sleepyspoonie

“It’s tempting to assume”: someone’s assumption is about to be criticized

In my opinion the Makorrasami of Book 2 was quite forced and unfair to all the characters. Mako, Korra and Asami all acted pretty OOC and it wasn’t a fanfiction. Asami pining after Mako and Korra’s abuse of Mako was so unexpected I was pretty angry. 

Asami does not need romance or her freaking company to validate her existence.

Apparently, they wanted Asami to join the United Forces. Yes. Why the hell not? Asami should learn to channel her intelligence and fighting to both her company and herself and this was a perfect opportunity. Instead, they made Asami a person who did not even think outside a romantic interest. Asami is a character with loads of potential. Being kind and supportive is great but it is a pretty sexist way of looking at a character if she has nothing aside those things. Korrasami feels like Asami, an angel in the house, and Korra, a shrew, co-opted to be together. That would be fun if it was presented/represented that way. It was not. What was shown to us that only Asami will understand Korra but that is not true. In fact, Korra, supposedly redeemed by Book 4, shows no morsel of understanding to Asami. 

Korrasami is more heteronormative because it exhibits falsely a very feminine girl (Asami) being a handmaiden of  Korra (who is treated as the male/masculine/feudal lord of the relationship). Korra never puts anyone first in her journey as avatar. Yes, she doesn’t necessarily have to but at times even Aang looks at wider pictures and does not always think of himself. Being altruistic at times does not mean mitigating yourself. Korra thinks of Korra alone. In Book 1 by many parts this was changing. But by Book 2 in interpersonal relationships it was coming out again. By Book 4 Korra still thinks of herself. If she was as evolved by then she would have the audacity to ask Mako and Boilin what they feel and also Asami. She doesn’t and neither is she shown to really care.

Yes, Korra and Asami fought together. But their chemistry in those scenes was not so integral to the plotline or to Korrasami. Yeah great Asami using coquettish behaviour to tell a guard to loosen her chains and then criticise cabbage corp and all that. That was actually silly. Suki climbed walls bare handed in Boiling Rock and Asami has to flirt more to get ahead? So technically her nonbender status is also always attached to her “sexiness/attractive” appeal. Which is also sexist because I thought Book 3 would make Asami more of a character than a love interest Mako chasing idiot. 

It is not written as best as it possibly can. You don’t have to be explicit to realise two people have a spark. Just look at Spirited Away the intensity given to a relationship in that storyline was not at all sexual but it borderlined romance and a nascent sensuality that was so nicely reciprocated. Hell, even an adult Chihiro dating Ling and/or No-face would make sense because that was so nicely written. Ling is female and the sweet intimate conversations they both had eating food (where Ling also says she swiped a dumpling for Chihiro) is so sweet and substantial. So no I have no hetero-lens on. I just know the difference between bullshit writing and an actual romantic/friendship investment. 

Even the voice actors of Korra and Asami really couldn’t convey that emotional intimacy and integrity in the last moments of Book 4 the pivotal  swing of Korrasami! I was like  this scene  feels lackluster though it is supposed to be the romantic climax/catharsis/denouement/realization of freaking Korrasami. What is going on? I expected more feeling and more emotion because it is basically also  a love confession! I expected after that semi-nice hug Asami would linger a bit more and say more lines. Or rather Korra would. Apologizing for the three years is not enough. She could say “sorry that I was so reluctant to include you more Asami. I was just too afraid to let anyone see me that away let alone you, especially you because you were always the person who had the best trust in my abilities.” Or something similar to that. Or something more from freaking Korra! 

 Rather Makorra’s friendship-romance confession of analogous  fight and sticking together was pretty emotional. It had an strong ambience even as friends. You know  if it came out that Sam Nishimura from Tomb Raider 2013 wants to date and loves Lara Croft I would say that couple is a pretty nice one. Though yeah I would say that the way Lara invests in  it may make her a bit reticent to make it romantic. I mean this is also true to many heterosexual relationships with the “rescue” theme. I mean not all guys/girls want to date the guy/girl they rescued. That is popular mythology but if you follow even the old Karate Kid series you will see that also  falls apart pretty soon. Just rescuing someone doesn’t entitle a romance in any sort of sexual oriented relationship. Though that possibility of Lara being with Sam is still better than the way Korrasami was handled.

People hate Makorra. Yes. It was handled also as bullshit. But as a relationship it was better leveled. Mako and Korra were not always bending backs for each other. I would say that Mako had best faith/trust in Korra and her avatar status because he questioned some of her impulsive and destructive/abusive tactics. Which is actually good because he knows Korra is open to growth and change and can do so much more as an individual; he knows she can do BETTER and wants the BEST FROM HER. Hell, if my partner wants that that is awesome. 

Also Makorra is NOT a heteronormative relationship. It is a queer and different heterosexual relationship. They are not entirely similar nor opposites. They are always helping each other to be better. They are both physically strong and that was one major thing. That they are pretty physically strong and both able to take each other on as Kuvira can also take on Korra. It was pretty well balanced. 

Book 2 fights and even that surge of Masami was forced. The characters were being pretty silly  as opposed being a bit thoughtful. Sure teens can be silly but Korra and Mako had been in a longer relationship than Asami and Mako and so I found it hard to also digest Korra’s sudden verbal abuse to Mako. This can be somewhat explained via her alienation from Raava and dark spirits. But Mako had the best interests of Korra; in fact, he pretty much said the same things that Asami said. Asami said she  was there for Korra by Book 3 finale and also in Book 4. Mako said the same things in ALL BOOKS and even Book 2 Mako said he doesn’t know if her decisions are always wise or prudent but he is there for Korra. 

Oh my god I'm so sorry for ignoring this I've been moving the past few days and haven't had my computer set up for a long time so I never saw the notification on mobile.

So basically back in the day, right when the Korrasami ending happened there was a bunch of discourse from people who had to find any kind of reason not to like it other than "I didn't like that it was sapphic" or "the ship I liked didn't turn out canon"

As with the most disingenuous shipping discourse goes, people had to make up moral reason why Korrasami was wrong because you can't just have a different opinion, you have to be morally superior, right?

so someone who was a Makorra shipper posted their brilliant analysis that actually Korrasami was more heteronormative than Makorra because Korrasami had a "feudal lord x handmaiden" dynamic where apparently meek ultra feminine Asami serves as a sort of handmaiden to her masculine, feudal-lord like counterpart, Korra. Whereas Makorra is actually the queer relationship because they're both strong. Or something like that.

This take was not taken seriously by any corner of the fandom I was in, but was spread around a lot to be pointed and laughed at. It sparked a many memes at the time. so many fucking memes.

There's hiding and there's finding, we'd say. And he'd say it was hide-and-seek, not hide-and-give-UP, and we'd all yell about who made the rules and who cared about who, anyway, and how we wouldn't play with him anymore if he didn't get it straight and who needed him anyhow, and things like that. Hide-and-seek-and-yell. No matter what, though, the next time he would hide too good again. He's probably still hidden somewhere, for all I know.

As I write this, the neighborhood game goes on, and there is a kid under a pile of leaves in the yard just under my window. He has been there a long time now, and everybody else is found and they are about to give up on him over at the base. I considered going out to the base and telling them where he is hiding. And I thought about setting the leaves on fire to drive him out. Finally, I just yelled, "GET FOUND, KID!" out the window. And scared him so bad he probably wet his pants and started crying and ran home to tell his mother. It's real hard to know how to be helpful sometimes.

A man I know found out last year he had terminal cancer. He was a doctor. And knew about dying, and he didn't want to make his family and friends suffer through that with him. So he kept his secret. And died. Everybody said how brave he was to bear his suffering in silence and not tell everybody, and so on and so forth. But privately his family and friends said how angry they were that he didn't need them, didn't trust their strength. And it hurt that he didn't say good-bye.

He hid too well. Getting found would have kept him in the game. Hide-and-seek, grown-up style. Wanting to hide. Needing to be sought. Confused about being found. "I don't want anyone to know." "What will people think?" "I don't want to bother anyone."

Better than hide-and-seek, I like the game called Sardines. In Sardines the person who is It goes and hides, and everybody goes looking for him. When you find him, you get in with him and hide there with him. Pretty soon everybody is hiding together, all stacked in a small space like puppies in a pile. And pretty soon somebody giggles and somebody laughs and everybody gets found.

Medieval theologians even described God in hide-and-seek terms, calling him Deus Absconditus. But me, I think old God is a Sardine player. And will be found the same way everybody gets found in Sardines - by the sound of laughter of those heaped together at the end.

"Olly-olly-oxen-free." The kids out in the street are hollering the cry that says "Come on in, wherever you are. It's a new game." And so say I. To all those who have hid too good. Get found, kid! Olly-olly-oxen-free.

As far as I can tell the reasons that this happens are:

The interpretation of disability accommodation as wokeness - a lot of the same people who are shitty about food limitations are also shitty about sign language interpreters and ramp requirements (also building regulations relating to the latter) because they view any accommodation as capitulation to a group they think should "suck it up and deal with it" (quietly exist without named or obvious accommodations). The conversations around peanut-free or milk-free classrooms to accommodate children with allergies are similarly unhinged and possibly more horrifying.

Conflating specialty diets as a result of proximity in the popular consciousness - you're a lot more likely to see something described as "vegan + gluten free" or to see vegan/vegetarian/g-free options grouped on menus than you are to see keto/vegan/gfree options so the "lefty" animal-free diets get grouped with gluten-free (it's also interesting that there are right-wing diets, and I wonder how many of these people remember when you used to be able to find "atkins-friendly" symbols on casual dining restaurant menus)

Gluten free diets became a fad fifteen years ago; tons of people read "Wheat Belly" and stopped eating wheat as a weight loss hack and when they went back to eating wheat because it's actually pretty difficult to get around a major staple grain they didn't experience any negative consequences; people saw this and basically think that it's a trend, that people are faking medically necessary diets as part of a fad. When questioned about this they always go "but, I mean, it's okay if you REALLY need to skip the wheat because you have a condition but most people are doing it because it's popular" when g-free diets haven't been a major trend for quite a while now. TO BE QUITE FAIR, I think that things like "Gluten Aware" cookies and beer and such, which contain a little gluten but not NO gluten contribute to this perception (these have annoyed me forever for two reasons: 1. They make people without celiac think that a little gluten is fine for people with celiac, which it is not; 2. fucking commit, companies. *I* want the cookies and beer and it's deeply annoying that these business will go to the lengths to create products with minimal gluten but won't actually make g-free foods - this is often because of the risk of cross contamination, they won't claim to make g-free things because they won't work with a dedicated g-free facility)

Anyway, in conclusion: it sucks, I'm sorry.

US specific:

Is your ham made with vinegar? Does your ham have the generic word "spices" on the ingredient list? Does your ham include "smoke flavoring"? Does your ham include caramel coloring?

Because malt vinegar has gluten in it. "Spices" may include wheat products in a mix. Smoke flavoring may be made with barley flour. Caramel coloring may be made with wheat or barley syrup.

If the label says "gluten free" that means that the "spices," caramel coloring, vinegar, and smoke flavor are certified to contain 20ppm or less of gluten.

If the ham is cured in any way, it may include gluten. If the ham was marinated, it probably includes gluten. If the ham was prepared in a facility that processes wheat in any way, it might be cross contaminated with gluten.

There's a company out there called "Gluten Free Water" that makes water in plastic bottles, poking fun at the idea that too many things have a gluten free label. I fucking hate that company. Because that company is functionally saying "lol, people are so sensitive and over the top about this, let's be a little silly and laugh about how crazy people can be with their 'gluten free' nonsense."

Did you know that there are sustainable food containers and straws that contain wheat? And that you don't have to label them? There are definitely people with celiac who have been sickened by biodegradable plastic straws in their "obviously water is gluten free there's no risk here" water.

"It's over-labeled so it looks trendy" just means you don't know how foods are made or what foods contain gluten. Gluten is ridiculously common in foods in general, and also in packaged meats.

Your ham has to say gluten free because it distinguishes it from the hams that do contain gluten, which is a fucking lot of them. And you're annoyed that your ham has to say gluten free and I'm annoyed that I'm standing in the grocery store calling a ham company to figure out where they source their caramel coloring so I can figure out if the damned ham is safe to eat.

"lol, oats don't have wheat in them, are people so stupid that they have to be told what is and isn't wheat? why does this oatmeal have a gluten free label?" Cross contamination; gluten free oats are not grown near wheat and are not processed in facilities that process wheat.

"lol, rice doesn't have wheat in it, why is this rice labeled gluten free, all rice is gluten free" Cross contamination; the rice isn't processed on equipment that processes wheat.

"lol why does this turkey breast say gluten free, it's just fucking turkey" read the ingredients on your "just" turkey, lots of packaged meat is packed in broth, some of which contains modified food starch, which may contain wheat.

"lol why are these strawberries labeled gluten free? they're fucking strawberries" WAX, BUDDY. SOME FRUITS ARE COATED IN PRESERVATIVE WAX FILMS BY THE MANUFACTURER AND SOME OF THOSE FUCKING FILMS CONTAIN GLUTEN.

I think that part of the reason that people are so irritated by g-free labels is because it exposes them to just how vast and alienating their food systems are.

"Ham should just be meat from a pig, maybe with sugar and salt; what on earth is happening that there might be wheat in that process? Nothing in that process should involve wheat." And then you might have to think about it for a second, might have to wonder what "sugar" and "salt" mean when someone is producing a million hams to be delivered thousands of miles away. It's not just sugar and salt; it's preservatives and nitrates and batch cooking and getting corn syrup instead of sugar and getting smoke flavoring instead of smoking the ham and turning your "whole food" into all the ingredients that make up the ingredients that make up the ingredients.

A "gluten free" label says "you can eat this" to somebody with celiac disease, who has already pounded their skull against the shittiness of the medical system and the food system.

But to someone who doesn't have to worry that their food is going to disable them, a "gluten free" sticker on ham takes a known quantity and turns their sandwich into a hyperobject that contains animal agriculture and industrial additive production and shipping pollution and the ongoing assault on regulation.

If it doesn't have the label, you can just eat your lunch. If it does have the label, you are haunted by the specter of RFK junior imploding the FDA.