fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3519 ]

[ SECRET POST #3519 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3519 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 41 secrets from Secret Submission Post #503.
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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

05. http://i.imgur.com/B6SW3zW.png

I want to point out there are girls on both side of this one. It's not some kind of girls vs boys thing.

Also I don't think it's inaccurate to describe their canon relationship as abusive in general, sorry.

I think there's a difference between acknowledging the abusive elements of a relationship and calling anyone who ships it (even while acknowledging that it's problematic and/or abusive) human garbage and/or an abuse apologist.

I don't even give a single shit about trying to spend a ton of time working out whether or not people are doing that. I'm sure some people are and some people aren't, as happens in almost every single thing like this, and it just seems utterly pointless to waste time fucking around trying to determine the Objective Truth with regards to something that varies massively depending on perspective.

I agree there's a difference, and to the extent that people are being dick bags they should knock it the hell off, but it is just an impossible conversation to get into. It is both inaccessible and pointless. And also frustrating.

Soz, but no, the "meta discussing their canon relationship portrayals" has been around for years n' years, you're a tad too late on that. It's pretty much the consensus that the relationship hits a lot of marks on the "is this abusive?" chart.

That being said, I'll take them over Joker/Barbara any day.

Edited 2016-08-22 22:45 (UTC)

Seriously can we maybe cool it a little w regards to going to war at the slightest suggestion of someone not being a fan of a dynamic that's popular in fandom

Er well, are they saying "shipping Harley/Joker is bad because it's abusive" or "shipping Harley/Joker as affirming and healthy is bad because it's canonically abusive"? There's a big difference. I frickin' love Harley/Joker, but ONLY when the fans involved in the discussion/art/fic are one the same page as me - i.e., it's abusive as fuck.

+1

"I ship it" doesn't always mean "I want it to be fluffy and healthy and happy and the benchmark for my own personal relationships". Sometimes it means "I want to explore this relationship, including (or especially) its fucked-up-ness".

This so much.

This. I've only seen people bringing this up in real-world applicable contexts -- i.e. someone posting a meme on Facebook that says something like, "I'm a Harley looking for my Joker <3 <3 <3" or those couples t-shirts I'm seeing everywhere, where one says "Her Joker" and the other says "His Harley." Which seems to be ignoring the abusive nature of their in-canon relationship.

What's wrong with shipping it as affirming and healthy, when you realize that it's not the way it is in canon? People ship non-canon ships all the time.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2016-08-23 10:57 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2016-08-24 00:24 (UTC) - Expand

I saw someone on TMS argue that the writers on Suicide Squad didn't have a clear handle on the Joker/Harley relationship, trying to mimic some of the abusive aspects from the comics while also trying to get viewers to like the relationship and want it to continue. I haven't seen the movie, but my experience is that confused canon often makes for confused fanon.

Agreed

From what I've heard, in the original edit of Suicide Squad, Joker throws Harley out of a helicopter to try and kill her. In the edited, they make it look like he did it to try and save her.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2016-08-23 07:32 (UTC) - Expand

From what I read, the studio sent it back to editing to make it a blockbuster, and ended up garbling it.

I have heard guys say they liked SS becuause there the Joker wasn't abusive. I was wondering what movie did they watch, as for me the fact that he tortured her enough to make her crazy was pretty much a neon sign that the relationship WAS abusive.

(no subject)

kamino_neko - 2016-08-23 05:28 (UTC) - Expand

Well. I mean. It is abusive tho? Like I ain't gonna call you a terrible person if you ship it because I'm an adult who knows shipping fictional characters =/= reality (not to mention I ship questionable stuff myself heyo). But I judge the fuck out of the movie for missing the point of their relationship and portraying it as romantic. But that's more to do with OOC-ness than anything.

Their relationship is the very definition of abusive. Not in the tumblr way that likes to call everything abusive, but literally abusive. Most of the time Joker doesn't care about Harley and just uses her as a pawn. He has no problem hitting her or pushing her out of windows. It's just really messed up all around. From what I hear Suicide Squad actually tries to make it seem like Joker cares about her, but that is not how he's always been portrayed.

In at least on one panel, Harley calls it abusive. But then again, comics are a strong case example of why the concept of "canon" needs to be shot down like the rabid dog from To Kill a Mockingbird.

Speaking as someone who has shipped a few things that tumblr would undoubtably attack as "problematic" if the fandoms were big enough, but fortunately has mostly managed to avoid that ugliness...

I think the OP's point is that in modern shipping discourse, well-meaning SJW types manage to interpret statements like " I think these characters/actors have interesting chemistry and dynamic. However, I recognize that it would probably never work out healthily in canon, and so am perfectly fine with that" as "Omg...they are in tru luvvvv!! Why can't I have a relationship as perfect and romantic as Bella and Edward, Harley and Joker, Phantom and Christine..."

Granted, there are a few fans that do view things in that way. But they typically grow out of it without the purity police on their backs. ( I had a few villain crushes myself but I quickly recognized that they would not be appealing in real life).

You see a lot of the same discourse with Rey/Kylo (which I don't ship btw but some of my mutuals do). People assume that "these characters have an interesting dynamic and it will be interesting to see the narrative impact they will have on each other" translates as "Kylo Ren is an innocent lamb who will flourish in the light because of tru luv," when really what most shippers are going for is "Kylo Ren is currently a shithead who nevertheless displays moral complexity enough that he may eventually tiptoe towards the light."

^ Which is like exactly why I was all about Rebecca/Sir Brian from Ivanhoe when I was 15. Even though I recognized even then that I never want a Sir Brian irl

But a lot of SJW like to infantalize shippers and assume that everyone is either

(a) a naive child who is danger of being taken advantage of because of their youthful romanticness

(b) an abuse survivor who is attracted to the dark characters because of childhood trauma (and they always want proof of this)

(c) all of the above.

I feel like that is what the OP is getting at. Not whether or not Harley/Joker is abusive (since most people would recognize that it is), but that one can no longer have a conversation about their dynamic without automatically being accused of being an abuse-apologist/abuse-romanticizer.

OP didn't put one.

putting a trigger warning for abuse would not be any more triggering than the secret, which literally only says "it's abusive". i wouldn't worry needlessly.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only