belewitts:

I was thinking about this all afternoon; that scene between Max and Grandma Guthrie and the story she tells about the cat and her son and husband. At first it’s posed as a fable and Max is asked which part she plays, but its also a mental puzzle like that one with the fox and goose and corn. Max sees that right away, but what I find interesting, upon reflection, is Max’s answer.

I think it impressed Madam Guthrie, and at first glance it is perfectly unexpected. It’s so quintessentially Max and I also think Madam Guthrie is exactly the type of woman who’d “go out into the woods and drown the damn cat,” which is why she decides to give Max and Rackham a chance, because she sees herself in Max.

At the same time… its a pretty horrific answer. Because what is seen by both these women as the only viable solution to ending that cycle of suffering is not stopping a man from beating a child, but killing the animal that wants to be fed.

They see men and their violence as natural disasters. The equivalent of a storm, or an earthquake. Something you can’t prevent, but simply have to brace for and work around. I think it falls into the same trap of thinking men are incapable of self control when it comes to sexual assault, or other attacks. That it’s “just their nature,” and “boys will be boys,” etc.

Its said this attitude doesn’t hold men accountable for their actions, and that’s true, but to me it speaks more to the utter weariness of so many women. This sort of inherited despair we have, as a whole, which can lead to defeatist thinking. Like the victim of who’s been hurt so often they can’t imagine anything they do stopping their abuser. They’re in survival mode.

It says a lot about the time Max lives in, but this still holds true today and I think it is the one of the most insidious forms of toxic masculinity. The idea that it is inevitable.

And the more I think about it, the more I think that if Flint or Madi had sat in that chair, they would have proposed drowning Joseph Guthrie instead. Because he is the root of the problem. Not the hungry cat, or the little boy.

Max and Grandma also know that Joseph is the problem but they see him as an unsolvable one, so they do the next best thing. The least evil to achieve the least suffering.

Flint and Madi would argue that nothing is unsolvable.

Like all idealists they’d be considered mad for saying that, but ultimately, they’d be right. Because “drowning the cat” is only going to stop one problem at a time. Meanwhile the root violence that made drowning the cat necessary continues to perpetuate evil in other ways.

I have an uncle, and the last time I saw him, thankfully many years
ago, I kept thinking that if the only way he knew how to make himself
feel powerful was by putting someone else down, then he didn’t know a
thing about power.

Joseph Guthrie, like many characters before him is a symbol of the “civilized” world, and in every era, including our own, men like Joseph have gotten away with horrors because crimes against humanity are not just considered inevitable they’re excused as “sound investments.” Like the Guthrie bookkeeper there are always people who argue that human decency (running businesses without slaves, providing free universal healthcare) are financially “unwise.”

Though in reality, its actually the opposite, and costs much less money.

Flint even says at one point “no-one will believe it’s possible until we show them.” Which beyond talking about the Urca also describes skeptics of a society with fair foundations.

Leaving the “Josephs” untouched and trying to clean up their mess and bandage the wounds they make one at time, is as destined to fail as trying to hold water with a sieve. Madi and Flint know the only way to really stop that cycle of suffering, is to make a world where men like Joseph Guthrie can’t beat their children.

The problem is that Flint is as much a victim of this adherence to violence as the rest of them. He really believes that war and burning it all down is the only way to stop it and when push comes to shove, Flint’s solution is murder.

Whether its because he really thinks its a more expedient or lasting solution, or its just a rash choice at the time, that’s where his mind first goes. I think he still doesn’t see how much of his own hatred and pain and desire for revenge has been tied up in this rhetoric.

I’m not saying revolution isn’t necessary. I stand with Madi a hundred percent. People have the right to fight for their rights and their existence and there are things that can only be stopped by outright revolt, but I think Madi is unique in that she’s a mix of Flint and Max’s ideologies.

Max, although she makes her own mistakes, knows how violence perpetuates violence. There’s an incredible and understated strength to her compassion, and she walks such a fine line with it, refusing to own slaves and perpetuate the evils she’s suffered on others, and not backing down when pressured to do so, or sneered at by “society.” Max adheres to the principle that change takes millions of tiny acts of kindness, incalcuable small victories (and every refusal to perpetuate violent traditions is a victory). Her’s is the slow rising of a tide, rather then one sweeping move.

Flint knows the evil’s of England’s colonialist society, but I don’t think he sees the difference between his war with “civilization,” and England’s wars with Spain, France, etc that he fought as a naval man.

Flint is fighting to win.

Madi and Max are fighting for peace.