Lmaoo That's Way Too Funny

Lmaoo that's way too funny

"hey B I know the new kid's Robin now but -stop screaming- can I have it back?"

Had a dream last night that Jason came back to life and immediately asked Bruce to be Robin again with no explanation whatsoever. bro....

Magical Girl Batfam AU for your consideration:

Members of the Batfam that that have fangs in semi or full transformation: Bruce, Kate, Cass, Barbara (Batgirl), Steph (Batgirl), Damian, Jason

Biters (transformed): Kate, Cass, Barbara, Steph, Damian, Jason, Duke

Biters (in civies): Bruce

If someday someone illustrates my fics I might begin to cry but quickly the spontaneous combustion will evaporate the tears

Actually, all artists will go insane if you draw art of their art. The same goes for fic writers. It could be a stick figure and we'd still love it. We're also kissing you on the lips

Lord of the Green Lantern Rings be upon ye

eldritch green lantern ideas:

ring slowly starts fusing with the finger it's on until one day the finger just glows, there's no more ring

bleeding green (duh)

so willful that reality tends to bend around them in small instances, like coffee always being warm or never having to wait for the elevator, or someone nearby tripping

the ring stops translating other languages because they just start understanding/speaking them eventually

the constructs chosen by Earth Lanterns stop looking like Earth items and more alien, older, ancient

Lanterns slowly forgetting to take off their uniforms and just start wearing them all the time

separating them from their ring will cause very, very bad things to happen

not eating or drinking for several days, then several weeks, then several months at a time without noticing

unintentionally feeding (mentally) off of strong-willed people, and even encouraging disagreement just to sit in the middle of it and feel something almost warm again

Adding this to the reasons why Star Sapphire Jason would be a fucking icon

Star sapphire Jay wouldn't stop wearing his armor just because he has the ring. The other lanterns constantly make fun of him for taking longer to get ready than the rest of them until his ring runs out and he hits the ground shooting because he's fully masked and geared underneath that lantern suit.

To be fair, it's clearly been a team effort from Red Hood, Nightwing, Batman writers (and I'm probably missing some) to rewrite Bruce as a worse and worse parent. The issue imo is the retroaction. It pisses me off because it's one thing to be like "yeah he's abusive so now we're gonna roll with it and develop from that pov instead of pretending like it never happened", I could get behind that sentiment, but the retroactive retelling kinda feels like saying "well Bruce is acting violent so clearly he's always been this exact kind of violent to his kids". Which is not how abusive relationships work!!!!

I'm so pissed I desperately need dc to understand how abusive and just complex family relationships work because goddammit. Okay.

1) You don't magically become immune to the power imbalance with your parents the day you turn 18. Parents are not supposed to hit their kids. Ergo, Bruce doesn't need to be physically violent to Damian or the kid version of the batkids to be physically abusive.

2) Emotional child abuse is an actual thing, please treat it seriously.The shitfest at Tim's 16th birthday, for example, is a clear example of terrorising your child, and that's abuse.

3) You can be abusive to your kids without wanting to, out of love, out of a want to protect them, out of fear that they'll grow up a bad person if you're too permissive. People love to pretend like abusers are a monstrous, wildly different breed because it's reassuring. The idea is that abuse is not love, and thus we normal people are safe because we love our family and therefore we could never be like that, and thus we don't have to worry about being a bad person and a bad parent like those monsters out there who are clearly different (and less human) from us. That's a terribly harmful rethoric on two points:

-it stops people from introspection, questioning their methods and trying to do better. You think you could never be an abuser because you love your kid, so you'll excuse anything you do that is abuse as "education", "not the same", "a lapse in judgement" or simply won't examine it.

-it harms victims. By telling victims "if that person who you love and rely on abuses you they don't love you" you're making them choose between two options: 1. That person who you love, and who you need to love you, doesn't or 2. What happened wasn't that bad/wasn't abuse/was somehow an exception or you're remembering wrong or it was an accident, etc., etc. What would you choose? Would an 8 years old rather believe they're remembering it wrong, or that their parent doesn't love them?

To put it simply, it's a punitive rethoric rather than a harm-reduction oriented one, it puts victims and vulnerable kids in danger and encourages victim-blaming. Sorry, but "someone who loves you wouldn't do this", yes they would. Sometimes, people love you, and they love you "wrong", in a way that hurts you, and sometimes parents abuse their kids on accident. Whether someone is a hero or a villain matters way less than whether people are getting hurt and what we can do to stop it. Right now, our options with batman are batman being the cliche abusive villain of his children's story or ignoring every bad thing he did with a good dose of victim-blaming and flimsy excuses. What I would give for one (1) batman story arc about him realising all the times he tried to do what he thought was right for the children hurt them or simply didn't realise the way their relationship worked was harming them, and doesn't skirt about the term abuse, and he tries to do better, and we have hopeful perspective for the future as he decides on concrete ways to work on their dynamics. I think showing that perspective, which is closer to what a lot of abused kids experience than the cartoonish villanization we often get as representation, would help a lot more kids than a generic *insert superhero* beats up an abusive parent, hugs their kids and there's a helpline number at the end of the issue. (Note: not to say all abusers love their victims, parents who don't love their kids are an unfortunate reality and these people's experiences are valid too, I'm just saying there's nothing intrinsequely contradictory about love and abuse).

4. Different children get different parents. You grow, learn (sometimes for the better and sometimes from the worse) from your experience with your first children, learn from your mistakes to do better, apply inappropriate patterns that would have worked for one kid on a kid with different problems and do worse. And then of course there are the roles people tend to assign themselves amidst a system, so for example someone designated as a scapegoat is gonna have a different experience of the family than someone who isn't, or someone who was parentified with their siblings, and someone parentified with their parent, etc. By which I mean, in regards to dc, retconning Dick's and Bruce's early relationship or Jason's and Bruce's early relationship to make it less healthy because of your correct analysis that Tim and Bruce's early relationship is unhealthy is an overcorrection. Of all the instances of OOC behaviour to fix, that's not necessarily what you should have been focusing on.

"but Glitter, why can't we just show the batkids going no-contact and healing?" I mean, you could. Not saying it wouldn't be good. But would dc ever go for that, when so many dc fans are specifically batfam fans? Sometimes, for many reasons, going no contact is not an option. Irl, that can be because of cultural factors (for example can't go no contact with someone without losing the entire family that's like 8/10th of your support system which isn't affordable for your mental health, or you could be a disabled person reliant on the abuser and help is not accessible or it takes years to access, etc.) For characters in comics, one of these contraints in the narrative. (Also, in the example of Jason, his attachment to Gotham/crime alley can be an obstacle for example, because realistically fully going no contact with Batman as Red Hood means leaving Gotham.) But whatever the reason, I think when going no contact is not an option, that's when you take the opportunity to showcase other ways to heal/distance yourself from the toxicity/keep yourself safe as best you can.

Honestly when it comes to characters I'm less concerned with whether or not they are good as to whether or not they are a good, or at least unharmful, representation of the things they've come to stand for and the themes they gravitate about. The reason why I hate Battle for the Cowl and Heroes in Crisis have less to do with "oh no Jason/Wally are so evil in here" and more to do with the representation and messages they send on mental illness. DC has been writing Bruce on a spectrum from "accidentally abusive at times" to "extremely fucking abusive" for a very, very long time now, to the point that several beloved characters have become entangled in terms of functioning, development etc. with those events and dynamics, the least they could right now is give us stories about this that are helpful instead of doubling down on ill-timed retcons that make it worse, victim-blaming like it's an olympic sport or just plain ignoring it like it'll go away if we don't look at it.

So yeah, those are the main gripes I have with the way dc handles abusive!batman right now, feel free to add more or bring up some nuance I've missed!

It's kind of annoying (and weird) how DC keeps trying to rewrite how Jason and Bruce met to paint Bruce in a worst light.

Originally, Batman finds Jason stealing the Batmobile's tires, the kid runs away, and Batman finds him. Discovering the kid is homeless, he gives him to the authority and Jason finishes at Ma Gunn's school. Ma Gunn is actually teaching the kids to be gang members, so Jason tells Batman. Together, they win again Ma Gunn, and Bruce takes Jason in because he sees himself in him.

Well, in Nightwing: Year One, they change it for "Batman kidnapped Jason when he found him stealing his tires and forces him to become Robin", with Jason ATTACHED AND GAGGED in the batcave. (I like this comic except for that because wtf)

In Red Hood and The Outlaws (2011), they changed it for "Jason stole drugs from Leslie and Batman was ready to beat and throw a young teen in jail, but Leslie begged him to give him a chance", which again, wtf. Batman beating up a child. Okay.

In Red Hood and The Outlaws (2016), they changed it for "Bruce put Jason in Ma Gunn's school because he couldn't handle him after taking him in". The only good addition they made is "when Batman caught Jason stealing his tires, he bought him food".

I do not understand why they need to make him awful to this 12 years old so bad. What do they want to make it as if Bruce forced that life on Jason but also didn't want to deal with him. Why they cannot let it as it is, with Bruce having fun dealing with this lil shit that stole his tires and being there for him when he needs him later on, until he finally craves and takes Jason home.

And that's why I am so critical on how Batman and Bruce is written in Nightwing and Red Hood stories, because the writers are incapable to make their main character have conflict with Bruce, without changing his character and their story to make him abusive. They need him to be the bad guy of Jason's, and sometimes Dick's, story because they don't know how to make you side and care for their character without making the other side a monster.