#in fact it is often the female investment in specific things that makes them less 'valuable' in general consciousness | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

innocentsshounenjuujigun · 2 years

Note

Back when I read the manga, I interpreted Christian as a closeted gay desiring to become a woman in order to be with Etienne.

Since the story is framed in a time in history where gays were not well-liked and Christian is presented as a super logical person, I thought it was reasonable for him to want to be a female, because this would make his love for Etienne more acceptable and overall easier.

I know you write Christian as a trans girl and I think it's a totally valid take because the manga is a bit unclear, but I would love to hear your opinions on this other interpretation.

(Also English is not my first language, but I hope I could convey my ideas just fine >.<).

Alright, so, I may have taken this ask a little more seriously than I should have. >w> As in, I'm currently in an Arthurian Legends class with a professor who specializes in the Medieval period and its history, culture, and stories... and I had a meeting with her specifically to discuss this topic.

That means you're about to get an essay in response here, anon. Most of the following paragraphs are based on my own opinions developed in the years I've been invested in Innocents, but there are a good few of my professor's opinions also taken into account.

I have a lot of feelings about Christian's gender identity and how Furuya crafted her story, so I hope I can do those feelings justice!

. . .

(They/them pronouns are used for Christian here for neutrality.)

The core point of this is that for Christian, changing their gender identity would have been far from the most logical choice. There's nothing about becoming a woman that would have made their life easier— or made it easier to be with Etienne from a social perspective. It would have been far more "logical" to stay a gay man than go to such extremes, for reasons such as...

Homosexual acts were common enough to be in the manual priests had to guide people through repentance (called a Penitential). Beyond that, "sodomy" happened often enough that it was a recognized issue, particularly in monasteries and among knights. While it was still a "sinful" and punishable offense, it happened, and it happened often enough that Christian, well-read as they are, would have almost definitely been aware of both the existence of those acts and exactly what would have been done to "punish" them. (Source)

In comparison, trying to become a woman would have been a major problem socially. That's not just a single sin to repent for; it's an attempt to alter their entire lifestyle into something that would have been highly socially unacceptable. A couple of acts of "sodomy", in comparison, if they were even found out, would have been much less punishable than trying to live as a woman.

Going from that, it would have been far easier for Christian to live with Etienne somewhere remote enough that the chances of being found out would be next to zero, and have their "sinful" relationship as it was— not embark on a dangerous, potentially years-long quest to undergo a dangerous surgery and change their entire life to do something that would have been less socially acceptable than a few acts of sodomy that may or may not have ever been discovered.

And of course, Hugo! He, a member of the Knights Templar, was very obviously engaging in sodomy on the regular. While we may not be sure of exactly how aware of this behavior his superiors were, the fact that half of the prostitutes shown in the scene with Nicolas and Guy are male says a lot about how easy that was to get away with. (Ch. 10)

As you can see, Hugo was sleeping with plenty of men, and he didn't suffer any dramatic punishment for it (that we know of) until what happens in the actual story.

Next, in terms of logic, undergoing surgery to "become a woman" would have been an incredibly reckless, risky choice. We see an illustration of the procedure in Christian's textbook (Ch. 20), and it's pretty grotesque. Definitely not the kind of thing that would have had a high survival rate in the era before germs were common knowledge. Going by the picture, it does not look like something that a rational man would willingly undergo, especially not when considering the information stated in the previous paragraphs.

Yeah. That does not look like something many people would have survived, nor a very logical choice to undergo if you're not desperate.

This leads to my most significant point— the utter loss of any kind of social advantage. In this time and place, women didn't have much in the means of rights. By becoming a woman, even if the procedure was 100% successful, if they survived, and if they were able to seamlessly live their new life without anyone ever knowing that they started out male, Christian would have lost every bit of status, power, and safety they had in the process. As a man, they still had some form of agency; submitting to life as a woman would have put them in a terribly vulnerable position, even without the risk of being found out for who they previously were.

With Christian indeed being a logical, rational person (for the most part), it doesn't make sense to me that they'd resort to such desperate, dangerous measures in the hopes that it would somehow make their relationship with Etienne easier. The matter of attraction is the only advantage I can think of that they'd gain, and even that idea doesn't exactly work out— since Etienne would have been fully aware that they started out as male, the aftermath of the procedure wouldn't have changed what he knew about them.

Christian's desire to become a woman is highly illogical. It's desperate. And the consequences of such a choice, the overwhelming risks with very little reward, indicate to me that there was a lot more going on in their head than just wanting to justify their feelings for Etienne. In this setting, changing their sex and gender would have been a far too dramatic choice to solve that problem.

There's additional evidence, in my opinion, in Christian's behavior in the story, but since this post is meant to cover only the potential logic/non-logic of the choice, I'll stop here for now.

Thank you for the ask! :D

#Innocents Shounen Juujigun #Christian #Analysis

12 notes · View notes

fozmeadows · 3 years

Text

race & culture in fandom

For the past decade, English language fanwriting culture post the days of LiveJournal and Strikethrough has been hugely shaped by a handful of megafandoms that exploded across AO3 and tumblr – I’m talking Supernatural, Teen Wolf, Dr Who, the MCU, Harry Potter, Star Wars, BBC Sherlock – which have all been overwhelmingly white. I don’t mean in terms of the fans themselves, although whiteness also figures prominently in said fandoms: I mean that the source materials themselves feature very few POC, and the ones who are there tended to be done dirty by the creators.

Periodically, this has led POC in fandom to point out, extremely reasonably, that even where non-white characters do get central roles in various media properties, they’re often overlooked by fandom at large, such that the popular focus stays primarily on the white characters. Sometimes this happened (it was argued) because the POC characters were secondary to begin with and as such attracted less fan devotion (although this has never stopped fandoms from picking a random white gremlin from the background cast and elevating them to the status of Fave); at other times, however, there has been a clear trend of sidelining POC leads in favour of white alternatives (as per Finn, Poe and Rose Tico being edged out in Star Wars shipping by Hux, Kylo and Rey). I mention this, not to demonize individuals whose preferred ships happen to involve white characters, but to point out the collective impact these trends can have on POC in fandom spaces: it’s not bad to ship what you ship, but that doesn’t mean there’s no utility in analysing what’s popular and why through a racial lens.

All this being so, it feels increasingly salient that fanwriting culture as exists right now developed under the influence and in the shadow of these white-dominated fandoms – specifically, the taboo against criticizing or critiquing fics for any reason. Certainly, there’s a hell of a lot of value to Don’t Like, Don’t Read as a general policy, especially when it comes to the darker, kinkier side of ficwriting, and whether the context is professional or recreational, offering someone direct, unsolicited feedback on their writing style is a dick move. But on the flipside, the anti-criticism culture in fanwriting has consistently worked against fans of colour who speak out about racist tropes, fan ignorance and hurtful portrayals of living cultures. Voicing anything negative about works created for free is seen as violating a core rule of ficwriting culture – but as that culture has been foundationally shaped by white fandoms, white characters and, overwhelmingly, white ideas about what’s allowed and what isn’t, we ought to consider that all critical contexts are not created equal.

Right now, the rise of C-drama (and K-drama, and J-drama) fandoms is seeing a surge of white creators – myself included – writing fics for fandoms in which no white people exist, and where the cultural context which informs the canon is different to western norms. Which isn’t to say that no popular fandoms focused on POC have existed before now – K-pop RPF and anime fandoms, for example, have been big for a while. But with the success of The Untamed, more western fans are investing in stories whose plots, references, characterization and settings are so fundamentally rooted in real Chinese history and living Chinese culture that it’s not really possible to write around it. And yet, inevitably, too many in fandom are trying to do just that, treating respect for Chinese culture or an attempt to understand it as optional extras – because surely, fandom shouldn’t feel like work. If you’re writing something for free, on your own time, for your own pleasure, why should anyone else get to demand that you research the subject matter first?

Because it matters, is the short answer. Because race and culture are not made-up things like lightsabers and werewolves that you can alter, mock or misunderstand without the risk of hurting or marginalizing actual real people – and because, quite frankly, we already know that fandom is capable of drawing lines in the sand where it chooses. When Brony culture first reared its head (hah), the online fandom for My Little Pony – which, like the other fandoms we’re discussing here, is overwhelmingly female – was initially welcoming. It felt like progress, that so many straight men could identify with such a feminine show; a potential sign that maybe, we were finally leaving the era of mainstream hypermasculine fandom bullshit behind, at least in this one arena. And then, in pretty much the blink of an eye, things got overwhelmingly bad. Artists drawing hardcorn porn didn’t tag their works as adult, leading to those images flooding the public search results for a children’s show. Women were edged out of their own spaces. Bronies got aggressive, posting harsh, ugly criticism of artists whose gijinka interpretations of the Mane Six as humans were deemed insufficiently fuckable.

The resulting fandom conflict was deeply unpleasant, but in the end, the verdict was laid down loud and clear: if you cannot comport yourself like a decent fucking person – if your base mode of engagement within a fandom is to coopt it from the original audience and declare it newly cool only because you’re into it now; if you do not, at the very least, attempt to understand and respect the original context so as to engage appropriately (in this case, by acknowledging that the media you’re consuming was foundational to many women who were there before you and is still consumed by minors, and tagging your goddamn porn) – then the rest of fandom will treat you like a social biohazard, and rightly so.

Here’s the thing, fellow white people: when it comes to C-drama fandoms and other non-white, non-western properties? We are the Bronies.

Not, I hasten to add, in terms of toxic fuckery – though if we don’t get our collective shit together, I’m not taking that darkest timeline off the table. What I mean is that, by virtue of the whiteminding which, both consciously and unconsciously, has shaped current fan culture, particularly in terms of ficwriting conventions, we’re collectively acting as though we’re the primary audience for narratives that weren’t actually made with us in mind, being hostile dicks to Chinese and Chinese diaspora fans when they take the time to point out what we’re getting wrong. We’re bristling because we’ve conceived of ficwriting as a place wherein No Criticism Occurs without questioning how this culture, while valuable in some respects, also serves to uphold, excuse and perpetuate microaggresions and other forms of racism, lashing out or falling back on passive aggression when POC, quite understandably, talk about how they’re sick and tired of our bullshit.

An analogy: one of the most helpful and important tags on AO3 is the one for homophobia, not just because it allows readers to brace for or opt out of reading content they might find distressing, but because it lets the reader know that the writer knows what homophobia is, and is employing it deliberately. When this concept is tagged, I – like many others – often feel more able to read about it than I do when it crops up in untagged works of commercial fiction, film or TV, because I don’t have to worry that the author thinks what they’re depicting is okay. I can say definitively, “yes, the author knows this is messed up, but has elected to tell a messed up story, a fact that will be obvious to anyone who reads this,” instead of worrying that someone will see a fucked up story blind and think “oh, I guess that’s fine.” The contextual framing matters, is the point – which is why it’s so jarring and unpleasant on those rare occasions when I do stumble on a fic whose author has legitimately mistaken homophobic microaggressions for cute banter. This is why, in a ficwriting culture that otherwise aggressively dislikes criticism, the request to tag for a certain thing – while still sometimes fraught – is generally permitted: it helps everyone to have a good time and to curate their fan experience appropriately.

But when white and/or western fans fail to educate ourselves about race, culture and the history of other countries and proceed to deploy that ignorance in our writing, we’re not tagging for racism as a thing we’ve explored deliberately; we’re just being ignorant at best and hateful at worst, which means fans of colour don’t know to avoid or brace for the content of those works until they get hit in the face with microaggresions and/or outright racism. Instead, the burden is placed on them to navigate a minefield not of their creation: which fans can be trusted to write respectfully? Who, if they make an error, will listen and apologise if the error is explained? Who, if lived experience, personal translations or cultural insights are shared, can be counted on to acknowledge those contributions rather than taking sole credit? Too often, fans of colour are being made to feel like guests in their own house, while white fans act like a tone-policing HOA.

Point being: fandom and ficwriting cultures as they currently exist badly need to confront the implicit acceptance of racism and cultural bias that underlies a lot of community rules about engagement and criticism, and that needs to start with white and western fans. We don’t want to be the new Bronies, guys. We need to do better.

#race #racism #c-drama #fandom #fan wank #fandom wank #microaggresions #culture #the untamed #bronies #whiteness #ficwriting #fanwriting #cultural bias #discourse

6K notes · View notes

tooweirdforyou · 3 years

Note

Can I please request platonic straw hats x female teen reader, more specifically with nami & robin, like they would think that she doesn’t like them because she requested to have her own small room and doesn’t really talk to them & is always glued to her books . But she’s just Quiet & keeps to her self. Fluffy ending please & thank you 😊. ( sorry for the long request😅)

The Straw Hats With A Teen! Shipmate Who Keeps To Herself

a/n : hey! Sorry if this is a bit short but I hope you enjoy!! Thanks for requesting! :)

SO SORRY THIS TOOK SO LONG 😭

Summary : the straw hats with a shipmate who’s a teenager and tends to keep to herself, causing them to believe she doesn’t like them.

“She’s eating alone again..”

Seeing you walk off into your room, with a tray of Sanji’s food in your hands, through the small window of the kitchen door made the crew sigh.

“We can’t force her to eat with us though, it’s her own decision.” Usopp points out, arms crossing as he ate a piece of meat.

Nami only frowns at Usopp and continues to stare over at the doorway, wondering if you had a problem.

She couldn’t even remember if there was ever a time where you actually sat down WITH the crew to eat, since the day you first joined.

Did you hate them? Then why join? Or were you just that introverted, that you even had asked to have your own room?

Since you were a girl and younger than most of them, the crew agreed to your request but they never thought it’d create a giant wall between you and the others.

In fact, you were so isolated from them since you never did anything with the crew, except maybe fight with them during battles.

For example, you would read, eat, draw, sleep and relax in your room, away from the others. The door was often locked so the others had to knock on the door to check up on you, but even then, they weren’t always let inside.

Robin closes her eyes and thinks back to herself. If she has to admit, you reminded her a bit of her past self. Before she joined the crew, she was always reserved and kept to herself, only occasionally speaking with others.

But was your reason the same as hers back then?

“Maybe she’s just being a normal girl teenager, doing teen things. They are often quiet and keep to themselves right?” Franky suggests, chomping down at his burger with his mini hand.

“Not all teenagers are like that.” Nami scoffs, rolling her eyes as she poked at her food with a fork. A pout could be seen on her lips.

“...but why does she always leave? Do you think she doesn’t like us?” Chopper frowns sadly, eyes just glossing over his plate without touching it.

The group only sat in silence. But everyone had mixed feelings about you.

Luffy was concerned and a bit confused by you. He didn’t understand why you stranded off from the group and often did try to talk to you, but he figured it was a girl thing. Maybe you didn’t like the boys?

Zoro was indifferent about it, because as long as you at least fought with the group and was loyal to Luffy, he didn’t mind that you often spend time alone. Hell, he can kinda understand the need to get away from the group for a bit.

Sanji was pretty saddened about it, he hates to not see your cute but rare smiles at times, but he at least has a sense that you enjoy his food since you come back with the tray empty, so he’s glad about that in the very least.

Usopp is also a bit confused and wishes you spend more time with the crew and bond with them, but he respects your decision if you want to be alone. He just wants to be able to get to know you.

Nami is pretty upset, because now that there’s another girl to gossip with, spend time with and bond with through all these chaotic boys, she’s sad that you don’t seem to want to be around any of them and just keep to yourself. Did you really dislike them that much? Did they do something?

Chopper finds it saddening because it seems like you don’t like them. You don’t want to spend time with the crew at all and it’s sad for him because you seem really kind and sweet and he wants to know you more! And if you’re ever sick, he might not be able to help you since you’re in your room a lot.

Franky doesn’t quite get it either. You joined the crew but you don’t even hang out with them, even if it’s to do stupid things? Not even to just do whatever you want on your own, but in the presence of the crew?

Robin is secretly disappointed. She had hoped she could be able to spend time with another female around and perhaps teach you some things since you seem to share her love of books. But she’s understanding in the very least.

Brook both understands and feels indifferent. He can’t force you to spend time with the crew but he does hope to see you warm up and spend some time with the group one day.

“It can’t be helped.”

Hearing Robin, the crew all watch as she stood up, finished with her sandwich and tea and make her way over to the door with the gentle smile on her face.

“I’ll go check on her. Maybe it’s time we asked if everything’s alright.” She suggests and the others widen their eyes a bit.

“You’re right. I’ll go with you.” Nami smiles determinely, standing up from her seat and went over to the door as well, standing beside Robin.

“Yohohoho~ good luck!” Brook calls out just before the girls closed the door and walked out.

Nami and Robin shared a glance before nodding in unison and Nami knocks against the wooden door.

You were so invested in your book while eating, you didn’t hear the knock at first, until Nami’s voice was followed after.

“[Name]? It’s Nami and Robin. Can we come in?”

Tilting your head at their request, you glance down at your tray of [ Favorite Food ] that Sanji prepared especially for you, and then moved it aside onto your desk.

Closing your book and setting it on the bed in front of you, you stood up and walk over to the door, peeking your head out when you opened it just a crack.

“..What is it?” Your voice was so soft and quiet, they almost didn’t hear you.

Robin simply smiles gently and hums. “Did you finish eating?” She questions and you shake your head. “No.”

Nami smiles awkwardly before clearing her throat. “Actually, we just wanted to talk. Is it okay if we come in?” She says, her hand slowly making it onto the door and you stare at her a bit.

It was just the two of them, but you were hoping to just relax and eat in peace.

Though, knowing Nami, she wasn’t one to give up and you weren’t going to try to argue with her.

So sighing lightly, you pull open the door wide and allowed them entrance, closing it behind them when they came and locked it, as usual.

Walking past them, you went over to the bed and sat down, picking up your book and grab the tray of food onto your lap to finish eating, ignoring their stares that lingered on your form.

“Whatcha reading?”

Glancing at Nami’s bright smile as she made herself comfortable on the edge of your bed, Robin sitting on the other side.

Shifting a bit and repositioning yourself against your headboard and in center to keep a distance from the two, you turn down to the book.

“It’s a novel.. called Heaven’s Official Blessings.”

You answer quietly, turning the page in your novel and then used your hand to pick up a piece of your food.

“That’s the one about the God and the Demon lord, right?” Robin hums and you nod in response. “I haven’t read it myself, but I heard good reviews of it. What’s your opinion on it?”

You shrug a bit. “I don’t know. I didn’t finish.” You answer, motioning to the page you were on which was a little less than halfway.

Robin chuckles and nods. “Fair point.”

“Well, what’s it about?” Nami speaks again, trying to continue the conversation but you just chew on your food and held out the book for her to look at.

Nami blinks a bit before seeing the summary of the novel in the front and shakes her head. “I want to hear you read it.”

Furrowing your brows, you only swallow your food and frown. “Why?” You didn’t prefer talking and you didn’t understand why when she could easily just read the synopsis.

Nami giggles sheepishly before shrugging. “I just wanna hear your voice some more.”

You gave her a weird, skeptical look as you move the now empty try back onto the desk and bookmark the page you were on before closing it in silence.

The room was quiet, Robin’s eyes observing you while Nami’s roamed the room.

“Say... do you hate us, [Name]?”

“..huh?”

Turning serious, Nami turns away and stares around the room a bit more, Robin’s smile slowly fading as her lips turn to a firm line.

“You asked to have your own room.. you never eat nor spend any time with us. Is there a reason for your separation from us? Have we done you a wrong? If so, please tell us so we can fix it.”

Lips parting in shock at their question, your eyes widening along, you just stare at them. You hadn’t even realized you were so.. away from them. You were just doing what you normally do even back in your island, it was just habit.

“[Name]?”

Blinking, you quickly shake your head before calming down a bit, taking a soft breath. “I-I don’t hate you.. You guys didn’t do anything wrong.”

“Then why are you avoiding us?” Nami asks with a sigh, running a hand through her orange locks of hair and brushed it with her fingers.

“..I didn’t realize I was.. I was just enjoying time alone.” You admit honestly, eyes trained on the novel in your hands. “I figured I just read in peace until it was time for Luffy’s new adventure or something.”

“Uh.. besides, I.. I don’t really like hanging out in big groups or anything like that. I’m not very social so I’m not good in that stuff.” You add, rubbing your arm before rubbing the back of your neck awkwardly.

Nami and Robin stare at you, clearly surprised at your answer as they slowly exchanged glances, just seconds before a snort being heard.

Nami then busts out into light laughter, hands clutching her stomach while one went to wipe tears forming. Robin herself was expressing a few amused and relieved giggles, covering them with her hand a bit.

“Is that really all it is?”

“I guess we were worried for nothing.”

The two women smile brightly at you as Nami goes over and hugs you tightly.

“All of us were worried you hated us or something but now we understand! You’re just shy!” Nami grins, nearly asphyxiating you in her chest as you struggle to pull away from her.

“I must say, I am relieved to hear that isn’t the case though. If you’re just someone who prefers to keep to yourself, it’s amazing you somehow managed to continue to stay on this ship.” Robin lightly jokes as you finally pull away from the navigator and inhaled deeply.

“Come on, you. We’re going to spend time with the crew and each other, so you will open more and we can get to know you. Okay?”

Already pulling your hand, you felt yourself get forced up off the bed before you could even protest or reach for your book.

“W-wait, but-“

“No buts!” She turns back to give her signature grin to you. “Unless you wanna pay me to let you back to your room alone, you are now going to spend the rest of the day with us!”

Robin smiles, seeing you being dragged off by their navigator and despite you looking helpless and even a little lost,

She could see the faint ghost of a defeated smile forming on your lips.

Whether it was because you were just in disbelief and accepted your fate, or because you truly did want to spend some time with the crew at some point one day,

Robin was just glad to be able to see you smiling and getting to spend time with the group.

Maybe this will let you be more comfortable and spend time around then even more in the future.

Grabbing your tray from earlier, Robin began to leave the room and closed the door behind her, a soft smile present as she hears the loud commotion from the kitchen.

“Finally a family.”

A/N : ahh, I’m so sorry this isn’t as great as I hoped, it wasn’t the ending I originally planned but I wanted to get one post out quickly- and I’m so sorry this took so long ;-;

It’s so rusheddddd

#tooweirdforyou #one piece #one piece x reader #op x reader #x reader #op #straw hat #straw hats #straw hat x reader #straw hats x reader #nico robin #one piece nami #vinsmoke sanji #roronoa zoro #tony tony chopper #one piece usopp #soul king brook #monkey d. luffy #cyborg franky

541 notes · View notes

autisticcassandracain · 3 years

Text

I have many thoughts on the weird phenomena in the DC fandom and the Batfam fandom specifically where probably the majority of people just straight up. haven’t interacted with the source material. and almost all of those thoughts can be summarized as ‘lmao that’s weird and mildly concerning’.

and because I’m annoying I will list them all here right now <3

1. To preface this post, I mean, obviously, comics are inaccessible as all hell, both in the disability kind of way and the ‘you need to understand the concept of hypertime to fully comprehend the DC timeline’ kind of way. Because of this, even if you don’t have a disability that prevents you from reading comics, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to look at the amount of comics you need to read to have even a base understanding of a character and go ‘no thanks <3′ and just enjoy fanart and fanfic in a vacuum. Ultimately, this is fandom, this is supposed to be fun, it doesn’t really matter.

2. That said, it’s VERY weird to me that the majority of this fandom just straight up hasn’t interacted with the source material, and moreover, that it’s considered rude to tell people that they should do so. It’s especially weird considering the amount of fanon-only fans I’ve seen who straight up have a superiority complex over canon. The idea that it’s gatekeeping to tell fans of something to actually interact with canon is just. so weird, and a fundamental misunderstanding of what ‘gatekeeping’ actually entails.

3. But honestly I’m less interested in discussing the ways in which canon and fanon fans should interact with each other (personally, I think it would be helpful to create separate tags of some kind, but that’d require quite a big overhaul of the current fandom state) than in figuring out how this actually happened in the first place. On the one hand, it’s obvious; long-running superhero comics the way DC writes them have made themselves so thoroughly inaccessible that most people are simply too daunted to even try. Most media has a cohesive beginning and end (or at least, a planned end somewhere). Comics just... don’t.

But I do think it says something that, even among people who are clearly interested in the characters (since they have, you know, entire blogs about them), the effort to get into comics just seems to be too much to even bother. This really doesn’t bode well for the future of DC Comics. Obviously, I am no expert on anything at all ever, but I’d personally be surprised if DC survives beyond the few decades, at least in its current form/without a big overhaul.

4. But on the other hand, I don’t think the confusing state of DC Comics is the only thing to blame here. Fandom has a well-known problem with reducing any character down to archetypes to more easily ship and write fic/make content with. This problem is particularly prominent in fanfic, which, if you read enough of it, you’ll eventually start seeing not just the same tropes and trends, but essentially the same fics over and over again. And not just within the same fandom; everywhere, or every large fandom, at least.

Fanon Batfam is entirely built on a bunch of those tropes; insecure/depressed sadboy Tim, team mom with optional hidden trauma/emotional problems Dick, bad boy with a heart of gold + sadboy combo Jason, abused sadboy Damian/angry easily-villified-for-fic-reasons monster Damian, good dad Bruce for found family fic and bad dad Bruce for angst fic, etc. This all culminates in a found family dynamic that’s generic and malleable to whatever fic the writer wants to write.

(This isn’t getting into the ship fic, which I avoid like the plague because the vast majority of it is incest, but I’d bet real actual money that the tropes in those fics fall under what is often preferred by the Migratory Slash Fandom.)

By having a decent excuse not to get into canon (the inaccessibility of comics) and a, by now, well-established fanon fandom, many fans feel free to use the batfam fandom as essentially an excuse to write whatever fic with reduced archetypes and tropes they personally feel the itch to write, without having to bother with even consuming a canon. This is compounded by the fact that canon itself is often contradictory and frankly bad, meaning that whatever interpretation of a character you want/need to go for your fic is at least theoretically backed up by canon (for example, you can just as easily cast Bruce as an abusive shithole dad who his kids need to get away from as a loving father figure who cares deeply for his children), which you can always use as a defense if people question your characterization.

5. This focus on fandom trends and tropes over actual creativity or care for the characters is also visible in the way bigotry manifests in this fandom; namely, in literally the exact way you’d expect. The female characters and characters of colour are shuffled to the side, non-existent, vilified, and/or reduced to harmful stereotypes.

Barbara is probably the one I saw the most often in fanfic, but usually just as ‘Dick’s girlfriend’, and even then, she was often vilified for Dick angst (especially in fics about examining Dick’s trauma from his canon sexual assault; Kori also often gets the short end of the stick in those). After that, probably Stephanie, who fanon fans don’t really seem to know what to do with, so she’s basically just there as comic relief waffle girl, most of the time, though sometimes she can be used to either further Tim angst or further vilify Tim, whatever the fic calls for. Cass has gotten included more in batfam fics as of late, likely in response to critiques of fandom racism for leaving her out, but again, it’s clear people don’t actually know what to do with her. She’s often reduced to a racist stereotype of a quite, stoic therapist for whatever guy du jour needs it. That, or she’s in Hong Kong and just not there. Duke especially gets left in the dust in fandom, usually just being non-existent, but when he’s there, he’s almost always nothing more than the straight man for the actual fun characters to play off of. Talia probably has it the worst, though, and almost universally gets vilified by fanon stans in order to write sadboy Damian.

All of this is extremely predictable behaviour and falls entirely in line with general fandom misogyny and racism; ignoring or vilifying women and characters of colour, or using them as very minor characters at best. The only two characters of colour who aren’t regularly left out of fic are Dick and Damian, who are both also conveniently the two characters most often drawn and written in a whitewashed manner. In addition, there’s a real trend of demonizing Damian in fanon fics where he isn’t written as an abused sadboy, which I’d argue is in no small part due to fandom racism, considering Damian’s behaviour is in no way as bad as Jason’s, who doesn’t get anywhere close to the same demonization and gets woobiefied instead. I also find it convenient that Damian is probably the batboy who receives the most vilification in fic, when he’s the most obviously non-white of the batboys they’re willing to acknowledge.

Fandom often cries for more diversity in canon, only to ignore the diversity already there and focus on the same generic white guys. The batfam fandom is a brilliant example of this.

Which is not to say that fandom racism and misogyny isn’t present in the canon parts of the fandom (and canon itself); it absolutely 100% is. But I’ve found that canon fans are also more likely to like and care about at least one of the characters I’ve listed as ignored/vilified, and are willing to create and consume content for them, whereas fanon fans... aren’t, really. I’ve never seen a fan of fanon Cass the way I’ve seen fans of fanon Dick, for example. Obviously, this could just be by coincidence, or I’ve just surrounded myself with people like that, but it’s been a trend I noticed. Racism and misogyny is present in every part of this fandom and should be addressed as such, but I feel like it manifests the most blatantly in the fanon parts of this fandom.

(I’d also recommend the articles Migratory Slash Fandom’s Focus and Beige Blank Slates, which expand more on the type of fandom racism I think is especially prominent in the batfam fandom, as well as literally every article in the What Fandom Racism Looks Like series.)

6. All this leads me to conclude that the majority of fanon fans don’t actually like the characters all that much; they’re convenient excuses for them to participate in fandom. Which I also think is, in no small part, a reason why so many of them react so negatively to being told to pick up a comic; they came to this fandom specifically to consume it as a fandom, because they wanted the fandom experience without having to consume a canon.

This is not a phenomena unique to the batfam fandom (again, see the Migratory Slash Fandom), but it does fascinate me. While fandom is often said to be an experience focusing on transformative art, I think it’s also safe to say that, especially as fandom has become more mainstream, an increasing amount of people are looking to it less as a way to engage with their favourite pieces of media, and more as a type of media in and of itself. I think the reasons for this are similar to the reasons mass media entertainment like the MCU are so popular; you gain a lot of enjoyment out of it with very little risk involved.

By consuming the same fics of the same characters (or the same archetypes) over and over again, you are rarely at risk of being challenged or even disappointed. It’s often very clear right from the start whether or not a fic will appeal to you, and if it isn’t, it’s easy to just look for another one. It requires less emotional investment than most other types of media, even ‘popcorn media’ like the MCU - or, yes, DC Comics. It’s safe, it’s enjoyable, it’s comforting, like McDonalds, but just like McDonalds, it’s ultimately bland and unsubstantial.

7, TL;DR. Ultimately, I don’t think it’s like, wrong to enjoy the fanon version of the batfam without wanting to engage with canon, and I certainly don’t think it’s okay to harrass people over it. But I do think it’s in large part based on a desire to interact with fandom rather than other pieces of media because people are scared of being let down by those pieces of media (or worse, just uninterested in actually thinking), which is mildly concerning.

#long post #my posts #infodumping #btw i say this as someone who also has trouble consuming much more than popcorn media/fanfic due to emotional exhaustion #but it's not a healthy habit and it's something people can and should try to break out of #also obviously this isn't about EVERY fanon fan specifically so if this doesn't apply to you specifically great then move on

41 notes · View notes

ashintheairlikesnow · 2 years

Note

To that last anon, I thought you raised some really interesting points, especially on how differently society and fandoms, and by extension the whump community, tend to treat female characters compared to others. I'm kinda biased myself since I've always been drawn to reading and writing male characters (and lately nonbinary and every flavor of trans), but don't often feel a deep connection with woman in fiction. I guess a part of the way Nova is or isn't loved can come from that, but I think a big part of it is mostly from the way she seems "unsafe" to someone who is definitely a fan favorite. She is of course a survivor herself and, like Jameson, deserving of understanding for her mistakes, but maybe the fact the we never had a glimpse inside her head has a lot to do with it. I didn't like Jameson at first and I love him now because we got to understand his thoughts and feelings.

The closest we ever got to Nova was her therapy session (which was still not from her POV) and a couple really short bits way back in the beginning, so maybe that's why she's hard to relate to. But make no mistake, there's a bunch of Nova stans around here, I've seen them lol

About the whole infantilizing Chris thing though, my view as an autistic person is that it's both a complex thing and actually very simple lol. There's definitely an issue irl with babying disabled people and/or seeing us as babies/angels/cinnamon rolls too perfect for this world. BUT, I personally very much do just call every character I love "my child". There are characters ten years older than me (and a couple immortal ones with centuries to spare) that I very much do call my babies and a part of being a very invested fan is usually the whole "they can do no wrong! Murder isn't even that bad!"

So yeah, while the way other characters act around Chris can be discussed as possibly infantilizing sometimes*, I think the way we act about him doesn't have anything to do with his neurotype lol

*(I mentioned in a previous ask that this could be from having met him as a kid and their brains not updating the fact that he's an adult. Or that he needs help and support with some things that make him seem as he's being treated as a child when he's actually just getting the support he needs)

-🍄

Yeah, long before I was specific on Chris's diagnosis, when some of my regular readers were starting to ask me if he was autistic (largely because, in a lot of cases, they were picking up on stuff even I hadn't noticed was working its way into my own work yet!), people were already big Chris fans! He was adored right from his very first appearance.

I also think you really hit on a good point at the end when you note that he appears still very much a teenage boy, and that especially with nonlinear writing, it's easy to just kind of keep seeing him that way. And also, because he IS sunshine boy a lot of the time, it's easy to read that as 'childlike' as compared to the occasional cynicism or anger of the others around him.

I actually love Nova more the more I get to dig around inside her head. I've got some ideas on her brewing, but unfortunately have been far too busy to write much the last week or so! But I like her, and I think she's going to really find herself soon.

She was unsafe to Chris, for sure - but she is ALSO hurting, and badly, trying to find her way out of conditioned behaviors. She's fairly clear even when she assaults Chris that she's acting out the way she was taught to 'fix' the bad mood of the people who are important in the household - originally her Miss, and now Chris, Jake, etc. That mixes with her sort of latent crush on Chris (which is less on Chris and more on the way he seems, to her, like he's come impossibly far from being a pet) and just becomes a very dangerous combination... but not a malevolent one.

Nova is very complex - low-empathy but deeply injured and traumatized, working hard but taking the wrong direction with it at first. She likes the people in the household but hasn't figured out how to act around them quite yet.

She's not a villain, she's just not a perfect victim or survivor, she's a difficult one. So is Jameson. But I see a lot in them both that I love.

#nova asks #chris asks

18 notes · View notes

vaguely-concerned · 3 years

Text

R-r-r-rewatch thoughts for The Mandalorian S2 Ep2

(or Chapter 10 as they seem resolved to call it)

- can I just express my joy for a moment that in one episode we get peli, the answer to my pleas for female representation in the ‘sketchy middle aged car mechanic’ niche, and a female alien designed with no consideration towards sexiness. (I mean I’m sure there’s someone. There is always someone somewhere on the Internet, is the bitter truth history has shown to us. but it’s not the intention behind the design haha)

- they do take great pains to deliberately show you boba’s armour several times both in the recap and in the episode itself, so never despair he is very likely still on his way onto our screens once more

- this dude holding the baby hostage wanting specifically the jetpack in exchange is the one (1) break this whole episode gave din lol

also the Patented Mando Finger Curl of Stress while he talked softly and calmly to not promp this asshole to make a sudden move... the most endearing character tic, I love my space cowboy dad so much

- fun continuity detail: din is all out of whistling birds now, and you can see it here!

I wonder if he could still use the same mechanism with different ‘ammo’, it’s just not as effective? from the way the armorer spoke whistling birds seem quite rare and it would be an inefficient use of beskar if that’s the only thing it can be loaded with

- I love how after the last episode, a 50 min epic with a bunch of original trilogy significance and impressive technical achievements and exciting character reveals, I was like ‘yeah okay I suppose that is quite interesting’, and this mess/comedy of inconveniences is the thing that fully makes my brain tip into the obsessive ‘BABY AND DAD SHOW!! BABY AND DAD SHOW!!!!!’ mind state lol

- ah the traditional ‘mando trudging slowly but steadily through the desert’ montage we all love to see (I hope this is going to be a Thing for the second episode of every season from now on)

Also I assume his suit has some sort of temperature regulation built in and that’s how he didn’t, y’know. die under the blazing desert sun

CAT FIGHT CAT FIGHT man I love the jawa. also mando doesn’t even glance over at them, really emphasizing how he’s like. done with this entire day (and it’s all barely even getting started din! i’m sorry)

yodito’s look in this scene tho... he’s like ‘we’ve Seen some shit lady’ (actually I think he’s staring at ‘dr mandible’ like O___o. it’s been a long day for a lil boy)

you get to see dr mandible’s cards a few times, so I assume anyone who knows the rules of... sabacc? probably? could figure out beforehand that he was in a bad spot. (the star wars fanbase is one of those where I KNOW the rules exist somewhere, and I know people who know those rules exist too)

- that sound the baby keeps making -- the ‘boo-a’, sometimes with a p-sound at the end -- if that’s the precursor to him saying any variation whatsoever of ‘dad’ or ‘papa’ or ‘baba’ or even ‘buir’ or anything, I will die. I will sink to the ground in a heap and never get up (the way he keeps seeking out gaze contact with the helmet and seems perfectly satisfied with it too... fasdhfaskdjhl my FEELINGS)

- it seems confirmed in this ep that the mandos who died on nevarro did so while holding off the enemy so the rest(probably especially the children) could get away; some of them appear to have escaped. which I guess is a small relief

frog lady stepping out of the shadows and into our hearts

I like that her firm nod after Peli translates ‘her husband has seen them’ lets us know she understands... basic? is that the common tongue thing in star wars there’s just so many to remember across fandoms lol? perfectly well, even if she can’t speak it.

- mando might be running low on ammo for the pulse rifle, if the fact that he hasn’t replaced the missing cartridge on his... bandolier belt thingy is any indication

ETA: actually ignore me this has been a thing since the literal first episode of the show my brain just had a hiccup lol

- so baby seems to use a little bit of the force to pull the eggs towards him -- I wonder how often he ‘taps into it’ or if it’s always ‘on’ in the background for him. if so I guess there’s no wonder he’s so hungry (but also... kid you can’t end this lady’s entire family line like that one cat who singlehandedly made extinct a whole species of bird! D:)

- din so rarely gets openly angry, he just gets passive aggressive and grumpy. and that’s probably not the healthiest way to deal with things but I love him

- frog lady reacts so strongly to when din sends the ping when nothing else woke her up, I wonder if she can hear more frequencies than a human

hello darkness my old frieeennnddd

proof nr 1508 that din does not starve this baby you guys, he even has his own little tray just the right size for him! as it happens the baby simply seems to prefer eating things that are... still alive in some capacity. which, uh. maybe they can invest in some form of non-sentient crickets or something for him to hunt down and.... oh dear

Look how they massacred my boy

By the way I finally managed to put into words why the Razor Crest -- and particularly the way it keeps getting beaten to hell and back and patched up again -- is so symbolically important and meaningful to me in this show in this post over here! it’s always a great relief to me when I can finally understand what the hell I’ve been going on about all this time and this was one of those lol

- honestly if it weren’t for frog lady and (more importantly) the baby I think there’s a slight chance din would’ve gone ‘well I had a good-ish run of it for a while there’ and just let the ice claim him haha

- “Why don’t you come over here and give me a hand. Make yourself useful” This is the one time in the episode I think he crosses the line into just being a dick for a moment (but noticeably the baby isn’t just a little hurt at this reaction, he’s clearly surprised and confused, which means this really does not happen often. after the time mando’s been having recently I guess a moment’s snappishness is understandable haha. he does follow up right after with being much more responsive and attentive when the baby toddles away from him, so it feels like it’s going to be okay)

also the ‘boo-ap’ sound is there again when he’s trying to get din’s attention. just sayin’

when din comes over to see the footprints baby makes a declarative little meep like ‘see??? I did tell you!’ haha

- it is very funny that mando is using all his technology meant to track down dangerous bounties in the grungy depths of the criminal underworld... to find a naked lady just chillin’ in a hot spring

cue the ‘father is evil?’ memes fsadfda. actually the funniest thing about this moment (apart from the fabulous finger acting) is that din actually snatches a few eggs out of the baby’s reach more subtly right before, and that baby only whines for ALL OF ONE SECOND before he goes to sniff around for other food possibilities fkadfhjkds. from my experience with human children he’s a lot less prone to tantrums. yodito doesn’t get mad, he gets even

- baby running towards din through the hatching spiderlings like ‘DAD I FUCKED UUUUUUP’, din’s little strangled ‘ngh’ sound as he picks the baby up and watches all the creepy crawlies come out... *chef kiss* impeccable

(that little ‘ngh’ and the soft shocked ‘ah ah AH!’s from when he goes flying at the beginning of the episode... pedro pascal and his voice work for this character gives me so much life. in some ways din has this sort of dignity and grace and in other ways he uh extremely doesn’t. he gets to be cool but also vulnerable in ways a lot of male main characters don’t and it’s probably why I love him so much)

btw here is that moment when din moves to hold the baby tightly against him with both hands as the big spider appears, because it gets me right in the heart... it such an instinctive thing of holding on to the dearest thing you’ve got before something bad is about to happen

fdsafhsdakjlfhsdkjlhfsdajhf oh my god the baby is clutching din’s finger with his little hand during the chase!!!! 😭😭😭

this FUCKING SHOW has just WEAPONIZED putting in small details everywhere to convey the love and tenderness and attachment felt by a little muppet doll even where only weirdos like me will frame by frame their way through the video to see it I am so MAD

- frog lady going ‘fuck this’ and bounding along is e v e r y t h i n g

- din is an amazing shot, though, he doesn’t seem to miss a single one in this whole scene (then again there’s something to shoot at basically everywhere one can take aim so lol)

baby hiding behind/half hugging din’s boot as he tries to get the doors closed hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I can’t breathhhhheeeee

honestly every single one of the baby’s proximity seeking behaviours in this ep has me on my knees

- it’s very unfair to play the heroic happy mando music like everything is going to be fine and then have a huge fuck-off spider drop down from the ceiling and break it off mid-tune, the mandalorian, you have trained me in certain ways and now do you betray me??? how can I trust again

- the camera work in the scene with the new republic guys gives such a good sense of the discomfort of being judged from on high by someone or something you can’t really see -- the glare of the lights blocking out everything in the shots from din’s pov makes it feel like a tense interrogation (the new republic dude who is actually dave filoni has such a look of fondness as he watches din tho it’s kind of sweet)

- ...oh no I think baby was actually considering munching on that dismembered spider leg YODITO NO JUST EAT YOUR KRAYT DRAGON BABY

- hngh this is a weird filler episode and it has my entire heart. I suspect we might get some episodes of a more stationary baby between active ones like this -- you can tell a little bit in this episode that especially having him running around fast is quite difficult to have look natural, they likely save that effort up for when it best serves the narrative

#star wars #the mandalorian #the mandalorian meta #the mandalorian spoilers #mmmm brain empty only dad and baby show in here #(actually that's not true there's some tf/graves activity going on at all times too haha)

81 notes · View notes

vickyvicarious · 4 years

Note

I've seen people suggest that Parker is asexual. I lean more towards demisexual. She has to be emotionally invested in someone to feel comfortable enough for sex. i think between the three she's the least experienced.

Okay, so my answer on stuff like this is almost invariably flexible. For many characters I have a favored interpretation but that doesn't usually keep me from reading/enjoying all sorts of possibilities (with very rare exceptions that I just can't see another way). I just generally enjoy multiple interpretations and don't usually feel locked in to one. So I personally can read Parker's attitude towards sex and romance a few different ways:

Demiromantic Parker - She has had sex and enjoyed it but never really had romantic connections or associations to it. You have sex when you feel horny, simple problem and solution there. Support for this would be the fairly easy way she goes to kissing Hardison (or insinuating more) when she needs a quick excuse for a con, and just in general her tactile approach to experiencing the world: she pokes stuff, tastes things, enjoys exhilarating death-defying stunts. I could see her casually (albeit fairly rarely) just going out and finding someone to hook up with, or taking care of things herself, whenever she feels the urge, nothing to make a fuss about. (It would be very matter of fact. "Hey, do you want to have sex with me?" level bluntness most likely.) On the flip side, emotional intimacy is very new to her and doesn't come easily, and romance in particular is completely new to her - and terrifying. The emotional intimacy of friendship would have already stopped her from scratching that itch with any of the team, but especially once she began feeling romantic interest in them. Dovetails into canon's slow development.

Demisexual Parker - Pretty much all of the above goes, just minus the having sex stuff! She is still totally new to romantic emotions, but while she may have tried it out once or twice out of curiosity, she never really felt sexual desire for anyone before either. These things are happening concurrently for the first time in her life and it is more than a little terrifying until she takes the time to adjust to it. Especially the feeling that she can't control what she wants or reacts to... It adds a new dimension to her uncertainty about being with Hardison at first, but he would help her feel comfortable enough by the time Eliot joins them that it's not much of a concern moving forward. She never really grasps the concept of people being attracted to strangers, much as she recognizes it's a thing that exists; she just doesn't get why it does.

Asexual Parker - She has never wanted sex and still doesn't. With as tactile as Parker generally is, I don't see her to be too sex-repulsed but it's more something she just... doesn't care about. She might have sex sometimes for her partners' sakes and she won't hate it but for her the fun is all in how much they are liking it and how intimate it is with them/how loved she feels. I could see her enjoying watching them have sex even if she didn't want to join in, and making comments/suggestions which are sometimes sincere or helpful and sometimes ridiculous and break the mood (or she sneaks up and tickles one or something).

One things that holds true in all my favored Parker interpretations is that she doesn't want sex all that often, it's true. I do think she would have less experience than the boys but how much less varies on the specific option.

And just for the heck of it, a bonus round for how I typically see the boys' sexuality, though as before I happily accept other interpretations too:

Hardison

Comfortable with his interest in both genders, but tends to lean slightly more towards female partners. He is attracted to people easily enough and has had several romances in the past. However for him, there's never really been anyone serious before the thiefsome. He likes to be open with his partners and likes people just as skilled as he, and has never had a relationship where he could be fully honest/feel on equal footing. Attracted to both Parker and Eliot initially, but fell romantically for Parker soon after; with Eliot it was a bit more of a gradual realization.

Eliot

Either has long since realized he likes men too, probably since his army days or early retrieval career, or is just realizing over the course of the show. Is attracted to women more often either way. He feels and expresses sexual interest easily (except maybe a bit less with men) and is comfortable with both one-night stands and casual dating, but has difficulty with any deep romantic interest. He cares about his partners regardless, but has trust issues and is perhaps some level of demiromantic, making it harder to feel real romantic interest in most cases - probably no one since Aimee. He is attracted to both Parker and Hardison initially (though depending on the interpretation only realizes this about Hardison later), but is professional enough not to show it or want to act on it at all. He soon loves them as friends and then tries to ignore how he is falling for them both for a long time, believing they are good together and that he should just be their friend and have his usual shallow relationships for whatever sexual relief or other companionship needs he wants to fill. Doesn't in any way make the first, second, or probably even third move to join the poly.

So, those are my thoughts on the matter! Basically despite other details I always tend to think Eliot has most sexual and serious romantic experience, Hardison has second-most but the most comfort with romance, and Parker the least of both.

#leverage #thiefsome #leverage meta #headcanon #anonymous #replies #this got a bit long my bad #but i am on mobile so i can't put in a cut #my meta #btw leverage anon i love your asks so much #headcanons

98 notes · View notes

msindrad · 4 years

Text

an insanely long crazy-ass post about the dollars trilogy, I’m so sorry y’all

I FOUND THIS POST. I DID IT. I FOUND IT. JESUS. I spent the entirety of my yesterday searching for it.

I’m going to tag everybody who participated in this discussion and whose posts I‘ve found while searching for this discussion on the off-chance that they still might be interested in, yeah, discussing these films.

@clinteastwood-blog @geekboots-blog @istadris @sybilius @bleak-nomads @thenotsobad-thebad-andtheugly @bloncos @mcicioni-blog @unrealthings @stephantom @colonelmortimer

Also, please feel free to ignore me and my analytical outburst if you don’t feel like talking about the films or talking about them with my crazy hyperfixated ass specifically, lol. I didn’t mean to be rude by calling you out of nowhere, it’s just that sometimes people get excited when there is an enthusiastic newbie in the fandom and gladly return to their beloved canons.

Anyway. The dollars trilogy.

I’ll start with The Good, the Band and the Ugly (and will probably make myself instantly unlikable by nitpicking things, (sigh)).

As stupid as it might sound – the film being an absolute masterpiece, a cultural milestone that is timeless, epic, work of genius, love it, will write and draw about it with pleasure etc. – I’m kind of inclined to find the GBU the weakest film in the trilogy storywise. Don’t get me wrong: the plot is interesting and strong, every scene is entertaining, smart, and instantly quotable… But.

There are a few things that make the story, taken holistically, weak to a degree, especially in contrast to the other two films. Now, let me explain my bold-ass claim.

The first reason I couldn’t even pinpoint for myself until my best friend asked me: yeah, it’s all cool and fun, but what has really changed at the end of the film? They stopped the battle/blew up the bridge (kudos for the pacifist message), they killed a few folks on the way including Angel Eyes, but what did the story amount to in the end? Was their relationship changed? Have they themselves learned something about life, universe and everything? Tuco is still on the rope, Blondie still shoots the rope. They both got their money, split it 50/50. Sure, now it’s an insane amount of money but will it make them reconsider their ways of life? I don’t know, and I don’t necessarily think so. They’re really back to square one. If you consider the graphic novel The Man With No Name canon, then (spoiler) Blondie gives his money away to help rebuild the monastery of Tuco’s brother, and Tuco himself doesn’t really invest his share in anything other than booze, and sex, and troubles, so. Then, Angel Eyes got killed off, but he had even less backstory/character arc than, for instance, Captain Clinton, not to mention that his image, as memorable as it was, kind of lacked certain complexity, so, does it really matter storywise (although he is a great, stylish character, but I hope that you get what I mean)? (Note: Angel Eyes should have been the film’s ultimate personification of the war (inhumanely ruthless, only interested in money, extremely goal-oriented etc.), which, the war, kind of is the main antagonist of the film if you think about it; but the way he was used in the plot, the way he acted, and was generally presented, communicated it only in a limited way, imo).

Everything about the adventure was fun, smart, entertaining, one of the best films ever made, I agree 100%, and I rewatched it with pleasure many times. But I believe that stories have to bring about some palpable change in their world in order for them to be successful and finished. The GBU, in my opinion, doesn’t do it because it doesn’t want to be a story-story, and it’s fine with just letting its characters exist in a magic Western/a cowboy fantasy/a fairy tale. And I guess it’s also one of the reasons why the story didn’t go anywhere from the GBU – there is nothing to add to a basis like that. And I can’t help noting that it’s super ironic that the only film in the trilogy that truly seems to be all about money-money-money has no “dollars” in its title.

Another thing that I think is super important: there is almost no female energy or presence in the film. And it’s not even a matter of representation that bugs me, although I think it’s very important. It just feels like there is a deficit of something vital that renders everything even sort of unrealistic. In AFOD we have Marisol and we have Consuelo Baxter, and they’re relevant for the plot, and they have goals, motivations… lines. In FAFDM we have Mary, who has only a few brief moments, but she’s memorable, endearing, and she has a small story/motivation of her own, and we also have Mortimer’s sister, who is EXTREMELY important, and who also isn’t just symbolic, she herself makes a plot-relevant decision on screen, although a really horrible one from my personal moral standpoint. In the GBU we have what? A prostitute that’s beaten up by Angel Eyes (I never watch this scene), another woman at the hotel where Blondie stays in that is shut up and called an old hag or something like it, and another woman that makes a comment about Tuco’s hanging. None of them are memorable or have motivations on their own, and to me it makes the film lacking some really important counterpoint in terms of dynamics etc.

And nobody needs me to describe all the things that the film is awesome at because everybody knows that the film is one of the best films ever made, so painfully gorgeous that it’s difficult to praise it. So, I’ll move on to the other two films but will briefly talk about Tuco and Eli Wallach.

Eli Wallach is considered one of the best actors ever to appear on film for reason, so, I’ll just say about my personal impressions from his performance: he really made me emphasize with Tuco. His acting is incredibly rich, nuanced, concentrated, and, imo, just leaves you no choice but to think of Tuco as a real complex human being, not a film character. And Tuco is a superb character. Over the course of the story he gets to be loathsome, humane, funny, silly, terrifying, and cunning, - often all those at the same time. That’s one hell of a captivating character who’s just very, very interesting to watch and to analyze, regardless whether you like him or not.

Then, we have A Fistful of Dollars. I’m a huge fan of classic adventure stories that are gen, plot-driven, and have smart main characters figuring out a way to get what they want without being destroyed by other characters for wanting or trying to get it in the first place. I think it’s very difficult and very rewarding to write a good story in this genre. AFOD is exactly this kind of story, and this kind of stories is only as good as their protagonists’ maneuvers are. And Joe is, like, a tactical genius (the barrel! the fire!). And it’s much better to rewatch the film to remind yourself of how smart he is than have me talking about it, so.

But apart from that he is also humanized by his deeply personal motivations that appear completely irrational especially in contrast to his clever manipulations of the Baxters and the Rojos. And he doesn’t do it egotistically, to “get the girl,” which wouldn’t make him particularly sympathetic one way or another. Sure, he makes a good buck at the end, but his primary motivation still is justice for Marisol and her family (and then protection of his friend). Additionally, Joe gets his fair share of punishment for providing said justice, which further humanizes him and kind of makes you worry about him. And Silvanito with his scolding, humor, and skepticism helps with it a lot, too.

And then, there is the fact that the film wants the audience to either want to be Joe or want to be with him, sometimes both at the same time. Everybody on screen is a single Joe’s wink away from swooning because how he practically oozes charisma (only Silvanito is immune to his charms). I can’t blame them, though.

And I also want to point out the last lines of the film: Joe says that he doesn’t want to get involved into politics because that would be too much for him, and I think that it’s very fitting. The film just showed how cool he is, but he knows his limits, and he knows that he operates on a different plane.

So, all in all, it’s a masterfully done story.

Finally, we have For a Few Dollars more. I love all three films, but FAFDM is my favorite, there’s no doubt about that. I’ll start with the fact that it’s perfectly structured and perfectly balanced. We have three big players, Mortimer, Manco, and Indio, and the film shows how dangerous and how smart each of them is, so that the conflict between them ends up being very, very suspenseful. Not to mention the fact that it takes Manco and Mortimer almost 40 minutes, I think, to finally properly meet – by that time we are already speculating who will be the winner in the end, how will they react to each other, how will they interact, how will they work together etc. We get to know them quite well first, and then their relationship allows us to explore their characters even deeper through their interactions, their differences, and their similarities. For some time, storywise they become a single unit. While the story of Indio’s assault on Mortimer’s sister is revealed parallel to the plot.

Indio himself is terrifying as hell without being cartoonish. He is a really dangerous, broken man that is also methodical, smart, and ruthless. He is so bad that he kills the opponent’s family just to make him bitter enough to draw on him. And he is so bad that he is okay with killing off his own gang.

Speaking of which, Indio’s gang is colorful. He has interesting interactions with them at the beginning, in that church. And Klaus Kinski made his Wild stand out to me. I swear, the moment he almost cries in that saloon when Mortimer takes away his cigar, I feel bad for him every single time. And when he recognized Mortimer, it was tense. He even had a cool witty one-liner after Mortimer said that he should come to him in ten minutes to help him light that match and smoke: “In ten minutes, you’ll be smoking in hell!”

By the way, Indio’s tendency to get unnecessarily physical with his gang looks even more unnerving when he touches Manco to check his wound/shares a smoke him with some clearly visible eroticized subtext, which gets even creepier when you realize that he is a rapist. I swear, I was worried about Mortimer when I saw the film for the second time – that is even though I knew the plot – because Manco brought up that family resemblance between Mortimer and his sister, and we all know what Indio did to her.

What else? I could bring up all sorts of things, the action, the final duel, the small smart details that allow the plot to happen the way it happens (e.g. how Manco manages to hide the bag with all the money on that tree before Indio’s gang capture him and Mortimer – only to re-collect that bag at the end of the film), the humor, the street kids and all the other cool-cool secondary characters (Joseph Egger’s informer probably is my favorite), the opening sequence and the title card (oops, already rambled about this one) really, anything and everything including the perfect chemistry between Manco and Mortimer.

But I’ll just say that the music in this film is special to me. Every single composition by Ennio Morricone is special, unique, memorable, and intriguing, it’s true, and so it feels redundant and banal to say something like this. The Ecstasy of Gold is almost extraterrestrial, the main theme of Two Mules For Sister Sara imitates actual mule sounds, how genius is that, etc., and you must be dead to not be enticed and mesmerized beyond words by the main theme of the GBU, which is a hymn of all spaghetti Westerns now, a universal call for adventure (I feel like a bad person saying this, but I’ve always wanted to joke that Ennio put sexy back into the “waah-waah”… no, I regret nothing).

BUT. To me personally, the music in FAFDM is as personal as the film itself, and dare I say even more important to the story than in the GBU, despite the theme of the GBU being a kind of Greek choir throughout the film. The personalized sounds for Manco and Mortimer accentuate their personalities to the point where they almost create a reflex in you. The pocket watch chime is literally part of the story and plays a huge, crucial role in the plot! And it’s decidedly one of the saddest musical scores I’ve ever heard. It’s minimalist, mournful, and yet also nostalgically bittersweet. It feels like a reminder that there’s no going back whatever that might mean in the actuality. And the famous moment where Manco asks Mortimer whether his question was indiscreet and Mortimer says that the answer could be… I feel personally touched whenever I watch the scene. For me, it doesn’t feel like just an amazing scene, it triggers some deep emotion that is hard to express and almost gives me the urge to cry. Something along the lines of respectful and compassionate “I’m sorry that it happened to you,” “I’m sorry that I can’t help you.” The feeling of personal tragedy is conveyed infinitely better than a three-volume backstory ever could.

And then, there is this huge potential for all the stories about Manco, and Mortimer, and Blondie, and Tuco, and Angel Eyes, and even Joe to explore... Well, I better stop here.

So, yeah. It turned out to be a crazy long post, and I‘m grateful to anybody who reads it till the end. And if you haven’t watched these movies please do. Cheers.

38 notes · View notes

justasmallbloginabigklainefandom · 4 years

Text

Final paper

Representation of queer women in the television show Glee

For Naya Rivera

Introduction

Representation of queer people has gotten better in the last few years, in both quantitative and qualitative ways. Yet, there is often still a discrepancy between the representation of queer women and the experiences actual queer women. It still happens that queer women are overly sexualised, lack depth or that they are marketed towards men as fanservice through the usage of the male gaze (Smith, 2018). The main reason for all of this is that queer women in mainstream media are often created by men.

According to Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary (n.d.), queer is defined as “of, relating to, or being a person whose sexual orientation is not heterosexual and/or whose gender identity is not cisgender”, but in this paper, we will only focus on portrayal of female sexuality of queer women. For this paper, I will look at the agency of queer female characters in the television show Glee. With agency I am referring to the subject being able to act in a certain narrative (McAdams & McLean, 2013). I will try to figure out how the audience reacts towards the portrayal of queer women in Glee.

There are two reasons why I chose the television show Glee. First, despite its many flaws, it is my favourite show. Second, Glee has always been a frontrunner when it comes with queer representation. Glee has a total of 23 canon queer characters (Glee Wiki, n.d.). Three of them are women in the main cast: Santana Lopez (lesbian), Brittany Pierce (bisexual) and Unique Adams (transgender). As stated above, we’re only looking at the sexuality aspect, so Unique will be left out of the analysis. Through a close reading of the series’ portrayal of its characters, I ask this question: “How does Glee allow an enjoyable queer viewing experience?”

Theoretical background

The representation of sexuality has become more prominent in television in the last few years (Kidd, 2014; GLAAD 2005/2020), but it is still portrayed in a heteronormative way to show that heterosexuality is the norm (Avila-Saavedra, 2009). Since women are also still underrepresented and often badly represented, it is interesting to look at queer women in general (DeCeuninck & Dhoest, 2016).

Queer women are often represented in function of male fantasies and they are often sexualized and can normally be described as conventionally attractive (DeCeuninck & Dhoest, 2016). This is due to the male gaze. Mulvey (1989) describes the male gaze as an act of depicting women and the world heterosexual view that presents and represents women as sexual objects for the pleasure of the male viewer. Mulvey writes that the women displayed have two roles: one as an erotic object within the story and one as an erotic object for the audience. There’s a third component that places women as an erotic object for the men behind the camera.

But Mulvey writes from a heterosexual perspective and that does not always capture the experiences of queer viewers (Gokcem, 2012). It is argued that the “gay gaze” (man to man or woman to woman) is more about understanding that there’s a homosexual act on screen and acknowledging that act (Snider, 2008; Gokcem, 2012). It’s less about the sex appeal or objectification of the characters. Evans & Gamman (1995) even claim that there’s no such thing as a “lesbian gaze” when it comes to good lesbian representation, but that it’s more about lesbian imagery that is created by lesbian filmmakers for lesbian consumption. To them, subcultural codes are the reason that even objectifying imagery of women is still different than the ones in the male gaze.

Subcultural styles can be seen as coded transposed into the specific context of youth (Murdock & McCron, 1976). Murdock & McCron speak about class differences, but this view of subculture can also be applied to the queer community. Huq (2006) says that the term subculture carries implications of the oppositional and unofficial. Both writings speak about youth, and not all queer people are young, but when it comes to media, youth can find solace in specific subcultural media.

Within media, agency is important. Agency can be defined as the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices (Barker, 2012). In narrative theory, this means the degree in which a protagonist is able to affect change in their own lives or influence others in their environment (McAdams & McLean, 2013).

Glee’s background

When it comes to the quantity of representation, Glee has always been a frontrunner (Marwick, Gray, & Ananny, 2014). It has shown a wide variety of serious topics in the show. Glee has characters of different ethnicities, gender identities, sexualities and economic classes. Glee also has characters in a wheelchair, it has characters with down syndrome, and it has characters with mental health problems.

Unfortunately, the quality aspect of representation in Glee is less than ideal. There is racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, and a strive to be well-abled and neurotypical. I am not talking about what happens within the show (as in, characters facing hatred from other characters), but by the way the show is written by its creators. Artie, the character in a wheelchair, constantly wishes that he could walk and he’s seen dancing in several dream sequences[1]. Queer characters could only kiss in “special episodes”, while their straight friends could make out anytime and everywhere[2]. A male character speaking out for himself is portrayed as heroic, strong and inspirational, while a female character speaking out for herself is portrayed as annoying, complaining and bossy[3]. Glee also portrayed heteronormativity by presenting its queer characters mostly as suffering while aspiring to fit in a heteronormative worldview, but also as happy and self-confident (Dhaenens, 2013).

An explanation for these underlying microaggressions can be ascribed to the fact that most people on the creative team of Glee were straight white men and when a woman did write a script, produce or direct, they were always working together with straight white men. Same goes for people of colour working in the Glee crew. They also had less episodes to work on (IMDb, n.d.). As a result, Glee often reflects a male heteronormative worldview.

Methodology

For this paper, I will take a closer look at Glee and its queer female characters. I will describe the three queer female characters and I will give some background. While describing the stories, I will look at how much the characters were allowed to exist with agency. Apart from that, I will also talk about certain fan reception towards storylines about the sexuality of these women and how they were allowed to express their sexualities.

I do have to point out that a lot of discussion is from archival material, since these storylines all happened in 2012 and 2013. I have spent time tracking down old blog posts and articles written by fans, but many have been lost due to domain changes or due to the deactivation/changes of blogs. I am aware that it is a huge methodological fault to purely rely on my memories, but Glee has ended years ago and people who once actively participated in discussions surrounding these characters have moved on. The posts that I have found were either difficult to find or they’re recent and written after the show. Not all posts are in-depth analyses. Sometimes they’re memes, but they still express the opinions of fans.

Analysis of Glee

I will split this section in 3 parts. Each part is about a certain character.

Santana Lopez

Santana Lopez got introduced in season 1 episode 1 “Pilot” as a background character. During the first season, she was portrayed as a girl who had sex with every guy in school and she actively sought out this sexual attention. In season 2, things started to change for Santana when it comes to her sexuality. In season 2 episode 4 “Duets”, Brittany and Santana are seen making out for the first time. At first, it wasn’t supposed to be a real storyline, but Naya Rivera, who played Santana, advocated for this relationship to become real and not a throw-away thing (NayaMitchell, 2011).

This changed Santana’s character from a heterosexual man-hunter to a deeply closeted lesbian. Her relationships with men became a way for her to hide her sexuality and Santana had to deal with a lot of internalised homophobia. This followed her all throughout season 2. This change was seen as abrupt by certain people and as a result, some people felt like they couldn’t get emotionally invested in the relationship. Others were happy to see female sexuality become a topic, since beforehand, Glee mostly focused on male sexuality (Marwick, Gray, & Ananny, 2014).

Season 3 showed Santana’s sexuality developing. In season 3 episode 4 “Pot O’ Gold”, Brittany and Santana decided to date, but Santana wanted to hide the relationship. Unfortunately for her, she got outed by Finn Hudson in season 3 episode 6 “Mash-Off”. The episode afterwards, “I Kissed A Girl”, dealt with the repercussions of the outing, but this episode was heavily scrutinised by fans and critics and even after the show ended, fans discussed how badly it was done (see Appendix for screenshots).

The episode tried to make Finn look like a hero by outing her and Santana even thanked him for it. Santana also sung the Katy Perry song I Kissed A Girl, which is a song that treats women kissing other women as a joke and a party activity for drunk straight women. Santana sung that song with a straight character named Rachel Berry, who appropriately sings the lyrics “I hope my boyfriend won’t mind it!”. Brittany barely spoke in this episode and Santana’s coming out to her parents got brushed off easily as something irrelevant that happened off-screen. A scene of Santana standing up for herself towards the other cheerleaders got cut and was only released after the end of the season (MrRPMurphyExclusive, 2012). Overall, Santana became a background character in her own coming out story, so that the narrative could focus on the straight boy who outed her (lesbianstana, 2018).

There is only one scene in the entire episode that focused on Santana, which is the heart wrenching scene where she comes out to her Abuelita. This scene is the only one where Santana gets to express her emotions to what has happened to her and this part is often regarded by fans as the only good part of the episode. There is a big reason why this scene stands out: it is written by a queer woman named Ali Adler, whereas the rest of the episode was written by a man named Michael Hodgson. Ali has written more media about queer women and she puts the narrative on them and their story. This scene focuses on Santana expressing and overcoming her struggles and not on Finn being the hero.

After this episode, Santana completely embraced her identity. For the remainder of the show, Santana was open about being a lesbian and she had relations with four other women and she ends up with Brittany. Santana’s confidence has helped a lot of young women feel comfortable with themselves, since it showed them that there is nothing wrong with liking other women. Her relationship with Brittany gave people hope (Marwick, Gray, & Ananny, 2014). This is especially true for women of colour, since not only did Glee show a confident lesbian, but also a confident lesbian of colour. Naya Rivera was aware of how Santana’s journey has impacted people and she said that she’s very proud of it (NayaMitchell, 2011).

Brittany S. Pierce

Brittany got introduced in season 1 episode 2 “Showmance” as a background character. She is also the dumb blonde with a lot of funny one-liners. Brittany is bisexual, but as a viewer, you never see or hear anything about her discovering her sexuality and coming out. She is the only of the 4 main queer character who does not have a storyline about sexuality and the struggles of coming out. Just like Santana, Brittany’s portrayed was very sexual in season 1, but she also mentions attraction towards women easily. This can be interpreted as a portrayal of a woman who’s very accepting of her own bisexuality, but it can also be interpreted as a thrown-away joke. It looks like Brittany’s comments about women are there to spark laughter.

In season 2, her attractions towards Artie, a boy, and Santana, a girl, becomes more fleshed out. In season 2 episode 18 “Born This Way”, she says that she thinks that she might be “bi-curious”. The word “bisexual” was barely used in the show and when it did, it was done in a very negative way[4]. Brittany referred to herself as “bi-curious” “a bicorn” (instead of a unicorn) and “bilingual” (not knowing what it actually meant)[5]. There is never a big revelation. The other characters in the show just know at one point that Brittany is bisexual.

After Brittany and Santana break up in season 4 episode 4 “The Break-Up”, Brittany falls in love with a boy named Sam. This relationship was not very well-received by Brittana (Brittany and Santana) fans and it felt like they were made fun of in season 4 episode 9 “Swan Song”, when Brittany talks to Sam that she does not want to date him to prevent a group of angry lesbian bloggers to hate Sam and turn violent. This felt very invalidating towards the feelings of queer women who found strength in the Brittana relationship (see Appendix for screenshots).

This relationship led to some debate within the fan community about Glee’s representation of bisexuality. Another problem of the Bram (Brittany and Sam) vs. Brittana debate was the fact that Brittany was suddenly allowed to express her attraction towards Sam way more than to Santana. The Glee Equality Project (2012) made a chart of how Brittany was allowed to kiss boys within the first episode of dating them, or even before dating them, but Brittany and Santana only kissed after 9 episodes of dating and after a fan campaign advocated for a kiss. Glee showed a big double standard in Brittany’s bisexuality and this led to anger (see Appendix for screenshots).

As written above, Brittany and Santana end up together in the end. Even though Brittany was not seen struggling, it was meaningful to have a happy ending for her. Heather Morris, who played Brittany, talked about the impact after the show’s end and how the Brittana relationship eventually helped people (FlyingHippopotamiSpy, 2015). Just like with Santana, watching Brittany be confident and comfortable helped young women realise that there’s nothing wrong with liking girls, or liking girls and boys. Brittany’s happiness showed that her sexuality did not prevent her from having a happy ending, which impacted viewers.

Bonus: Quinn Fabray

Quinn Fabray was introduced in season 1 episode 1 “Pilot” as a main character. Quinn is straight. Fans disagreed. Many people noticed that there was chemistry between Quinn and Rachel and people started liking them as a couple. Faberry (Quinn and Rachel) was one of the most popular couples in the show even though the characters were straight in the text of the show. That is due to the fan reception and fan work surrounding Faberry. As of July 2020, Faberry is still the 3rd most popular couple on the fansite AO3 (Shipping, n.d.). Fans often advocated for the characters to at least not be straight and Dianna Agron famously said: “Quinn could always go gay” (breakmelove, 2011).

During the show, there were little scenes[6] and pieces of dialogue[7] that indicated to Quinn not being straight, so that is why people latched more onto Quinn and not onto Rachel. That is why I’m only writing about Quinn in this paper. People believed that Quinn was heavily queer-coded. Queer-coding is “to be implicated as having or displaying stereotypes and behaviours that are associated (even if inaccurate) with homosexuality or queerness” (Kim, 2007, p. 157). It is often seen in a negative light, but more recently, queer-coding is also used to find positive subcultural codes in a text. That is what happened with Quinn.

In season 4 episode 14 “I Do”, Quinn gets drunk with Santana and the two of them have sex. When this got announced, fans were interested, since it seemed like they were finally going to acknowledge fans’ interpretation of Quinn. Yet, in the episode, it became clear that Quinn sleeping with Santana wasn’t out of attraction towards women, but more for experimentation. This led to disappointment and it also happens a lot that relationships between women are portrayed as not serious. This “heteroflexible” depiction makes women loving other women seem ‘bad’ and ‘guilty’ and ‘naughty’, basically like it’s a sneaky party trick to put more focus on the hot lesbian outcome (Jackson, & Gilbertson, 2009).

People also felt betrayed by the show. They felt like they’d been queerbaited, since the support for Quinn not being straight was already very apparent by this time. Queerbaiting is “a tactic whereby media producers suggest homoerotic subtext between characters in popular television that is never intended to be actualised on screen” (Brennan, 2018, p. 189). This has a negative connotation, since it feels like people are being lured in by false promises. Despite the negativity, there was also some positive news from women who liked to see it and found it enticing (Hogan, 2013) and still saw it as a sign that Quinn is not straight, despite her saying that this was just a one-time experiment. To this day, people still don’t believe that Quinn is straight (see Appendix for screenshots).

Discussion and conclusion

To answer the question “How does Glee allow an enjoyable queer viewing experience?”, I looked at the show and fan reception. The answer is that Glee allowed an enjoyable queer viewing experience when the characters had agency and happiness. The happiness led to a feeling of acceptance and belongingness for the viewers.

The stories surrounding the queer women in Glee have ups and downs. The flaws in the representation can be attributed to the fact that queer women weren’t a prominent part of the Glee crew. Yet, both Brittany and Santana have a happy ending: they’re alive, in love, and married. Fans seemed to enjoy the storylines when the characters have agency. When that agency gets removed (Santana’s outing not being about her, Brittany not being able to express her bisexuality without double standards), the storylines are not as well-received, since fans want to see the characters succeeding within the context and narrative of the show. Fans actively root for their happiness.

An interesting finding is that not many fans reacted towards the fact that Brittana consists of two hot femme cheerleaders. This wasn’t expected, since a lot of writing on bad representation revolves around the focus on the male gaze. This unexpected finding can be due to the fact that the relationship was treated fairly and not as a joke. Brittana did start out as two hot girls making out for fun, but it grew into a developed relationship. Another explanation might be in the faulty methodology: maybe I just never saw existing criticism and I didn’t have the time to ask people about it.

The representation of these characters have helped people and they also found a community, so the idea that subcultural media is correct. After all, fan’s interpretation of Quinn can show that subcultural codes are seen in media. Finding those codes also impact queer viewing of Glee. Even though it wasn’t always perfect, the characters have had a positive impact on representation for queer women. Especially for young people, Brittany and Santana were some of the first representation of teen female characters on mainstream television.

Afterword: in memory of Naya Rivera

This is not part of the paper, so you do not have to grade this and I don’t see it as part of the word count. This is just information that I think is important to share. Naya Rivera, the actress who played Santana, died on July 8th 2020 in Lake Piru in California. She was 33 years old. She drowned while saving her son’s life and her body was found on July 13th 2020. I am very sad about this news and I found it kind of hard to write this paper afterwards. I don’t believe in the afterlife or the whole “this person is looking down on you” stuff, but this was written in her memory and I hope I made her proud with this paper about her influence.

Even though it has been five years since Glee ended, many fans are very shocked and upset by this news. People, including celebrities who grew up with Glee, have shared stories of how much Santana meant to them and how Naya’s portrayal made them feel okay with themselves. Loads of (former) fans have expressed how much Santana’s portrayal has helped them with acceptance. Santana was not a perfect character, but she was a milestone for representation. Naya was not a perfect person, but she will forever be remembered for how much her sheer determination to handle Santana’s storyline respectfully has helped young women everywhere.

Naya Marie Rivera

* January 12th 1987 - † July 8th 2020

Cause I feel that when I'm with you It's all right I know it's right

~ Songbird Glee version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJUgLEtA-74

Bibliography

Avila-Saavedra, G. (2009). Nothing queer about queer television: televised construction of gaymasculinities. Media, Culture & Society, 31 (1), 5-21. doi:10.1177/0163443708098243

Barker, C. (2012). Cultural studies: Theory and practice (4th ed.). London: SAGE

breakmelove (2011, October 9). Dianna Agron Always Go Gay Same as Quinn Fabrey [video]. YouTube, Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bTmdLfpjvo

Brennan, J. (2018). Queerbaiting: The ‘playful’ possibilities of homoeroticism. International journal of cultural studies, 21(2), 189-206. doi:10.1177/1367877916631050

DeCeuninck, A., & Dhoest, A. (2016). I’m feeling some sapphic vibes comin’ off of you. Tijdschrift voor Genderstudies, 19(1), 7-27. doi:10.5117/TVGN2017.1.CE

Dhaenens, F. (2013). Teenage queerness: Negotiating heteronormativity in the representation of gay teenagers in Glee. Journal of Youth Studies, 16(3), 304-317. doi:10.1080/13676261.2012.718435

Evans, C., & Gamman, L. (1995). The gaze revisited, or reviewing queer viewing. In P. Burston & C. Richardson (Eds.), A queer romance: Lesbians, gay men and popular culture, (p. 13-56). London and New York: Routledge

FlyingHippopotamiSpy (2015, March 25). PaleyFest2015 Glee Panel--The Glee cast discusses Klaine and Brittana [video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3ZxY2RT_YY

GLAAD (2005/2020). Where we are on TV. Retrieved from https://www.glaad.org/whereweareontv19

Glee Wiki (n.d.). LGBT characters. Retrieved from https://glee.fandom.com/wiki/Category:LGBT_Characters

Gokcem, S. (2012). Transperance me I want to be visible: Gay gaze in Tom Ford’s film A single man. Cinej Cinema Journal, 1(2), 86-91. doi:10.5195/cinej.2012.46

Hogan, H. (2013). Is “Glee” going there with Quinn and Santana? Retrieved from https://www.afterellen.com/tv/105301-is-glee-going-there-with-quinn-and-santana

Huq, R. (2006) Beyond subcutlure: Pop, youth and identity in a postcolonial world. New York: Routledge

IMDb (n.d.). Glee: Full cast and crew. Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1327801/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ql_1

Jackson, S., & Gilbertson, T. (2009). `Hot lesbians': young people's talk about representations of lesbianism. Sexualities, 12(2), 199–224. doi:10.1177/1363460708100919

Kidd, D. (2014). Not that there’s anything wrong with that: Sexuality perspectives. In D. Kidd, (Eds.), Pop culture freaks: Identity, mass media, and society (pp. 142 – 177). New York: Routledge

Kim, K. (2007). Queer-coded villains (And why you should care). In T. Budd & L. Dexheimer, (Eds.), Dialogues@RU, (p. 156-165). USA.

lesbiansantana (2018, May 23). Anonymous asked: Can you break down all the problems with I Kissed a Girl? I'm genuinely curious. [Tumblr post]. Retrieved from https://lesbiansantana.tumblr.com/post/174189446619/can-you-break-down-all-the-problems-with-i-kissed

Marwick, A., Gray, M. L., & Ananny, M. (2014). “Dolphins are just gay sharks”: Glee and the queer case of transmedia as text and object. Television & New Media, 15(7), 627–647. doi:10.1177/1527476413478493

McAdams, D. P., & McLean, K. C. (2013). Narrative Identity. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(3), 233–238. doi:10.1177/0963721413475622

MrRPMurphyExclusive (2012, August 12). The Santana “Coming Out Scene” [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpjZZx5F8JI

Mulvey, L. (1989). Visual pleasure and narrative cinema. In L. Muvley (Eds.), Visual and other pleasures (pp. 14-26). London: Palgrave Macmillan

Murdock, G. & McCron, R. (1976) 'Consciousness of class and consciousness of generation'. In S. Hall & T. Jefferson (Eds.), Resistance through rituals: Youth subcultures in post-war Britain. London: HarperCollins.

NayaMitchell (2011). Naya Rivera Talks Lesbian Storyline, Fans, Guest Stars, Graduation on Glee [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGRPTMKZa90

Queer (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/queer

Shipping Wiki (n.d.). Glee. Retrieved from https://shipping.fandom.com/wiki/Glee

Smith, A. (2018, August 10). 'Oral sex – and no scissoring!' How the lesbian gaze changed cinema. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/aug/10/oral-sex-and-no-scissoring-how-the-lesbian-gaze-changed-cinema

Snider, C. (2008). Queer persona and the gay gaze in Brokeback Mountain: Story and film. Psychological Perspectives, 51(1), 54-69. doi:10.1080/00332920802031888

The Glee Equality Project (2012, December 6). Reaction post 409 “Swan Song” [Tumblr post]. Retrieved from https://glee-equality-project.tumblr.com/post/37381267319/reaction-post-409-swan-song-in-this-episode

Appendix

Santana’s outing

keepholdingontoachele (2011). Just noticed the “Here’s what you missed on Glee” voiceover saying that. [Tumblr post]. Retrieved from https://keepholdingontoachele.tumblr.com/post/13547911507/just-noticed-the-heres-what-you-missed-on-glee

justanarchiveinabigklainefandom (2011). Santana coming out. [Tumblr post]. Retrieved from https://justanarchiveinabigklainefandom.tumblr.com/post/13783395882/nayasexual-tenacitysuperbrains-it-wasnt-a

thelesbianladydi (2017, May 28). It has been 2008 days since…. [Tumblr post]. Retrieved from https://thelesbianladydi.tumblr.com/post/161161858089/it-has-been-2008-days-since-santana-lopez-was

(see link for the full 9 reasons that led to this summary)

Brittany’s bisexuality

proudlyunicorn (2012, December 6). Brittany and Bisexual Representation: A Gleenalysis. [Tumblr post]. Retrieved from https://proudlyunicorn.tumblr.com/post/37353682285/brittany-and-bisexual-representation-a

glowinthedarkparades (2012, December 6). Can someone please explain…. [Tumblr post]. Retrieved from https://glowinthedarkparades.tumblr.com/post/37318713323/hummelsmytheanderson-can-someone-please

glowinthedarkparades (2012, December 5). Why is the Brittana fandom going apeshit? What’s happened? [Tumblr post]. Retrieved from https://glowinthedarkparades.tumblr.com/post/37292738950/why-is-the-brittana-fandom-going-apeshit-whats

iheartbrittana (2012). “… All the dreams …. [Tumblr post]. Retrieved from https://iheartbrittana.tumblr.com/post/37241910228/all-the-dreams-we-had-for-brittana-as-a-couple

gleerant (2012). Bram, Brittana, and issues of visibility. [Tumblr post]. Retrieved from https://gleerant.tumblr.com/post/36943266496/bram-brittana-and-issues-of-visibility

(full post is too long to screenshot)

Quinn’s queercoding/queerbaiting

diannaaagron (2020, July 5). The world if glee writers made quinn fabray a lesbian. [meme]. Retrieved from https://diannaaagron.tumblr.com/post/622846421520023552

blaineanderdumbass (2020, June 9). Can you believe quinn…. [Tumblr post]. Retrieved from https://blaineanderdumbass.tumblr.com/post/620457887277498368/can-u-believe-quinn-was-meant-to-be-str-i

justasmallbloginabigklainefandom (2020). Me, in 2020: …. [Tumblr post]. Retrieved from https://justasmallbloginabigklainefandom.tumblr.com/post/617643961118507008/me-in-2020-anyway-lucy-quinn-fabray-was-not

justasmallbloginabigklainefandom (2020). Quinn fabray: *exists* …. [Tumblr post]. Retrieved from https://justasmallbloginabigklainefandom.tumblr.com/post/617643867261550592/quinn-fabray-exists-me-there-is-no

inimitabler (2018, Feb 3). You know what bothers me the most about faberry?. [Tumblr post]. Retrieved from https://inimitabler.tumblr.com/post/170475507292/you-know-what-bothers-me-the-most-about-faberry

diannaagrn (2020). #it’s her she’s gay. [Tumblr photoset]. Retrieved from https://diannaagrn.tumblr.com/post/614675450454736896/its-her-shes-gay

Footnotes

[1] 1x19 “Dream On”; 2x10 “A Very Glee Christmas”; 3x11 “Michael”, 4x10 “Glee, Actually”; 6x06 “What The World Needs Now”. Kevin McHale, the actor who plays Artie, is abled and a trained dancer. The role for Artie was not written as a wheelchair using character.

[2] 2x16 “Original Song”; 3x05 “The First Time”; 3x13 “Heart”

[3] Too many episodes to source.

[4] 2x14 “Blame It On The Alcohol”; 5x02 “Tina In The Sky With Diamonds”

[5] 2x18 “Born This Way”; 3x02 “I Am Unicorn”; 3x12 “The Spanish Teacher”

[6] 1x15 “The Power of Madonna”, 3x14 “On My Way”, 3x15 “Big Brother”

[7] 3x13 “Heart”, 3x14 “On My Way”

#lb 2020 #lb uni #yea man it is the whole thing

26 notes · View notes

things2mustdo · 3 years

Link

It is often said that chivalry is dead, but why is that so and who is mourning? A recent article lamenting the rarity of the gentleman within the millennial male populace would seem to provide something of an answer to that question. The author of the piece, Hope Rodriguez, contends that millennial men are severely lacking in gentlemanly traits, and explains to us why they should “man up” and correct these errors.

1. Elevator etiquette I don’t care how big of a hurry you’re in, or how slow she may walk, if there is a female or five on the elevator with you, you hold your arm in the door and let them off first.

2. R-E-S-P-E-C-T (sing it to the tune of Aretha Franklin) If a female walks past you, for God’s sake, do not turn your head and stare at her behind. If she is talking to you, don’t stare down her shirt. If you’re driving down the road, don’t honk or yell “hey sexy!!!!” Gross. Undressing a girl with your eyes is one of the most disgusting and degrading things you could possibly do to her. Don’t worry about getting a date, you’ve already ruined it by being a pig.

3. Give up your seat. Whether she is old, young, pregnant, active, fat, skinny, whatever; if the bus, classroom, etc. is full, get up from your chair and offer your seat to a female who is standing. If you chose to stay in your seat and force ladies to remain standing, make sure you remember to take off your maxi pad on the way out. (oops, did I just say that?!)

4. Pay attention to the fact that the world is more threatening for females We are automatic targets everywhere we go, especially at night. I don’t need to get into the subject of rape. Walk your female coworkers to their cars at night. Just watch out for the women around you, they’ll definitely appreciate it.

5. Be polite. Compliment a lady today. They aren’t going to automatically assume that you want to have babies with them just because you said they look nice today. You would be surprised by what can make a woman smile. Little things, men. Little things.

6. Hold the door. If we are pretty far behind, we don’t expect you to hold the door open for us. It makes us feel like we need to hurry to the door. However, if there is a woman walking behind you or relatively close behind you, do NOT let a door shut on her.

7. Driveway etiquette My son will know that he will NOT drive up to a female’s house and honk the horn or shoot her a text that says “I’m here, come get in the car.” If a guy comes to pick my future daughter up for a date, and he honks the horn or texts her to pick her up, I’m going to walk outside and tell him to go home. Walk up to the door, knock on the door, and then walk her to your car. At the end of the night, walk her back to her door. I don’t care if you’re just friends or you’re married. It’s what you’re supposed to do.

Guys: man up. Bring back gentlemanly behaviors. It would definitely be appreciated.

Unfortunately for this author, her requests are simply incompatible with the notions of gender equality that our society has embraced wholeheartedly and integrated aggressively into its legal and social order.

For example, the modern man on an elevator with women has been raised and conditioned to respect those women as his equals. Equals do not receive special consideration over other equals on the basis of gender or any other marker. Equals are treated… equally. Providing the benefit of this etiquette to women simply because they are women would fundamentally contradict notions of equality that we’re heavily invested in as a society. A man who truly believes in equality and all of the values that it represents is going to practice that elevator etiquette with everyone he meets regardless of gender. He will be polite to everyone. He will respect everyone. He will practice driveway etiquette with everyone, and he will hold the door or give up a seat for anyone who actually needs it. He will not engage in these behaviors selectively on the basis of gender because he has been taught not to discriminate in that way.

A few of Ms. Rodriguez’s other statements betray outright ignorance, naiveté or both. Take these, for example:

…Walk your female coworkers to their cars at night…

… Compliment a lady today. They aren’t going to automatically assume that you want to have babies with them just because you said they look nice today…

The first statement sounds like an excellent way to invite a sexual harassment suit or attract potential discipline for violations of workplace conduct. Your typical corporate millennial females are unlikely to tolerate this unsolicited “escort” on the part of their male coworkers, much less appreciate it. Unless they have already been deemed attractive by these females (most men won’t be in this category), the men attempting to provide this escort will be labeled “creepy” at best, and accused of stalking at worst. No good can come of this.

The second just sounds naive: any man who has interacted with modern millennial females for any period of time will understand that many of them will jump to precisely that conclusion, and will also sometimes react negatively upon doing so. Hope Rodriguez is not a man and so could possibly be forgiven for not understanding these things at the outset, but she needs to change that if she hopes to have any advice she writes for men taken seriously.

That brings me to my next point: Ms. Rodriguez seems not to grasp the true nature of the chivalrous ideals she yearns for or the environment in which she currently lives. The concept of chivalry required men to be perfect gentlemen in their conduct, but said behavior was not intended for every female they met. It was more specifically designed to govern male conduct with ladies. Chivalrous codes of conduct required a gentleman to execute them, and a lady to receive them..

Ladies had their own rules to follow, and it was only through the adherence to those rules that they could qualify for the receipt of chivalry from a gentleman. Chivalric codes of conduct traveled on a two way street: the gentleman cannot exist without the lady, and vice-versa. Both genders were required to adhere to certain standards in order to engage in the chivalric exchange. The gentleman and the lady are like the yin and the yang.

Ms. Rodriguez is probably right to note that an ideal chivalrous gentleman would be more measured and restrained in his observation of an attractive female that he had not yet been acquainted with. He probably wouldn’t be too forward with her to begin with, and would remain exceedingly polite during his first interactions with her while avoiding overt sexualization.

In order to get that treatment, however, a woman would need to be the ideal lady. Ladies in the age of chivalry were modest in their conduct. They were not particularly sexually suggestive in their speech, dress or dance, and this made it relatively easy for a gentleman to approach and engage them in a more polite, less overtly sexual manner.

Most modern millennial women do not adhere to the codes of conduct inherent to the lady. Their dress is often highly sexually suggestive, designed to invite overtly sexual approaches and draw the very suggestive gazes that Ms. Rodriguez scolds millennial men for wielding. Their dance is often even more sexually suggestive, roughly approximating the act of intercourse itself.

Modern millenial females express their sexuality more openly and freely than any lady of a bygone age would have been expected to. A lady expecting to keep that label and thus benefit from the chivalrous conduct of a gentleman could not engage freely and openly in casual sexual relationships with multiple men while unmarried. She could not engage in simulated sex on dance floors with men she didn’t even know well (or even men she did know somewhat well). She could not walk around in clothing designed specifically to expose and draw attention to the more sexually alluring portions of her body. The modern woman can do all of this, however, and very often does. Why?

Because she wants to, and that’s alright. Women have spent generations fighting for the ability to remove social limitations on their sexuality, and they now enjoy the fruits of that effort. Don’t get anything twisted here: I have no problem with this and neither do most millennial men. Women are free to dress as they like, dance as they like and fuck as they like. I’m certainly not going to stop them, but there’s a price to pay for all of this.

As noted before, the gentleman and the lady come together. One cannot exist without the other—the code of chivalry was designed with this understanding in mind, and it dealt with that understanding by creating standards of conduct for each gender seeking to participate in the chivalric exchange. When we freed women from the obligation to adhere to those standards of conduct, we necessarily freed men as well.

How can we change this and bring back the missing gentleman Ms. Rodriguez so desperately desires to interact with? Well, gentlemen require ladies. If you want more gentlemen in the traditional sense, you’ll need to create more ladies in the traditional sense, and that would require a re-imposition of the same social and legal restrictions on female sexuality and expression that women have fought so hard to eliminate during the last few generations. There would need to be a rescission of the legal progress females in our society have made toward true equality.

To further illustrate just why this is, consider the way in Ms. Rodriguez’s suggestion that men give up seats and hold doors (among other preferential and somewhat deferential things) specifically for women solely because they are women. Such behavior was once common, but why was this?

Because women were seen as the weaker sex. This notion of the inherently “weak” female governed the discriminatory legal and social landscape in which the code of chivalry was born and practiced. Men did all they did for women because of the implicit understanding in society that women, by virtue of their being women, were not equal to them. They were weaker and needed assistance and men, by virtue of their being men, were stronger and therefore obligated to provide that assistance.

Men are no longer behaving this way because they have been raised to understand that their female counterparts are not weak, but strong. They’re not dependent, but independent. They’re not inferiors, they’re equals. Our modern legal system takes these statements as fundamental, unassailable truths and uses the force of law to ensure that they are treated accordingly. This will, in turn, prevent men from doing many of the things Ms. Rodriguez would like them to, as they have become increasingly unable to see women as their true inferiors.

If Ms. Rodriguez wants the chivalric code to make its way back into the mainstream, she’ll need to bring back the old view on gender relations that gave rise to it. Modern notions of gender equality will need to go out the window.

That is unlikely to happen, however. For all of her yearning for the “chivalry” of yesteryear, I doubt that Hope Rodriguez or any other modern woman would like to see the return of the social mores necessary to sustain it. Millennial women live in what is undoubtedly the best time to be a female in the history of humanity. At no point in human history have women been as wealthy, as free, as respected and as influential as they are today. The return of te social norms necessary to sustain chivalry in the traditional sense could only inhibit their enjoyment of all that, and they know it. Women have made their voices heard loudly and clearly: they will not tolerate this.

Hope Rodriguez seems like a nice girl and I’m sure she’ll find a man to treat her well sometime soon (if she hasn’t already), but she’ll not succeed in bringing back the ways of a bygone age. Chivalry is dead and, at the end of the day, that’s just the way that most millennial women want it.

https://www.returnofkings.com/28660/the-concept-of-chivalry-has-been-distorted-to-create-subservient-men

From Wikipedia:

Chivalry, or the chivalric code, is the traditional code of conduct associated with the medieval institution of knighthood… It was originally conceived of as an aristocratic warrior code… involving gallantry, individual training, and service to others. Over time its meaning has been refined to emphasise more ideals such as the knightly virtues of honour, courtly love, courtesy, and less martial aspects of the tradition.

The term “martial” here, of course, means relating to war: the code was originally meant to guide medieval warriors– not peasants, aristocrats, or even lords. And certainly not modern day men, living in the world we do today.

This fact alone sheds light on why the code has changed over time. Warriors slashing each other with swords simply don’t exist today. Yet chivalry has stuck around. So has its meaning been refined? Or completely distorted? Let’s take a look at its conception.

The first noted support for chivalric vocation, or the establishment of knightly class to ensure the sanctity and legitimacy of Christianity was written in 930 by Odo, abbot of Cluny in the Vita of St. Gerald of Aurillac.

This passage sheds more light on its intended purpose. The knights, and their chivalric code were meant “to ensure the sanctity and legitimacy of Christianity.” Take fearless warriors like these knights, put them in wartime scenarios, and what do you get? Things like rape and pillaging come to mind, and are commonplace in wars even to this day. Chivalry was meant to ensure that the Christian values that these knights were supposedly fighting for were observed, even in battle.

But as time went on, the application of this code began to encompass more areas of a warrior’s life. Below are the three fronts that chivalry embodied as the middle ages went on:

1. Duties to countrymen and fellow Christians: this contains virtues such as mercy, courage, valor, fairness, protection of the weak and the poor, and in the servant-hood of the knight to his lord. 2. Duties to God: this would contain being faithful to God, protecting the innocent, being faithful to the church, being the champion of good against evil, being generous and obeying God above the feudal lord. 3. Duties to women: this would contain what is often called courtly love, the idea that the knight is to serve a lady, and after her all other ladies.

The first two areas mentioned here represent the origins of the code. Knights were to uphold the Christian values of mercy, courage, protection of the weak, and service to god as they carried out their battles and crusades. The third point, however, is what we are most familiar with today.

This is the expansion of the code into court life where the knights were expected to respect and serve women. But not all women 0nly to Christian ladies of the court, i.e. noble women. The same way these courageous warriors were to protect the weak, they were meant to protect and serve women. In addition to their primary wartime purposes, of course.

Today

What does chivalry mean today? Apparently, now that we don’t have a defined knightly class to battle with swords and protect Christianity, it has expanded to mean that all men should follow it. But not the whole thing. Just the part about serving women.

And there’s nothing wrong with this. A manly man opening the car door or carrying a heavy load to help a feminine women out is a great and attractive thing. This at least resembles the traditional dynamic of a knight protecting and serving a medieval lady. But when you remove some key aspects of this dynamic, does it still apply?

If you take a bratty, drunk girl who’s whining and complaining to her man, does it still apply? What about a girl who is so committed to being on her own and free of dependency on any man that she always tries to order them around and flip the script? When a poor beta man rushes ahead of her to open the door, is that chivalry?

I think not. I think she just made him her bitch.

So is chivalry alive today? In the modern sense of a man protecting and serving women it certainly can be. The strong, confident alpha male who takes it upon himself to treat women as medieval ladies and take care of the manly tasks like carrying heavy bags or walking on the outside of the sidewalk to protect her is a shining example of chivalry in its true sense.

Unfortunately many modern men aren’t like this. They are weak and timid. When you combine this with a women who’s susceptible to taking advantage of such a man and the idea of chivalry, you have the makings of a disaster. A man like this going out of his way to serve all women is only going to further damage his sense of self worth. Rather than being her “knight in shining armour” he becomes something that more closely resembles a servant or a slave.

In the end, it all depends on the context. Chivalry only applied to the knightly class in medieval times. Today, it’s become something that all men are encouraged to follow, whether alpha or beta. While it certainly is an attractive and acceptable behaviour of the alpha, it only serves to further emasculate the beta.

6 notes · View notes

fpinterviews · 14 years

Text

Jaclyn Santos

FP: We've spoken about the subject of the male gaze, and even part of the mission statement of FP is to question what it means when women artists control the power of their own objectification. There have been other artists who have paved the way, ie. Vanessa Beecroft, why do you think it is still considered controversial and shocking for a female artist to portray her sexuality as outwardly powerful and/or vulnerable?

JS: While many women artists have displayed their own sexuality in their artwork, every girl and woman still has to confront this topic individually and form her own convictions. It's something we continuously re-examine as we age and deal with new personal struggles. There are so many conflicting messages in society regarding a woman’s stance on her own sexuality and most women are still trying to figure it out for themselves. On one hand, society definitely rewards physical beauty yet, in many other ways, it can be an impediment. Increasingly, I think people turn to media figures as a barometer for their own morality. For the "Shock Challenge" I wanted to generate discussion about the way women are often criticized because of images they present of themselves – particularly the way certain female celebrities objectify themselves by posting sexy personal photos on social networking platforms such as Twitter. Often these photos are low-resolution and snapped from cell phones. I decided to photograph myself in this manner as a sort of contemporary “self-portraiture” and elevate the photos to fine art status by re-contextualizing them. I then displayed the images in the gallery and allowed the audience to physically alter the work in any way with sharpies, which draws attention to the way women are criticized online. I titled the piece, “Triple Self-Portrait in Bathroom,” which references Andy Warhol, an artist known for working with the idea of celebrity persona.

Another reason it may still be considered controversial is because of female competition, which occurs in part due to socially imposed myths of female worth. The scrutiny with which women can judge each other is incredible. Growing up, I wasn’t horrendously unattractive but I did go through an “awkward phase,” and for five years of my life other girls ridiculed me nearly every day. Now that I am older and have grown into my looks, I am condemned by some women because I keep up my appearance, when if I didn’t I would be put down for it. The world sets up a standard for beauty, then criticizes those who admit they struggle with it. I’m willing to honestly examine this contradiction through my artwork.

FP: You've also mentioned isolationism in your statement...a theme that seems to be prevalent in American culture today, particularly because of the internet, and our ability to be alone yet still remain virtually connected. Can you speak about how that relates to your work?

JS: I think the piece I did for the "Art That Moves You" challenge on WOA, "11x17", touches on the issue of isolationism in contemporary urban culture. It also examines voyeurism, a somewhat natural response to isolation. While most people do not spy on their neighbors' with binoculars, voyeurism has transcended to the internet in a more diluted version, where many of us use social networking platforms and blogs to comment on the lives of those we see on Television and other forms of Media. The pseudo-anonimity of the Internet offers protection while potentially causing further isolation. I think this has affected women in a very specific way. Oftentimes women display sexy images of themselves in an attempt to garner attention or praise, yet this often backfires into “unwarranted” criticism. Too often photos or explicit videos are released without consent.

FP: In regards to the nudity on the show...it really was a missed opportunity as you said for the production to discuss the current state of feminism as it pertains to the art world. Such a HUGE topic and yet (for the sake of time constraints? titillation of tv?) Bravo chose to edit down your provocative "shock value" piece to a hot girl defaulting to her own voyeuristic sexuality more than anything else. How did you feel about that? What could they have done to further the dialogue? What do you think would have happened if say one of the male artists had asked to photograph you naked or had photographed themselves naked...do you think more or less would have been made of that episode?

JS: So far my character has appeared very one-dimensional. The fact is, I am not a "bimbo" in any capacity. Instead of portraying my true personality, they jumped on every opportunity to dumb-down my character. I was very disturbed by the way my piece, “Triple Self-Portrait in Bathroom,” was depicted on Work of Art as well as the way my character and art making process were completely distorted. I don’t think this was done because of time constraints; rather, it was done to create a very simple story arch that any casual viewer could follow. This was problematic because it made me look like I default to nudity without any thought behind the concept of the work, which undermines my art process. I am not shy about my appearance as they suggest, but I did feel incredibly vulnerable being taped in the nude. There's a huge difference between presenting a photograph that I have carefully selected and composed, verses handing over raw footage that can be manipulated in any way whatsoever. I was very hesitant about doing this but I believed in the piece and the producers said they needed the footage only to display my process. Yet in the episode, the rest of my process was barely discussed, then it was falsely made to look as though I was not responsible for conceptualizing the final product.

The treatment of sensitive issues on set was different for the boys. A male contestant was not required to film himself ejaculating on a piece of art, which caused some tension on set.

FP: In The Art of Reflection: Women Artists' Self-Portraiture in the Twentieth Century, Marsha Meskimmon states: "If the task was to find oneself, then the crisis for the postmodern subject is that nowhere is home, everything shifts and changes. What is the reflection in the mirror that 'vanity' holds? She refuses now to be the 'site' of another's desire and reflects back to you the insubstantiality of your projections."1

Do you think it's possible for the physicality of an attractive female artist to ever be a separate entity from her work, particularly if she is the subject matter of her own work? Is vanity and the mirror important to an artist?

JS: To answer the question, if the womans' chosen subject matter deals with nudity or sexuality in the form of self-portraiture - i.e. Marina Abramovic, Cindy Sherman - no, I don't feel the artist's appearance could be a seperate entity. If the subject matter involves sexy images of other women or the imagery is more illustrative - i.e. Lisa Yuskavage, Hillary Harkness - I think it will be much less of an issue. I think it can only be a non-issue if the artist completely plays down her appearance or doesn't acknowledge it in her work. Yet this doesn't necessarily mean it won't be an issue. At a college critique, a guest artist was invited to our studios and the minute he saw me, before he ever saw my work, he blurted out, “you are the artist”? “You don’t look anything like an artist... YOU are as interesting as your work." This sort of thing happened so often that I made a decision to incorporate my appearance into my work.

FP: Another great quote from this same book: "One of the key issues in feminist theory has been that of women's voice in male language. To what extent is it possible to enunciate a truly different position when you are already within the structures which mark your difference?"2 Do you think the art world is still a predominantly masculine one or is it now equal...what has your experience been thus far?

JS: While certainly more doors are now open to female artists, there’s no denying the highest paid artists are all still men. There’s also no denying that the vast majority of Art collectors are men. I worked for Jeff Koons for two years and there were very few women who came in to purchase work. Granted, this may simply be because men still make more money than women and if women had more spending power, more of us would invest in contemporary art. I think it is a challenge to make work about women that can appeal to both a male and female audience on the same level. We respond to images of the female form rather differently, and it's hard to subvert the provocative aspect of a sexualized image.

FP: The high-low art status is interesting in your pieces --do you think anything can be elevated to art status by redepicting it?

JS: Yes, it can, if done in a particular way. Intent is important -- low art must be appropriated in an intelligent way. For instance, a high school student copying his incredible hulk comic book is entirely different than Jeff Koons appropriating the hulk into his personal iconography.

FP: You worked as a studio assistant to pop art icon Jeff Koons. Has he influenced your work? And who are your biggest influences?

JS: Before I ever worked for Jeff Koons, I loved his Made in Heaven series as well as his Luxury/Degradation series. Speaking of Made in Heaven, that’s a prime example of low-art being successfully elevated to high -art. Jeff Koons is brilliant and there are very few people who love art as much as he does. Working at his studio was an incredible learning experience. It was so interesting to see how he spoke with visitors about his work and I learned an incredible amount of technical skill while at his studio. Jeff talked "acceptance" quite often. We must accept who we are -- our individual and collective pasts -- our shortcomings, failures, weaknesses, and strengths. As artists, we must be honest with ourselves in order to make work that is personal yet transcends to a wider audience. So many artists have influenced my work, but to name a few: Damien Hirst, Marilyn Minter, Laurel Nakadate, Liz Cohen, Vanessa Beecroft

FP: Where do you see your work evolving now that you've participated in Bravo's Work of Art? Has the show inspired you in a new direction? What's on the horizon? Where can we see your work next?

JS: Participating in the reality show was an experience like no other. It really made me more aware of the internet as a portal for criticism and dialogue in fine art. It also opened my eyes to how incredibly critical and voyeuristic our culture is, and I think I would like to comment even further on these qualities in my new projects. The show also allowed me to branch out into other mediums when appropriate, something I think I may have been afraid to do before. Since the show wrapped up, I’ve been continuing my series of figurative paintings as well as a new series of explosions that respond to the war and oil spill.

Check my website, www.jaclynsantos.com for frequent updates of my new work.

#Jaclyn Santos

2 notes · View notes

alma-berry · 4 years

Note

1) I think it's really dangerous to suggest that a non-straight character being popular is tied to their 'pornographic value' and blatant proof of mass fetishisation bc it achieves the exact opposite of normalising lgbt ships (it pushes them to the margins/silences discussions centred on them) and it creates a damaging narrative of lgbt characters being nothing but their sexuality and having no hope of ever being recognised as more than their sexuality/romantic inclination.

(I’m gonna answer each part of this ask individually cuz this is long and I have a lot to say)

2) I rarely see these kind of discussions aimed at straight ships. I've never seen someone imply that Julian is a fan favourite because he's with Emma and had sex with her. The mixed reactions Jace and Clary got, and are still getting, have little to do with their sexual orientation. Most people I've talked to are side-eyeing the J/C/M triangle bc a lot of us are over love triangles, not because Cordelia is getting in the way of J/M.

I couldn’t agree more. Our need of queer characters is not in order to create our own little bubble. We need queer narratives to be normalised, such as queer identities. Normal not in a form of “same as” but in a form of “just as valid as”. That why you’re so right, and we need to be very careful in the way we phrase ourselves and our demand for more queer representation. This world consists of so many kinds of people, and each and every one of them should be appreciated on its own, by its own right and its own story, and not just as a title or a box that should be checked.

3) As far as wlw ships are concerned, the silence around them is in part the result of Cassie's own treatment of her (sparse, so so rare) wlw characters. There's very few of them and the ones we do have, Cassie's own investment in them is lacklustre. They are sidelined, barely mentioned, rarely involved in the main plot. Exiled, chained to a sickbed, they don't get to shine as protagonists braving their own adventure.

Leaving Anna aside (who so far is a remarkable character), I agree with you completely. Intentionally or not, this is the case. The wlw representations in TSC is weak, inconsistent (I spoke before of how Helen is a completely different character in RSOM than she was in Tales and TID) and lacking of authenticity. The story of how Haline met in RSOM fell so flat to me, almost as a gag. They have some beautiful moments in TID which I truly love, but as a whole I’m disappointed of how they’re portrayed. But, we can ask what the reason for it might be. Is it because CC has something against wlw ships? I don’t think so. I think the problem is planted in that they interest her less than other ships. Or, we might say, ships with men. I’m NOT saying this is a woman-hating thing, not at all. But I have a lot of criticism towards the way she writes female characters, and I think this specific lack of authenticity in her wlw ships is originated there.

4) Cassie could have made Cordelia a lesbian of colour. She could have matched her with Lucie instead. She could have made Kit, the lost Herondale, a girl instead. Could have written Ty as an autistic, gay girl. Heck, she could have made Julian a girl! She had plenty of mains to choose from as potential wlw rep and she didn't. She either made them straight or mlm and it was her decision. If there's a bias in the fandom, it certainly echoes the one in her books.

Now, this I don’t agree with. There’s a story, and the story has to make sense. Making some characters female or wlw just for the sake of it is not something I think she should do. Also, she doesn’t owe us more representation, she’s doing quite a lot in that department. We can criticise the quality of it, but calling her out for not doing more, or more in the way we want her too, is not fair. I understand completely that we have our own needs of female wlw characters, I truly do (The only characters I can meekly identify with is Helen, which sucks for reasons I already explained), but we can’t pretend we’re owed that by every single author on earth, let alone an author who already is quite a pioneer in that department.

5) So what I'm saying: while she has good rep in her books, her main characters are still overwhelmingly straight and if they are not straight, they are more often than not mlm. And while I'm grateful for the world she has created and every single one of her lgbt characters, I don't think it's warranted to act as if her books treat male and female characters equally, as if there's a perfect balance between m/f, m/m and f/f ships, and insult her fans for working with what she gave them.

No, her male and female characters are not balanced. Not in so many ways… the more problematic thing to me is from a feminist point of view and not from a queer point of view, honestly. But this is not the subject at hand - so no, we can’t say theres a balance, but must we? The world is more straight than queer, that’s a fact. Not that I would’ve minded a completely queer cast of characters (it would be a dream come true) but why be angry about that? Yes, she writes far more mlm than wlw couples, that’s true. Obviously she likes (and frankly, succeeds) writing them more than the others. But should we be spiteful because of that?

Her comment on that post is insulting by all means, I said it loud and clear. Not sure if its relevant to how were “working with it” though.

#queer representation #queer lit #wlw representation #haline #tsc #cassandra clare

35 notes · View notes

feminetflix · 4 years

Text

Not always the black eye, always the bad boy [1 / 2]

No, Joe Goldberg is not your cute neighbourhood stalker way too invested in relationships, he has always been and still remains an abuser. Like “You”, there are plenty of Netflix series at some point dealing with the tiring reality of domestic violence / abuse, e.g. “Jessica Jones”, “Sex Education”, ...

For this post I picked the two series whose take on domestic violence I found most realistic.

La casa de papel / Money Heist (yes, again) - focusing on Raquel Murillo

Fugitiva / Fugitive - focusing on Magdalena

The UN has described the worldwide increase in domestic abuse as a "shadow pandemic" alongside Covid-19. The current relevance of the issue shall not fool you, however. It’s important to remember that domestic violence was a global pandemic long before the COVID-19 outbreak.

According to data collected by the United Nations, 243 million women and girls between the ages of fifteen and forty-nine worldwide were subjected to sexual or physical violence by an intimate partner in the last twelve months. Put a different way, one in three women has experienced physical or sexual violence at some point in her life.

⚠️ This post does not offer contact points nor emergency hotlines or life hacks for people (mainly women) suffering domestic violence, like “how to avoid your beating today” or “how to stop him from manipulating you and your children”. That is the point. You can’t. The problem is not the victim or their behaviour “provoking” the abuser, making them “lose control”. Abusers have full control over themselves and lie to, insult, manipulate, belittle, taunt, humiliate, intimidate, threaten, yell at, shake, slap, choke, punch, assault, rape … their victim in order to gain, preserve or expand control over their victim.

In relationships like these it is all about the abuser’s control, power over and lack of respect towards their victim and often women in general. It is not about the victim’s behaviour making the abuser react in a certain way nor about the victim’s responsibility to end the relationship to protect herself and optionally her children. Forgive me for sometimes slipping in a “her(self)” to stress the fact that the vast majority of domestic violence victims are women. I’m not denying the existence of male victims, but according to Evan Stark and many therapists working with violent men, female violence is of different origin and kind. It’s likely I’ll make a separate post about that.

Let’s get started.

“I’ve got a 9mm HK in my holster, but… I really don’t f*cking know how to take care of myself!”

What? Women like Raquel Murillo get beaten too or at all? Isn’t it always the timid, passive, insecure, mousy little women who let him do that to them?

Actually, many controlling men get themselves beautiful, intelligent and yes, even strong women. He wants a woman he can show around, a woman making him look good in front of others and himself. He wants a woman offering him all that and one he can control. Him, exclusively. The more confidence she radiates, the more she “shines” in the outside world, the more he feels the need to degrade and humiliate her privately. – Antje Joel

How did it start in Raquel’s case, as it does in many cases?

1. CONTROL

“And when he asks you to change your profile picture to a picture of your daughter, you think it’s tender.”

Often he masks the control he slowly gains over you with concern or love. “I’m only freaking out if you don’t pick up or come home late, because I’m worried about you / I’m scared something happens to you!”

II. JEALOUSY

“When he tells you not to wear a miniskirt to work, you think ‘I’m a woman who works in a men’s world, he’s actually protecting me.’”

Again, often dressed up as ‘love’. “I’m sorry, I reacted this badly upon seeing you with your coworker, neighbour, friend, … but the thought of losing you is unbearable!” Jealousy is not love, it is possessiveness in ist purest form. Also, did she really herself think ‘I’m a woman who works in a men’s world’? Did she really come up with that herself? Would she really pursue a career as police officer and hostage negotiator if she believed in our world or here rather her workplace / line of work being ‘a men’s world’?

Male abusers usually believe in and support rigid, traditional gender stereotypes and roles and likely force them on their victim. Maybe he expects women to obey and/or serve him. He mostly thinks of women as inferior, weaker, less intelligent and incomplete if not in a relationship. Maybe he’s convinced women should not order drinks themselves when in a bar or club setting. Maybe women openly flirting, chugging down shots or capable to roll their own cigarettes are ‘b*tches’ in his eyes. If that’s the case, it is not an exaggeration to feel alerted.

III. JEKYLL-&-HYDE-PERSONALITY

“I’ll start by saying your father has many faces. The one you’re familiar with is the face of the father who’s devoted to his family.”

Hardly any abuser shows exclusively mean, rough, sarcastic or violent behaviour. Neither in private nor in public. Many present themselves as nice, attentive, pleasant people in public spaces, doing respectable work, popular and trusted in their respective communities.

“He was a police officer, the most popular guy at work, […]” - Raquel

Even in front of their victim they are sometimes nice and considerate, showing affection and passion. It’s his strategy. Random episodes of affection help confuse his victim further, tie her to him further and maintain his perfect image for the outside world. Those unpredictable changes in behaviour and personality, often minutes apart, are not a sign of some mental disorder. Mostly, it’s an applied manipulation-tactic.

IV. NEVER THE ONE AT FAULT

“Why do you always bring out the worst in me?”

He’s always the victim of unfavourable circumstances or mean people. He twists positions, makes it look like he’s his victim’s victim, not only in public but often he tries to convince the victim herself of these artificial dynamics. “It’s you, who provokes me / plays with me / humiliates me / brings out the worst in me.” Maltreatment, blows, punches or sexual violence are no slip-ups, no loss of control. He chose to abuse his victim in whatever way and he will choose to do so again. It’s not her fault nor responsibility, it’s victim blaming and again, manipulation. If you believe in your culpability you will likely not seek for help. He also makes you believe in some twisted form of “control” you have over him. It’s not real and in fact the other way around.

V. ANY DISPLAY OF POWER THROUGHOUT A FIGHT

“And then one day...he raises his voice...”

He yells straight into the victim’s startled face, holds onto the victim (with a mostly tight and sometimes painful grip), he gets in her way, backs her against a wall, pushes her (however slightly it may seem), throws objects around / after her, destroys objects (often the victim’s belongings). The destruction of objects is often a way of telling the victim “Look what I can do to that vase / phone / TV / chair / car. Now imagine what I can do to you.” If he specifically destroys objects belonging to the victim and/or symbolising a part of the victim’s life (maybe a tennis racket, if tennis is your hobby or things you kept, reminding you of your childhood/home/friends or siblings), his aim is to illustrate the control he holds over his victim, invading the victim’s most personal space, destroying the victim’s identity alongside certain objects representing it. Do you still believe he ‘lost control’? Even if he throws around random objects, e.g. the closest plate he could grab, it remains a demonstration of power. On purpose.

To be continued. The second part will be dealing with whether violent men can “change”, what if violent men apologise in tears and try to ‘make it up’ to their victims and why they are violent men in the first place. Thanks for reading and feel free to drop your opinion as long as it contains constructive (!) criticism and most importantly respect!

#domestic violence #domestic abuse #feminism #netflix #la casa de papel #money heist #raquel murillo

23 notes · View notes