Put them all in a room together, what do you think will happen?
Is it possible to just throw a bomb into the room? Because I don't see any good in those crazy women getting together. All they're going to argue about are better ways to profit from the patriarchy, maintain classism, increase social inequalities, promote slavery as a method of population control, legalize labor abuse and child abuse, give long speeches about how evil the poor are, and find ways to torment other women for being promiscuous, ambitious sluts who dared to steal the spotlight.
For the good of humanity, it's best they never leave that room.
Free my girl Penelope because what does she have to do with any of this??
She can be the most "understandable" of the controversial female leads and still be acknowledged as a terrible person.
I like Penelope, but there is no such thing as a good slave owner, and she pretty much lost her chance to be viewed as a good person in my eyes when she bought another human being as a slave.
Though this is just my opinion: I personally think the author only went out of their way to have Eckles openly declare that he would rape Penelope because they preferred the idea of Penelope just being morally gray over embracing how she is an abuse survivor turned abuser.
I never said she was a good person or justified in her actions, you very much decided that's what I was saying based on your assumption of my argument rather than my actual words. I said that what the post above me added doesn't apply to Penelope whatsoever.
Unlike with the others, the narrative of VADD itself punishes Penelope for her participation in slavery by having Eckles betray her. The whole point of that arc is to show us that there's no such thing as a good slave owner, because it's a criticism of the "loyal slave knight" trope where you can own a human and be rewarded for being "kind" to them.
The author actually made it pretty clear throughout the story that Eckles made Penelope uncomfortable from the start so I disagree heavily with your opinion. Also, him being willing to sexually assault her doesn't absolve her because he wants to assault her to take back power that he was denied by her specifically. It's central to the core of their dynamic in fact.
I'm not sure that you, or anyone else making these claims, can really have an accurate opinion when you missed out on the most clear themes in their relationship. I think you're looking at this through a very black and white lens with the goal of making claims about who is right or wrong rather than engaging with the story. Especially since you think that the "abuse victim turned abuser" is being suppressed by the author when it's more likely that it was her intention (seeing as both Eckles and Penelope fit that).
I'm also not sure why you think that the author would add Eckles' threats to absolve Penelope anyway? Those don't impact how she treated him earlier? The whole point here is that Penelope can hurt people who don't "deserve" it because she puts herself first. Why would the author willingly contradict her own characterization for a shoddy "it's fine because he was secretly evil"? Eckles is written as being so willing to violate her because a) his autonomy was disrespected first, b) he's not a good person and still didn't "deserve" to be enslaved.
You're well within your rights to hate Penelope for being a slave owner, but she does not fit what's being described above (someone willing to promote slavery as population control). We are told from the start to the end that she doesn't agree with it but is willing to do anything for her own life, and that's why her buying Eckles is such a big deal to begin with. If she thought slavery was acceptable then it would detract from her characterization as someone willing to ignore even her own morals if her life is at stake.
