Reflection and Analysis

Abuse is Only the Abusers Fault, Like, Ever (9/23/21)

One of the headcanon I like working with for the Avatar: The Last Airbender fandom is this idea that Lu Ten is actually Zuko's biological father but also the biological father of Kia.

What, though, does this have to do with blaming anyone but the abuser?

It involves a comment I received on one of my stories involving said headcanon, but effectively the person argued two things.

- Zuko not being Ozai's biological son was a valid excuse for Ozai to abuse Zuko
- Ursa was at fault for the abuse Zuko suffered because she choose to cheat on Ozai with Lu Ten.

As I write those two things out, my first thoughts are—surely anybody reading this would in fact realize that these two things aren't factually true, but you'd think in this day and age that people wouldn't be talking like this. For, there is never a valid excuse for abusing anyone, and the only one ever to blame for the abuse is in fact the abuser.

It's rhetoric that those who are abused see over and over, and—well, one of my friends who reads said story has suffered abuse at the hands of her family, so to say that such statements aren't triggering would be a major under statement. This is, as I would later reply to said person, how abuse is historically framed, and why those who are abused aren't taken seriously.

Of course, there's also the fact this person blamed Ursa who herself is the victim of abuse, trapped in a loveless marriage not of her own making – which even if we ignored the comics like they want, which I do due to continuity errors, this still holds true in that Ozai is never shown to love anyone but himself and what he can use as a tool. It's even more emphasized in the story I'm writing, that it was an arranged marriage not of her choosing, as expected of someone who is a noble.

But no, cheating on your spouse is always morally wrong, so Ursa is to blame for Ozai abusing Zuko.

Except, nobody ever argued that Ursa's choice to cheat on her husband isn't something that is morally wrong, yet this person when I called them out on the fact Ursa was not to blame for Ozai abusing Zuko pulled the "you're making the women are never to blame" argument, which is majorly disingenuous given the fact Ozai is completely in control of how he responds to Ursa cheating on him, but that's only part of the dilemma.

On top of this, this takes a very black and white look on the subject of adultary.

A black and white look, I might add, that is used to keep women in their place along with many of the other things which have historically been used to keep them in their place. Dr. Mark D. White actually talks about this in his article on Psychology Today, "Adultery: Is It Ever Justified?" And the answer is—this is how he words said answer, "it might be justified in extraordinary circumstances, which to some people, unfortunately, might be rather ordinary."

In other words, adultery is not like abuse where abuse is never justified. The article even points out that killing another is at times justified, whereas abuse is never justified. Another one they bring up which falls into the same vein is the other two, but not the same vein as abusing someone. It's kind of like how killing another is at times justified, whereas murder is never justified, which in turn hinges upon the actual similar yet differing definitions, though there are some who would argue they mean exactly the same thing and thus carry the same moral dilima.

However, this one quote from the third of the three morality codes he discusses, says a lot.

"Likewise, fidelity can be taken too far. Imagine a woman in a broken marriage, whose husband neglects her and wantonly cheats on her, and who is miserable and even suicidal."

Sure, in this particular case Ozai isn't cheating on Ursa, or at least there's no hint of him doing likewise, but he does neglect her. Sure, she's not suicidal, but she is miserable, but there are women in this situation ranging from what Ursa is dealing with to what is mentioned above, and effectively they're being told to put up or shut up, because...

Well, the thought is that the woman has the power to do something else, such as divorce. He has another article on the same site called, "Adultery or Divorce—Is There a Right Answer?" which actually points out that divorce isn't some moral high ground to adultery when a woman finds herself in this situation. He even argues that "divorce may be seen as more ethically acceptable (outside certain faiths) simply because it is legal."

Which in turn brings me to the question of whether or not the woman has the opinion of divorce. Ursa certainly doesn't, but to think she does have that option as a noble in a society where we don't even know if divorce is a legal option for her where she's such a public figure that a divorce—well, it's not an option.

But I'd like people to remember that women haven't always been able to legally divorce their husbands. Even when they have historically, they were denied custody of their children. Financially, they were forced to be depended on men, their fathers, brothers and husbands. Single mothers are vilified while singer fathers treated as victims. And that's only some of the issues.

So, effectively, they're also saying this—that Ursa should have, instead of cheating because it was the morally wrong thing to do, have put up with a loveless marriage where she was neglected by her husband. It's always what women are told to do, to put up with circumstances thrown at them by men simply because men say they are morally wrong for not doing so, completely ignoring the immoral behavior of the men.

And that's the truly not moral thing – telling those who are abused that the abuser isn't at fault for anything going on, but that the abuse should be put up with, even that it is for some reason justified. Of course, this was also a person who tried arguing that cheating is never right, and yes—looking back on their comments, they did in fact outright say that a woman should simply deal with her situation, a situation forced upon her by men because this is the "morally right" thing, thus ignoring the fact the situation she's in isn't morally right in the first place.

It's sexist, but is part of the reason abusers get away with pulling the crap they do. Sure, you can call it on something like abuse, but not other things, such as lying, killing (not murder) and adultry. Those aren't black and white issues like people portray them to be, but it is amusing how this person was talking about how black and white villains (they meant someone who was morally black) are boring, yet their moral code is super black and white, and they actually said abuse could have a valid excuse for!

So, yeah – nope.

Given the fact there is no block feature on AO3 yet, I may have to deal with them again – but a definite nope on this line of thought, and this line of thought needs to definitely be called out as not being morally right. Actually, this belief that women should simply put up with the situation is a form of abuse.