#they are all varying levels of she/they to me

[a-bad-case-of-the-stephs]

@duskdog

Hiiii! Been meaning to respond to this because you raised some really interesting ideas, sorry that it’s taken me a hot sec.

The crazy part is (like a lot of things about Steph) we get conflicting information about how Bruce sees Steph in relation to her father.

Steph consistently worries Batman is judging her by her fathers actions when she’s sanctioned at Spoiler. She identifies it as a potential reason the rest of the team doesn’t trust her.

This tracks with how Steph is shown to have a pattern of feeling responsible for the Cluemasters actions (which as I’ve mentioned before I see as an extension of her helplessness to protect herself and her mother from him during her childhood).

She identifies on multiple occasions that her choice to be the Spoiler is rooted in the misgivings of her father. Clear, easy example of this mindset is when she states because her dad is an asshole, she “has a lot to make up for” (Robin 80 Page Giant). She finds herself responsible in some part for his actions.

So it makes a lot of sense that Stephanie keeps asssuming other people are holding her to this same standard, judging her based off of her fathers criminal ways.

However, this assumption is not really substantiated.

I can’t think of a time Batman says or thinks anything which implies he gives a fuck who her dad is, besides when they first meet assuming she’s working with the Cluemaster instead of against him. (I’m not perfect however and I Might have missed one)

That is, until… Bruce Wayne: The Road Home Batgirl (🎉I love talking about BWTRHB!!!!! The worlds shittiest acronym!!!🎉)

After his little assessment and convo with Steph, Bruce tells Alfred that Stephanie and Wendy “need watching”, as their dads were both “criminals”.

This train of thought comes out of nowhere. As already stated, there’s very little evidence that Batman cared much that her dad was a criminal before this point.

Additionally, half his goddamn team has criminal fathers/mothers, ranging from mob bosses to goons to cult assassins to international terrorists. What is he even saying.

This is a total inconsistency. But I can see your view kinda accounts for that hypocrisy. If Bruce sees Cluemaster as a “lesser” threat and holds him in less esteem than the more formidable villain parents, it might explain why he seems to put this bonus emphasis on Stephs parentage. (Maybe he sees Stephs fathers criminal ways as more ‘mundane’ and therefore easier for her to slip into?)

I don’t think I’m totally sold on that idea, but it’s definitely interesting.

His statement feels just so out of nowhere (and again applies to half the people he works with) that I find it hard to believe this is a consistent concern of his.

Batman’s opinion on low level thugs varies (obviously by era and writer), but the versions of him I find most compelling are when he is shown to be sympathetic and willing to help people in shitty situations get out of them (even if they were doing crime beforehand). However it’s entirely possible (and probably equally substantiable) that he has unconscious and class based biases which might affect how he acts and treats certain characters.

I’m not nearly as intensely familiar with Jason’s character as I am Stephanie, so I’m low grade blanking on any good examples of how Bruce interacted w Jason’s background (besides his generally all consuming belief that Jason was on track to worse and worse crime and eventual death before Batman took him in).

Sorry this is pretty rambly, but I thought you brought up a Rly interesting point and i had some thoughts I wanted to add on

How Batman uses the idea of those "born for" vigilantism to justify working with Teen Vigilantes before and after the death of Jason Todd, and what it has to do with Stephanie Brown.

(DISCLAIMER: I'm not trying to condemn the concept of child/teen vigilantes in superhero comics, its a staple of the genre and dumb to condemn it like you would in the real world. I'm analyzing the times in which Bruce Wayne the character has questioned the concept himself, and the rationalizations he comes to about it)

By examining Bruce Waynes mindset immediately before, during, and after Jason Todd's deadly time as Robin, we can see how Batman rationalizes and justifies teenaged vigilantism.

When Dick Grayson as Robin is shot by the Joker, Batman essentially fires him from being Robin. Bruce entirely dismisses the concept of working with a "child" to fight crime. Batman seems to believe working with Dick as Robin is simply too dangerous.

Batman #408 (1940)

His Mindset at this point: Teenaged Vigilantism = Dangerous and Bad

But this, obviously, doesn't stick. It barely takes any time at all after this forBruce Wayne to take in Jason Todd and subsequently make him the second Robin.

Crime fighting with a 19 year old is too dangerous, but crime fighting with the 12 year old? Yeah, sure, why not!

There is an obvious contradiction, and a clear change in mindset.

In order to rationalize his choice to take in Jason Todd as Robin after firing Dick, Bruce Wayne must internally reendorse the concept of Teenaged Vigilantism. And he does so in a specific way:

Batman #410 (1940)

Mindset: If Jason Todd was not Robin, he would become a criminal and die

The dying part is specific as well. When confronted at first by Alfred, its more of an afterthought, something which would occur down the criminal "road" Jason was bound to end up on. But when he is later confronted by Dick, the idea that being Robin "saved" Jasons life takes center stage.

Batman #416 (1940)

It's no longer some distant crime related death Jason was on course for, it was an imminent death which Bruce was able to save him from.

Mindset: If Jason Todd was not Robin, his "self destructive energies" and lack of "self esteem" would have killed him.

This phrasing is SUPER interesting to me, because its not true in a very specific way.

1. Jason Todd wasn't really shown to have "Self destructive energies" before he became Robin. He was stealing to make a living, to stay alive. He never showcases a desire for "self destruction", unless you count his hitting Batman with a tire iron, and his interference in Ma Gunn’s heist. Which I don't.

2. It seems to imply Jason Todd might have died because of specifically "self destructive tendancies", which seems ascribes a small amount of passive potential suicidal ideation, which is also vastly unsubstantiated by anything we see from Jason before he becomes Robin. But you know who is a character who is deeply rooted in concepts of suicidal ideation? Batman. (I'm not going prove this point here, but this concept gets more firmly rooted in the upcoming years after this comic, Knightfall being a great example) Being Batman, Knightfall will establish, is pretty much all that keeps Bruce Wayne living. You could say that being Batman saved his life.

3. Bruce admits he took Jason on because he was lonely in this very same confrontation when Dick pushes him on this idea. This makes it abundantly clear why he needs this rationalization in the first place, his real reason for making Jason Robin appears to be somewhat selfish.

But what does this all mean? For one, it proves that Batman's primary explanation for why he took on Jason Todd is lowgrade BS. It also shows how Batman's rationalization has begun to veer into projection. He states that Jason was saved from his self destructiveness by becoming Robin, something that is certainly true for himself, but not really Jason.

We see this projection fully take root when Leslie Thompkins confronts Bruce. Not only is Jason Todd saved by becoming Robin, now he wasn't even chosen by Batman. It was, much like Bruce Wayne becoming Batman, inevitable. Something he was "born" to do.

Detective #574

Mindset: I didn't chose Jason, he was chosen, he is just like me, we were born for this

This is essential. This mindset will show up again and again as a core part of Bruce's ability to rationalize working with child vigilantes once Jason has died.

Lets look at how his mindset has been evolving from before he meets Jason to his time as Robin progressing. Batman has gone from:

Teenage/Child vigilante Bad --> Child Vigilante Good because Jason would have become a crimial --> Child Vigilante Good because Jason would have died, I saved his life --> Child Vigilante is Good because I saved his life and Jason was meant to be Robin just like I was meant to be Batman, this is what we were was born to do

This is insane rationalization. But it works. For a while.

Then, Jason begins acting out, and putting himself in danger. Whoops. uh oh! How can Jason be saved by becoming Robin, if he is endangered by it? The balm for Bruce's semi-suicidal ideation was crime fighting, so if Jason is self destructive as Robin, does that mean Jason isn't like Bruce after all? Does that mean he wasn't born to be Robin? Was Bruce right in the begining? Is Teen Vigilantism Bad? Well, lucklily, the rationalization Bruce has built doesnt need to change too much in order to accommodate these new facts.

Batman #426 (1940)

See, this issue has not reverted back to being child vigilantism, it's the fact that Jason isn't ready yet.

Batman #426 (1940) / Batman #427

Batman latches onto this idea, he identifies it as "the problem". Is he wrong? No, not really. It does seem like Jason needs come to terms with his parents deaths. But this is important because it is still a rationalization for mindset he started with, still part of the reason he can be in favor of Teenage Vigilantism.

Then Jason Todd dies, as Robin. That truly breaks the underlying concept for this rationalization, that being Robin saved Jason Todd. The entire justification has fully shattered, and Bruce Wayne has lost a son. And, so because of this, in the wake of Jason Todds death, we see a full 180 revert back to the idea Bruce held onto at the end of Dick Graysons time as Robin: Teenage Vigilante = Bad.

Batman #428/ The New Teen Titans #55 (1984) / Batman #439

He has fully rejected the very concept of working with anyone, including the now adult Nightwing. He is literally right back where we started, with even deeper convictions against working with someone else (especially a kid) ever again.

But we all know this doesn't stick. He takes on 13 year old Tim Drake as Robin not long at all afterwards. As the 90's progress Bruces goes on to work with a huge variety of other vigilantes and partners, both teenaged and adult.

So how does he possibly justify this?

I believe he retrofits his rationalization for taking on Jason as Robin.

He adheres to a primary idea. The idea that some people are, like him, simply built for Vigilantism. That they, much like he once believed Jason was, "born" for it.

Mindset: Child Vigilantle is not always Good, but it can be Good. When its the right kind of teenager. Some Teenaged Vigilantes are meant to be Vigilantes just like I was meant to be Batman.

In this way, Jason Todds tragic murder is not a failure of concept, it a category error. Batmans mistake was not working with a teenager, his mistake was working with the wrong kind of teenager. Jason Todd was not built for vigilantism. But others are. This means he's still totally in the clear to work with teenagers, Tim Drake as Robin, then Cassandra Cain as Batgirl, and then eventually Stephanie Brown as Spoiler. So long as Bruce is able to believe they are "born" for it, that they are like Batman himself, meant to do this, and incapable of living a normal life, there is no contradiction, his rationalization holds.

But where’s the proof?

This mindset can be clearly seen and prominently seen when Stephanie Brown is fired as Spoiler.

When Steph is fired as Spoiler because she has moved in Bruce's mind from the "acceptable Teen Vigilante" category into the "unacceptable Teen Vigilante category". And the reasons he gives for this decision are exactly in line with the rationalization I've lain out. She is consistently contrasted to other teen vigilante characters who are fit for duty because he does not see her as "like him/them".

Detective #790

Notice how he jumps right from "Jason and Stephanie were/are not fit to fight crime" to "they could/can have a normal life" right to "unlike me and you, Cassandra Cain, who are stuck fighting crime forever". Much like how he originally justified his decision to work with Jason Todd as Robin through the idea that Jason and Bruce were both destined for this life, he applies the exact same idea, but this time, about himself and Cassandra Cain as Batgirl. And in contrast to them, and in directly comparison to Jason Todd, Stephanie is not meant for crime fighting.

Batgirl #38 (2000)

And Stephanie Brown is contrasted with Cass again, when Bruce first explains why he fired Steph to Cass. This is a consistent pattern. She is not like Cass. This is why she shouldn’t be a vigilante.

When he explains that he is going to fire Steph as Spoiler to Tim, he says something very interesting which invokes the same idea. In the list of three reasons he throw out that Steph shouldn't be Spoiler, he mentions that she is going to "throw her life away". When taken in combination with the other panels discussed, its clear to me that he means this is the common way the saying is used. That she is wasting her life by being a vigilante, that she should, as he mentions earlier, be living a normal life. But why is he saying this to Tim? If one of the reasons Steph shouldn't be Spoiler is her ability to lead a normal life, why the fuck is Tim exempt? I think it comes from a genuine belief that Tim is "like him". Unable to live a normal, non-vigilante life, "born" for crime fighting. Much like Cass, who we already saw him directly compare himself to in this exact same way. Thats why he can directly reference to Tim Steph's ability to have a normal life as a reason she shouldn't be a vigilante, he doesn't believe Tim fits the same category at all!

Robin #106 (1993)

So why the fuck does Stephanie move categories? She was acceptable earlier? What changed?

I've already done an in-depth explanation for what the subconscious underlying reason Bruce fires Stephanie: she simply is no longer useful to as a balm for his loneliness. I highly recommend checking out the post here if you are interested in the breakdown of why and how.

But in addition to that, it’s clear to me that it also has a weird amount to do with Jason Todd.

Stephanie simply and clearly reminds Bruce of Jason Todd. He points out their similarities in personality, and it’s worth mentioning the similarities in their circumstances as well (mothers who struggle(d) with drug addiction, and fathers who were criminals).

As we saw in Detective #790, their personality similarities led to Batman associating Steph with Jason. This makes sense, this association would only grow as he got to know her over the time she is sanctioned as Spoiler.

I believe this association leads to him eventually placing her in the same category as Jason, as not "born" for vigilantism at all, and as capable of having a normal life.

But it also serves as a clear way to rectify his mistakes with Jason. It’s his way of “making up for” his role in Jason's death. It’s his second chance. Never mind that this second chance leads to his assessment of Stephanie having very little to do with Steph herself, and a whole fucking lot to do about Bruce’s guilt over Jason’s death.

This is especially brutal because it seems to come from a place of genuine care (and a selfish desire to assuage his guilt too), but Stephanie doesn't get the tender moment of explanation and grief and regret that Cassandra hears. She doesn't get to know this.

What she gets, is to be told point blank that she is fired because she just isn't good enough. She gets to hear that she lacks the "skills and talent" from the same man who originally came to her to train her because he finally saw and recognized her potential. She gets told she will never be good enough by the guy who told her that she could learn and improve under his instruction. She gets two sentences. She has to fight for any more.

I cannot emphasize enough the fact that she had to track Bruce down to get an explanation for why he was suddenly ghosting her. He didn't even have the decency to tell her himself. Stephanie had to track Bruce down just so she could find out that he gave up on her.

Stephanie gets a blunt lie about why she is fired. And Bruce Wayne gets to feel good about "correcting" a mistake that had nothing to do with Stephanie. Stephanie gets cut off from her friends. Bruce Wayne gets to reconcile with his team. Stephanie gets to feel worthless. Bruce Wayne gets to feel justified.

[icys-junkyard]

The Miss Fortune Sisters picked some super enby names for themselves and tbh I love that

[sevinite]

almost forgot to post this angel here ❤️

[widowshill]

— And do you or do you not have difficulty remembering such simple instructions? — Only during thunderstorms, sir.

THE SOUND OF MUSIC (1965) / DARK SHADOWS (1966)

[joelletwo]

(i DONT hear the sirens call of it im just thinkin about pronouns now. this post is not a call to action or a request for encouragement) i want to change my pronouns bc im starting to get confusion jumpscared every time ppl (correctly) use he for me again but as always for the last decade i dont have a better alternative in mind kjsdf ah well least of worst worlds

[b4kuch1n]

I lied I think it’s fun to draw animals sometimes

[a-wins-a-win]

unpopular opinion?? maybe?

Matt & Ivy have a really interesting dynamic!! both pre- and post-canon!! with or without romantic undertones!! either reciprocal or one-sided!!

and obviously it has to be handled with a particular level of care/respect BUT I think if we allowed them enough grace there is space to explore a really interesting possibility for that relationship.

[captain-cheeseboi]

I was telling my sister that I felt like I was supposed to kin cr!regulus black but I still felt like we had too many differences and then she remined me of the time when I was like nine I threatened to throw a dictionary at someone if they did not shut up, they did not shut up, I threw a dictionary at them.

[shinsocest]

One of my favorite things about my senior cat is that she skitters into the bathroom behind me as if I wouldn't let her come with to begin with. As if she's not my bathroom buddy little princess

[jlf23tumble]

I'm really trying to understand. I know Joshua does take good pics but some of his pics are awful and they still get so much praise. I'm seeing comments "I know the pic is blurry but it fits Louis' tour aesthetics". Seriously? Is that the excuse now? "This pic looks like shit but it fits Louis' tour aesthetics". Since that pic Harry posted on IG that was super super blurry, which I think he was trying to make a point with. That fans don't control him. I thought Lloyd's pics have got better since. They show more of the audience. I really like his recent pics that show Harry and the audience. They give a vintage postcard kind of feel. Old school. But he's still being trashed as ever. Sometimes I'll see a pic and think... that's not that bad so surely they won't be trashing that. But they will be, always are. He can't do any right. But Joshua can't do any wrong. I think it could be partly because Joshua talks to the fans on twitter. So they feel 'closer' to him. They're still incredibly bitter about the iHeart? tour photography award going to Lloyd, while also saying that it means nothing. If it means nothing then why still so bitter? Why the desperate push to vote for Joshua? They say that Lloyd only won the award because of Harries. Well yes. If Joshua won the award it would be because of Louies and Larries. That's how fan voted awards go. If anyone does like Lloyd's pics they get insulted for having bad taste. They really despise Lloyd and they just don't stop complaining about him. Why is it always like this? That everyone Harry works with is hated by the fandom and everyone Louis works with is loved?

I'm sitting here, nodding my head as I read this like a goddamned kitsch toy dog on the dashboard of someone's bitchin' Camaro because yeah, YEAH. I have some thoughts about it that I'm sure I'm not all that articulate about, so I'll take it to the tags and let your ask just shine up here, uninterrupted yet fully appreciated

[jwooyoung]

speaking of neurodivergence my mother discovered that word (and neurotypical) just this past week and then said to me (about my entire family) "glad we're all neurotypical haha 😊!" ummmmm mother perhaps rethink that statement........ 😭😭

[dontwanderoff]

oh toilet cry, i have not missed you

[doctor-fancy-pants]

Wednesday Words

Good Things Can Come From Mistakes #1

Cell division is a glorious, microscopic ballet.

A dancer’s silhouette is revealed from an artful smoke machine; so too does our genetic material coalesce from the organised chaos of the nucleus into chromosomes.

Diligently, they twin themselves, then separate, pulled to opposite ends of the stage; and then the stage itself splits in two, and you don’t see that shit in Swan Lake.

But the most miraculous part of all this is how much it gets fucked up and you still end up with a human being at the end of it.

Only now you’ve got red hair. You’re welcome.

Good Things Can Come From Mistakes #2

A weed is any plant that grows where you don’t want it to grow. It’s a context-specific term. A mistake is to do something when you intended something else.

An error is a computer telling you to go fuck yourself, because you’re speaking gibberish (as far as the computer is concerned).

What do you get when you combine these things?

Well, I got a sarcastic cyborg plant person, and after 50 magical years of marriage, I don’t regret a single thing.

I have a Wednesday night writing group. We do prompts, and drabbles, and it's a good time. Everyone comes out with something so different! They're short snippets - the drabbles are only supposed to be 100 words (eventually I got there!), a warm-up for the later prompt. I've decided to post my favourites, because why not? This one was more recent, and I got two in the time limit that I liked.

[enigma-absolute]

Me, having an ‘older sister moment’ conversation with my half-sister: so yeah you know how I’m on the spectrum?

Half-sister: yeah?

Me: so is dad. I had to get it from somewhere.

Half-sister: really? Well… I was kinda suspecting it tbh, here’s a bunch of symptoms about him

Me: oh yeah, he is SO on the spectrum

[sqbr]

I think of it like an identical twin: Yeah, the cultural/emotional relationship depends on who raises the kid, separate to the DNA. But regardless of who raise(d) us, we are genetic siblings/twins. If I found out tomorrow that my Suspiciously Similar Looking same aged "cousin" was actually my twin separated at birth and raised by my aunt, they'd still be my cousin, but also my genetic twin, and that genetic connection would have meaning. If tomorrow I met a baby one of my siblings was giving up for adoption, that baby would still be my biological nibling, regardless of where it ended up after that.

Like any adoptee, the clone baby's feelings about their biological family (not just me but my parents and siblings, our ancestors, etc) could end up anywhere from "indifferent except for health implications" to "deeply connected". And as with the hypothetical adopted out nibling, I would try and respect the kid's feelings, but on my own part would regardless definitely feel a certain Older Relative affection and responsibility. And as much as I'd respect boundaries (especially on their gender, which would plausibly not match mine) I'd really want to pass on advice on how not to end up as sick as me with a body like ours haha.

Speaking of projecting past regrets my mother would desperately want the kid raised Jewish in a way I wasn't. We have a family Zoom call tomorrow, gonna have to resist asking "So if a baby clone of me appeared tomorrow which of us would raise it".

Scenario: a sample of your DNA was taken, popped into a cell, and cloned into a baby, gestated in a sci-fi artificial womb vat. The first time you or anyone in your family meets this baby is after it has already been born out of said vat. You can hold the newborn if you want, it's up to you, but it is a living breathing baby that was cloned from your DNA and is genetically identical to you.

I love clone philosophy. Give me all your philosophy of clones

[netaro--yowa]

Sometimes I forget that not everyone has the same love for music as I do. And man! It pisses me off sometimes.