#there’s my word count for the day lol

[circular-bircular]

I’m not going to bother blocking (believe it or not, I agree with some of your posts, and I don’t enjoy cutting off discussions) but I also am not giving anymore notes to the post, particularly when the “very open to discussion” person blocks and hides people attempting to add to the discussion. They also seem quite agitated with me and said they’d block me if I interacted again, so!

We're normally a long post to be in detail about our points and topics we get, or small generalized posts with 0 to no explanation at all because we're tired or some other shit that makes us be lazy and don't talk in depth in a a topic

And that is absolutely fair! We do the same — quick, over generalized posts. The difference is, we 1) try to make those posts as open ended as possible, or open to others experiences as possible, and 2) we accept the criticism of others when they tell us it’s over generalized.

All my response was was a criticism pointing out the flaws in the over generalization, because I think your over generalization was absolutely heinous, and is used constantly to discredit singlets from a discussion that I find them vital to.

In all the topics, not only surrounding system topics/syscourse the generalization don't talk about all the cases, there's a lot of "it depends" in every topic you can imagine, we firmly believe that the best answer to any topic regarding the topic is "it depends" but we're just too lazy to elaborate sometimes, that's why in the repost we did you may see some "incongruences", it's just we did talk in more depth, we're just lazy lol

K. “I’m just lazy” really isn’t the best defense you think it is. I’m glad you can acknowledge that you over generalized, but at that point, I think it’s fair to accept criticism from others for that laziness. Syscourse is a high-octane conversation with nuance and depth; not a quick post you fling out from your bed in 5 seconds with no thought because you’re lazy.

I get it, I do; I’m currently sick with at least 4 different illnesses and I don’t have a lot of spoons. But I can still debate. I can still raise valuable points and dedicate time to things. Hell, my response to your originally was lazy, because I relied on the thing I find easiest — sarcasm — to discredit your point, hoping the slap to the face bluntness might get through to you the point. That obviously didn’t work! It typically does for my 11 year old students, so I guess that’s on me for assuming you’d react to sarcasm similarly.

So yeah, we tend to generalize and be short with no explanation sometimes, you just happened to encounter one of that posts, but those post are completely open to civil discussion, in those cases we do prefer not to quote the first post because it's a lazy generalized why of our opinion. I say this to have in mind for future references with our posts, if we're gonna talk in depth of this topics we might seem hypocrite or incongruent for this exact reason

Thank goodness this is a civil discussion then! So was sysmedsaresexist’s reply, but you still blocked that discussion. Unless by “civil” you mean “must concede points to me, even if they disagree with me, and must not sound angry at all.” In which case — yeah no, I have dampened my anger far too much in syscourse to allow some rando who’s spouting non-nuanced nonsense to earn my silence.

I’m allowed to be pissed off at non-nuanced posts. I’m allowed to be upset at things that further the split between singlets and systems in the system community! (Though, thank you, because as this is my last response to this particular post, it’s helped me realize I can dedicate this frustration toward yet another post about singlets and how much benefit they have in system discussions!)

“Civility” is a concept that doesn’t make sense to me in these situations. I’m never sure what someone means. From my perspective, I’ve been civil. I’ve also been insulting and mean. I’ve also criticized neutrally. I’ve done all those things! That’s all still civil to me. I didn’t harass you, I didn’t blast you on my blog — I just reblogged your points (which from my perspective encourage a dangerous mentality) and was mean about it. I think I’m well within my rights.

I do think is inappropriate to make a blog about syscourse if you're not a system, yeah, the problem might affect you because of people who are close to you and they might have some things to say about topics regarding system, but when it comes to syscourse most of the topics around it are about the community of systems that affects the community of systems, so a non-system talking about it it's just weird and doesn't have sence

You keep flip flopping. You described how it’s perfectly reasonable for my partner to participate in syscourse in the previous post, and now you say they shouldn’t, but with a new goal post added.

I disagree with you fundamentally about what syscourse is about. Syscourse falls into numerous topics. My partner primarily posts about respect and research into DID. Is it wrong of them to do so? I don’t think it is. But that is still posting directly to the tags, directly to systems, and into the syscourse community.

I don’t think that’s wrong.

They can talk about their experiences and how somethings do affect them, in the case is talking only experiences like I don't think that count as syscourse, and I also don't know that singlet's post so I can't really talk a lot about that

They talk about my experiences more. They ask I preview their posts but I wish they wouldn’t; I’ve never had to change a word beyond showing them how to tag things.

I’m not sure why you don’t count it as syscourse when it blatantly is from my perspective. As always, a debate boils down to a difference in definitions. You’re clearly defining syscourse as something other than “a tag on tumblr (or on other social media, but for this conversation, tumblr) that is dedicated to discussions about system discourse.” Anyone can have a discussion.

We also have singlet friends who are normally involved and affected into syscourse or system like topics, but they recognize entering to syscourse isn't right

I wonder how much of that is because their friend puts posts out explaining how awful it is for singlets to post in syscourse…

I encouraged my partner to make a blog because they’ve helped me so much to understand my own systemhood. I needed their perspective to be where I am now. Non-nuanced posts like yours lead singlets to avoid these spaces and systems to believe that’s a good thing. That’s what I was fighting against.

Don't get what you're saying here except you like to do the same shit you claim I do lol, also wtf is "The Other Side"??

Okay, let me explain in more depth then:

I saw your very non-nuanced post and thought, “God, not this shit again. We see this constantly. I do not have spoons or energy to explain yet again, in detail, all of the reasons this is wrong. So I’m going to respond with sarcasm, since that’s easier, and explain how they are wrong that way.” This wasn’t lacking nuance; it was just a different way of tackling a lack of energy.

My response to you was brief — there’s nothing wrong with low energy posts, and I’m not sure where you got that from in my response. The issue is over generalizing your ideas in such a way as to demonize A Side — the “Other Side.” In these spaces, there’s always two sides in the debate: Your Side, and the Other Side. I sit in a nebulous “both sides” nearly at all times, and it often seems like your posts are trying that — but in this case, Your Side is Systems In Syscourse and the Other Side is Singlets in Syscourse. One is right and one is wrong, one is black and the other is white, and there’s no swaying your opinion.

You saw a post from the Other Side — a singlet in syscourse or someone supporting singlets in syscourse — and it pissed you off enough to post a non-nuanced vaguepost. If you wanted to use low energy while keeping the nuance, you could’ve said, “Posts like X piss me off because it doesn’t feel like OP has enough experience with systems to participate.” But given that your whole issue is just… singlets having a DNI on their posts or a stance on their blog (based on the OG post you mentioned,) it came across as “Singlets having any opinion about system stuff online is bad.”

Combine that with a non-nuanced “singlets aren’t allowed to syscourse” blanket statement, and that’s what I have issue with.

Does that make more sense?

Didn't say that, if you understand that is a you problem, what I did meant to say it's you can engage but don't do it in a way that isn't outside a third eye perspective, the topics aren't about you, you might be affected to them but aren't about you, so the best if you wanna enter is to doing in a respectful way

Okay, so this wasn’t clear due to how non-nuanced your original post was. If you wanted to say this, then you should’ve said it. If you didn’t have the energy to say it, then don’t fucking post it. You need to be clear about your words. Like, let’s refresh ourselves on what you said:

When you're directly affected by that is obvious that you can have an opinion, and ofc it's gonna impact your online life if it impacts your irl live, but because of that it doesn't mean singlets should be actively entering in syscourse/system topics

“That doesn’t mean singlets should be actively entering syscourse/system topics” has become “If you want to enter syscourse topics, you need to do so in a specific way and be respectful.” Do you understand how different these two things are? Do you understand how it’s not a “me” problem when I am literally reading the words in front of me as they are?

They're not affected in the same way a system would be affected, they can be affected ofc, we said that in the post, read it again please, so yeah, dk what you want us to say in this part

What I want you to explain is how they are not affected the same was a system is affected. Because from my experience, they are.

I am stressed out by syscourse. So is my fiancé. I am triggered by syscourse. So is my fiancé. I have insights into systemhood and how it impacts both me and those around me, and so does my fiancé. In all of your responses, you’ve still failed to address that discrepancy; why should singlets not participate?

The most you’ve said is “they aren’t affected the same way,” but that’s so nebulous and uncertain and denotes nothing. My partner is affected in the same way! I don’t understand why you won’t take my word for that through all of this.

It's obvious people are gonna have other things outside their professions, that's common knwoledge genius, again, I don't get your point in somethin so obvious that you can't make out

“I don’t get your point.” My point is, there are so many therapists and medical professionals who participate in syscourse, which goes against your original claim. I’m uncertain how you missed that. Maybe it’s because you just flat out blocked SAS’s response about that topic? They spoke at length about those medical professionals. I would suggest reading that blocked reblog for some more perspective.

I'm not even gonna try to talk about the other things you say because it's just nonsence shit and you justwanting to attack me or shit like that, you're simply being someone inmature and I see you really open to civil talk, the main point of the blog here

“I’m not even going to try and address your other points because you’re just attacking me and immature, and I’m only interested in civil talk”

Pray tell, the other points I made are attacking you? How? I saw it as attacking your position. We’ve already discussed the “civility” thing (people are allowed to be mad, get used to it) but I see nowhere where I attacked you. I may have used some insulting language (I think I called your beliefs absurd at one point, so I could see how that would upset someone) but that doesn’t mean I wasn’t civil.

(The other points, for context, were further examples where singlets would have a place in these conversations, including final fused systems who choose to identify as singlets; these points are evidently attacking them.)

And I saw your posts, you don't care about breaking others boundaries, if you do that online what can I expect you do irl? Or you're just a incongruent hypocrite like you say I am? You don't want to engage in anythig real but hate and attack, and you see pround about that, or at least you don't see that as a real problem when it is, you're just bein an inmature hater

You mean my one post I’ve made, across around 7 years of syscourse at this point, saying I don’t really listen to DNIs anymore because they’re simply used to avoid discussion and spread misinformation?

Welcome to Ad Hominem, by the way! Why does what I do in my regular life matter? Why was that relevant to this discussion? (It’s not; it’s moralizing about me to try and demonize me because oof ouchie my words hurt your fee fees >;). To that point; I have written numerous posts about respect, understanding the other perspective, and the understanding of consent. I teach in my regular life how boundaries are vital and that students need to set boundaries with their teachers and parents, especially as a traumatized individual who lacked boundaries.

What do you do?

don't have time for inmature people like you and that's why mid reblog I just gave up because people like you can't appeal to civil disccusion which, again, is what this blog is about. And even with almost no boundarie and DNI you still manage to break it, I'm impressed in a bad way

Again. “Civility” is being defined by you were very differently than by me. Hilarious.

For me you're just a little hypocrite hater inmature and a bad person, other people might not see you as a bad person? Good for them, I don't fucking care, you care that I see you as a bad person? It's a you problem that I couldn't care less, you see me as a bad person? Good for you, it's the lastthing I would care tbh

I have to be perfectly honest, I can’t interpret this.

It seems like you just calling me an immature bad person? Not sure how that’s relevant to the discussion. We’ve just resorted to playground name calling it seems.

I really do not care if you see me as a bad person, and I certainly don’t see you as one. Not really sure where that came from, to be honest. What a non sequitur.

I can't have a real talk with someone like you so this "talk" ends up here, if you respond with another repost I'll just ignore it and block you, I recommend you ignoring me from now on, or if it helps your black hater heart block me, demostrate you can be mature shall we?

“If you reblog” (not repost, we use different language on tumblr) “I’ll ignore you and block you, or you can be mature and block me first.”

…

You still haven’t blocked me ._. ? Like. Okay, you know you don’t have to wait, right? You could’ve done so at any time.

I haven’t blocked you because I don’t feel the need; I enjoy conversations and the ability to see other perspectives. It’s just that your perspective is unclear. You’ve still not explained any differences that would necessitate that singlets not participate in syscourse, whereas I’ve explained in each of my posts situations where singlets would be welcomed. A vague “it doesn’t affect them” isn’t enough.

But sure; please feel free to block me and have any sort of opinion about me. Lord knows you’re not going to be remembered. The amnesia does that to me lol.

Have a good day!

[livwritesstuff]

So Steve obviously loves Valentine’s Day.

This didn’t ever come as a surprise to Eddie, and in the years between when they started dating and when their kids were born, it was something that never changed.

When Steve walked in the door fresh off the afternoon carpool route with their three daughters in tow and said, “Dude – I swear to god this has gotta be the best Valentine’s Day ever,” Eddie wasn’t exactly taken aback, more just unsure what could have happened so early in the day that had him this confident that V-Day of 2012 would be the best one ever.

“Why?” Eddie asked suspiciously.

“When I dropped off Ava, David invited me over to watch the basketball game,” he replies, still with a massive grin on his face even as their daughters dump their backpacks and jackets and shoes all over the ground instead of hanging them up like they should be doing.

Eddie made a face – David, one of their neighbors and an unfortunate addition to the elementary school carpool circuit, is notably a total fucking loser. 

He’s also obsessed with Steve (and not even in a gay way, which Eddie could at least understand – no, it’s in this weird, loser, ex-jock who peaked in high school kind of way).

“I know, right? I’m pretty sure he’s that fucking desperate for something to do tonight that isn’t his wife,” Steve continued.

“What’s wrong with his wife?”

“Ed, believe it or not, it gets even better.”

“Tell me,” Eddie demanded, finally getting that Steve’s got a whole-ass story for him.

“I’m going to, man, holy shit,” Steve shook his head as he stepped over the mess their kids left behind (because one of them would be corralling them all back downstairs to deal with their shit like they’re supposed to)

So Eddie listens as Steve launches into a retelling of the conversation he apparently had with David, who, predictably, acted like a total fucking loser about how Steve actually wanted to spend time with his family on Valentine’s Day.

“What does this have to do with his wife?” Eddie asked when Steve reached a stopping point, “Other than how incredibly sad it is for her.”

“Right – so get this. David ended up telling me that his wife is going out tonight with Chris, and I figured he meant Chris, like Christine, Liam’s mom, because I know they’re friends, but it’s not. It’s Chris, the divorced dad on the PTA, and apparently they hang out all the time.”

Eddie’s eyes widened as he pieced together what Steve was implying.

“No fucking way.”

“Right?!? And, look, you know I think cheating is wrong, but…I dunno, I really hope she has a fantastic Valentine’s Day.”

[luna-lovegreat]

I've never done a poll before, so good luck

Who do y'all think Time'll handcuff to him be with for his group in the dungeon? I've seen a lot of people say he will try to control who goes with who since he's scared for their lives rn (valid)

The options are the individual boys, just go with who you think is most likely to be in his group I guess?

Anyways like I said I've never done a poll so it might be messed up or make no sense, should be fun :D

Let me know if this doesn't work. And yes I know it's not well organised.. it's ok. right?

I think that unlike when they split in the Divine Dark Reflections arc, they might try to stay in bigger groups, and I think Time would probably want to have as many close to him as possible (his group have three or four), but I uhh didn't know how to incorporate that.

It's silly, but right now I can't stop imagining a scene where they reach the central room and everyone sprints off into the groups they want before time can argue.

Anyone who goes with legend will survive physically and anyone who goes with four will survive mentally.

[aresianrepose]

Before the semester kicks off and murders me, @disniq​ asked for my essay on Jason Todd and hysteria. So, without further ado, here is an actual essay (fucking dissertation) because I refuse brevity. It is extremely long. I’ve split it into sections so you can find the section header and read what you want. This does not encompass all the narrative trauma themes and lived experiences that this boy holds, just specifically hysteria. 

Jason Todd, The Hysteric & Bruce Wayne, The Batman

I think it’s a common reading that Jason Todd is girl-coded and the patron saint of victims, at least within the circle that I’ve fallen into within this fandom. There are plenty of meta discussions on why those readings stand, so I’m not going to reiterate them. A pillar of him being girl-coded and someone trauma survivors have latched onto as one of our own has to do with being written in the context of hysterical femininity. And let me just say, I don’t think that writing was done in a way that he was intentionally coded as hysterical, but it is a function of our patriarchal society that this coding was used on him albeit without the explicit purpose of writing a hysteric story. 

For the purpose of this post: the word woman includes ciswomen, transwomen, and any person who is socially positioned as a woman regardless of gender identity. I include the positionality here because anyone can experience misogyny and sexism depending on the perception of the perpetrators either interpersonally or systemically. 

The History and Context of Hysteria

To understand the context, we have to look at the history and oppression of hysteria. Hysteria (in the modern context of psychology) emerged in the nineteenth century and is difficult to define by design and often applied to traumatized, unruly, and broken women. The main patriarchs who contributed to hysterical study were Jean-Martin Charcot and Sigmund Freud. I only mention this because it’s important to know their names moving forward for any of this to make sense. The beginning of this started with Charcot literally putting women whose lives had been marked by rape, abuse, exploitation, and poverty on display in his Tuesday lectures (which were open to the public) to show his findings on hysteria. This was actually seen as restoring dignity (fucking yikes) to the women because before Charcot these hysterical women were cast aside and not treated at all. In Charcot’s work, the women’s speech was seen as simply “vocalization” and their inner lives, their stories, their words, were silenced. After hearing a woman cry for her mother during one of the public sessions Charcot remarked, “Again, note these screams. You could say it’s a lot of noise over nothing” (Herman). 

This led to Freud, Charcot’s student, wanting to surpass his teacher by discovering the cause of hysteria. This was disastrous. Freud started with listening to the hysterics. In doing so, he learned and believed them about the abuse, rape, and exploitation of their pasts. He then published his work and gave a lecture on it. The work rivals even contemporary psychological work on trauma in it’s level of compassion, understanding, and treatment of survivors. However, he was then labeled a feminist (this was all happening during the first wave of feminism) and professionally ostracized. How in the world could these aristocratic French men be sexually abusing their wives, sisters, and daughters??? Insanity, truly. And... This always fucking gets me. He recanted his work and then told his patients they all imagined it because they wanted to be sexually abused by their husbands, brothers, and fathers. This set back the study of trauma by literally a century. One colleague called his work “a scientific fairy-tale” simply because he had the audacity to believe victims. Also, I want to point out that the famous hysteria case during this time was the case of Anna O and she was ultimately villainized by the entire psychological community for going into crisis after her care provider abruptly ended their therapeutic relationship after two years of DAILY sessions. 

Anyway. We can see how the power of these men over vulnerable women silenced, pathologized, villainized, infantilized, and used male ‘logic’ to completely destroy their credibility and lives under the guise of care and hysteria. Even when credible men lend their expertise and voices to the victims, their voices are silenced. This particular iteration of hysteria lasted over a century, and we are still dealing with the consequences of these actions and ideas within our social construction, medical and mental health care, interpersonal relationships, and more. Patriarchal pillars such as hysteria don’t die. We saw it move from hysteria to schizophrenia (which used to have the same symptoms of hysteria before the diagnosis changed in more contemporary psychology) after this which led to widespread lobotomies and electroshock therapy (my least favorite case of a lobotomy being done is on a woman who was diagnosed with LITERALLY ‘narcissist husband’) to depression in the 40s-50s with the over prescription of benzodiazepines to house wives to keep them in a zombie state (these prescriptions were sometimes double and triple what we take today with the intent of medical catatonia). In my opinion, as well as other counselors within the feminist therapy theoretical orientation, we are currently seeing it with the emergence of borderline-personality disorder. Think about how BPD is treated and demonized for a second. I professionally know therapists who refuse to work with BPD clients due to this villainization and just fucking gross perception of victims.

These are just the highlights, but it shows the history of hysteria. There have been centuries of women being marked as hysterical and the cures have ranged from lobotomy to bed rest (which sounds not so bad but read the Yellow Wallpaper and get back to me on that one). While the Yellow Wallpaper is fictional, the life behind it was not. After the traumatic birth of her child the author, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, was remanded to bed rest by the authority of her husband and doctor. Within the sphere of medical control, hysterical women are often treated as children while their doctors make decisions for their mental well-being without consulting them, or they hide the truth of their procedures for “the woman’s own good” and because “she’s hysterical and wouldn’t comprehend the logical need for this.” She then had a mental break due to the treatment. Again, we see hysterical women being silenced, infantilized, discredited from their own experiences, and under the narrative control of male logic and voices. 

Hysterical women have often historically been seen as beneath men, except for when they’re dangerous. Listening to victims is inherently threatening to the status quo because all trauma comes from a systemic framework. The framework that upholds patriarchal power. It’s easy to see why that would be seen as dangerous to powerful men. We saw this with the European witch genocide in which oppressed women were targeted and wiped out under the excuse of what was considered women’s work. (Before this time, witchcraft wasn’t tied to any religion and was mostly just seen as women’s work. It was targeted specifically to have an excuse to persecute widows, homeless, disabled, and vulnerable women who no longer had men to reign over them during a time of political unrest and scarce resources). This time period saw hysterical and traumatized women demonized as dangerous, evil, immoral, hypersexual, and supernaturally wily. A threat to the moral fabric of society. 

(Interesting history side note: this caused the view of women’s base traits we have today. It stemmed from the Victorian era that came after this time period in which women learned if they behaved a certain way, they would be spared the stake. For example, before the witch trials, women were actually seen as the ones with unsatiable sexual appetites, something we culturally prescribe to men now.) 

Notice how none of this has to do with the actual abuse that happens to the women, but instead the labeling and treatment of women when they are already showing the symptoms of abuse, trauma, control, exploitation, and rape. 

Jason Todd, The Hysteric

So, how does this relate to Jason Todd? To say that Jason has experienced trauma would be an understatement. Extreme poverty, loss of parent to death and addiction, loss of parent to the justice system, parental abuse, manipulation, witnessing violent crimes, witnessing the aftermath of sexual abuse and assault, arguably (not explicit in the text) his own sexual trauma, witnessing the dead bodies of victims, a violent death, and subsequently a violent resurrection. There’s also an argument to be made for being a child soldier and how that is romanticized up until he dies, but the text does not treat this as traumatizing.

Now, I’m not going to dive into the trauma he experienced. The purpose of this is only to look at how he’s framed as hysterical in the narrative, and as I stated, hysteria was a word slapped on women after they tried to talk about their trauma or exhibited symptoms (or were just unruly women). Jason does embody many facets of the victim experience and this is just one of them. 

Feelings vs “logic” - Firstly, it is really hard to talk calmly about things that you carry, your experiences, your trauma, and things that specifically harm you. It is easy to talk calmly about things that don’t. This is why there is an abuse tactic of gaslighting or silencing victims by framing their very real reactions to harm or their triggers as abuse, this is known as “reactive abuse.” This tactic is also employed in oppressive settings where the privileged group will often default to ‘winning’ a debate by being able to remain calm while the marginalized group whose life, personhood, etc is being harmed by the things being discussed and are unable to have a sterilized, emotionless debate. 

Both of these settings fit Jason nicely within the moral context of vigilante comics. He fought back, he didn’t lay down, and he will do what he deems as necessary to protect himself and others from his fate. This, however, is framed by Bruce and others as being just as bad as his murderer or even just as bad as Joe fucking Chill. To put this in perspective of a real world equivalent. Combine every billionaire on this planet into one person and instead of their shitty business practices murdering people, they did it with their own two hands. And due to their resources and political power, they would never, ever stop killing or be reasonably contained. More people would die with absolute 100% certainty. Would killing that one person make you equally bad as that person or violating the sanctity of life? That’s the moral question that Bruce puts onto Jason. While the moral question inherent to Jason is actually, is there a line worth crossing to provide reasonable safety (for yourself or the nameless community)? There is actually a difference between those two questions and the reactive abuse framing is certainly a choice. Also, it is funny to me that a man with the amount of power Bruce has (and frequently misuses) can lecture a murder victim on the misuse of power and morality. Are we supposed to be agree with his stoic, philosophical lecturing to a marginalized, abused, murder victim? (yes, we are). Bruce leverages (personal) philosophy against victim’s voice for their own safety, and take a wild guess which one is framed as logical and reasonable.

Jason’s morals come secondary to Bruce’s philosophy in a universe where there is still harm being done (but it’s an acceptable harm). Why is killing the line? Bruce is regularly destroying families and lives by feeding them into the prison industrial complex while supporting it with his whole chest. Or he’s disabling and seriously maiming people with the level of violence he uses. 

Crying - Throughout the entire story of Under the Red Hood, we never once see Bruce emote while interacting with Jason outside of tight grimaces. With the exception of the shock he shows at the Joker’s life being threatened, which... Okay, suuure. We never see him cry during any of their interactions, but we do see Jason cry. Specifically, we see him crying when he’s at his most emotionally vulnerable and physically dangerous to the toxic male power fantasy. This kind of vulnerability is rarely shown by male characters, and when it is, it’s usually done with a mist of a tear in their eyes or their face is hidden. There are a few narrative devices that allow men to cry, but they are the exception rather than the rule. Usually, it’s to play for laughs, infantilize, or emasculate. Here, we see Jason combine the violence of a bad victim, bucking the system of power, and fully crying. Just slide right into that hysterical coding like a glove. Jason often shows his feelings entirely. Time and time again, the readers have seen Jason have breakdowns, cry, and be overcome with grief. This is tied to his portrayal as hysterical and unstable in the narrative, but in actuality it shows his capacity for love and how vastly impactful his death was. 

This fits nicely with the next point that Jason fits into the hysterical box. Love is framed as one of his key faults. A son reaching for his father. 

Love - One of Jason’s defining features is the amount of love and compassion he holds. He’s willing to put up with any treatment, shoulder blame, and sacrifice himself for others to almost an unhealthy degree. However, this doesn’t extend to what he defines as his baseline safety. This one line of safety is the one thing that can’t be crossed, even with all of the love he feels for his father. He desperately wants to feel connection, have a family, and be loved in return with the same unwavering ferocity love that he gives. This is such a fucking key part of the victim experience, especially victims of childhood trauma. The desperation to just be chosen. He’s raw and honest with his reasonable expectation for love to provide safety for him and that is framed as hysterical, needy, unstable, naive, and fucking childish. Victims know what they need to have safety, and this framing as Bruce knowing what’s best for Jason and literally giving a cold shoulder to his needs is disgusting. 

Less than - Jason is portrayed as less powerful than Bruce even though they have similar expertise. There are so many instances of this that if you just open any media they both appear in, you can close your eyes, point, and land on an example. It makes me die laughing every time I remember that the Arkham games made Jason just one inch shorter than Bruce. Like, they can’t even be the same fucking height, that’s the level of insecure masculinity surrounding this relationship. Jason cannot and will never be able to be on par with Bruce because of his hysterical femininity and the power of Bruce being the self insert for the toxic male power fantasy. This power dynamic applies to the other batkids as well, but specifically in Jason’s case there is an element of hysteria. The reasons change because he’s so inconsistently written but usually he can’t surpass or even meet a stalemate with Bruce because he’s too emotional, he’s unstable, traumatized, and simply Bad. It’s even explicitly stated by Alfred in Under the Red Hood. 

Victim blaming - Jason deserved to die because he didn’t follow orders. Jason deserved to die for not following his training. Jason deserved to die because he was an angry Robin (oh no a child had an appropriate reaction to sexual violence). Jason deserved to die for being human.

Infantilization - Jason is repeatedly infantilized in contrast to Bruce. When given the ultimatum at the end of UtRH, Bruce speaks to Jason like a child, or a bad dog. Ordering him to do things like, “enough!” or “stop this now.” Bruce knows what’s best for Jason (and for everyone in the entire world), we should really just take his word for it and not the victim’s. Imagine staring at a 6 foot wall of a man and scolding him like a child. Beyond that, as mentioned above, his views of love and safety are framed as childish. Even though they are actually leaning more toward collectivism rather than the rampant individualism that Bruce so strongly defers to. (also, just a side note, collectivistic methods in healing from trauma is actually the only scientifically reliable way to heal. Every other method has absolutely abysmal results and higher rates of relapses.)

Silenced and Safety Villainized - Jason is silenced in his own story, acceptable and honored when he was dead and met with vitriol in life. All of the love given to him as Robin turns to ash as soon as he collides with Bruce’s power and morals. I think any survivor can relate to the experience of being told that what happened to them was a long time ago and it’s time to move on. Or even that they’re leveraging their own safety to get what they want in a manipulative way. Regardless of whether or not there was any accountability or justice for the harm done to them. Alfred asks Bruce if he should remove Jason’s memorial in the cave like two seconds after learning of his resurrection because Jason’s methods of securing safety for himself and using his own voice to define his story. Bruce was able to tell Jason’s story when he died. He was able to memorialize, grieve, and ultimately define Jason’s story because Jason wasn’t there to speak for himself. When Jason does speak for himself, he is villainized and literally stripped of his past significance as Robin (or a good victim) by Alfred within seconds. This is reflected in real life with adoptee advocates speaking about how adoption is unethical/harmful/traumatizing and subsequently being framed as ungrateful, selfish, etc. They were little perfect victims without voices before they grew up and could speak for themselves.

Erased - Gestures at the entirety of how Jason is either talked about or completely erased during the 90s Tim Robin run. He wasn’t convenient to talk about, as victims rarely are. This also ties into how Steph’s death was erased and Babs was written like she “won” at trauma by simply... beating it??? 

Dangerous - Jason is framed as threatening the basic fabric of society (in a story with vigilantes this is hard to do, so they have him oppose the no-kill rule, and then doubled down on Bruce’s characterization of no-killing). Anything that bucks the status-quo is usually marked as villainous in mainstream vigilante/superhero comics, but this is a step beyond that into the interpersonal and political sphere. Hysterical women are often framed as dangerous, villains, snakes, and treacherous (the other side of this coin is weak, pathetic, and pitiable) because they are victimized and then have the audacity to do something to the system about it. Whether that be the system of their immediate families or the political sphere. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Jason was paired with Talia in Lost Days to hammer this point home to the reader. It could’ve just as easily been anyone with access to the Pit that rescued him, but no, we had DC’s favorite brown, treacherous, venomous, female punching bag. 

Bruce Wayne, The Batman

Bruce fits well into the father, enforcer, and logical man slot in Jason’s hysterical story. There is a history of ownership throughout women’s history when it comes to their subjugation to men. Women actually couldn’t be put on trial before the witchcraft genocide because they weren’t seen as legally a person. Their male owner would be put on trial instead. Women would go from being owned by their fathers to their husbands after entering marriage, the most dangerous woman being one who isn’t owned (orphaned, widowed). Bruce does treat (and even thinks) about Jason like he’s something that he owns. He’s his protege, his son, and his responsibility. 

The narrative function of Bruce as a perpetrator in Jason’s story. 

“The perpetrator asks the bystander (reader) to do nothing. He appeals to the universal desire to see, hear, and speak no evil. The victim, on the contrary, asks the bystander (reader) to share the burden of pain. The victim demands action, engagement and remembering” (Herman). 

Bruce does remember what happened to Jason. He keeps a permanent memorial to his dead son. However, this doesn’t translate into any kind of tangible action. He doesn’t do anything to actually stop the murderer who took his son’s life and he continues to throw child soldiers at the problem of crime (how many children have died for the sake of his no-kill rule at this point?). When met with the reality of his inaction, he fits into the perpetrator’s role like a glove:

“In order to escape accountability for his crimes, the perpetrator does everything in his power to promote forgetting. Secrecy and silence are the first line of defense... If secrecy fails, the perpetrator attacks the credibility of his victim. If he cannot silence her absolutely, he tries to make sure that no one listens... From the most blatant denial to the most sophisticated and elegant rationalization... One can expect to hear the same predictable apologies: it never happened; the victim exaggerates; the victim brought it upon herself; and in any case it’s time to forget the past and move on. The more powerful the perpetrator, the greater his prerogative to name and define reality, the more completely his arguments prevail” (Herman). 

I think it is simply fact at this point that Bruce is the head patriarch in Gotham if not, arguably, in the entirety of DC. That level of power in the narrative cannot be ignored, especially when faced with the very real, screaming voice of a victim that Bruce uses all of that power to silence. Bruce, because of his status as patriarch, default protagonist, and self-insert for the toxic male power fantasy, has the ultimate power to name and define reality. Especially to the reader. Bruce doesn’t deny what happened to Jason, because that’s physically impossible to do. But what he does do is ensure that no one listens to Jason, discredits him, and rationalizes his own inaction, actions of violence towards Jason, and victim blames.

Here’s Bruce using the most base form of denial and victim blaming:

After this panel, Bruce also revokes Dick’s access to his childhood home simply for asking a question.

This theme extends to other members of the batfam because of Bruce’s narrative power over them. It’s why we can’t have Dick, Steph, Babs, or even Damian step in and relate to Jason’s trauma or vindicate him. Even when we, the readers, can see parallels and wonder why these conversations or bonds aren’t forming. Jason HAS to be a lone wolf because he is hysterical and a threat to the system of power. This also shows why most of his runs in group settings outside of the batfam fall apart or fall flat. If he was humanized by any other character or had his trauma validated in any actionable way, it would be recognizing the failure of the toxic male power fantasy. The readers are not supposed to see the flaw in this system that allows the bodies of children to pile up and sympathize with one of their voices. It would be a crack in the system of power that exists not only in the source material, but very much within our real world.

Side note: Jason is allowed to interact with others in a wholesome and validating way when he no longer threatens the systemic power of Bruce. When he is silenced by the writers and plays the “nice victim” (like Babs does), he is allowed connection. Only when his healing is done in a way that doesn’t demand action and is only his personal responsibility (gotta love the rampant individualism). If he is hysterical, demands action, and asks for someone to be held accountable for his death, he is shoved away into a lone wolf box. Examples: Gotham Knights (from my very basic understanding, I haven’t played the game, only seen play throughs) and WFA. Victims are acceptable if they do their healing in a neat little box and stay there, but hysterics are the ones who step outside of that box.

Red Hood, The Political Voice of Hysteria and Trauma

Red Hood is deeply political in terms of hysteria and trauma. Herman stated that victims and those that authentically care for them or listen to them intently (whether that be interpersonally, clinically, or professionally) are silenced, ostracized, and discredited. Survivors need a social context that supports the victim and that joins the victim and witness in a common alliance. On an interpersonal level this looks like family, friends, and loved ones. However, trauma is systemic and the social context mentioned above must also be given on a wider social scale. For this to be done, there had to be systemic change and political action. Jason had the interpersonal social support and witnesses to his trauma ripped from him by Bruce. So, we see him move onto a systemic level of addressing trauma in his own political way. He literally cannot escape Bruce and this constant trigger because of Bruce’s philosophy and just... fucking power to define reality... being re-enforced constantly in DC no matter where he tries to go. So, he tries to heal by taking the systemic issue of perpetrators who cannot be held accountable or have fallen through the cracks of accountability into his own hands in a very personal way. A one man political movement.

Whether his methods are moral or ethical doesn’t really matter in the overall framing him as hysteric. He simply has to be opposed by the male power fantasy in some significant way. This shows that the goals, needs, and work towards victim’s and the marginalized’s freedom is dangerous, doomed to fail, and ultimately unethical if the victim is framed in a villain light instead of the more pathetic/pitiable iteration of hysteria. 

You can see how this is not only problematic but also reflects the real world values instilled in arguments against human rights movements (which are intrinsically tied to victims rights). Defunding the police is dangerous, the MeToo movement is dangerous, abolition is dangerous, trans rights are dangerous, etc etc etc. Think of the victims voices tied to each of these movements and how they are integral to the real change offered by these political movements. You can’t have human rights violations without creating victims. And you can’t have political movements surrounding human rights without listening to victims.

We can also see how the individuals within these movements are ostracized, villianized, and often silenced (sometimes ultimately silenced with death) because they rally against the systems of power that victimized them. The framing of traumatized, vulnerable people as hysterical is integral to upholding the system of power that traumatizes and harms them.

A popular comic book movie adaptation that highlights the importance of Jason’s hysterical framing and how it impacts the political narrative/how he is written is V for Vendetta. To be fair, it received an insane amount of backlash by conservatives (not within leftist or liberal spaces) for V’s methods in over throwing fascism, but only because of the movie’s release date being so close to 9/11. V and Jason have many parallels, it’s only the lack of hysterical framing that makes V more palatable to the viewer. We are told, not shown through behavior, that V is traumatized by his past and he does not pick a fight with the protagonist that functions as a toxic male power fantasy. He is the protag, with his version of Bruce being men who are not framed in a sympathetic, heroic, or relatable light. 

Additionally, there is literally an unemoting mask standing between the viewer and V, whereas Jason takes off his helmet to allow the reader to see every aspect of his trauma and pain. V readily dehumanizes himself into an idea, rather than a person. Whereas Jason screams to be seen as a person in a very hysterical way. So, we can see how the framing of Jason as hysteric against the logical, heroic man greatly impacts how the audience reads him when contrasted by a very similar political story/character who uses similar (and arguably more violent) methods to meet his ends. (This just made me realize that I would die for a Jason adaptation written by the Wachowski sisters). 

Jason’s work as Red Hood is seeped in leftist, victim, and community centered politics. His portrayal as a hysterical antagonist (at best an anti-hero) is rooted in misogyny and upholding patriarchal, capitalist, and the prison industrial complex systems of power. He is the righteous embodiment of “the personal is political” for victims. Even his Robin run draws attention to and shows correct, angry reactions to the system of patriarchal power in sexual violence.

Patriarchal Writing and Enforcement

Jason is girl-coded and hysterical because he’s supposed to be emasculated, discredited, and disliked by the reader. He serves the narrative function of boosting the toxic male power fantasy of Bruce and in doing so, the writers use one of the oldest tropes in the book (one that we have all subconsciously been taught since birth) to get the reader on their side. Make him a hysterical woman. 

References: for anyone interested in furthering their understanding of any of the concepts mentioned above and to, you know, use sources for my own writing.

Barstow, A. Witchcraze

Bondi, L., Burman. E. Women and Mental Health: A Feminist Review

Freud, S. The Aietology of Hysteria

Gilman, C. P. The Yellow Wallpaper

Herman, J. Trauma and Recovery

Ussher, J. The Madness of Women.

Van der Kolk, B. The Body Keeps the Score

Wilkin, L., Hillock, S. Enhancing MSW Students’ Efficacy in Working with Trauma, Violence, and Oppression: An Integrated Feminist-Trauma Framework for Social Work Education

[coquelicoq]

interesting that les misérables as a title has always remained untranslated into english when it's super uncommon not to translate titles into english, and when "the wretched" would actually be really metal as a title.

[thedrotter]

Re:Kinder Fun Facts of the day☺️!!! Have you ever wondered who talks the most from the main cast in Re:Kinder?? Well, I did😊. Today I'll be answering this question with some graphs and as a bonus telling you what words each character uses the most! I will warn you, this will be a bit long and I don't know how to be less verbose so, yeah!!!

First, I've made some basic rules as to what I counted regarding how much the characters speak. Not all lines really count as speaking, after all.

Any of the incoherent screaming lines don't count. There's a lot of screaming since the characters die a lot (as expected for a horror RPG game), but I don't really count that as speaking unless they're saying proper words. In that same vein, I didn't really count any of the panting or sniffing and such that are conveyed through words. Again, I don't really see that as a character actively speaking their thoughts!

If I cannot tell who a line belongs to, I will not give it to anyone. This happens for certain lines, so I felt this rule was important.

I won't be counting repetitions of the same line if it's on a variation of the same scene. This may sound a bit strange, but when a character dies, the game goes on to the same next scene it would regardless (unless the scene that follows it is an ending), with variations and new lines here and there to account for the dead character, but a lot will be reused and placed in the exact same beats it normally would have been in originally. So, this rule is here for that. Oh, and also the scenes with bits of Yuuichi's backstory that appear in Shunsuke's head won't be counted twice, because some appear twice line by line.

Of course, the "..." lines won't count. I am so sorry Aya!!!!😞

Now that the ground rules have been set, there's just one thing I want to mention. Though I will count all the total lines for Takumi and Yuuichi like any other character, I just want to mention that first I will have two separate counts for them! Takumi | Takumiel and Yuuichi | Yuuichi's Heart respectively.

Takumiel is separate because I was curious about how much Takumi spoke as an archangel compared to when he was alive. Yuuichi's Heart is because he speaks so much he feels notable enough to be given his own division, even if he and Yuuichi at the end of the day are one person

(I count the silly mind telepathy where Shunsuke is being directly spoken to [and being told things normal Yuu would avoid saying at that point] and the comical theater as Yuuichi's Heart. I clarify in case one assumes he only starts being counted the moment he's directly labelled as Yuuichi's Heart. Any line that can't be distinguished between Yuuichi's Heart and Yuuichi will be given to Yuuichi by default.)

With nothing else to be clarified let's get to the numbers!!!😊😊

First, the line counts with Takumiel and Yuuichi's Heart counted individually!! Here are the rankings:

Shunsuke (With a lead of 535 lines over second place!!)

Yuuichi

Rei

Yuuichi's Heart

Hiroto

Ryou

Sayaka

Aya

Takumi

Takumiel

You may be thinking— woah, does Shunsuke really speak that much?! You could say that, for a good chunk of those lines are from how he describes interactable points around the map and his inner thoughts, so they aren't all exactly said out loud. The benefit of being the protagonist, I suppose ww

Funny enough, Yuuichi's Heart has almost as many lines as Yuuichi does for not having that much time in the game, being on the higher end between the characters that don't get the benefit of being a protagonist (lol)!

Admittedly I had expected for Rei and Hiroto to have a more similar amount of lines given their nearly equal amount of presence, but for what it is Rei surpassed Hiroto by 51 lines! I also had expected for Takumiel to speak a little bit more than Takumi but turns out the opposite is true.

While the lack of lines of Takumi and Takumiel are to be expected due to their short time on the game, what stands out is Aya not even reaching triple digits between her other peers who are in there for most of the game. This is because a good chunk of Aya's lines in game are silence!^^" And thus weren't counted. If ellipses were a word, she surely would have reached triple digits, but unfortunately they're not.

Now the line count with combined sums of Takumi | Takumiel and Yuuichi | Yuuichi's Heart!!!

In here, the ranking isn't affected, with Yuuichi remaining second place and Takumi being last place. But the disparity of everyone's numbers compared to Takumi's feels a bit more clear to see when Takumiel isn't individually counted.

With Yuuichi's line counts combined, Shunsuke remains 318 lines ahead of him, but it also means Yuuichi has a 59% the amount of Shunsuke's lines; and impressive feat for someone who doesn't get the benefit of being the point of view for everything you press... Although he does also have an upper hand over everyone by essentially being the plot of this game ww

But maybe line counts do not suffice to tell how much a character speaks. Yes, Shunsuke has a bunch of lines from everything he interacts with, but is it really reliable to say he speaks all that much in all those lines? A good chunk of those could easily have 3 words each! So with this in mind, let's do a word count.

Even in a word count, Shunsuke has the lead, having a lead of 2,247 words over second place. But we'll see about that when we combine Yuuichi's numbers. Anyway, here's the ranking!

Shunsuke

Yuuichi's Heart

Yuuichi

Rei

Hiroto

Ryou

Sayaka

Aya

Takumi

Takumiel

This time, Yuuichi's Heart is the one at second place!!! It's pretty funny that he speaks more than his physical counterpart ww. I genuinely didnt think he'd out yap himself that way when I chose to count for him individually 😭!!! He has a lead of 63 words over himself, but a lead nonetheless.

In here, Rei and Hiroto are more even than in the line counts, with the difference seeming more minimal when put into words. But it also showcases that despite Rei having more lines than Yuuichi's Heart in the line count, those only get to have a bit over half of the amount of words he talks (To be fair he does get to infodump a lot in his section of the game).

And here's the combined word count!!! Suddenly Shunsuke's lead is only by a mere 55 words! So Yuuichi speaks about as much as he does with 318 less lines.

I must admit that I genuinely did not expect it to be that close. When I chose to count the lines for when you interact with things for Shunsuke, I thought he was granted to speak an absurd amount more than anyone else. But turns out that Yuuichi speaks about the same amount out loud when most of Shunsuke's are his own thoughts ww. But it does make sense! He is still the plot of this game.

So, after all those charts, here's the average/middle point of lines and words for characters to have, because why not, it's fun.

Average Line Count (YH and Takumiel counted individually): 197 lines

Average Line Count (When combined): 247 lines

Average Word Count (YH and Takumiel counted individually): 1,333 words

Average Word Count (When combined): 1,666 words

So there it is. That's how much the characters in Re:Kinder speak!

But wait!!! I am not done. I will share with you an additional fun fact... Did you ever want to know what word each of these characters said the most?! This one will be quicker, I do promise.

When it came to counting these words I did not count stop words, that being common words that are used all the time by everyone in English. "I, you, me, the, to, a, my, your, yes, no"... Words like that! Otherwise everyone would have one of those as their most said word and it'd be rather boring to look at. With that said, here are the words these characters say the most!

Shunsuke: Yuuichi - said 40 times! (this genuinely confused me so much im sorry he uses interjections so much I had expected it to be something like "huh" or "um" but no i dont know how this passed by me as i was rounding up all the lines he says or proofreading or writing all of those lines WHAT?!?! its been two days and it still takes me out)

Ryou: Shunsuke - Said 14 times

Sayaka: Murderer - Said 7 times (All in one sentence!)

Takumi | Takumiel (counted in one for how little he speaks.): Takumiel - Said 3 times (That name is so important, he said it thrice.)

Aya: Sorry - Said 5 times

Rei: Hell, gonna, look, Yuuchi - said 8 times (Most of the repeated words she says are stop words for she doesn't tend to speak about the same things repeatedly.)

Hiroto: Shunsuke - Said 17 times

Yuuichi (separate from YH): Problem - Said 17 times

Yuuichi's Heart: Mama - Said 24 times

Yuuichi (Overall): Mama - Said 31 times

So that is finally it. That is the fun fact of today.😊😊 Use this to woe your friends at parties!!!

I am aware Mami speaks about enough to be counted in, but this is pretty time consuming to do and I'm not sure anyone is invested on her enough to count her in. But if there's enough curiosity regarding that, I'll try counting her in. But for now this suffices.☺️ Thanks for reading!

[wundrousarts]

For any Nevermoor fans that've ever been interested in getting their hands on the UK hardcover editions of the series, with the wonderful cover designs..... I think they might be out of print (which. makes sense with the gold foil) so. goodluck and godspeed for finding them secondhand, because it was surprisingly hard to do online.

[ssreeder]

Sorry if you’ve answered this before but do you have any idea of how many chapters into the fire will end up being or how the ending will pan out? (Also I love you and the world you’ve created thanks for being awesome <333)

I have answered this before, but I feel it changes day to day lol… ITF is about ummm halfway? It will absolutely be the largest fic of the three, but it has to be in order to bring this thing to a proper close. I could realistically do a fourth book but fuck it I am sticking to the original plan of three. I have the ending completely planned and most of the epilogue figured out as well… I will admit the only thing I don’t have completely planned out is the nitty-gritty details that tend to unfold as the story happens? So as the battle begins who knows how characters will react or what emotions will come up so I like to keep things loose with that to give the characters room to breathe.

But yeah! I do have an ending and I have all the MAJOR events planned, so any twists & turns along the way are already set in motion :)

(I love you thank you for sending me this ask you’re amazing)

[runawaymun]

finally settled down and so it's time to embark on day one of Nanowrimo

[icewindandboringhorror]

recent things

[bedlamsbard]

I could fight Marvel's What If and win.

[n7punk]

so i've already updated more this year than i did during all of last year

[suashii]

finally feel like i got a significant amount of writing done today, i deserve a cookie 🍪

[arolesbianism]

Sier? I haven’t even met her! Laugh.

[meownotgood]

working on it...

[thebirdandhersong]

at this rate, the first long-form work of fiction I'll have finished since 2018 will be a Lockwood and Co fanfic. I'm actually quite tempted to print myself a copy to celebrate this feat after I'm done writing this fic (and done editing, and all that).......