I don’t care if they got a body like Nicki Minaj with their boobs pushed up to their chin and wear more pink and ruffles than a unicorn in a tutu. If they tell you they’re nonbinary, then they’re fucking nonbinary.
I don’t care if he’s got the highest, prettiest voice and wears dresses and pink glittery nail polish and high heels. If he tells you he’s a boy, then he’s a fucking boy.
I don’t care if she looks like the Hulk and talks like Morgan Freeman and has a beard to rival Thor and the hairiest chest and legs ever and wears a suit. If she tells you she’s a girl, then she’s a fucking girl.
Deal with it.
Riding public transit shortly after Caitlin Jenner introduced herself to the world, I heard two men in their sixties with thick Southern accents turn conversation to ‘this whole Jenner business.” I braced myself for something ugly and considered moving further down the train; I’m glad I didn’t.
“I just don’t get it, ya know?” one of them began, shaking his head. “I mean, you bump into somebody in the supermarket and you say, ‘I’m sorry, sir,’ and hear back, ‘actually, it’s ma’am,’ then you say, ‘so sorry, ma’am; my mistake’ not ‘I’LL CALL YOU SIR IF I DAMN WELL FEEL LIKE IT!!!’” More head shaking. “What’s the matter with some people? They just got no manners.’
Superheroes that are like “if we kill them we’re just as bad as they are uwu” ? Micro dick energy
The only exception is Aang, whose whole “I’m not gonna kill him if i can find another way” thing is less false moral equivalency and more “I’m twelve and I have been through way too much bullshit this year to add ‘commit my first murder’ to the list.”
I do respect superheroes who don’t kill, and I really think “we’re as bad as they are if we do it” is a terrible oversimplification of why someone would come to that moral conclusion.
Three reasons why a hero might not kill:
1. They are not granted by their society a “licence to kill.” Many (not all) people accept that a soldier or a judge might need to kill a wrongdoer in the course of their duties. Those people (should) act under strict rules and processes to determine when a death is just. A society, to be peaceful, usually functions under a guarantee that people won’t on their own judgement decide to off people. Vigilantes don’t usually have state-sanctioned authority, but they do rely on public goodwill to be counted as heroes and not menaces or even villains. A hero, especially an independent, self-proclaimed one, may lack the authority or judgement to serve as executioner. Most just societies require a trial before delivering a sentence.
2. They don’t need to. Paradoxically, or maybe not so much so, the stronger a hero is, the less they need to kill. One of the most common defenses for a murder is “self defense,” the idea that the person making the plea was in so much danger from the deceased that killing them was justifiable. But once you’re a swordsman swift enough to cut bullets or a muscleman strong enough to lift trucks, who’s that big a threat? As your control over your power and your ability to master an opponent both increase (and barring completely wild or uncontrolled abilities, these two are very linked) the easier it becomes to hold back, to subdue with the minimal amount of damage and to render even the worst villains neutralized without going nuclear.
3. The power to kill is bad for their mental health.Not everyone can perform even a “just” killing with a clean conscience. A hero might fear the trauma of killing, and seek to avoid the damage. Or a hero might introspect, and realize that, should they kill today, tomorrow the choice will be easier. Killing an opponent, rather than subduing them, is often the easy way out, and a hero who comes to rely on that solution might find themselves killing more and more, Even if killing isn’t addictive, a hero might still fear that mindset.
Now, a common version of this problem is Batman, who wouldn’t kill the Joker even if the Joker is at maximum edge, dealing out huge terrorist acts and body counts. The best reason for Batman not to kill him isn’t “I am as bad as the Joker if I kill,” but more, “I am a man who uses superheroism as a trauma coping mechanism, and if I start committing extrajudicial killings my mental state and my loose alliance with the police will both deteriorate.”
THANK. YOU.
The thing is, the “no killing” rule often gets basterized by writers who don’t understand it. That’s especially prelivant with Batman and his extended family.
Batman’s refusal to kill the Joker after Jason’s death for exampel was originally due to the fact that Bruce was extremly unstable and would have completly snapped. Yet people seem under the impression that this meant Batman had some kind of delusional attachment to the Joker and that’s why he kept him alive.
So now Batman’s refusal to kill people is spawned from some false sense of justice more often then not rather then him being literally traumatized by the idea of losing controll over himself.
Damian is a similar case where his “no killing” rule is part of his unlearning process and to prevent his ptsd from being triggered. He keeps this rule not because of some sort of idealism but because it is a necessary boundary to both keep the trust of his support system and to keep his own mental health in check. However a lot of writers seem to not understand that either and believe that Damian would activly kill if given the choice to do so.
So rather then characters who refuse to kill being the issue, it’s writers who misunderstand the reason behind them not killing and push harmful, victim blaiming agendas with it.
I feel like sometimes people on Tumblr overlook the importance of personal philosophies and codes of ethics for individuals, with this belief that everyone must conform to some radical leftist ethos or something. The person talking about Aang is really oversimplifying his motives. Aang is a Buddhist and it’s a huge aspect of his character. An important aspect of Buddhism is never killing others, which even includes vegetarianism. All life is precious. Part of Aang’s whole philosophy and outlook on life is nonviolence.
And consider Kenshin from Rurouni Kenshin and Vash from Trigun. Both live in extremely violent societies: Kenshin is a former samurai who used to kill with impunity and Vash lives in a sci-fi version of the Wild West. By rejecting killing outright, these characters have a particular approach to promoting peace in their respective settings. Their histories of killing others also tie into it, but they also are up against enemies who place very little value in human life. The point isn’t so much “killing makes me as bad as you” but rather “unlike you, I value human life, and killing is against my code of ethics.”
Consider the rejection of the death penalty as another example. A horrible person may deserve to be punished and may have taken many innocent lives, but some would argue that killing is in and of itself wrong regardless.
Just because a character values human life and morally opposes killing doesn’t mean they think their enemies are redeemable or that killing their enemy is an act of the same “badness” as their enemies’ actions. There are many valid reasons people choose not to kill or harm others. Striving for peace and nonviolence in no way makes you weak or “problematic.”
So when I was a kid, probably 12 or 13, I checked out a compilation of post-apocalyptic science fiction stories from the public library. It looked like every other book on the shelf. It was fic from a dozen different authors, and the blurb on the inside cover was pretty vague.
Of the stories in that book, 2 were R-rated. One had surprise rape. One had surprise inter-generational incest. For the shock value. To make the reader ~think. Dude authors. Do I wish I hadn’t read it? Yah. Kinda. It lives in the back of my head with the other gross detritus of the world, all the horrible upsetting shit I’ve read. I read a Star Trek licensed novel with animal torture in it, to illustrate the horror of sociopathy, and I wish I hadn’t read that too.
During the summers of middle school and high school I read voraciously and while I managed to steer clear of MUCH upsetting content I sure as hell stumbled on some doozies.
If my library had been Ao3 I would have gotten a pop up asking me — hey, kid, there’s gross shit in that book, are you old enough to check it out?
And if I was a dumb kid I still might have said ‘yes’, but I would have had a heads up.
Quick personal statistics!
Surprise incest I’ve read in paperbacks I bought in a store or checked out from the library: I’m going to say…. half a dozen instances? Dozen? Surprise rape, at least double that. What is it about the fantasy genre that brings out the creepy writers, and why do they consider sexual assault ‘gritty realism,’ could they fucking stop.
Surprise incest I’ve read on Ao3: none. It has warnings and I avoid it like the plague.
Surprise rape I’ve read on Ao3: none. It has warnings and I avoid it like the plague.
Ao3 is one of the safest goddamn places on the web to read fiction because it has a standardized, mandatory labeling system. Is there appalling content on it? Oh god yes. Does it do a better job of warning you about that content than any library or bookstore? Oh my god yes by ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE.
I vote funding for my local library every time it’s on the ballot, even though there’s gross shit on the shelves, because I think it’s a resource that’s important to have.
I donate to Ao3 even though there’s content I find fucking appalling archived there, because I think it’s a resource that’s important to have.
Because I know that defunding libraries won’t stop gross dudes from writing gross shit and calling it ‘thought provoking literature’, and I know shutting down Ao3 won’t make creepy fic vanish from the internet. It’ll just take the warning labels off it.
The Navajo have a unique tradition. When a baby is born, it is regarded as the ultimate, precious gift and must never be abused. From the moment of birth, the child is watched over continuously by family and friends, who patiently wait for the child’s first…laugh.
“Has your baby laughed?” is common question posed to parents who have infants around the age of three months. The first laugh of a Navajo child is a very significant event. It marks the child’s final passing from the spirit world to the physical world, meaning he or she is now fully human. This milestone warrants a party, and what a party it is!
Whichever brother, sister, parent, cousin, aunt, uncle, or passing acquaintance is present at the first laugh is deemed to have caused it. The laughter instigator then receives the honored privilege of preparing a special ceremony to welcome the child into society.
Once a baby has laughed, training in generosity begins immediately—a value held in high regard among the Navajo people. At the party, where the baby is considered the host, the parents or person responsible for the first laugh help hold the baby’s hand as he or she ceremonially gives the rock salt, food, and gifts to each guest. There are also bags of candy, money, and other presents that the child “gives” along with the food. [x]
Yes it is true. I have had of a few relatives invite me to a A’wee Chi’deedloh "The Baby Laughed Ceremony" however I have not had the privilege to actually attended one personally. The Dine’ peoples believe that babies are of “two worlds” (Earth people & Holy people) when they are born. The first laugh signifies the babies desire to become a part of the Earth People so it is a great cause for celebration.
I'm Still Kicking 