away and gets resurrected/redeemed, she cannot avoid the fallout. she is okay with the thought of having to wait, as long as both lovers vow to be together forever, just as she once did with someone else in false god. ‘I choose you and me religiously’ finishes the bridge of the song in a direct callback to cornelia street.

the next mention of religion has murkier imagery. she claims that she does not need the Lord’s help to save this man. she sees the halo that he has, and she can fix him herself. now that she feels free of her prior cage, she isn’t looking for divine intervention anymore. she wants control. she is their route to salvation.

when the relationship falls apart, she retreats back into the position of a believer rather than a divine figure. she compares him to a Holy Ghost who promised to save her and take her to heaven. instead, she is in hell in every sense of the word: she’s down bad and feels guilty for digging up the grave. he was a jehovah’s witness who promised that she could break free of the cage imposed by love without changing her religion altogether; she would’ve just had to switch denominations. she could still have a marriage and kids! she could still have a blue tortured poet! the man was different, but not the dreams they had together. the story of the first part of the album ends here. her faith has been broken, and she has only found any semblance of sanity by refusing to mention these belief systems altogether.

side b/the anthology blends the christian imagery of side a with goddesses, sorcerers, and prophecies. she bargains with these powers to let her have the future she wants (the prophecy). she doesn’t sound like someone believing in salvation. if anything, she feels cursed. she decides that the concept of divinely ordained timing will never work in certain relationships (‘the goddess of timing once found us beguiling / she said she was trying / peter, was she lying?’). this disdain extends onto her perception of other people’s faith (‘bet they never spared a prayer for my soul’). she does position herself as a prophet in cassandra, but even then, she admits that the role has hurt her. perhaps the pain in thank you aimee was meant to be, or perhaps she was just strong enough to build a legacy in spite of it, boulder by boulder. is she a martyr? does she want to be? or did she save herself?

the only real love song on this half of the album makes no mention of fate or any divine forces. it wasn’t meant to be. it’s not a supernatural invisible string or lightning in a bottle. she is just in love.

the album ends with the manuscript, which revisits an old story of a defining, formative heartbreak. as she sings ‘at last, she knew what the agony had been for’ while describing the legacy of her writing, she seems to revert to thinking about the purpose of trauma. the only exception is that, in this case, she is the one who found meaning in her pain by turning it into a manuscript. writing is her belief system now, and she proselytizes by telling her stories and thus giving up the manuscript.

ultimately, her belief in destiny has chewed her up and spat her out. she so desperately clung to her existing belief systems that she was fooled by a conman, which left her feeling cursed. religion is supposed to be with someone even in their darkest moments, but the album explains that taylor often felt abandoned. the only constant in her life was, well, herself. she’ll be okay, but her pen will be her saving grace.

[damthosefandoms]

“Will you stop it?”

Darry’s temper is like a bruise you don’t remember how you got. Sodapop just can’t help but press down on it, just to see what happens. And every single time, like clockwork, the pain comes—and so does Darry’s anger.

Soda just has to tap his pencil against the table one more time, and he laughs a little as he does, a little laugh that Darry knows all too well. It drives him nuts. Their father calls it an “instigator giggle.” He says it runs in the family. Darry swears that he, personally, has never laughed like that in his entire life, but oh, oh does it get on his last nerve when he hears it come out of Soda’s mouth.

The grin, the laugh, and Darry reaches over and smacks his brother’s hand so hard the pencil goes flying. Soda screeches in some mix of amusement and pure, unadulterated fear, an indescribable feeling that only successfully annoying your older brother to the point he has no choice but to retaliate can bring, and then jumps up from the table like a dog who heard the word “walk.” He’s got a crazed look in his eyes, hiding behind his chair, and Darry gets up too—Soda laughs and takes a step back as Darry takes two forward, and then the little shit is bolting down the hall and Darry only doesn’t catch up to him because Ponyboy’s appeared in the doorway, complaining he’s missing all the funny stuff, again.

Soda hides behind his locked bedroom door and laughs so hard he cries. Dad comes home later and asks why Soda’s homework isn’t done, why everything’s still laid out on the kitchen table and why he nearly slipped on a pencil walking in the door. Darry’s up in arms and Soda’s giggling like a maniac and Pony whines they left him out again, and all is right in the world.

[ffaelix]

the batkids are all arsonists. not, like, on purpose (well, mostly not on purpose), but something about fire and chaos seems to follow them wherever they go. bruce is exhausted, alfred’s threatening to retire, and no one will admit they’re the problem. but they all are.

dick is a human disaster when it comes to fire. he swears it’s never his fault, but somehow, flames just happen around him. one time, he was trying to impress a date with a candlelit dinner on a rooftop. super romantic, right? except gotham’s wind did what gotham’s wind does, and two minutes later, there were tiny fires everywhere. when bruce asked why he thought a rooftop candlelight dinner was a good idea, dick just shrugged and said, “it’s gotham, it’s already mostly on fire anyway.” bruce was not amused.

then there’s jason, who doesn’t even try to deny it. he’s the only one who uses fire on purpose, and he has zero shame about it. take the time he literally firebombed a warehouse full of black mask’s weapons. bruce was like, “you can’t just blow things up, jason!” and jason just looked at him and said, “sure i can. i did it, didn’t i?” another time, he got into an argument with bruce about restraint, and his actual response was, “fire solves everything. name one problem fire hasn’t solved for me. i’ll wait.” bruce did not have a rebuttal.

tim, though, is the sleeper agent of the arsonist squad. his fires are never intentional, which is maybe more concerning. like, he’ll be working on some dangerous experiment at 3 a.m., completely running on fumes, and then boom, something catches fire. “it’s fine,” he always says. “totally under control.” (it’s never fine. it’s never under control.) there was one time he set off a controlled explosion in the cave, and alfred just deadpanned, “master tim, the next time you feel the urge to ‘experiment,’ kindly do it somewhere that isn’t my kitchen or the batcave.” tim promised he’d try, but no one believed him.

and damian? damian is the wildcard. he doesn’t mean to start fires all the time, but he’s definitely more comfortable with flames than any kid should be. one time, alfred caught him with a blowtorch in the backyard, trying to “practice survival techniques.” when alfred asked where he even got a blowtorch, damian just said, “you don’t want to know.” another time, he tried to enhance the bat-signal with fireworks because “it needs to be more intimidating.” bruce nearly had a stroke.

and don’t even get alfred started. that man keeps at least five fire extinguishers within reach at all times. if he hears so much as a match strike, he’s already there, extinguisher in hand and murder in his eyes. he’s confiscated flamethrowers, lighter fluid, sparklers, and a bottle of whiskey jason once tried to turn into a molotov cocktail. (“it was for science,” jason argued. alfred was not buying it.)

bruce, meanwhile, has just accepted his fate. no matter how many “no fires in the house” rules he makes, someone is going to find a way to set something on fire. at this point, he’s pretty sure they do it on purpose just to mess with him. and honestly? they probably do.

[xiphoid-processing]

Noldorin family trees again bc its been like. 2 years and ive changed everything

design notes below readmore

-originally wanted finwe to be very blue bc of the color coding w miriel and indis, and then their children ie: Fëanor wearing red bc he's Míriel's son, Fingolfin wearing blue bc he's Finwë's son, and Finarfin wearing green bc he's Indis' son. scrapped it bc he looks good in white and gold but the idea stuck around with the silver n gold

-little gemstones on Finwë's headdress are red and green for his wives. similarly Fëanor's are only red for his mother

-Finarfin wears a more vanyarin style compared to his siblings, aside from Lalwen but her style is also like. noldorinized

-the different clans of elves have different resting positions for their ears! the vanyar have theirs almost straight up, the noldor have the classic kinda-up, and the teleri have theirs parallel to the ground

-thr large headdresses Finwë, Fëanor, Fingolfin, Maedhros, Curufin, and Fingon wear are like noldorin royalty stuff for eldest sons/heirs. While i do think Maedhros is Fëanor's heir i do think some favoritism let Curufin wear one too. i dont think i need to explain why Curufin's looks so similar to Fëanor's

-fingolfins headdress is meant to resemble the sun bc he's the first High King under the Sun and Moon

-the nose ring that some of them have is a Vanyarin style indicating that they are married

-Maedhros and Fingon have similar headdreses bc i think it would have pissed tf out of their fathers. also i think its funny

-Nerdanel and Anairë are noldor, but to me they are from noldorin minorities which have slightly differing cultures frm the majority which is why their clothing is slightly different

-that boob window thing Nerdanel, Maedhros, and Celegorm have are specific and iconic to the Aulendil

-Maglor is channeling Míriel’s clothing style here, which although might come off as a bit feminine is not. i dont think elves would be very strict abt that kinda stuff

-Míriel and Celegorm have albinism

-the Ambarussa aren't quite identical and i think they have very dif personalities and styles. to me. Amras (short hair) is more mainstream noldorin while Amrod is more of their mothers style

-while he and his siblings r very noldorin in style, Argon is channeling his mothers style more than the majority

-the mark on Eärwen and her children's lower lips are a coming of age kinda thing. dont ask me how they get those vibrant colors bc i dont know

-the gold on Eärwen’s headscarf is meant to resemble fishing nets

-each of Finarfin and Eärwen’s children channel a dif. part of their heritage in their clothing--Finrod is a noldorinized vanyarin style, Angrod and Aegnor are different kinds of Telerin, and Galadriel is Noldorin

-the like. shark tooth necklaces that Angrod and Aegnor have is a symbol of being an accomplished fisherman

-everyone born in Valinor has light in the center of their eyes which correspond to the light of the trees they were born under. this doesnt really matter and you cant really see it but its important to me that you know

-on that note, Finarfin has both lights in his eyes bc he was born during the mingling. bc i can do whatever i want

[nep2unee]

Compilation of all the angel^2 edits I’ve made

[casscainmainly]

Cassandra Cain and Asian Stereotypes

So I've seen people debating whether Cass is a racist character or not because she falls into certain Asian stereotypes. While this discussion is valid and important, a lot of the conversation (on this website and beyond) is steered by White/non-Asian people, or people who haven't read a lot of Cass' stuff. This is my take on Cass and Asian stereotypes as a Chinese Cass fan. I do not speak for all Asians, or even all Chinese people, who are absolutely free to disagree with any of these arguments.

Stereotypes I will cover here: Silent Asian, Model Minority, and Hypersexuality.

The Silent Asian Stereotype

The most obvious stereotype Cass runs into is the Silent Asian. I would recommend reading the linked article for more information. Silent Asian characters are Asians who are part of a core cast, but rarely speak. Kimiko Miyashiro in The Boys, Lilly in Pitch Perfect, and Katana in Suicide Squad are all examples of this. The article also mentions Ben from Umbrella Academy, who can only communicate with one character, thus limiting his dialogue.

Why does this happen? Removing Asian characters' dialogue reflects the Western conception of Asians as demure, rule-following, and meek, never speaking up or acting out. It also means writers don't have to spend as much time writing these Asian characters, who are secondary to White protagonists.

The problem with the Silent Asian, then, is not the silence itself, but the consequences of silence. Mute Asians exist, as do Asians who don't speak much; in media, Silent Asians are harmful because they indicate an unwillingness to focus on the Asian character.

This is why Cass, even before she learns to speak longer sentences, is not a Silent Asian. While her conception undoubtedly has unfortunate echoes of this trope, she defies it by being the protagonist of the story. A protagonist cannot be a Silent Asian, because a requirement of the trope is being a secondary character. Cass' feelings and actions are the center of Batgirl (2000), so allegations of this stereotype don't actually make sense.

Furthermore, the trope is about passivity and acquiescence to a White authority. From her introduction, Cass is neither passive nor acquiescent - her origin story is literally about defying David Cain, a White male authority figure. Beyond her not speaking much, she ticks none of the boxes for this stereotype. I think it's time for people to stop mentioning this stereotype in conjunction with Cass, who in every possible way subverts it.

The Model Minority Stereotype

The model minority myth is the belief that Asians are more successful and talented than others, particularly other minoritised groups. Like the Silent Asian, the model minority myth paints Asians as obedient and submissive. This is, in many ways, more insidious than the Silent Asian - there are still people who believe this stereotype (and jokes like 'of course you're good at math, you're Asian') is somehow not racist.

Though this myth seems positive, make no mistake that White people invented this tale for two reasons: to put down Black and Brown communities, and to prevent Asians from ever fully assimilating into White culture.

Cass plays on this myth very interestingly. I've discussed in this post how David Cain and Bruce's assertion that she's 'perfect' is a blatant reference to the model minority myth - by describing her as 'perfect' to them, they are centering their own desires, erasing Cass' individuality.

This is partially why I don't like 'Cass is Bruce's favourite' and 'Cass is an angel who can do no wrong' interpretations when people are just saying it without context. Cass being Bruce's favourite, or Bruce seeing her as an angel, is not a good thing - it is a representation of his biased attitude towards her. He is unable to accept her being a murderer because he is trapped within the model minority mindset. This is not saying Bruce is a full-on racist, but that his actions and perspectives are coloured by his Whiteness.

Cass' abrasive personality, willingness to defy Bruce and David, and very real flaws (her inability to see grey areas, communication difficulties, etc.) make her avoid this stereotype. Additionally, her close relationships with Black characters like Onyx and Duke are essential to combating the anti-Blackness at the core of the model minority myth. Her character evokes the stereotype (perfect martial arts silent fighter), but ultimately defies it through being the star of her own story (and also not being good at math. The fact she doesn't have anything to do with tech is actually one of my favourite aspects of her character, because I am TIRED of tech Asian characters).

The Hypersexual Asian Woman Stereotype

Asian women are often exoticised and fetishised as the ideal sexual partner; think of the term 'yellow fever', which describes men lusting after Asian women. The hypersexualisation of Asian women in media once again goes hand-in-hand with Asians being submissive. They are seen as innocent and child-like, while simultaneously being seductive and sexually experienced.

This stereotype is genuinely perpetuated in Batgirl (2000), mainly by the art in Horrocks' run. Where in Puckett's run there is refreshingly little sexualisation of Cass, once you hit Horrocks' run you get a LOT more shots of her lying down, sexually suggestive covers, etc. People have discussed this already, probably to more effect than I will do here.

However, as I wrote in my Gender and Sexuality posts, the writing is actually fairly defiant of this trope. Cass is vocally uncomfortable with hypersexualisation, and neither of her male love interests stick around. The problem with the Hypersexual Asian Woman is the focus on White sexual interests, where the woman is objectified for the White male gaze. Simply because Cass is the protagonist, the writing focuses on her sexual interests, and in the end it's about gaining control of her gender presentation and sexuality.

Cassandra Cain Vs. Asian Stereotypes

The through-line that connects all these Asian stereotypes is a lack of agency. There's a reason passiveness is the main trait for all of these tropes- the Asian body must be weaker than their White counterparts, in order to be tools or weapons against other minoritised groups.

Cassandra Cain, a character born from a choice that defies White male authority, rises above this passiveness with flying colours. The details of her character certainly fall into some of the above tropes, and the way her character is handled later (evil Cass, New 52), is certainly racist. However, the reason she means so much to me is because at its core, her story is a story of Asian agency. And that in itself is unstereotypical.

[ravene]

Part 1 Chapter 2 be like

[arsenicflame]

It's a time-honoured tradition- every time Sam comes across Izzy (and Ed) in their travels, he asks Izzy to marry him. And every time, Izzy turns him down.

At this point, Sam is asking more for the sake of it than any belief Izzy will ever say yes, a remnant of childhood dedication touched with 30 years of heartbreak and regret- though even now, a small part of him still holds out hope. Sam's promises have only got more extravagant over the years, from a job as his first mate, to a captaincy, a fleet at his command, a whole fucking island if that's what Izzy wants- but he knows it isn't though, not really. If Izzy was ever going to agree to marry him, to leave his life and go with Sam, it wouldn't be for anything Sam could offer him. Izzy never did care for flashy shows of wealth, for a ship or to be captain. The only thing that ever mattered to him was loyalty given, and loyalty shown in return. 

It all comes to a head after Stede left and came back, after Izzy lost a toe, lost his leg. Sam hasn't seen him since before things with Ed started to really slide off the rails, before stress permanently set into the lines of Izzy’s face. So, when he sees a dishevelled man with a hoof for a leg in a no-name port, he doesn't even consider the idea that he might know him. It's only when he turns towards him, and Sam catches a glance at those oh too familiar tattoos, he realises this is Izzy, his Izzy, that stands before him.

Knowing Izzy's discomfort with pity, he doesn't treat him any differently than he would in years gone by, positioning himself in Izzy's line of sight before approaching and sweeping him up into a bone crushing hug. 

“Israel-goddamn-Hands!” he exclaims, as Izzy grumbles back a begrudging “Samuel-fucking-Bellamy”, a tradition almost as old as their friendship itself. Izzy might not hug him back, but he can’t keep the corner of his mouth from twitching, just for a second.

(If Sam holds Izzy a little tighter and a little longer than usual, well. That's his business)

By the time Sam lets go, most of the crew has appeared in the town square, drawn in by the commotion. They may have given Izzy his leg and welcomed him as one of them, but still there’s an underlying tension, with nobody quite ready to set aside everything that happened before the Kraken. Seeing him cosying up to an unknown man sets everyone on edge, unsure whether to come to their first mate’s aid, or to assume that they've been betrayed once again.

When Ed sees that the yelling was Sam, his hand goes tense where it's held in Stede's. He knows the routine, has seen it more times than he can count, but as he watches them part he realises that this is the first time in a long time he's unsure of what Izzy's response will be.

Knowing that something’s different, knowing that Izzy's feeling vulnerable already, Sam doesn't go for the same flashy proposal he’s been giving for years. He doesn't promise Izzy the world, he doesn't cause a scene (or, any more of a scene than he already has, anyway). He looks at the fractured man in front of him, takes his face in his hands, and says the exact same thing to him he said when they were little more than boys. “Israel, I have to ask you. I know what you'll say, but I have to try. Come with me. Marry me and sail away with me. I'll keep you safe”

And Izzy… hesitates. He glances over at Ed, at Stede, and says to Sam “...We’re staying in port for a week. Ask me again then”

That's the moment Sam knows there is something deeply, horribly, wrong. He's not just looking at an Izzy who got seriously injured in a fight and is struggling to cope, this is something so much bigger than that- and that Ed has something to do with it. Izzy wouldn't even be considering leaving if he didn't. Whether it was negligence or something more sinister, Sam doesn't yet know, but he intends to find out.

[myokk]

For writers:

What’s your favorite piece of writing you’ve done, and why??

Idk I just woke up thinking about this & now I’m curious!!! & may or may not be compiling a tbr based on your responses since I really haven’t had the time to read any hl fics yet🫶🫶🫶