when i was a little girl i wanted to be harry potter. not hermione, i did loved her, but i wanted to be harry. the hero, the chosen one, the special one. when i saw star wars, i wanted to be luke skywalker. the gentle hero, the beacon of hope. when i saw iron man, i wanted to be tony stark. the one that learns from his mistakes and works on being a better version of himself.
i didn’t need to be a boy to be able to feel powerful and inspired by their stories. when i saw wonder woman, and when i now see captain marvel, i feel capable, powerful. i feel like kindness, empathy, wit, perseverance, all traditionally feminine traits, are all qualities that define a hero. i love that they’re women. but that’s only a part of what makes them powerful.
when men say they can’t relate to ww or cm, they are the problem. i see heroes. i see role models. if i see steve rogers and i see a hero, but they can only see carol danvers from a distance and as a pair of boobs, they are the problem.
let’s not pretend otherwise. they need to learn that heroes come in all genders, shapes and sizes. it’s time to tell their stories. it’s time to teach little boys to love heroes like captain marvel, the same way i loved harry potter.
Heroes come in all genders, shapes and sizes.
Tag: Heroes
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.
All of this! And if I may add:
Heroes are not responsible for the future actions of villains. There’s this really (in my opinion, fucked up) prevalent mindset in a lot of superhero franchises that if you, the hero, had the power to stop someone, and instead let them live, and they later caused harm, then it’s YOUR fault. And to me that’s just absolute bullshit.
Heroes are not responsible for the actions of the villains that exist in their world. Even if the villain says, “I’m doing this because of YOU, hero!” they’re still not responsible. Villains have autonomy and the ability to make their own decisions. If they decide they’re going to be villains who run around murdering everyone, well–yeah, that sucks. And yeah, trying to get them locked up or into a hospital is definitely a good thing. But if the hero decides not to kill? That doesn’t make any subsequent loss of life the hero’s fault. The decision to take that life still falls on the villain.
The idea of killing to prevent further harm– ‘preventative murder’ –is all kinds of complicated, morally speaking. It’s not as simple as, “If I kill you, I am definitely saving lives,” it’s “I am making the decision to kill you based on the assumption that you are likely to try to kill again” and that’s…well, like I said: complicated.
I hate to have to call on something so obscure, but there’s an episode of Hercules: The Legendary Journeys where sidekick character Iolaus is being tormented by Dahok, a demon. He’s shown a vision of a man hanging from a rapidly-unraveling rope bridge over a deep ravine and is given the power to save him. He starts to do so, no questions asked. But then Dahok shifts the vision and shows a young family having a picnic not far away. He tells Iolaus that the man hanging from the bridge is a petty thief, and that if Iolaus saves him, he will happen upon that family and murder them for their belongings.
Iolaus then decides to let the bridge collapse. The man plummets to his death in a ravine. At which point Dahok points out that Iolaus just murdered an innocent man who had not yet done anything wrong. Iolaus argues that he was just trying to protect the family, but Dahok tells him that trying to prevent a future crime doesn’t change the fact that what Iolaus just committed was murder.
Trying to account for future crimes in order to justify taking a life is a moral quagmire. And killing because of past crimes is punitive revenge–something heroes generally try to avoid and leave to the justice system (which, in theory, is far enough removed from the situation to be impartial and make a decision based on facts, not emotions).
Condemning heroes for doing their best to stop as much damage as they can without stepping over the line into taking a human life is perhaps not as simple as “they’re wussies, haha.” It has to do with how much power over other life individuals should have, and frankly, heroes are already walking a pretty fine line when it comes to how much authority they have to make judgement calls outside the law (see also: Captain America: Civil War).
So yeah. Wanting to stay firmly on one side of a complicated moral divide is not necessarily something I condemn superheroes for.