#no i don't think that shows made by queer people shouldn't be criticized

[redheadlesbianfreak]

I hate this trend where there is a queer show with a lot of diversity, including an on-screen same sex couple. And the creator openly talks about how this was very difficult to accomplish and something they have to fight for. And then the fanbase says that the show is queer-baiting or has “forced heterosexuality” because there is one canon m/f couple in the supporting cast. 

Never mind that bisexual/pansexual opposite sex couples exist and that there are trans people who are heterosexual. Never mind that the heterosexual couple is healthy and equal and doesn’t adhere to cisheteronormativity. Never mind that the creator openly had to fight for a diverse cast and queer representation, and got a lot of hate from alt-right groups. Never mind that the “forced het couple” is interracial and diverse (because everything is about shipping).

Nah, it’s all queer-baiting, you see, because I don’t personally like this ship and don’t want to ship it. And you can bet that I’ll never be this hard on my favorite sitcom with no queer representation made by a bunch of cishet men. In fact, I’ll even praise my favorite cishet white showrunners for doing the bare minimum, and treat queer showrunners like they’re the incarnation of Satan (/s).

Bonus points if the queer showrunner is trans and they constantly get misgendered by the people who hate the show.

#fandom #steven universe #toh #spop #personal rant #sorry just been feeling a certain way about fandom lately #no i don't think that shows made by queer people shouldn't be criticized #and they have a lot of room for diversity #but do you know how frustrating it can be to see people hype up south park or whatever #and then constantly shit on steven universe #i'm not even a big fan of su but there's blatant hypocrisy

[bougiebutchbinch]

Before I back away from this subject entirely, I just wanna know.

People who staunchly defend the finale from any and all criticism -

Do you really think disabled fans are being 'ridiculous' for feeling hurt that one of the only canonically disabled central characters (Ed's fanon 'knee brace' does not count lol) and the most severely disabled character and the only character whose arc revolved around accepting and loving his disabled body and prosthetic was killed off? And that he said he wanted to die? And that his prosthetic was used as a grave marker rather than buried with him? Do you think we are 'harrassing' the showrunners by wanting to know just how many disabled people were consulted about Izzy's arc, and whether physically disabled people and amputees were in the writing room when these choices were made?

Do you really think queer fans are being 'dramatic' and 'misunderstanding bury your gays' because they're upset that a character who had a 'coming out' arc (complete with a beautiful drag performance) was immediately killed after finding queer joy, in a show that claimed to be a 'kind' queer romantic comedy? Or for pointing out that every polyamorous character wound up in a monogamous relationship?

Do you really think suicide survivors are being 'too emotional' for feeling let down by a character who attempts suicide and survives, then goes through a beautiful healing arc, only to state that he still wants to die? In a comedy?

Do you really think abuse & domestic violence survivors are 'overreacting' by being disgusted that Izzy, who was violently, repeatedly physically mutilated by his captain, a man who is explicitly shown to have power over him, spent his last words reassuring that same man that he brought this abuse on himself by :checks notes: being jealous of Ed's shiny new boyfriend and briefly causing them to break up last season? Or that the crew apparently 'love Ed' now, despite them being shown to be traumatised by his actions in Ep 1-3?

Do you really think writers and authors are 'misunderstanding a three act structure' or 'defending their blorbo' for pointing out that, if this is the Dark Night Of The Soul, it shouldn't be painted with a weird happy veneer that glosses over Ed's abuse of the crew and Stede's sudden 180 to wanting to retire? Or for being fine with Izzy's death as a concept, but wanting it to have more dramatic impact and to feel meaningful?

To be clear: this is not directed at people who enjoyed the finale. You are fine. Enjoy whatever you like! However, please don't act like your favourite show is above criticism - especially from marginalised groups. That's just shitty, and against the entire ethos that OFMD (allegedly lol) promotes.

#ofmd #our flag means death #ofmd meta #ofmd critical #izzy hands #the izcourse #ed teach #blackbeard #stede bonnet

[let-us-cultivate-our-garden]

I had a long argument with someone on whether or not stomping Belos before he dies was better than letting him die pathetically, and I asked myself if that is what fans really believe in... or if they would hail any Belos' death as the perfect one if Dana choose a different one?

They also justify the stomping as being part of horror-comedy genre and that Belos should not have any dignity what so ever because apparently letting him die in despair with no stomping is running the risk of making the audience feel "sorry" for him.

Honestly, these justifications make The Owl House feel more shallow. Like, why shouldn't the audience be allowed to feel sorry for Belos? What is the danger? That people would agree with Belos' views?

Or are we supposed to develop a black and white view of the world akin to a conservative view but inverted? And then hide behind the horror comedy genre to justify less drama? I hate to say it, but Nostalgia Critic is right about Belos being this strange outlier. The show seems to be afraid of actually doing a complex, tragic and yet irredeemable villain.

It doesn't make any sense to argue that Belos' death fits because of toh's genre as a horror comedy because the scene was neither played for horror nor laughs. At best, you have the image of Philip slowly being dissolved by the rain and then Raine's smug "that was satisfying" line. The overall tone of the scene is one of contempt as Philip tries one last plea to Luz only to be snuffed out (and weirdly validated) by the heroes. Its intent is to be cathartic for both audience (though as you know doubt know, YMMV) and the characters.

Frankly, despite its marketing, I don't see toh as either a horror or a comedy because it spends more time on slice of life stuff and high school teen drama and romance. And even when it does go for the horror and comedy, both are rather tepid. You want a real example of a horror-comedy for kids, then go watch Courage the Cowardly Dog or Invader Zim.

The reason why I argue the heroes validated Belos is because in the moment of his death, he clings to the idea that as humans, "we're better than this!" It's a moment of pathetic delusion that is appropriately met with silence but then it's ruined with Eda and Co. barging in with "Well, we ain't!" only to then prove his point by mercilessly stomping an already dying man to death. There's a reason why kid shows usually end with either the villain being imprisoned or not outright being murdered by the heroes. Evil has to die by its own hubris, not get killed by the heroes after the Big Battle when they're no longer a threat. I made a post about the importance of defeating a major antagonist twice.

Belos' death also doesn't work with a "Kill your oppressors" theme because the show isn't about that. The show barely spends any time showing why the EC is bad for the Boiling Isles and Eda is the only named wild witch we see getting harassed by them and even then, it's mostly played for laughs given how inept the coven scouts are (seriously, they're able to quit without fear of repercussions).

I think a reason fans are split on Belos' death is because of differing expectations; the fans who paid attention to Belos and the implication of his backstory and waited for every lie to come crashing down on him since that's what the show seemed to be building up to only to be unceremoniously ignored in the end were no doubt disappointed. Then you have the other fans who hated the character to the point that any gruesome death will do, regardless whether it made narrative or thematic sense or not.

Ultimately, I think the biggest reason his death doesn't work is because Belos fails as a villain.

Belos' status as a colonial puritan only works on a meta-level; it serves a cathartic release for marginialized people to see a representative of real world oppression beaten by queer characters as it fulfills the fantasy of finally overthrowing an oppressive system. The fatal flaw though is that none of this works on a narrative level because the coven system is either treated as a joke or simply a career path one must choose and we never see the disenfranchisement of wild witches. People largely get off scot-free opposing Belos, which undermines his credibility as both a dictator and a villain because no one cares about him until the plot needs them to. Luz doesn't even care about proving he's evil until Hollow Mind, which is halfway through season 2.

Belos as a villain only works if you project your own feelings and desires in wanting to see the Evil Christian/Evil Parent destroyed. While this is extremely satisfying emotionally, it does not make a sound story.

All the reasons why people like his death ("it's great the evil colonizer died so pathetically!" "omg, the white christian colonizer was killed by two queer people and their adopted son!" etc) are all meta reasons. And to be clear, it's totally fine if you thought his death was satisfying. But for many people, it did not work for a variety of reasons, including narrative ones. And that differing opinion should be respected instead of arguing some nonsense like "we have to make our villain as stupid/evil as possible or run the risk of people liking/sympathizing with him."

Belos should have died in a manner that connected back to his original sin: the murder of his brother. All of his lies and delusions and fear of being wrong should have played a part in the finale. He should have not died thinking he was right. He should have died realizing that all he did was for nothing. And that he is to blame. And that there is no one waiting for him back home.

#the owl house #toh critical #toh criticism #emperor belos #philip wittebane #long post #asks

[absolutebl]

Hi.

I was watching TharnType for the first time. I started wondering why people have issues with gay for you and wifey and other things like that. From what I'm seeing it isn't intended in a harmful spirit. It's not received badly in the show in context. I'm not just specifically talking about TharnType but just these tropes in general. I was wondering if someone, the writer/screenwriter, director, any actor or someone else said that they'd intended it as demeaning or in a bad way... I don't know if I phrased that correctly. But I guess I'm wondering what people are basing this on. Even UWMA's Pharm's entire demeanor. Before I watched it I'd read that he is too feminine and damsel in distress-y. But watching the show made me realize that he is traumatized. I noticed similar patterns with other shows as well. Is it audience interpretations?

BL Is a Mess of Really Damaging Stuff & You Probably Shouldn't Just Accept it

Because, if you do just accept it without thought, you're also being damaged. If you're gay, you're being taught a type of gayness that doesn't exist and will fuck up your expectations. If you're straight you're misinterpreting what an entire group of people are like (that's prejudice, FYI). And if you're somewhere in between you're learning really bad behavior patterns for your coming out and self actualization journey.

And no, I don't think you're capable of distinguishing fiction from reality, because you've just asked a question that patently demonstrates a burgeoning parasocial tendency. (And yes, parasocial relationships can and do form with fictional characters. Why do you think I am so terrified by KinnPorsche fandom and shipper culture?)

Here have some education, first one is free:

Imaginary Friends & Real-World Consequences: Parasocial Relationships (YouTube video)

But also, if you don't want me to rant about this, and you just wanted to justify your questionable taste, you should stop reading right now. I get it, denial is great! Go sail that river.

Here I am talking about the good BL can do. That doesn't mean I'm blind to its flaws.

Still reading?

Okay, well, now you asked for it.

And guess what, I'm not gonna sugar lube coat it.

Consider yourself Drunk Type lying in a bed and I'm Tharn's c*** shoving some dry BL reality into your a******.

Oh, don't like that image, do you?

Tough nuts.

Put yourself in my position. I don't wanna have to do this either.

Consider this a "BL narratives made me do it" post.

I'm not responsible for anything, I'm just an archetype.

I'll be your seme for today and you were all just "too cute" for me to resist and now you have to take some tumblr dub con...

But first:

Seme uke when it specifically conflates seme with "the man" and uke with "the girl" is old fashioned, anti-feminist, and anti-queer. Here's some of where I talk about it, but I talk about it a lot. Too much, some might say.

Pharm is a blushing maiden archetype character, I talk about it and what that means here:

It's sex negative. And a lot of it stems from internalized misogyny and ties to something called benevolent sexism. It's pretty rampant in BL.

Yes I think Pharm's behavior can be perceived as traumatized, but that trauma is brought about by In's past actions and the fact that In was punished (BY THE NARRATIVE) not just for being gay but for being a self-actualized pro-sex uke character.

There is a distinction being made between critical discourse over narrative versus how the characters behavior makes an audience feel (within the immersive experience of the drama). Some viewers care about this distinction, others do not.

I very much get why someone might like TharnType (I did) but actually also, you might want to think about why you like it despite the messages the narrative is sending... You might want to think about not just the characters in their little perfect romance world together, but consider if you were in the position of either of those characters how you would feel or behave.

And NOW the Dub Con Portion of tonight's BL party

Okay I was trying to be my usual semiseme-welcoming snark self but ya know what, let's be VERY FUCKING CLEAR HERE because I am jet lagged and tetchy....

We (the collective of BL critics here on tumblr) aren't always talking about WHAT is depicted so much as HOW it's depicted, and whether that HOW allows the WHAT to skate by without encouraging the audience to reflect on the damage the WHAT does to their own perception of what is romantic. Or what is queer. Or what is morally acceptable for decent human interaction.

Like thinking, for example, that it's okay for Tharn to RAPE Type while he is drunk.

Why on earth is that okay? It's NOT OKAY. It's just NOT!!!!

Did Type ask for it?

Did he dress too sexy?

Was his skirt too short?

Was he too much of a jerk?

Did he want it anyway?

Did he not protest enough?

Did he protest too much?

You gonna make that call for him, are you? You read his mind (apparently the way Tharn can?)

But SERIOUSLY.

What if you were actually in Type's position? Roommates with someone you didn't like who molested you when you were drunk. At home. In your own bed. What if that roommate didn't look like Tharn? What if your roommate were the wrong gender or body type or age or familial relationship (!) for your preferences? How would you actually feel?

Because if you're okay with this, really okay for yourself, you have a strong kink and you need to seek out the appropriate community or you are signing up for a very abusive relationship and likely an early death.

Can't put yourself in Type's shoes/bed?

How about Tharn?

Are you the kind of human who would molest a drunk person just because you desired him? Her?

Because they're homophobic and you want to punish them with your queerness?

Because they were a jerk to you?

You always get back at people by raping them?

You an old white dude putting your hand down secretary's shirts because they're just "too cute to resist"?

Why should you have to resist taking what you want? Who cares that there is a whole other human involved?

Grabbing ladies by the pussy any chance you get and bragging about it, are ya? Or is it somehow different or less damaging because TT is dude on dude?

So, are you gonna justify taking what you want and violating another person because they're the same sex?

Now who's being "gay for you"? This is going all the way into DL closet case "it doesn't count if it's with a man" territory.

Because if you are any of the above 8, please block me right tf now. (And... do I have a world leader to recommend for YOU to get into a car with.)

GAH!

Fucking TharnType.

Anygay...

I talk about dub con here:

My initial post about TharnType is here, but more recently here's us having a whole ThanType discourse unpacking Mame among other things as part of the BL movement both as a genre and as a fandom:

and here's an important article on rape culture in Thailand

Gay for you talked about here:

Wife language talked about here:

I'm gonna go watch some BL trash that, hopefully, doesn't have any rape in it. (You never know tho...)

Fuck me (consensually) I am so tired.

I'd drink but I did too much of that already this week.

Maybe I need to eat something.

Don't troll m,e just block me.

For heaven's sake please.

(source)

#ABL goes on a rant #sorry not sorry #could we please stop having this conversion #just try putting yourself into these characters shoes #for me? #also ARRRGGHHHHHHHHHH #thai bl #rape culture and misogyny and benevolent sexism and .... #I don't wanna think about this anymore so I'm not entertaining anymore asks on these subjects I'm just pointing people at this rant FOREVER #I watch BL to forget about this stuff

[snarktheater]

I’d be game. I’ve been waiting for another Snark for a long time (especially for some of the YA series you started). Quick question: what did Brandon Sanderson do?

to grossly summarize and oversimplify: he was invited to guest on a wheel of time fan podcast to watch the season 2 finale of the TV adaptation, and spent the entire time complaining about essentially every choice being made, admitted he hadn't watched the rest of the season (which, I don't know, seems instrumental in understanding those choices) and generally denigrating the work of what, in my humble opinion, is a stellar piece of adaptation.

which I'll freely admit is a very petty thing to be mad about, but considering that he wrote the last wheel of time book (and split it into three, but like, okay that part may have been inevitable based on reports of the size of robert jordan's notes), massacred a good 70% of character arcs in the process, and didn't think the big slavery empire was a plot point worth addressing and in fact painted the characters who did want to address it as unreasonable, well, i think maybe he shouldn't get to throw stones at anyone else doing their own spin in robert jordan's work.

and that's of course building up on a decade of being adjacent to his fandom (mainly through the wheel of time) and having to deal with. for instance. a lot of apologia for his earlier homophobia, a stance which despite various claims from said apologists he has never actually retracted and has only couched in a vague language of "well I still believe the [mormon] church teaches the truth but i have gay friends so haha i guess i'm still struggling to reconcile those things". and other things, many of them, i'll be honest, are at least tangentially related to the mormon faith. because that church is fucked. more than your average conservative christian denomination.

which in turn circles back to the wheel of time amazon show, because it's hard not to look at his comments about it in the context of all that history. the show is faithful to the spirit of the books, and (i would say in accordance to that spirit) presents a fantasy world that is a lot more welcoming and diverse. i know this is a tired talking point to some, but it's true: the show just features a lot more people of color, it features queer people on the actual screen and not just by innuendo, it gives women agency and features their point of view in a way that jordan, for all his good intentions, sometimes failed to or only provided as far as it made them sexy. the show interrogates the narrative of the male hero and the concept of violent masculinity it's built upon in a way that both works with the themes of the books but also sometimes challenges the archetypes that the books, as forerunners in modern fantasy, have helped establish.

and so to have sanderson come in and criticize all that, well, it makes his weak attempts at appealing to his overwhelmingly more progressive than he is fandom come across as very shallow. i'm not saying he's a liar—i'm sure he's earnestly trying he's best—just that he seems to simply not understand the subject at all.

which is why i'm curious to see how it translates into his writing. if i can figure out which book to even look at. and if i can conjure up the willpower to stick through a whole book.

#i have not made any commitments yet #but it is good to know there's at least some interest #i honestly thought no one who followed the blog was still on the platform at all #as for other YA series i have started on here: i'm definitely not making any promises yet #making fun of cassandra clare and the like was fun but now it just seems…i don't know #there are so many worse targets #anyway i hope that clarifies it! #st: other posts #brandon sanderson #the wheel of time

[opinated-user]

I haven't watched the SU video since I don't wanna needlessly make myself mad, what's this about antisemitism in that video?

it's basically the entire thesis of that video that Sugar, by trying to make a show about the potential of people to change for the better and the ability to forgive, actually made a show about forgiving nazis/fascist/abusers. the antisemitism comes from LO going out of her way to link this show to nazis, even though the creator is a jewish non binary woman whose ancestors survived the Holocaust and the main character, Steven, is based on her brother, so another jewish person. despite how many times people have tried to tell her that was too far and she shouldn't insist on that throughout the years, as it was insensitive, distasteful, and more importantly, just wrong, LO has done nothing but double, triple down and cuadruple down. "Sugar is a nazi sympathizer"/"Steven Ubersnmech" are common phrases that you can find on her blog.

having a bad take about a show is one thing, but ever since making that video LO has acted as if her interpretation "Sugar is a nazi sympathizer/her show promotes people sympathizing with nazis" is the only possible conclusion anyone can take when looking at the show critically and if you don't agree with her, it's because you aren't being critical at all. in fact, you must be actively refusing to be critical if you don't agree with her. that's why whenever people criticize her antisemitism on that instance, she keeps insisting that's fans mad at her for not liking the "sympathize with nazis show". whenever she has talked about this she frames it as it was Sugar's fault that she ever came to that conclusion, that she only pointed out the obvious, rather than her making a rather extreme interpretation that, to this day, only she has. if you look for other SU critical videos on youtube, nobody else has this particular reading. nobody else, not even other SU critical people, is as desperate to link this show back to nazis specifically as LO is. i think we could both agree that this is less because LO is a especially good critic with the enough integrity and bravery to call out a truly harmful piece of media, that no one other can match... and more to do with her having this parasocial beef with a person who most likely doesn't even know she exist. me, personally, i don't even like SU that much. there are things i enjoy about it, but i'd hardly say that it's my favorite show. however, i can easily recognize that whatever issue LO has with the show or Sugar has long stopped about being critical and has deteriorated on using this jewish queer non binary woman as a punching bag for years. from denying that the music has any melody (?), to insulting her jewish hair, dismissing all the recognition that her work has, up until arguing with actual Jewish people about whether or not the Jewish creator might have let her Judaism to influence her show, LO has done nothing to combat the antisemite allegations.

#lily orchard #lily orchard is an sentimite

[weirdaboutblkppl]

There's....a lot going on in this long ass review about a white person crowdfunding for their podcast.

But to then bring up an unrelated podcast made by Black people and about Black stories, starting with "I care about diverse voices" just to turn around "a Black woman shouldn't be crowdfunding to fairly compensate the workers of her podcast because it's tone deaf"

...and then to later apologize to the white person the post was originally about but not to the Black person that got hit with strays

definitely

qualifies

as being weird about black people.

Screenshot ID under the cut.

[ID: Screenshot of the following post from tumblr user anonymousad:

"I had some criticisms about that campaign that I kept to myself at the time, in part because diverse voices in audio drama is really important. Afflicted provided a lot of opportunities for marginalized creators to get established and share their unique voices. so often the campaigns that are getting met are the ones that continue to prop up the same types of voices and experiences as we've all heard before.

I am much more interested in the unique horror that a show like Afflicted is bringing to the table as a production driven by a Black woman than I am with hearing from the same types of voices we are used to. we have a lot of similar people making stuff in the community, and frankly a lot of our "diversity" is mostly driven by being white and queer. these voices are important too and there's a lot that is good, but that is the majority in this space. that's why we need to make sure we are getting opportunities to the people who don't have the privilege or connections.

this is a personal opinion, not one everyone will agree with. but we are better as a community when we do extra work to make sure that more varied diversity is highlighted and supported.

Afflicted planted their foot saying "this much or nothing" and took the gamble that most of these high number campaigns are unwilling to do. a gamble that they succeeded in last year to fund the first season.

the difference is partly that the economy looked really different last year. disposable income, rent prices, general cost of living. it wasn't great, but it was better than it is now and that MATTERS. we all know how fucking bad it is right now, especially in the US, so to be asking these massive amounts of money is tone deaf. in this case, Afflicted was even asking for MORE than they raised for season 1. you could argue some of that is because they already managed to prove themselves as creators who were good for the money and deserved that kind of chance.

but the fact of the matter is that people just don't have that kind of cash to give over and over.

which leads into my main point.

every time I see a campaign with this high of a goal I think one thing:

"this is hurting the community."]

#i know podcasting is very white but like....wow

[hypomanicsatanicpanic]

a few thoughts on the queer Purim comedy show I went to last night

The queer humor was fantastic. Some of the Purim content was ok. I am a non/post-Zionist, but I absolutely expected and looked forward to jokes about Israel and Zionism, given that I found out about this event in an explicitly anti-zionist discord server, and 50% of the money raised by tickets and donations went to the Palestine Children's Relief Fund, but I at least expected them to be jokes, you know? The whole thing gave "white guilt." It gave "white savior" and "noble savage." It gave "I'm one of the good ones."

First, it was a mixed bag on funny:

Four of the eight comics were hilarious, I fell out of my seat laughing during about half of those sets. I would pay money to see any of these people do comedy again.

Two were ok, laughed out loud at least 1-2 times during their sets. Wouldn't leave if they were at stand-up night, but probably wouldn't remember their sets after the fact.

Two were very seriously talking about things they obviously (and understandably) found upsetting, but trying to pass them off as deadpan jokes. One of those comics (who identified themself as an Arab Muslim) repeated several pieces of misinformation about Israel and Palestine-not even different opinions, verifiably false information that has been widely debunked. The other (who identified herself as a secular Jew) made several boomer wife jokes at the expense of her Palestinian wife. Those two comics also repeatedly complained about being called names by Zionists, concluding they "gave off incel vibes" as a punchline. For that to be funny, you've gotta unpack it! Say something original and unexpected, or you're just regurgitating antisemitic Tumblr posts and my former friend who uses "zios" as a slur. These two also made fun of people in diaspora who were feeling uncomfortable about being visibly Jewish in public. This same person also called Purim "just another Jewish holiday celebrating genocide" without unpacking that at all either.

It was also such a weird tone-clash for people to be talking about "ongoing genocide" and "40 family members killed" and "people sacrificed for a brave and noble cause" completely seriously--**during their comedy set**-- right between people joking about spelling out their pronouns in nipple grafts after top surgery, and other people joking about yonic hamantaschen and boric acid suppositories. That's not to say we shouldn't talk about it, it's just *how* and *when* felt pretty badly off in this case.

I'm not one to call other Jews self-hating, or kapos. But it really felt gross to see such performative hatred of other Jews who did not share the exact same views or life experiences get so much applause, despite being low-effort and unfunny. Like, don't get me wrong, the content was low-level upsetting, but became much more so because it was such lazy comedy. I think I would have enjoyed it much more if those statements/jokes were balanced with some good-humored, self-critical jokes. Telling the audience whatever they want to hear is cheap and boring. Tell us shit that confronts us, makes us uncomfortable, but forces us to laugh at it!

And the assumptions that everyone there would be 100% on board with everything said about other Jews present and historical, no matter how nasty, bad-faith, or false. The absolute and wilful misunderstanding about others' actual beliefs and experiences, the lack of compassion for Jews struggling with antisemitism *in their own cities and communities*, the self-pity, the failure to successfully lampoon OR engage meaningfully or originally with the ongoing conflict or the more troubling parts of the Purim story... The assumptions about the views and experiences of everyone else there. The absolute certainly and smugness about being morally superior to the vast majority of other Jews.

It was troubling to have so much in common with so many of the people there, and yet to feel so alienated. We were almost all queer Jews, with all of that attendant baggage. And I'm 100% certain we want the people who live in the Levant (Arabs, Jews, everyone!) to have lasting peace and safety, and also want Jews to be able to live and thrive in diaspora. Ultimately though, I'm not willing to throw other Jews (most of whom actually share those goals!) under the bus to signal those beliefs or get a couple of feeble chuckles. I wouldn't want to make money at their expense, even if some of the money went towards a worthy cause.

Next time this event comes around I'll probably skip it and just donate what I would have paid for admission to the Palestine Children's Relief Fund (which you can do here )

#purim 2024 #israel palestine #jumblr #queerposting

[bougiebutchbinch]

I am not the ableism thought police

(in gentle response to an ask that I won't be publishing, as I don't want the tumblr user to get any blowback, and I think they were asking in good faith)

It is not inherently ableist to enjoy the OFMD finale, despite the fact that myself and many other physically disabled people are Really Fucking Uncomfortable with certain choices that were made.

You can like whatever you like. There will never be perfect media, and OFMD is better than... many shows in terms of its representation of queers and characters of colour, at least. Go forth and enjoy it! I'm not trying to take that away from you!

Here, however, is a handy list of things that ARE actual ableismsTM:

pretending the finale of your fave show is beyond reproach from physically disabled critics

dismissing the concerns and hurt of so many disabled fans who felt incredibly let down by the finale (and who want to know whether the writers consulted with disabled people before writing that whole scene (especially putting the words 'I want to go' in Izzy's mouth. jfc.))

mocking disabled people who are upset about how his self-acceptance arc as a disabled queer man ended - in a show that is trying to be progressive, no less!

making gross statements like "saying Izzy is disabled removes his character agency". Just. Wtf. I don't know how to explain to you that disabled people have agency, and that 'disability' isn't a Bad Scary Word.

claiming that just because you are physically disabled and you don't mind the finale, other physically disabled people shouldn't voice their concerns

expecting disabled people to hold your hand and reassure you that it's okay to like a show even if it Committed A Big Ol' Ableism

All of those things are ableist, and you should avoid them.

TL;DR: Love the show as much as you like. Just don't talk down to disabled fans who are raising very valid points about the ableism surrounding Izzy's death and burial. And don't demand that we emotionally coddle you and assure you that you are a good person if you liked the ending of S2.

As always, able-bodied people are encouraged to reblog - but don't join the conversation unless you are offering support.

#ofmd #our flag means death #izzy hands #the izcourse #ofmd meta #israel hands #ableism #I am not the ableism thought police. #ofmd spoilers

[strangertheories]

that post about 'shaming queer ships' neatly avoids the fact of the matter that the drivers of MLM ships online aren't MLM but women and that even queer women are capable of fetishism and no you can't use the 'canon str8 ships suck' excuse when this bs most often involves erasing canon interracial ships to prop up white men, not even trying to improve m/w ships, and most tellingly ignoring or minimizing WLW in canon and fanon. that's not even talking about the rampant biphobia.

I appreciate that you're upset but I feel as though you're putting words in my mouth. Plenty of MLM and NWLNW people ship Byler. It's not fetishizing queer men to ship Byler and as a queer woman, I'm not going to apologize for liking the relationship. I'm a fan of childhood friends to lovers as a trope which is the main reason why I ship Byler, not because I'm creepy about gay guys. It's not even my favourite ship in the show, it's just one that is very frequently criticized so I was defending it.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who ship m/m ships in a weird fetishizing manner but it's a huge generalisation to say that people pushing Byler are all women with a fetish for gay guys. The reason I didn't talk about this issue is because it's an issue separate from the post I was making which was about hate on queer ships. When I mentioned people being accused of fetishizing gay men for shipping m/m ships, I was talking about people getting told that for no reason. As I said, it's an issue that women have this weird view of gay guys but I never said that it wasn't.

I also didn't say that canon straight ships suck. I'm a big Jopper shipper and I have spoken about several times how much I love Lumax. I have never erased interracial relationships to pop up white men either, considering there is only one interfacial relationship in Stranger Things and I ship it. But even so, it's not erasing interracial relationships to ship Elmax as you can still think two characters would be cute together even if one of them is dating someone of the opposite race.

Again, I never said m/w relationships shouldn't be improved. If there's a bad relationship on the show then they should absolutely write it better. But just because I'd rather Mike be with Will does not mean that I think m/w relationships should never be improved. I just personally don't know how they'd fix Mike and Eleven's relationship. It would be very tricky to do writing wise as they've made it seem like Mike isn't interested in Eleven at all. Who knows maybe they'll pull a miracle and I'll end up shipping them but I really really doubt that. M/w ships should be written well but if it looks like a relationship is ending that's not bad writing, it's the plot.

I also don't know where I minimised WLW? I'm a lesbian myself. My favourite ship in Stranger Things is Ronance and I talk about it a lot on my account. I absolutely love sapphic ships and I've watched pretty much every show under the sun with sapphic characters and relationships in it. Before I joined the ST fandom, I made posts about Buffy, Haunting of Bly Manor, Fear Street and other shows and the posts were mostly about sapphic ships. Some of the examples I gave on hate on queer ships applied to queer men but that's because m/m ships get specific types of complaints like about toxic masculinity that don't apply to WLW. I would never minimize WLW in canon (I mean Robin is my favourite character) and I don't know where you got that from my posts?

And in terms of rampant biphobia, again, I really don't see where I was biphobic? The only time I mentioned bisexuality in that post was saying that just because a guy dates girls doesn't mean he can't date guys which is the opposite of biphobic. Maybe it's about how I said I doubt Mike loves Eleven but that's not because I'm biphobic, it's because of the fact he can't say I love you to her.

Again, if I said something stupid then I'll accept that but I don't really see what I did wrong here? I got a criticism earlier about how I said that we're treating straight men's fear to be seen as gay as valid when a fear to be seen as gay is valid which I made a follow up post about and realized my mistake. But in this case, you're just making up things I said and getting annoyed at them.

And I just think it's a smidge ironic that I made a post about how people try to make it problematic to ship things like Byler only to be told I'm problematic and fetishizing queer men. Thanks for the ask anyways, anon.

#stranger things #stranger things four #byler #st4 #stranger things analysis #will byers #robin buckley #byeler #ronance #elmax #lumax #jopper

[just-another-frender-blog]

Do you think that the Hulu revival is going to correct any of the issues that the other seasons had, like the queerbaiting and "Haha Leela and Amy secretly hate each other because they're women!"? I have a liiiittle hope because the cultural landscape has changed so much. Unfortunately, I feel like the writers are a little set in their ways, and some of the fans definitely are. Can you imagine the meltdown if the show outed Bender? (Which would make it even better.)

I personally don't believe that Futurama had any queerbaiting. Like most other Western cartoons in general, I believe it has queer coding with many of its characters. Queerbaiting has a more negative connotation, while queer coding is much more neutral. And it's possible a lot of what I would consider queer coding is on accident, or me reading into things as a queer woman. The main reason I don't think Futurama has any queerbaiting is that it wouldn't make any sense at all. An adult cartoon that came out in 1999 for the more conservative Fox network would not try to market itself toward queer audiences at all. Hell, I would argue that one of the reasons Futurama got canceled back in the early 2000s was because it was too liberal for the network.

I would also like to consider Matt Groening's history as an artist. Before he did The Simpsons, he wrote a comic called Life in Hell. This comic was about funny-looking rabbit creatures, and I believe two of the characters lived as a gay couple (the rabbits cameo a few times in Futurama). Not to mention Smithers in The Simpsons who was clearly meant to be gay back when characters like these weren't portrayed in mainstream media. I just can't believe that they would put queerbaiting into the show with malicious intentions. I have to wonder if he wanted to put more LGBTQ characters into his projects like The Simpsons and Futurama, and was held back by Fox. However, there are a lot of people who worked on both shows, so I can't say for sure.

I don't even think that queer coding has any malicious intentions (for the most part). For example, when Fry acts as though Bender is cheating on him in The Honking, I don't think that the joke is that they are acting like a gay couple. I believe the joke is that Fry's reaction is so out of the left field for the situation at hand, to the point where it circles back as charming. I see this goofy, playful type of queer coding in a lot of cartoons, such as Wander Over Yonder or Looney Tunes Show. It doesn't bother me, but I also respect that it might bother others. The fanservice with Amy and Leela bothers me, but it would bother me less if they had a closer relationship like Fry and Bender. 

I'm not sure if I would say the writers of Futurama are "set in their ways" as much as I would say that aspects of Futurama have aged very poorly due to the time it came out. That's not to say that these aspects shouldn't be criticized at all. I think that it's important to warn people when recommending the show, and it's important to discuss negative portrayals of minorities in fiction. I don't know much about the writers of Futurama so I have no idea what their beliefs are and I also have no clue how much freedom they were given with the show. It's possible that they had the best intentions and they fumbled with certain aspects.

Futurama is over 20 years old and it ended nearly 10 years ago. I think that this is a lot of time for the people who created the show to reflect and grow as writers. And I think every good writer wants to improve their flaws and listen to feedback. I've seen incredibly famous writers state that they could've done better. And then they take strides to improve on their older mistakes. I could definitely see the writers for this show reflecting on the way Amy and Leela's relationship was handled or the trans jokes made in very poor taste. Not to mention, it's very possible that they may bring new writers on board to get a more diverse writing room and a fresh perspective.

I admit that I have a great deal of respect for the writers of Futurama as an aspiring writer myself. Comedy is considered to be one of the most difficult genres to write, and Futurama has some of the tightest writing I've seen on TV. I think that can only be achieved by a great deal of effort and a strong writing team. The dialogue is fantastic; each character has a very distinct voice. I was impressed by the continuity in an episodic format, as well as the complex concepts they executed so well.

I adore how this show is "smart" but it never talks down to its viewers. I like how it can take jabs at itself from time to time without being too overt about it. I've always felt that even through all the dark humor, the heart of this show is kind, and you don't often get to see that with adult cartoons. There were so many instances when I finished an episode of Futurama and thought "I hope I can write like that one day." Maybe this is naïve of me, but I really do think the writers can fix some of the older issues that the show had now that time has passed. And maybe they will want to push for queer representation this time.

As for Bender being portrayed as queer; I definitely would like it if some of the more bigoted fans were pushed away from this show. I have to admit, seeing bigots get something they enjoy taken away from them always fills me with this vengeful glee. I would love it if Bender was confirmed queer; I fully welcome an unhinged and morally dubious queer character. However, the idea of backlash makes me incredibly nervous. This is mainly due to the way I've seen people talk about the LGBTQ community online and in real life, especially recently. I always want more representation in media, but I'm starting to feel worn down and depressed by the constant backlash anything remotely queer (or anything with minorities at all) receives.

#futurama #analysis post #long post #queer analysis #thoughts on the revival

[deanismysavior]

Today I tried rewatching season 4 from the perspective of an audience member who had zero clue about Will’s sexuality before starting the season. I tried stripping my mind of any outside information and just watching the show unfold. And I realized that without context, especially if I was a straight audience member who didn’t easily pick up on queerness, there’s nothing in volume 1 that explicitly televises Byler or Will’s sexuality if you aren’t looking for it. There’s little details and some blink and you’ll miss it vaguely coded convos. But if you had no idea about Byler previously, I feel like it can easily go over your head. Even the painting is a detail that can easily be forgotten. I feel like the first explicit sign is volume 2 and the painting confession but without knowing Will is gay and in love with Mike previously, even that might be somewhat confusing. Thoughts?

I haven't tried to do this, so my view of this might be skewed, but I did watch this with my mom who is not queer and she picked up on Will's queerness pretty quickly into Vol 1. She definitely thought Mike was straight until I suggested the subtext to her, so I think that for general audience members, seeing Mike as gay or queer is a lot harder to pick up on because they don't have the lived experience of being queer and don't understand what repression looks and feels like. To most people, Will comes across more obviously as queer because he's never shown interest in girls and he's been bullied for being gay in the show previously, even if at the time it was just conjecture, the suggestion was still there. But with Mike, I think even though the clues are there, if you put on your straight glasses just because he's with El, people can more easily explain away his actions as being platonic, friendly, awkward, etc. They don't really understand the complexities of queerness. To me, I do think that even without having known about Will's sexuality before s4, the general audience SHOULD have been able to see it, especially in the way Noah played his role this season, but I'm also someone who pays attention to the media I consume, so what seems obvious to me from a narrative standpoint could be completely lost on someone else. I don't think that burden should fall on the writers though. They put enough into the story to make Will's queerness obvious if you're actively watching (the painting, the jealousy, the pushing off the girl's advance, the Alan Turing presentation). I think the real problem is that people don't actively watch what they consume most of the time anymore. Critical analysis has become largely lost on general audiences, which only works to their detriment, but this is to say that them not getting it doesn't make it badly written. There's a lot of power in nuance, and I think that's one of the things this season actually did fairly well, they made people ask questions. Here's my thing: if people can go back and look at the earlier seasons and realize they missed Vecna all along and think it's some crazy cool plot twist, they should be able to do the same thing with both Mike and Will's queerness (not that queerness is a plot twist but you get my point). They should be able to look at the earlier seasons and say, "how could I have missed that?" But likely, instead they'll just say it came out of nowhere. I think I wandered a bit there, but I guess my point is that we shouldn't have to hit people over the head with queerness in order for it to be real. Not sure if this fully answered your question, but these are just some of my thoughts.

#byler #byler endgame #will byers #mike wheeler #stranger things #st #st4 #stranger things 4 #ask #mike x will #will x mike

[gemsofthegalaxy]

tbh i agree with Sarah Z

. acting like no celebrity Could be queerbaiting when their public image is a carefully crafted by a marketing team is like.... silly. it is fully possible that someone who is straight and cis and does not personally feel a connection to an ambiguous or otherwise queer aesthetic might still dress like that or make queer-seeming media etc, in order to get the queer audience dollars

but, ultimately, it's not worth it to try to snoop and speculate and drag people through the mud for not "coming out" or forcing them out of the closet, because that is a very shitty thing to do, and people don't deserve for it to happen to them.

thinking specifically of Becky Albertalli and queer creators, i do think it's challenging when it comes to trying to critique a depiction of queerness by taking the author's own sexuality and intent into account. because, well, looking into authorial intent and the circumstances around someone's writing is not an unfair thing to do. to compare it to something that may be similar, like. if a white person from California is writing about/from the perspective of a black person from the south, personally i think it might be worthwhile or at least relevant to know that the author is white and from California when evaluating how you feel, or how well you think the author did with their subject matter. it is NOT to say the white person from California shouldn't have touched the topic with a ten foot pole, they very well may have done an excellent job with their story, but those details are still relevant when it comes to understanding the text in some ways. maybe.

i don't disagree that it gets heated and nasty, though, because it did when it came to Albertalli's work, she was lambasted as a straight writer catering to a straight audience with a gay love story. but she isn't straight. and, well, she's still not a gay man, but... believe it or not, even queer people can write queer media that some queer people hate (lol)

tangent: i fucking haaateed the movie The Kids Are All Right and low and behold, one of the directors was a whole lesbian. i was surprised! it seemed like such a fucking shitty and annoying depiction of a lesbian couple (including scenes where a lesbian who proclaims she's exclusively a lesbian sleeps with a man several times. no mention of the notion she might be bisexual. the lesbians also watch gay male porn which i guess was supposed to be transgressive and showing that sexuality was complex, but to me it was so eye-roll worthy like what's wrong with showing women who are... into women? sorry im getting off track. maybe there are lesbians who love this movie. im bisexual so /shrug)

anyway. unfortunately, being queer does not mean you will tell an amazing queer story. and knowing an author is queer does not mean you have to like the way queerness was used in the story even if you think it was bad. but, still, i am usually more likely to at least be lighter with criticism if i know the author depicting the story is of the same community or has lived experience, even if i still dislike the overall depiction. maybe that unfairly absolves them of a shitty story, idk. btw this isnt to say Simon vs the Homo Sapiens was bad, it was, like, fine tbh. some of the plot points annoyed me, but that's common in YA novels by now. one of my advisors who is a gay man really loved it so that also made me like it more bc it was cute seeing how much he enjoyed it (ironically, lol)

not sure where i was going with this anymore. but it's an interesting, challenging topic to address "real people queerbaiting". ultimately i think it CAN be done, by celebrities who are crafting an image to market to fans, but that it's not worth the harm of pushing people out of the closet to try to "stop" the "problem" from occuring.

#gems watch #long post

[outrunningthedark]

your post about gay people only being able to handle so much heteronormativity… yeah you spilled thank you for that! if lesbians and gay people dont wanna watch yet another het pairing its not bad its just the truth! the 911 fandom on here can be sooo condescending and rude when someone tells the truth or goes against them so thank youfor actually being normal, your blog is def an all time fave.

(I appreciate your kindness!) I don't know what people think they're accomplishing by criticizing fans for "not wanting this character to get in the way of your ship" because it shouldn't be surprising that all queer fans [no matter where you land on the spectrum] aren't going to be like "a pretty man and a pretty woman kissing? sign me up!" Do these people assume that every "hate" post is from a straight girl fetishizing a mlm ship? Because that's the only explanation for why members of the community would be taking issue with someone going "Ugh. This shit again???" despite how many of us identify as anything but straight. &yes. We all see the posts about the show "already giving us queer rep and queer couples in loving relationships". True! Here's the problem for some of us: those queer relationships involve one character who has no connection to the firefam other than being a life partner/spouse and therefore we rarely see them [in Mavid's case, it's now past tense]. We're guaranteed to watch the het couples every episode. But knowing when Henren or Mavid would/will show up has been a never-ending guessing game. [Using Josh as "representation" is also a joke when most people making that argument don't even want to see him.] I find it hard to believe people cannot recognize the difference between a gay couple that has scenes every once in a while [depending on necessity] versus one that is made up of two mains and therefore would be a continuous presence regardless of whether they're even doing anything explicitly romantic or intimate.

#anonymous #tina speaks #tv: 911 #tv: 9-1-1 #buddie

[kitkatopinions]

Maybe RWDE gets its reputation because so much of it is deeply toxic and bigoted, and blatantly so to people who don't obsessively hate the show.

First of all, come off of anonymous, coward. If you're gonna say something with your whole chest, at least have the guts to have your icon say it to Max Goof's face. XD

Second of all, once again, the call is coming from inside the house. Here's a link to a post with a lot of screenshots of tweets and youtube vids and fucking trash from the corporation you're spending your time defending and specifically Miles fucking Luna. Condemn that on your own blog, show me a link, and then come back. Also condemn the fact that Kerry Shawcross literally said that they used Ironwood's new black prosthetic to symbolize his loss of humanity. Also, show me where you've criticized things like people saying Ironwood should lose his prosthetics so he'll be 'helpless' as comeuppance for his mistakes. Show me where you've called out people hypersexualizing the women in RW/BY in their fanarts, because that ran rampant in y'alls tags for awhile. Show me where you've called out the person who said my sister was being 'ableist against herself' for having seen some of her own Autistic traits reflected in Penny, who told her that Penny obviously hadn't been enough of a person to actually have character traits, so my Autistic sister was being ableist to suggest they shared similarities. Show me where you've called out the people who misuse and vilify terms like 'narcissist' and 'psycho' and use them to just mean 'bad person' when that's literally ableist. Show me where you've called out the person who made a post saying that the RW/BY fandom was no longer accepting criticism and then when people (including my younger sister) said that was dumb, they called everyone cunts. Fucking say something about all that, because from where I've standing, all you care about is what you think you can use in order to excuse the fact that you're attacking people on the internet for daring to say something bad about the content you like that you were too sensitive to see. If you actually did care about these issues, you'd be calling out the bad in the content of RW/BY, calling out the blatantly horrible actions of the company or some of the writers, and also calling out the horrible behavior of the fandom. And you'd be doing that openly on your own blog. You heard I was sent death and rape threats and the only thing you have to say about that was 'well maybe people don't like RW/DE for a reason.' Ummmmm??? You think you have a moral highground??? XD

ALSO: Bring receipts, friend. Tell me how I'm being bigoted instead of just throwing that around with no backing. Was it when I said that the two white writers Miles and Kerry shouldn't have made an allegory for real life racism that centered around taking down the bad freedom fighters who are selfishly using the cause for terrorism instead of, you know, fighting the system that oppresses the Faunus? Was it when I said that Whitey McWhiteWhite Schnee should've at the least apologized for her anti-Faunus bigotry and that it wasn't cute to say 'Blake is discriminated against by people treating her like an animal' and then having the writers do things like having a friend/future love interest lead her around with a laser pointer and never addressing that as bad? Was it when I said that writing badge carrying law enforcement officers and glorifying them as paragons of virtue and then doing things like making the fact that the Ace Ops answer to authority rather than just themselves part of why they're bad but Team RWBY isn't? Was it when I said that there should have been queer rep in the main cast by now and that it's annoying as a queer woman to be continually told to 'just wait' despite the lack of censor and the fact that the writers have been promising main character rep since like volume two? Was it when I said that MKEK needed to do better with their disabled representation than several villains, two side characters who wound up getting benched with every main character forgetting their existence and Yang having had such a small amount of screen time in volume four only to be written by the entirely able-bodied writers to say that her prosthetic was just extra? Was it when I said that it was sus as hell that the first black woman in a position of power was killed within five minutes of screen time? Was it when I said that a group of majority male writers specifically purposefully writing a story where a young girl was written to go through tons of shit like getting her bodily autonomy ripped away from her and then having her body forcibly removed/changed her without consent (consent under threat of death isn't consent,) only to beg a man to kill her as her supposed only choice she'd ever made despite having clearly made choices before then was a pretty fucking big red flag? Literally, tell me how you think I'm bigoted, and if it's something like 'you're obsessed with Ironwood' (I'm not, he's not even a blorbo,) or "You hate that girls are allowed to be powerful" (untrue, as I actively want the girl characters to be more powerful,) or that I'd be happy if the men were in charge (again untrue, as I actively complain about Jaune and Oscar and even Ironwood getting so much screen time) then just save it.

Also, last point I'm gonna make, but if you really think I'm obsessed with this show, you've got a big storm coming. I've been thinking more about Jack and Davey from the Broadway Musical version of Newsies than I've been thinking about RW/BY. I've been thinking more about the DCOM Descendants Universe more than I've been thinking about RW/BY. You literally get such a tiny snippet of my life, and then think somehow that it's... All I think about. And it's just more proof of how actually disconnected from reality you are.

Get some guts, my dear pal. Get some guts, go touch grass, get well soon, hope you stop simping for Miles 'She's only sixteen' Luna enough to actually realize your show is deeply problematic.

#rwde #anti rwby #yet another BANGER of a hate anon from this loser