[ SECRET POST #3183 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3183 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.



__________________________________________________



11.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 047 secrets from Secret Submission Post #455.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

A lot of AoU seemed to revolve around Bruce's angst about the Hulk and how he saw himself as a monster. And Natasha's issues were basically framed in that lens -- her revealing that she's sterile, for example, was in response to his concerns and was framed as part of his story.

AoU could have made Natasha the centerpiece and been about how she's coming to terms with losing her covers and how she's afraid of someone knowing the "real her" after years of living under multiple different identities. But it's not.

Instead, the romance is framed according to Bruce's angsts and issues.

Natasha has a lot of character development. I don't disagree there. But it kind of annoyed me that as soon as she was put into a romance, she was basically there to act in a supporting part of Bruce's story rather than her own.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, no. AOU would always be about Tony Stark.

[(Anonymous)]

I meant in terms of Natasha's character. AoU revolves around Tony mostly since he instigates the issue but Natasha's main character conflicts (not the fighting) mostly center around Bruce and his issues.

Why not her issues instead? It's not like she doesn't have any.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, no. What you're describing there would have been bruce putting his issues on the back burner to try and comfort and win over a woman. Which would be boring, done to death, and kinda creepy and rapey.

What we had was a female character who had been developed into a full character choosing to focus on trying to engage in a relationship with an emotionally fragile man, putting her issues behind her to be supportive to a romantic partner who needs it.*

The age old test: If this had been Widow and She Hulk, would you find it bad? I don't see any of your objections as valid in this hypothetical scenario.

*(Aside, that is to say not a comment I really wish to get into an argument over, but something that occurs to me: I wonder if the wide spread backlash to this says something about how people perceive emotional fragility in men. burdensome and not ok and wrong for men to want a womans support with it. Not accusing you of this mindset, but I wonder if this is somewhat behind the almost universal loathing of the handling of the relationship. I mean fandom is full of people who argue the toss over every little thing, but this "Natasha was pushed aside and made into bruces therapist and that is terrible" complaint seem like it's not especially contested. Not in the feminist circles I roll in, and we argue over fucking everything.)

[(Anonymous)]

I think there's something to be said for the idea that it's frustrating, and probably harmful, for it to always be the woman who's shown as doing the emotional work.

[(Anonymous)]

In general, sure, I can agree with that, but does that still hold even when this specific woman is the character who has been devoid of emotional work thus far? Her entire character has been the type to avoid emotion, avoid connections out of choice, and showing her in her new situation trying to be emotionally open, emotionally supportive with someone who has had too strong a connection to his emotions, and has had to avoid emotional connections out of necessity not choice? Does that still count as part of the same problem? See I don't think this falls under the stereotype of "Emotional woman tries to connect with boorish man". I see it more as "emotionally closed off person has to be there for emotionally damaged person" which is one of the reasons I really liked the Bruce / Nat relationship. It felt like for Nat it was the only relationship where she could be a part of a story about emotional connection without falling into the "man tries to seduce difficult woman" / "ten things I hate about you" style cliche

[(Anonymous)]

TBH I think this is one of those hologram-type situations where it's actually both situations at once, and how you interpret it is mostly a question of which aspect you choose to focus on. I don't think either interpretation is really wrong. Just, at the end of the day, I like your reading but can also understand why people read it the other way.