Tumgik
#see my question here is where was this movie when i needed accurate lgbt representation
borderline-rat · 4 years
Note
20,28,30 pride asks :))
20: my favourite LGBT movie or show
So, I kinda have a lot of those because when I was younger and questioning my gender identity and sexuality, I did quite a lot of research to find out movies I could enjoy. To this day, without making a complete list nor in any specific order, I highly recommend watching The Incredibly True Adventure of Two Girls in Love (it's hard to find but for those used to it, it's on 123movie), which in unbelievably soft. I also recommend Better than Chocolate, showing several queer characters, and for such an old movie (around 15 years old, I belive...) the representation and terms used is incredibly accurate - and you also got this amazing scene where Judy, a trans woman, sings her song on stage in a LBGT+ bar, and it makes me shiver and laugh everytime. See it here! Then if you want a good laugh, take a look at But I'm a Cheerleader, with Natacha Lyonne, who apparently love playing lesbian characters but still isn't lesbian irl, girl please, your whole face and NY accent scream GAY. Yesterday I mentioned Cloud Atlas being one of my fave movie. In it you can see a mlm relationship with one of them being bisexual, and it's so very sweet. I'm probably forgetting plenty... As for shows, as I said, I love Sense8 where there's little to no cishet main protagonists. I realise I know mostly lesbian movies for some reason... Speaking of this... Do NOT watch Blue is the Warmest Colour. DO NOT. UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. This movie is the SUM why French cinema is seen as posh and elitist, cold and dramatic. The characters are emotionless. The relationship is emotionless. The depiction of women - and lesbians - is ridiculously cliche, dare I say, hateful. It's no surprise, as it's been made by a hateful man. A cishet man, btw. Who forced his actresses to play sex scenes for hours. Btw, if you expect any realism and emotion in lesbian sex scenes, just run away because this is just porn without the fun. Read the book. I don't even care it's a bad adaptation. It's just a bad movie. Period.
28: Anything I'd like to share about my experience with gender
Questioning is okay. Taking time is okay. It took me years to realise who I am and what I needed. It's okay not to know, not to be sure, to be afraid. It's okay to try, to be wrong, to to somewhere, staying there, coming back, hesitating. It's frustrating when you see how easy it can be for others... But it's about you and you only. I'm sad I took so long to start transitioning, now I feel late compared to others, I feel like a baby and I hate it, but... I took the time I needed because, well, I needed it, and had no other choice anyway. We don't all the the same cards in hand. We gotta play with what we have. Even if it's so hard sometimes. Oh, and also... Wear whatever the fuck you want.
30: Why am I proud to be LGBT+
Firstly... Because I am, and I have no choice? So why be ashamed of it? It's a part of my identity, a part that I love. It's hard to explain why, but when I say I'm queer, I'm like... Smiling. It's like something shiny I love showing, like a pretty necklace that would reflect the sun. Secondly, and maybe that's just me, I feel as if allows me to express my personality and style more freely. Obviously you don't need the "excuse" to be queer to dress or act how you want and how pleases you. You can be a cishet guy and wear a skirt and I'll be the happiest for you. But, as for myself, I feel like because of that part of me, I can show who I am without being afraid. People can call me out in the street when I wear my crop tops in summer, calling me names and all, and I'll be like... Yeah? Call me a f*ggot all you want, you're right, how would that be an insult to me? Not because you despise it means I do... So it just... Doesn't work on me. It can make me tired and angry, but not afraid of people pointing out what they are afraid of or reject and say "I REJECT THAT". Good for you, mate. I don't.
2 notes · View notes
oldtvandcomics · 5 years
Text
I've seen some posts going around about Crowley/Aziraphale being queerbaiting in the Good Omens series. I'm afraid I will regret writing this, but I have OPINIONS, said opinions being less about Good Omens and more about Tumblr not necessarily understanding the way audiovisuel storytelling and the queer community work, and maybe it's worth taking a moment to think closer about these things.
Spoilers for Good Omens (2019) and some allusions to the Discourse below the cut. Also, long post. You have been warned.
I probably should say here that I liked Good Omens, am myself aro ace, and am of the opinion that Crowley/Arizaphale is canon. So yes, personal bias exists, although I am going to do my best to be objective. Also, I haven't read the book yet, so am only going to be talking about the series.
(Ignoring hereby that they are supposed to be agender. It is a very good series, but they really, REALLY should have found a way to include that piece of information.)
This is a surprisingly complex question, that can be boiled down to three different problems: First, the way people analyze audiovisuel stories (in this case, television, but the argument also stands for movies), second, the term “queerbaiting” not being clear enough and also used too broadly, and third, people's still too narrow view of what is and isn't queer.
In this order, I am going to start with the way tv (and movies) work. It is the least controversial.
One of the things that I love about tv so much is just how complex and layered it is. There is what is directly said and shown to happen, but than there is the music, the acting, the costumes, locations, camera angles and editing, all of which have their own language and add something to how we will see a story. If you watch Good Omens, you'll notice that the exact nature of Crowley's and Aziraphale's relationship never is directly addressed or them confirmed to be queer. However, you will also notice the way they keep looking at each other, the fact that romantic music plays in the background for an awful lot of their scenes together, that they do and say things on a regular basis that goes further than the normal limits of a friendship, and the list goes on. This show is as clear about them loving each other very, very deeply as it possibly can be without directly talking about it.
This, of course, leads us to the question: What is and isn't text? What level of queercoding counts as representation? And this is where things get a little more complicated, because there IS NO clear line. People usually say that it doesn't count, unless the correct term is used. Which makes sense, given everybody's tendency to just... Idk, make a movie about somebody fighting his ex without ever telling us that he is, in fact, his ex, and than hope that they can get away with either the queer fans doing all the hard work of reading between the lines, or just write a couple of tweets about how they're totally gay and get credit for the representation.
Seriously, people, don't do that. If there is a way to use the terms, do it.
But there is a gray area. Welcome to Night Vale never labeled Cecil's orientation, yet we still know that he's gay. That scene they cut from Thor: Ragnarok of Valkyrie leaving the room of a woman? It never said that she was bi. I mean, I haven't seen it, but from what I know, I'd bet A LOT of money that, had they included it, people still would have complained about it not being clear enough. We still act as if including it would have confirmed Valkyrie's bisexuality. What about period pieces, set in times when certain labels didn't exist yet? And, finally, what if a relationship would actually benefit from being left vague and undefined?
There is no clear answer to this. It's a gray are, so feel free to just sit around and think about your own opinion on these things.
Which leads us to queerbaiting: Creators playing up the fact that they MIGHT have a queer character or relationship in their work for publicity, without ever planning to include it. It's a thing that happens both inside and outside of the story. In practice, this usually looks like putting in a lot of subtext between two same-sex characters, including suggestive scenes in the trailers, and going in interviews “well, they could be, it's an ongoing series, you'll just have to wait and see. ;) ”.
Queerbaiting is a VERY vague and very popular term, that is used very broadly, even in cases where it isn't exactly accurate. It is not exactly easy to tell what is actual queerbaiting, and what queercoding because Higher Powers wouldn't let the creators include openly queer characters in their work. Than there is of course the cases where queer characters are kind of there, but it's a blink-and-you-miss-it thing. I've heard the term “queercatching” used for that in a video. Also, queerbaiting is an accusation people like throwing around every time a show disappoints them by not making their OTP canon. (Stop doing that, PLEASE!)
In this context, it is understandably difficult to say if a certain ship is or isn't queerbaiting. However, I would argue that Crowley and Aziraphale are not. I haven't seen all the promotional things going on, so no idea how big of a selling point their relationship was. But I do know that everyone behind the scenes seems to agree that those two love each other very, very deeply, and the show itself isn't trying to hide it. On the contrary, it goes out of it's way to draw our attention to it. To anyone who is watching halfway attentively, it is going to be very, very clear that what those two have going on is NOT straight.
Which leads us to our final point: What is and isn't queer.
Oh dear. It is a topic that is still hotly debated within the community (at least on Tumblr), mostly by people trying to exclude certain orientations or keep other people from using certain terms.
Queer is an umbrella term used for members of the LGBT+ community, meaning “not straight”. It may refer to gender identity, romantic or sexual orientation, and things that don't quite belong in any of the boxes we have. The beauty of the term “queer” is exactly that it is so huge and so vague that it exceeds all boxes and definitions. A really handy thing to have, if you want people to know what you're talking about without needing to give them an hour-long vocabulary lesson first.
Please note here that so far, I have avoided using any labels for Crowley, Arizaphale, or their relationship. Please also not that while I did say that they love each other very deeply, I never used the word “romantic”.
Because here is the thing: I really don't think that they're gay. Or bi, or pan. Or anything else, really. They, and their relationship, like the term “queer”, fall outside of any predetermined categories. It is just, really, really, really clear that what's going on isn't heteronormative.
I have seen many aces being happy and feeling seen and seeing themselves in Crowley and Aziraphale in Good Omens. I've also seen many aros think the same thing. Because here is the beauty of it: We only know that they love each other more than anything else in the world. It is never said that that love is romantic.
I've also seen many allos completely miss this point.
Asexuality and aromanticism, as is to be expected from orientations that are defined by the lack of something, are still very invisible, both in RL and in fan circles.  While we do have our own spaces and our own little community, mostly we are just there between our allo friends and... kind of stand and wait in a corner while they are busy with the sex and romance our society is constantly throwing at all of us. Being ace and/or aro is often confused with “being celibate”. We don't talk enough about what sexless or romanceless relationships could look like. No wonder so many people missed it when they saw one in Good Omens.
The queer community is STILL very strongly sexualized. And this is a problem, because while sexual attraction IS an important part of being queer, it is also not the only one. Queer people are still queer if they are not having sex. They are queer if they DON'T WANT TO have sex. They are queer if they don't enter romantic relationships. There is nothing straight about the close bonds aros can have with their friends. There is nothing straight about having a friend be the person you are emotionally closest to, close enough to openly beg them to run away together. Multiple times.
Queerplatonic or quasiplatonic relationships are the ones that are a bit difficult to define, because they are somewhere between “friendship” and “romantic relationship”. What they look like depends really on what the people involved want them to be like. Some live together, others don't. Some do things together that are usually considered to be romantic, others don't. Some kiss or have sex, others don't.
So far, I haven't really seen anybody really talk about the existence of queerplatonic relationships outside of ace and aro circles. And while I aggressively headcanon Sherlock Holmes and John Watson being queerplatonic, this was the first time that I've really seen an actual relationship onscreen that can be easily, or even best, read as being one.
But almost by definition, this means that it has to be vague, and subtle, and floating around somewhere around the lines separating friends from romantic partners. As such, I think that Good Omens did a really good job, giving us a relationship that is so obviously loving but also so beyond easy descriptions. However, this also means that it is easy to miss and end up feeling baited.
The problem is, I'm not sure that they COULD have done it better. Any explicit discussion about Crowley's and Aziraphale's relationship would have felt forced and out of place, and the term queerplatonic isn't enough known, they would have had to follow it up with an explanation of what that even is. And it isn't as if they could have made it any clearer how much they love each other as they did.
Some people say that they should have kissed onscreen.
Betty and Veronica in the Riverdale tv series kissed, and we all still know that it was only queerbaiting.
And isn't that, wouldn't that be, in the end, reducing queerness once more to the sexual bit in queer relationships?
I don't know. As I said, there is no clear answer, and in the end of the day, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
I suppose, the best I can say is that what Good Omens did with Crowley and Aziraphale is very beautiful and well executed and also undoubtedly queer. It is, also, not enough. We still live in a time where we don't have much representation, and therefore all collectively jump on anything we can find. As long as this is the case, people will always be unsatisfied with everything. We need more. More explicit, more sexual, more romantic, yes, but also more quiet and subtle and undefined loving ones.
Anyway. I just had to write my opinion on this, because I REALLY didn't like what looked like a group of people dismissing a queer relationship because it wasn't sexual. This isn't even about Good Omens, not really, more about Tumblr being generally Tumblr and not seeing nuance and not thinking things through.
So... Please learn how to properly analyze audiovisual stories. Please be more careful and think a little before you start throwing around the term “queerbaiting”. And, please, PLEASE take a minute to think through if what you are doing isn't in fact sexualizing queer people and excluding parts of the community because of a too narrow definition of queerness.
And finally, PLEASE leave Gaiman alone. One, he has no obligation towards you whatsoever, and two, this was originally a thirty year old book that, three, he co-wrote with a now deceased friend. Being critical of media is one thing, and obviously, Good Omens isn't perfect. But... Just think about what you're doing before you do it, ok?
16 notes · View notes
go-diane-winchester · 5 years
Text
Dear Misha Collins
I don't think you know how to handle your career.  There are mistakes that you are making to your own detriment.  I am doing the decent thing here by pointing them out to you.  When you are an actor, you are the salesman and the product.  These two elements are a benefit to an actor when he manages these two things cleverly, which you have not done.  These two elements are symbiotic.  You need them both.  And the dominant element is the salesman.  If the product is good, but the salesman sucks, the product is not appreciated. 
Take Sam and Dean Winchester as a good example.  Sam is a flawed hero.  He is also, to an extent in the earlier seasons, something of an anti-hero although not a full blown villain.  Dean wasn't as flawed and his swashbuckling gung-ho nature was easier to enjoy than Sam's pensiveness.  Those who didn't know much about the BTS of the show in the early season, latched on to the lead characters.  At that time they didn't know the actors.  For many of them, Sam appeared kind of self-righteous and grumpy.  Yes, he was handsome, but so was Dean who are the more funnier, showier character, so it was easy to latch onto him.  Dean also bonds with other characters faster than Sam does. 
When the first cons were held, people were enthusiastic about meeting the actors who play Sam and Dean expecting the actors to be exactly like their characters.  When they realized that Jared is absolutely nothing like his character and was, by nature, quite a loveable and happy young man, they loved him back enthusiastically.  But they encountered Jensen's reserved nature, some thought he was shy whilst others thought he was a snob.  Because Jared was such an awesome salesman, his product [Sam] became more palatable to the audience.  Jensen realized that as a salesman, he had a little work to do.  Being construed as shy is not bad, but being seen as a snob is definitely not a good look.  So he started trying to change his public image, despite his reserved nature.
So you have to examine your audience and make necessary changes to your salesman pitch, so as to not put off your target market.  Then people started to see meaningfulness in the friendship that J2 share.  Some liked the chemistry their character's shared.  The actors acknowledged that these ideas existed but didn't shoot them down.  Jensen said that he understood it was a ''hot fantasy'', which is very accurate.  They just requested that fans not ask them questions on the subject, which makes sense, because why would you want my opinion on your fantasy.  That is ridiculous.  These two groups, Tinhat fans and wincest fans, have been around for 13 years, without making a peep.  You don't hear about them, unless you go looking for them.  And unlike a few nasty people on Twitter, the majority has since the beginning, respected J2.
Part of the credit for this goes to the actors themselves.  They didn't overindulge this subsection, because that would be an idiotic sales pitch.  I don't think you understand why.  Why is it that Sam and Dean's popularity hasn't waned?  They have shouldered the burden of a show that is now in its fourteenth season.  They are getting more popular and mass media has an eye on them, which is why they are invited on talk shows, sporadically.  You were invited on Larry King, but it was not because of your work on the show, it was for your charity project.  And your charity project is not your livelihood.  Your acting job is, and it isn't looking very good.  You weren't even a series regular last year, and most people didn't seem to mind. 
Here is where your sales pitch is going wrong.
You fragment the total viewing population of the show
You do this by your con etiquette.  The fans who buy tickets to watch your panel are a heterogeneous group of people.  The problem with having this type of audience, is that you have to curb your language around them, because children attend cons too.  You use vulgar language.  You also speak about sexually explicit things like shipping.  The parents and older siblings sitting in the audience might be offended, and that never occurred to you.  That is very baffling.  The parents who are not offended stay on and those who are, won't watch a Misha panel again with their kids.  Fragmentation.  You have broken your total con audience in two. 
When people ask you about shipping, you don't politely acknowledge it and move on.  You ''lay it on thick'' as they say.  There is a lot that is wrong with that. 
Any straight male fan who genuinely admires your character is not likely going to sit through something he doesn't care about.  Especially since you become very explicit.  He will feel kind of grossed out, as he should, not because he's homophobic but because this is not his jam.  By overdoing the shipping thing, you have forced a decision out of this fan as to whether he wants to pay good money to sit through this nonsense again.  The next time he attends con, he is going to spend his money elsewhere.  That also goes for straight female fans who don't like shipping.  Because not all women like slash.  And they will try not to attend you panel again because it didn't entertain them.  Second fragmentation.
There are other ships in the fandom.  That is the natural progression of things went one ship appears on a show or movie.  That initial pairing pulls all the other characters in.  So almost everyone of the well known actors on Supernatural have been slashed with another actor.  All except Tahmoh Penikett and Alexander Calvert, to the best of my knowledge.  I am not sure why Tahmoh is ignored but it might have something to do with his character killing Kevin.  I think Alex is not slashed because every other man is a father figure on the show, and Alex plays a baby.  You tend to indulge mostly the destiel fanbase, and destiel is discussed in almost all your panels.  What is wrong with that?  You isolate people who don't like destiel for whatever reason.  If they don't like a pairing, they are not going to sit through a panel where that pairing is sporadically discussed.  That is not what they paid for.  In a convention, where audience members have been asked not to ask shipping questions, and every other guest honors the rule except you, it makes you look unprofessional and a rule breaker.  That is not a good look for a salesman.  Third fragmentation. 
So what if you speak about destiel?  You have fans.  They love you.  How is that detrimental to your popularity?  I will explain that further down. 
You bite the hand that feeds you
If you have been employed on a show for ten years, you cant badmouth that show.  Especially when you are incorrect.  In 2013, you said that the show was 'gratuitously misogynistic', during one of your panels.  Since then, the show has been bringing in unnecessary female characters.  This is aggravating for fans who were watching the show since before you got casted.  They didn't like most of the female characters, and yes the non-approving fans were all female. Ratings were still good and the show was popular.  There were female characters whom the fans had no problem with, for example, Missouri Mosley, Ellen Harvelle, Pamela Barnes and to a certain extent even Ava. 
Ever since your statement, CW and associated twitter pages blew up with accusation from  ''concerned fans'' who were now asking for ''representation'' on a show that was already nine years old, despite managing to be misogynistic.  So now, we have characters are extremely unpopular like Claire Novak, Jody Mills, Donna Whatshername and even Mary Winchester.  The spinoff for these inadequate females bombed due to lack of ratings.  The show invested time, resources, money and effort into a spin-off that failed, because you said something stupid that made them look bad.  The day they figure it out, you will leave the show with a reputation of being problematic.  And word travels in Hollywood. 
You overestimate your knowledge
You tend to speak up for a lot of different people.  Usually I would admire that, because it is a sign of inclusiveness - not a bad trait to have.  You, however, are very heavy handed with it.  And you speak about subjects like you know them.  You have an inadequate knowledge of slash fiction and yet you speak about it and you speak wrong.  I have already done an article on that subject.  You speak about feminism and misogyny and women's rights which makes me livid, because as I previously pointed out, you say the wrong things.  And as a women, I would prefer to speak up for myself.  I don't need a voice box speaking incorrectly for me. 
You also speak about LGBT issues.  LGBT teens who make up a small part of your already small fanbase, like that.  After all, they are kids and they don't know any better.  Grown ups, are generally, getting irritated.  Because if you wanted these people to have rights, you will let them speak instead of speaking for them.  Right now, only you and your destiel fans have a voice on the subject of LGBT, and collectively, you do a lot of damage to that community.  Non-destiel fans are constantly fighting off destiel fans because of their ''deep'', stereotypical and damaging analysis of Dean's sexuality.  They are becoming dissatisfied, but because you are not a mainstream actor and a household name, you fly just under the radar.  The day GLAAD releases an official statement about you and your fans, you are not going to like it.  Neither is CW.
You don't control your termites
In the past year and a half, your destiel fans have:
verbally bashed Jensen Ackles on Twitter
sent him a death threat
threatened to burn down his house
threatened to poison his beer so his brewery will shut down
smeared J2's reputation over a harmless joke they made at Nolacon [yep, those were your fans - their profile pictures and names gave them away]
were planning to hire a plane so that they could fly the words ''Pedowitz sucks'' outside Mark Pedowitz's office
threatened to kidnap Jared's children
slandered Jared by saying that Jared abuses his wife, whilst pretending to be her number one fan on Instagram 
They only have one motivation for doing this:  YOU. 
And its not because they love you so much.  Its because you overindulged something that was essentially a harmless pastime, you have turned them into junkies and you are their only dealer.  The day you switch off their juice with finality, you will see a very ugly side of these termites, who are eating away at the foundations of Supernatural.  
Because you over spoke about destiel, these troublemakers are now the majority of your fans.  Outside of destiel, they have no interest in you.  The Misha-led con recently didn't do very well, did it?  Due to fragmentation you have lost many fans, and mishandling of your product caused you to use all the others.  How many fans do you have left?  Less that 80 000.  That is my estimation.  Those are the majority of the fans who petitioned for Wayward Daughters.  The standard audience didn't give a hoot about that stupid project.  Why did the shippers care so much?  Because Wayward Daughters was a fan-backed project.  The fans made it happen.  They assumed that if they could succeed in that, then maybe they could make destiel canon too.  For them, destiel is endgame.   
Supernatural as a total audience of 3 million.  Less that 80 000, is not an impressive number.  Unfortunately 80 000 are still inaccurate, because this was not a ''landlocked'' survey.  It was done via the Internet, which means that fans from all over the world could vote.  So they don't fall under the category of the 3 million viewers who tune into Supernatural in America, every week.  You fans are not Supernatural's core audience.  You did that to yourself.  These fans are also mostly teens.  That is why they are so loud compared to other fan subsections.  They have no mortgages to pay.  They don't have to face rush hour traffic and they can fixate on destiel without much interruption.  And since they are kids, they understand social media better than you and I.  So they know how to use their resources. 
I want to point out though, that not all destiel fans are problematic.  Some are civil and level headed.  I feel sorry for them because their reputation is tarnished due to the majority.  And an ok ship, that they enjoy, is ruined.
The only thing that is your saving grace, for many fragmented fans is your anti-Trump stance.  I hate him too, but I also hate Hillary.  She is no better than him.  However, even that is baffling because if you are brave enough to tweet and irritate Trump, who is unfortunately your President, why don't you have the courage to deal with your fans, in defense of your co-stars and the show that has employed you for ten years.  Especially when these fans are mostly children.  So you are not afraid of President Trump, but little girls scare you?  Because my vantage point, I can see that this doesn't make you look good. 
You used to be one of my favorites amongst the additional cast, until I got fragmented out of your circle.  I even liked destiel, until it turned into a vile beast.  You are now one person, that I cant write a slash story for.  Because you have made it difficult for me to like you. 
I thank you for your time, Mr Collins, and I hope some of what I said, gets through to you. 
Sincerely
An ex-Misha Fan
73 notes · View notes
julz321 · 6 years
Text
The Vice of Positivity in Fandoms
(Warning Voltron Season 7 spoilers)
There’s not doubt that there is a lot of negativity in the world and we need more nice people in the world. However, depending on the situation, positivity can, in fact, do more damage than good in situations that does not call for it. Sure it can be useful to temper negativity, but again only when appropriate. And not all negativity is bad.
Optimism can indeed dilute you into thinking things are ok and nothing needs changing. While there are those people who worry over nothing, the way we determine if something is worth worrying about is dependent on how thoroughly and accurately you look at the details. Also a level of experience in social issues helps too. 
I can understand a fandom’s desire to keep things light and positive and avoid conflict, we all wanna just relax and enjoy our shared interests. Heck that’s why I enjoy conventions. However, pretending like nothing is wrong can allow disaster to hit when we least expect it. Many fandoms are oblivious to the fact that there are pedophiles or alt-right people in their midst and never question it, or reflexively label it as “drama” or ignorantly label everyone as equally in the wrong. This is very counter-productive and trying to plead for the moral high ground and tell people to do better is useless so long as they continue to pretend as if nothing is wrong. 
Enter Voltron’s controversial season 7. While, yes, Voltron fans can indeed be insufferable when their ships aren’t confirmed, it would be very counter-productive to lump them and show’s critics in the same boat. It’s like saying the people who criticized the Titans trailer as just as bad as the people who harassed the actors of the show.
(Minor spoilers for those who have not seen it but it’s been a week so I think we’re good)
For those who don’t know, the Voltron creative team revealed that one of their main characters, Shiro, to be gay and that they were going to tell this story in season 7. Long story short, this did not end up being the case. The dialogue between Adam and Shiro were too vague (parents had to explain to their kids that the two were in a relationship) to the point where you could mistaken them as just roommates, Adam was killed (so no hope exploring things there), and while Shiro looks upon the plack honoring Adam and the many others who died defending Earth all he has to say is “I’m sorry.” Not even an “I love you” and thus adding onto the vagueness of  Shiro and Adam’s relationship.  Many critics saw to this as a let down and many fans were rightfully upset. While this display isn’t as infuriating as the Lefu from the live action Beauty and the Beast movie, it is still infuriating none the less. The writers say they were all for LGBT representation but then failed to properly deliver and have received a hailstorm of criticism.  Sure, it may be “some” representation and it’s “better than nothing” but if it’s barely anything then you can’t all this “progress.” It’s like saying “I got a raise” and it’s wonderful, only to find out you only got 10 cents. 
Steven Universe is able to do better in terms of LGBT representation and yet their best couple is locked inside a fusion most of the time. Shiro being the LGBT version of Steve Rogers would have been a great step in the right direction, but the creators decided to keep it vague, which makes it very underwhelming at best and frustrating at worst. And all it would have take is clear confirmation, on screen, not by word of the creators, about Shiro’s relationship or sexual orientation. One “I love you” would have solved this, or at least tempered it.
This is just one out of many criticism with season 7, the gloomy tone, the stalling, among other writing flaws with the season. But needless to say, season 7 deserved it’s low rating.
Now how does this relate into positivity being a problem (even though season 7 could have used more positivity)? 
To those with experience in the Voltron fandom, shipping is a common practice just like in any fandom. However, sometimes these shippers can take it too far and proceed to harass the actors and creative team. However, while I will chastise geeks for engaging in such behavior and, I agree, harassing the creators is a problem, see the Star Wars fandom, it’s unwise to mix harassment with criticism. 
While bugging the crew about ships the fandom wanted so much is a very petty thing, pointing out very significant and legit problems with your show is something every creator is going to have to deal with. Criticism, especially legit and valid criticism, is in no way harassment. Sure not every show is gonna be perfect, however, that thought terminating platitude breeds complacency and creates the illusion that you don’t have to improve at all. If anything it cultivates more problems from right under your noses, such as ignorance. There is no shortage of fans who still believe Voltron season 7 was great and while they are within their right to like something, It’s infuriating when they try to stiffling something that would be more beneficial than just undeserved praise.
It’s clear that the common fan has no experience with writing or social issues, sometimes both. See the creator’s last project known as the Legend of Korra, where that show was considered “smart” for a kids show, however, had the teenager’s understanding of politics. But since the series “mentions” these issues and saw “parallels” to real world issues the common fan incorrectly comes to the conclusion that it must be good. Pretty much in the same vein as DC fans thinking dark and edgy means that is must be a work of art. A good writer, or someone well versed in LGBT issues would spot these problems, the vagueness and the wasted opportunity at real representation, almost immediately. But the common fan is so undiscerning that all they see is people arguing, but never consider why. I promise you, you’ll find no shortage of fans who are quick to try and sweep this type of “drama” under the rug, label critics as “insufferable” and are “forcing their opinions,” and rally people to “be better” while championing the quality of a show when little quality was even there. And those kind of actions lead people in fandom down the road of ignorance and stunts improvement. It warps how fandoms think by putting up a veil of false positivity or positivity that is unnecessary. 
And before someone tries to chime in with another thought terminating platitude, yes creators have every right to produce something how they want whenever they want and they don’t have to conform to people’s standards. However, in the same string of logic, everyone has the right to their opinion, even if it’s wrong, however people are still allowed to use that same freedom of speech to respond with criticism or a counter argument. And as creators working for a company and profess themselves to be professional, then listening to criticism is something you have to learn how to do and get used to in order to grow. Not listen to every criticism, since not every critic is a good one, but you’ll never find out what that sounds like unless you get out a pen and paper and start taking notes. Filter out the bad comments from the ones that are good and will help you. Like when someone says they haven’t watched your video and claim they know you’re wrong. 
And before someone says “oh but you’ll discourage them,” if Michael Bay can keep making terrible movies and still deal with harsh reviews, or even DC for that matter, then you have no excuse. Even Marvel writers are dealing with harassment from fans who don’t like the level of representation in their comics but those very same writers are committing to it despite the level of BS that gets thrown their way. Any creator who will be hurt by legit criticism will get hurt by any criticism that isn’t soft and simpering and if that is the case then you have no place being in a professional work environment.  Tone policing or applying positivity in a situation that does not need it and furthering geek culture to stay within its ignorant bubble of ignorance and  privilege is how you make matters worse the next time this comes around. No, amount of pleading to moral high ground or trying to “act like the better person” is not gonna make a problem go away. Understanding the details and listening to criticism is something that a moderately smart person should be capable of doing. Saying that critics who know what they’re talking about are just as bad as the fans who harass the creative team spits in the face of wisdom.  To summarize, being positive is ok when it’s needed, but putting it into a situation that does not call for it is you being one of those “nice people” who hate fighting, label every bit of conflict as drama, never quite understands why people are arguing, and is ultimately condescending while waxing poetic on a moral high ground about how fans criticizing a show is the same this as harassing them over ships. Criticism is needed in order for creators to grow and it takes a pro to understand the legit comments and the ones you can safely delete. LGBT representation is important so don’t say you’re all for it but then chicken out at the last minute when your competition can do even better. The only issue with criticism is not that it may sound harsh. but whether or not it’s correct and helps you to grow. 
P.S. I still love my gay space daddy as much as I love big pink, gay space rock mom. Although I’m very sure the people here just skimmed it and didn’t bother reading this article in detail. See how it hurts to be condescending? 
4 notes · View notes
janiedean · 6 years
Text
@nederys all of you guys kinda lost your shit but i don't think you're being consistent at all. you didn't go for it being misinformed or wrongly placed, just that it was "gross" bc it was "romanticizing" blabla, like if someone made a fic about ETA terrorists or whatever and i advocated censorship and asked for it not to exist. when you accept kink and RPF, you need to stand on that principle even when it's YOUR personal/national. shaming ppl into submission is the anti strategy and it doesnt actually convince anybody of anything, much literally if it's screaming in another language to the OPs. i didnt wanna reblog or anything but i was very unpleasantly surprised with how you guys handled the situation (and i say this bc i care and i know you value rationality, not to piss you off YOUR personal/national sensibility like if someone wants to write a fic 'romanticizing' tec bundy murders or a rape fantasy or whatever it's their field day just tag it properly, it's no different for a criminal organization as i see it. a piece of sexual fantasy or literary work is not a guarantee it's portrayed in an accurate way or that it's a moral endorsementj + I'll hear your argument on 'positive representation' so i'll take your word for now but it did really come of like "your evil porn is romanticizing evil irl so it should be censored". as for the bad taste etc thing - as long as the person in question doesn't find out i dont personally see the harm. other ppl getting second-handed distastefulness/offense about it is a slippery slope, bc again that quickly devolves into "ugh why you write about rape! / rpf! if you can write kink porn and you can do rpf (like i mean, what, we just tweak the hair color and the initials to make it 'fictional'?) - it follows you can write "distasteful" kink porn about rpf all you want. it's still fiction.okay in order
In order:
as I said in the other reply, people lost their shit because we’ve had this discussion for years and every time it happens SOMEONE (most likely american but not necessarily) shows yup informing us that since mafia in US english means generally organized crime and not THAT specific organized crime we need to chill and WHO CARES YOU’RE OVERREACTING. at some point there’s a limit to how much nice you can be when you’ve been trying nicely for years and people just dismiss you most likely also because you’re not poc enough to complain - again, when it happens with people who can fall into the POC definition doing this kinda stuff automatically means you’re racist, but with us it’s not even disrespectful? or recognized as potentially harmful? fine, we lost our shit, but it’s also not the first time it happens;
the point isn’t that they were making a fic about the mafia, but if we take the ETA terrorism similitude, it wasn’t ‘making a fic abut ETA’. it was, ‘we are making an RPF fic where we take a real living spanish actor who has a friend who died during an ETA bombing and we make him the commander of an ETA faction which plants a bomb in madrid’. I’d find it distasteful if it was about FICTIONAL CHARACTERS, but whatevr - it’s fictional. real people who are actually involved with those criminals on the other side? not so cool. and the fact that these people see nothing wrong with casting them as criminals for *the mafia* shows they have no idea of what they’re talking about and again, with fictional people you can try to ignore it (even if it irks me also because 90% of the time it shows a total failure of understanding the character just by casting them as mafiosi but never mind that’s my pet peeve), but real ones? who made a pro lgbt movie and are *allies* when a mafia killing actually was what kickstarted the creation of the hugest and first anti-homophobia/pro-gay lgbtq association in italy? like. that’s fucking with real people and honestly if I was the director and knew I’d feel personally slandered especially if I come from someplace where statistically everyone knows someone who’s been hurt by the mafia in the last fifty years if they weren’t themselves. like I had a friend whose father worked for the police and the antimafia division especially and lived in palermo back in the day and criminals did try to grab her out of her pre-school and they had to change cities VERY quickly after that, and I don’t even live in sicily. and she’s not even sicilian. it was twenty years ago when they planted bombs across the entire area and killed hundreds of people just in the 90s (comprehensive list). it’s not just WRITING FIC ABOUT THE MAFIA, which I could be relatively handwaving with if it was about fictional people and even then it irks me to hell and back, but real people? who make movies pro things that the mafia hates? really? and I have to hear ‘are you angry because you’re homophobes’? I don’t ask for it NOT TO EXIST, I’m asking a basic modicum of decency.
ted bundy vs mafia: ted bundy is ONE person and he’s been convicted and whatever. if someone’s personal fantasy is fucking ted bundy WHATEVER their problem. if THEY want to do the self-insert with real criminals whatever, idgi but if they’re aware of the implications whatever. the mafia is a bunch of people and they thrive on positive media representation and it’s such large scale that it fucks with this entire country on multiple levels (ad also other countries) and here you’re not using real criminals, you’re casting as criminals people who most likely have been hurt by that same organization. it’s a difference. and if you portray it as a nice organization where hey you help people bypassing the law and gay people are accepted it’s... just... not how it works.
rpf: I’m generally pro rpf as long as people don’t go to the actual real people and don’t harass them irl (which would make a lot of rpf shippers inappropriate) but like... idk if you were around in spn fandom at the time of the infamous j2 haiti fic, but if you weren’t, tldr: person sees the aftermath of the haiti earthquake on tv, thinks ‘well that’d make a perfect setting for my j2 bigbang fic’, writes an entire fic where jared and jensen go to haiti the month it happened, her artist makes art for it photoshopping those two over like... real pictures of real dead people and three betas don’t find nothing remotely cringy in this concept. the fic gets published. it gets slandered to hell and back and while I didn’t agree on assuming the author was a pre-trump (she most likely had no idea that stuff was kindaaa racist) and that she should have been educated, I’d like to presume that people would think thrice before setting a Romance Story TM on a background where when it was published people were still excavating corpses from the rubble. it’s about the same concept as the romantic mafia fic. but with the haiti fic anyone on tumblr would agree that it’s hardly appropriate, with mafia fic it’s just ‘meh shut up you’re whining’. also, while I do agree that jared and jensen, as famous people, signed up for this, too, I don’t really think using real people for this kind of thing is fair, educated or a favor to them. I get it’s all fantasy and so on, but at least use the fictional characters. I can imagine j2 wouldn’t be happy with knowing noncon fic where they’re protagonists exists, neither with the haiti fic, but the noncon is standard fandom kink and whatever and no one else is involved, the haiti fic DOES. and while the people in those pictures wouldn’t even know, if that’s what you jerk off to at least be aware that it’s not exactly tasteful. and the people mentioned had zero idea that jerking off to the *mafia* au is not tasteful and that the *mafia* is *not* random organized crime. no one would have a problem if they called them CRIMINALS or mob or whatever without using the specific mafia word, but they like it because AESTHETICS which 90% of the time aren’t even true because the godfather aesthetic is so NOT the camorra aesthetic it’s not even funny. and of course we shoudl educate people instead, too bad that if it’s about haiti they listen and if it’s about us, they don’t;
 kink: same as above but like, again, let’s always use the poor j2 guys. the j2 mafia au as above is absolutely ew to me but at least j2 are american and most likely didn’t grow up somewhere the mafia could kill their relatives or friends. guadagnino did. and whether he knows or not (HOPEFULLY HE NEVER FINDS OUT) it’s another level of disrespectful to take a guy who made a pro lgbt movie you liked and putting him in that scenario without being aware of it. and they don’t listen if you tell them. that’s the problem. I can be very tolerant, but good god at least hear people out on the subject. and if it concerns a situation that isn’t even old or a dead organization but one that’s thriving in the country still and fucks people over every day I’d like for these people to recognize that at least it’s something not cool and not just their jerk off fodder material. at this point do the GODFATHER AU, which is what they want anyway, stick with the american mafia and try to not give them positive rep, because this idea of the mafia as a cool thing plays a major role in actual mafia organization marketing themselves as a good thing and makes the work of people actually fighting them way harder. if no one thought it was cool, it wouldn’t have half the influence it has. but do I ever see mafia aus with cops or conflicted henchmen or the likes? nah. it’s all SAD ROMANTIC BACKSTORY WITH CRIMINALS. call it some other way. it’s not asking that much.
also: I am entirely down with mafia stories in media and stuff - again, I ove my sopranos and boardwalk empire and goodfellas and I actually do like the godfather when a lot of people here at this point hate it too, but none of those things make it look like it’s palatable to be in the mafia. people can jerk off to it I suppose, but at least they should be aware of that. lowering the bar, it’s why I get pissed at people passing jc as a healthy nice relationship - at least own up to your badwrong and don’t sugarcoat it. in this case they don’t even own up to the fact that it’s a real thing that hurts real people, never mind caring for the feelings of the people they’re fans of - I could jerk off to my rpf faves in anything but I’d like to know I’m not doing it to something they would loathe, and if you have to at least use the fictional characters as the jerk-off material. I mean I’d feel uncomfortable af using them as jerk-off material to something I know they as people would hate. obviously I’m pro write whatever you want, but I’m also pro ‘be aware of what you’re doing and know you’re possibly jerking off to things that are actually harmful to a lot of people and if you do and are cool with that whatever but at least try to not make it look as it’s a good thing’ while at the same time assuming that someone who tells you it’s not cool is doing it because they’re HOMOPHOBES when the mafia is the most homophobic organization in existence or close to it. we do need positive rep when it comes to mafia stories and we never get it.
like, final example: if I had seen one ‘steve rogers is a cop who wants to take down the mafia-like organization’ for every ten ‘tiny boss steve rogers and his russian henchman bucky are THE POWER COUPLE OF THE NY CRIME SCENE AND THEY KISS IN FRONT OF EVERYONE AND HELP THE WEAK WHEN THE POLICE SUCKS ASS’ fics I ran into it’d be lovely, but the point is that I’ve never seen one such fic even if it’s a lot more IC for steve rogers to take down criminals than being a criminal, and if you make people notice that nicely (which we did more than once) the usual answer is ‘go fuck yourself it’s just aesthetics the mafia doesn’t hurt anyone’ when it actually did, does and will do as long as they have means to, and since this recasting of canonically good characters as *mafia* henchmen who are happy to be there and not itching to get out just really makes pass the concept that the mafia isn’t really that bad I think I/we affected people have the rights to point out that it’s already a distasteful thing that people should at least read about before assuming it’s random organized crime that can be substituted for whichever worldbuilding they like, and if they don’t care for that fine, at least avoid involving real people who actually would loathe that irl in it or, if anything, at least recognize that it’s fucked up to hell and back. and none of the people in that thread had the grace to do that.
I mean, obviously if I had to take the choice between one such fic not existing at all but censoring stuff and it existing without censoring stuff I’d pick the latter even if I absolutely don’t like it, but what irks me and the other people involved in this debate is how nonchalantly people do these recasting assuming that they’re not romanticizing the thing (which they’re doing) and then don’t listen to others when they’re pointed out that they’re doing it and they should be aware.
like, again, I think the haiti fic was a thing that no one with some salt in their brain and a basic amount of decency should have published. someone did. they got criticized for it and it sprung a lot of discussion (including comparing it with a gen kill fic set in east timor during the war which actually did it right and so no one actually thought it was exploiting a tragedy or being in bad taste) and tbh I think that when doing fic about serious things you should at least read up on that. but the point is that these people don’t listen, haven’t listened for years and most likely will keep on not listening and sorry but seeing a person from palermo who shoots movies that would make any cosa nostra boss mad being recast as a cosa nostra/mafia sicilian boss who, if compared to a, uh, real life person who died recently would deal with people seceding from this organization by ordering to kidnap their children and have them dissolved in acid at the ripe age of nine is really goddamned distateful and hearing ‘so your problem is that they’re gay is that why you’re so angry’ as a response instead of reading it and thinking ‘damn maybe that was a bit out of line’ isn’t exactly that great.
especially because again, these organization thrive on people assuming they’re less bad than they actually are and we’re not talking about stuff that happened three hundred years ago - the kid dissolved in acid happened in 1996 and it’s hardly the last time something like that happened. it’s not a general crime organization, it’s a very specific one, and I’ll be fine with people jerking off to any italian stereotype in existence while I roll my eyes and be fine with it, but at least I’d like these people to know what they’re doing. and they aren’t. and they should be. and on top of that some positive rep where the mafia people are inherently bad and the good guys want to take them down would be nice. I do get that it looks like I’m being incoherent but I’m not saying they can’t do it, I’m saying they should show a minimum of consideration, and they aren’t. then no one’s stopping them from doing it of course but just the fact that they-won’t-listen kind of says a lot. :/ and when it comes to real people and real things it’s not just fiction and you should at least be aware of that.
15 notes · View notes
natural--blues · 7 years
Text
Before I start this post, I’m going to clarify that is is a problem in general. This is targeting nobody, but if you think this post is aimed at you, you might want to think about your behavior.
I always find it amazing when someone trips over themselves to excuse their homo/bi/trans/acephobia with “concern”. 
It’s not that they have problems with a queer character, oh no, they just would rather not have one and are so put out by the thought because they’re concerned, on our behalf, that the writers might not create a compelling, accurate representation of us. So, to them, it’s clearly better to go the cishet route. They don’t hate us, in fact they super support us and are just protecting us, is all! 
Tumblr media
PHEW! Saved those queer people a lot of heartache through incorrect representation by making sure they have none. Not all superheroes wear capes, etc.
My question is two pronged, to those people. Let’s start with the first one: Do you think we’re naive enough to believe that there isn’t a high chance of problematic storylines and misrepresentation? Do you think we don’t understand?
We do.
We crave three dimensional, complex, realistic representation but we also know that we have to deal with times when the representation is going to be problematic, and we’ll need to critique, and bring out our concerns, and try our best to push writers into a more realistic direction -- that some need to be educated away from stereotypical characterization and lean toward creating complex characters who are people, people who are also queer. Who go through drama that isn’t always and only about their sexuality or gender identity, who are treated as a serious character, a lead character, whose storyline, thoughts, and feelings matter, more than just being there to garner viewership from a thirsty community followed by death, suffering, and sidelining due to queer identity. Especially if it’s out of shock value, or to benefit the cishet chars for an emotional journey. Miss us with that, seriously. 
Tumblr media
Similarly, miss us with our only existence being to prop up and prepare the cishet for their straight relationship, or for feel-good moments where we do all of the emotional labor for a cishet person that their romantic partner should be doing, due to heteronormative gender roles making active communication impossible in the straight relationship. There’s a difference between being a best friend with whom you share everything and come to for your problems, and being the poodle in a purse gay that only comes out when you need sassy advice.
We crave good representation.
Of the 895 series regular characters expected to appear on broadcast scripted primetime programming in the coming year, 43 (4.8%) were identified as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer. This is the highest percentage of LGBTQ series regulars GLAAD has ever found. There were an additional 28 recurring LGBTQ characters.
The number of regular LGBTQ characters counted on scripted primetime cable series increased from 84 to 92, while recurring characters decreased from 58 to 50. This is a total of 142 LGBTQ characters, regular and recurring.
GLAAD also counted LGBTQ characters on original series that premiered on Amazon, Hulu, and Netflix. GLAAD found 45 series regulars and 20 recurring LGBTQ characters for a total of 65 characters. This is up from last year's inaugural streaming count of 59 LGBTQ characters (43 regular and 16 recurring).
The number of regular and recurring transgender characters across all three platforms tracked has more than doubled, from seven characters last year to 16. There are three trans characters counted on broadcast, six on cable, and seven on streaming original series. Of the 16 characters, four are transgender men.
Lesbian representation dropped dramatically on broadcast television, down 16 percentage points to 17% of all LGBTQ characters. Lesbian representation is also down on cable, to 20% from 22% reported last year.
Bisexual representations on broadcast rose to 30%, up by ten percentage points from last year. Bisexual representations also rose on streaming series, from 20% to 26%. However, cable series have dropped in bisexual representations from 35% to 32%. Bisexual women far outnumber bisexual men on every platform. Many of these characters still fall into dangerous stereotypes about bisexual people.
Each platform tracked (broadcast, cable, streaming) counts one character who is HIV-positive, though only broadcast television counts the character as a series regular (Oliver on ABC's How to Get Away with Murder).
Cable and streaming platforms still need to include more racially diverse LGBTQ characters as a majority of LGBTQ regular and recurring characters on each platform (72% and 71% respectively) are counted as white. Overall racial diversity is up again with 36% (325) of 895 series regular characters on broadcast counted as people of color, which is a three-point increase from last year's report.
While this year's report marks a record-high percentage of black series regulars on broadcast (20%), black women remain underrepresented at only 38% of all black series regular characters.
GLAAD found a record-high percentage of series regular characters with disability on broadcast television at 1.7% of all series regulars, this is up from the 0.9% reported last year.
This year, 44% of regular characters on primetime broadcast programming are women, which is an increase of one percentage point from last year but still greatly underrepresents women who make up 51% of the population.
Do you get that? These percentages, for the LGBT people, are percents of the 4.8%. 
We’ve put up with subtext, side characters, and zero screentime since the invention of television. Since plays. Since reading by the fireplace or by candlelight.
We crave representation, and a place of improvement is a better place to start than just never trying.
A queer character comes into a series as an actual character and it brings the gaggles of gays like nobody’s business. We have so little to pull from in widespread, mainstream media. When is the last time you saw a movie in theaters that was a same sex romance, where the story was literally all about that, with straight side characters, and it got as high billing and viewership as whatever romcom with big star names Hollywood craps out this year?
It’s like Field of Dreams. If you build it, we will come. We will squeal. We will watch it, hoping against hope for the character to at least end the series alive, hopefully with a happy ending. 
Tumblr media
Why would you want to rob us of the happiness of a large-billed character, or series, or movie, or anything where we’re represented? How do you call yourself an ally and legitimately want this?
Secondly, do you think we’re stupid? 
Let me back this up with real talk here. You may have seen lots of jokes on tumblr about how gay people travel in packs and herds and the like... it’s fucking true. When you’re trying your best to grandstand in public about how concerned you are for our well-being, but in private you try to silence and malign queer people and think those queer people don’t tell each other that you have to be naive. Similarly, reading big grandstand posts about how concerned a cishet is on our behalf and why they just would rather a queer character not exist literally tells us what a phobe you are.  You’re just worried? You just want to protect us, by removing our representation before these shows, films, or seasons even come out? You know, to be a good ally and defend us?
Tumblr media
There’s a difference between legitimate concern based on problematic writing of queer characters in the past and new shows and movies coming out now with new writers, or shows and movies coming with writers who have no problematic pasts with queer characters that have you and your concerntrolling lot clutching your pearls on our behalf.
When you turn all of the attention onto yourself and your feelings, as a cishet, you are not being an ally. 
Don’t worry, your concerntrolling wasn’t allyship either. So that’s 0/2 already. But then we hit strike three when you see queer voices bringing up excitement for these shows and making posts about how thrilled they are, and that if you aren’t into it to straight up miss them -- and you take personal offense and turn it around to be all about you and your “ally” feelings. 
In the end, I suppose, this fit serves its purpose. The queers are cast in a nasty light for not being grateful that their all-star ally was so worried for them, and the “ally” gets backpats and reassurance. Cue also, the comments about how if queer people want to get anywhere, they need their cishet allies and should be nicer and more understanding. Tone policing and shunning happens too. 
Part of why we get so upset, and angry, and hurt by that is because you called yourself an ally. Maybe you were a friend of queer people. It’s a betrayal. It’s a reminder of the fact that cishets have that privilege, when they start acting like they’re the victim when they hurt us and we tell them. How we’re expected to coddle, handhold, and beg in our sweetest customer service voices for support. How we have to bend into yoga expert positions to try to act in a way that won’t upset them so much they no longer want to give any support at all. How we can’t vent to them, on the off chance they get offended, or hear ‘ugh straight people’ and start defending themselves.
It’s a great big fucking reminder of how little our relatioships, thoughts, stories, and even lives matter to cishets when the thought of one character, or series, or movie being queer or mostly about a queer character and story turns them off. No matter what excuses are made, if you think queer people haven’t heard it all before and can’t read between the lines, you’re completely wrong.
“But I was just being a good ally!”
Tumblr media
17 notes · View notes
Text
Saying the “B” Word: Acknowledging Bisexual Erasure In Modern Media
         Being a bisexual TV fanatic is not always easy. As far as life woes go, television disappointments would fall low on the list, but a lack of representation can still prove frustrating to a fan searching for relatability in a character. The average blueprint is worn out and cliche, yet Hollywood is slow to leave its comfort zone. White and straight characters are safe and easy. There’s a repetitive pattern that the media has successfully sold for years, and convincing them to stray into uncharted waters is no easy task.  A widening critique of repetitive characters has increased a demand for diversity, and Hollywood has begun to catch on. More and more plots are being written to cater to a large audience. Today, you are far more likely to see LGBT+ story lines on TV than 10 years ago. Yet in an influx of new, diversified characters, bisexuals are treated like the middle child of the queer community. They are often misunderstood or overlooked entirely. It’s time for the media to take advantage of the fresh and complex character arcs a bisexual identity could entail. Instead, they opt for old and worn out tropes. Lesbian and gay characters are seeing the light of day, but bisexual counterparts are left in the shadows of a new and needed spotlight.
          I felt this on a personal level when coming to terms with my own sexuality. “I’m bisexual” is a phrase I say often, resulting in a variety of reactions. Some say I’m simply going through a phase. Others roll their eyes and tell me to pick a side. My own mother questioned how I would manage not to cheat on future partners, somehow correlating an attraction to multiple genders with infidelity. Others were open and accepting. They valued my identity and did their best to approach it respectfully, even if they didn’t understand its every nuance. It was their kindness that helped me along in my journey to self-discovery, and as a movie and TV fan I longed to see the same consideration reflected in my favorite programs. Unfortunately, it wasn’t easy to find. Most shows didn't bother with bisexuality at all. At worst, a joke would be made at the expense of my orientation. I tried to shrug it off, but I was left feeling underrepresented and misunderstood by the world. When I first saw a bisexual character accurately represented, it made me ecstatic.
         In the CW sitcom Crazy Ex-Girlfriend, Daryl Whitefeather comes out in an 80’s style song entitled “Getting Bi”, belting out “I don’t know how/ I don’t know why / But I like ladies / And I like guys / I realize it’s a surprise / But now I see that that’s just me / It’s not like I even try” (“Josh Is Going to Hawaii”).  The simplistic, slightly goofy lines might seem like a silly song to some, but to me they were an anthem. I finally felt I could relate to a character, and I was overjoyed to see that a show had actually put forth an effort in representing bisexuality. Indeed, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) agreed with my initial reaction, noting in their overview of male bisexual representation on television that Crazy Ex-Girlfriend had “presented and dispelled several of the negative stereotypes that bisexual individuals face in real life” (“Where We Are”). Crazy Ex-Girlfriend dared to go where other shows avoided. It left stereotypes and accepted ways of thought behind and genuinely put forth an effort. The results made waves in the bisexual community, and left many hungry for more. If only more shows would give such a stellar effort!
         Unfortunately, such accurate representation is still quite uncommon. In its 2016 annual report on LGBT+ representation within the media, GLAAD found that while bisexual characters are growing in number, they are often still written to reflect negative stereotypes (“Where We Are”). Spencer Kornhaber, a staff writer at The Atlantic, observed that, “while gay and lesbian characters on TV increasingly are portrayed in a way that doesn’t make their sexuality into a large and dubious metaphor about their character, bisexuality often is portrayed as going hand-in-hand with moral flexibility.” Indeed, many bisexuals are portrayed only through threesome scenes thrown in to add a hint of sexual edginess, making bisexuality appear as an element of erotica and nothing more. Bisexual women are shown as sexually daring, and bisexual men are portrayed as unknowingly gay. It appears that Hollywood writers just don’t know what to do with bisexuals.
         As harmful as stereotypes can be, Hollywood often relies on them to develop a character. From the gay interior designer to the butch lesbian best friend, Hollywood has found a place for LGBT+ identity in the sea of diversity-boosting supporting characters. Bisexuality lacks the definitive, though erroneous, stereotypes that other LGBT+ characters fall prey to. Amy Zimmerman, entertainment corresponder at The Daily Beast, remarks, “Our mainstream media reinforces the notion that bisexuality is either a fun, voluntary act of experimentation or a mere myth through two tried and true tactics: misrepresenting and oversimplifying bisexual characters until they are either punchlines or wet dream fodder, or simply refusing to portray bisexual characters in the first place.” Stereotypes are used as a character-building shortcut. The lack of a perceived bisexual pattern of behavior makes them too inconvenient to portray.
         Some might argue that Hollywood is trying, or that one show cannot possibly represent everyone within one plot. Both statements are true. Diversity is making headway in Hollywood, and no show can be expected to provide a smorgasbord of every orientation, gender identity, ethnicity, race, and religion. That being said, the traditional white, cisgender, straight character is worn out. Entertainment is in need of diversity not only to provide representation, but also to provide new and interesting storylines. Rich and multifaceted characters come from all different backgrounds. They may be harder to write and develop, but the payoff is worth it when you have a new and untold story to present to an audience. Bisexual activist Eliel Cruz argues that “Asking for media representation isn't asking diversity for diversity's sake — it's for the sake of accuracy.”
          The heart of Hollywood’s problematic bisexual representation lies within society. There are those who don’t believe bisexuality is legitimate. Many have misconceptions of bisexuality stemming from long-accepted myths concerning sexuality in and of itself. While sexual orientation and gender identity are increasingly viewed as lying within a spectrum, many approach it from a black and white standpoint. Bisexuality is confusingly gray, especially for an all or nothing culture. Cruz suggests that “Bisexuality threatens the heteronormative narrative even more than homosexuality, because it destroys our ideas of a binary; it's an acknowledgment that humans sexuality works in a more complex manner than only having romantic and sexual attractions for one gender.”
        Erasure is a word that causes the misunderstood and ignored to slump their shoulders in defeat. Instead, it should be seen as an opportunity. Erasure can be approached as a dark abyss or a blank piece of paper waiting to hold people’s stories. There are so many unique identities that the media has yet to portray, and bisexuality is only one of them. In ignoring it, the media does itself a disservice by missing new and exciting plots. By misrepresenting it, they perpetuate dangerous stereotypes that actively hurt bisexual individuals. Bisexuality has long lingered behind the curtain of queerness’ stage, lacking the flamboyance to be given a role. It is time to put them in and share the spotlight. They are here, they are queer, and they have a story to tell.
                                               Works Cited
Cruz, Eliel. “Here's the One Simple Reason Why We Need More Openly Bisexual Characters on Television.” Mic, Mic Network Inc., 15 Oct. 2015, https://mic.com/articles/97512/here-s-the-one-simple-reason-why-we-need-more-openly-bisexual-characters-on-television. Accessed 9 Oct. 2017.  
“Josh is Going to Hawaii!” Crazy Ex Girlfriend. CW. 7 March 2016. Television.
Kornhaber, Spencer. “The Trope of the Evil Television Bisexual.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 28 Oct. 2015, www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/10/tvs-evil-bisexuals-still-live/412786 . Accessed October 11, 2017.
“Where We Are on TV Report - 2016.” GLAAD, GLAAD, 31 July 2017, www.glaad.org/whereweareontv16. Accessed 9 Oct. 2017.
Zimmerman, Amy. “It Ain't Easy Being Bisexual on TV.” The Daily Beast, The Daily Beast Company, 14 Aug. 2014, www.thedailybeast.com/it-aint-easy-being-bisexual-on-tv. Accessed 11 Oct. 2017.
0 notes
Text
The Ethics of Fiction Writing - Part Two
I’ll start out by repeating my statement from the last article: my purpose for establishing ethical guidelines for writers is so that writers can police themselves (and so that when the public wants to tell off a writer for being unethical they can do so rationally) and not as a pretext for censorship.  Censorship is abhorrent, but fear of censorship should not be an excuse for being willfully ignorant of the ethical responsibilities of writers.
In the last section I asked whether writing could harm readers/viewers/players directly, and the answer was a resounding “maybe.”  In this part, the question is whether fiction can harm people indirectly, by contributing to harmful prejudices.
To see if this is the case, we need to ask the following questions: Does prejudice exist?  Does prejudice hurt people?  Does fiction contribute significantly to prejudice?  Can writers do something about the degree that their fiction contributes to prejudice?  If the answers to all of these are yes, then we can make ethical statements about writing that can guide the actions of writers (or at least those who care to be ethical, see statement on censorship above).
For the first two questions, whether there is there prejudice and whether it’s harmful, I am not going to prove the point here.  This subject has been studied extensively by social scientists and the conclusions leave no reasonable room for doubt.  The science is there and is readily available for anyone who cares to look at it.  As far as I’m concerned, prejudice and its harms are like climate change: if you aren’t convinced that it is real then it’s not my fault for failing to prove it, it’s your fault for failing to look.  I don’t feel obligated to provide a lesson in how to read English before writing an article, nor a lesson on arithmetic before writing a paper that contains numbers, and neither should I feel obligated to prove that prejudice is real before writing an article on ethics.
(Sorry if I got a little snippy there.)
Most prejudice, and most harm from prejudice, is not by people who think of themselves as prejudiced.  People make judgments about the other people they interact with and are generally unaware how much those judgments are affected by their internal stereotypes, and don’t generally know how inaccurate those stereotypes are.  This kind of prejudice is one that tends to be alleviated by contact.  A person who has spent all their lives among, worked with, and/or had close friends with a group of people will be much less likely to unconsciously make a negative judgement about those people than someone who rarely ever interacts with people from that group.  One could say that this type of prejudice is a problem of what one has heard about a group outweighing one’s actual experience with that group.
And where do these inaccurate ideas about other types of people come from?  The old idea is that they are passed down by parents and peers.  If your parents say negative things about Muslims, for instance, you’ll grow up thinking Muslims are bad, will have internalized a negative picture of Muslims.  Yet in our mass media saturated culture, it’s likely that most of what the average person has learned about Muslims, LGBT people, people of color, etc. comes not from parents or peers but from TV, movies, books, video games, etc.
Or, to put it another way, if you’ve only spent 100 hours of your life interacting with people of color, and only spent 100 hours of your life hearing your friends, family and coworkers talking about people of color, but you’ve spent 10,000 hours of your life seeing people of color in movies, TV shows, video games, etc. then your view of people of color is likely to be dominated by the mass media’s representation, and if that representation is negative then your view of people of color will be negative.
A common counter-argument at this point is to say “I’m smart enough to know the difference between fiction and reality and to not believe things just because I see them on TV.”  This argument assumes that learning is a conscious decision, a process you are aware of and have control over, and psychological research doesn’t support this idea.
Here’s a model of how fiction might contribute to a harmful prejudice: a writer is writing a story and chooses to include some black characters.  The writer chooses to make those black characters uneducated and violent.  This work of fiction enters the stream of mass media, and together with every other work that treats black people the same way it helps to establish an unconscious stereotype among a portion of the population that black people are uneducated and violent.  An employer is looking at a resume for someone named “Jamal” and, without being entirely conscious of why, decides that Jamal doesn’t sound like a good candidate for the job.  Real harm is done to Jamal and the author is, at least in part, guilty of causing that harm.
An argument here might be that the amount of harm done by the one writer is tiny, almost insignificant.  They are only one voice among millions.  Since their culpability is so miniscule, the argument goes, and the causal link between cause and effect so tenuous, it doesn’t make sense to try to judge that writer.  It’s like judging someone culpable for global warming just because they drove a car.  A rule of thumb I would suggest here is to try to imagine: would one of the people who suffered from the harm, hearing how small your part in it was, and how weak the causality, be willing to absolve you of the harm?
Here’s an even more insidious model of how a fiction writer might contribute to harmful prejudice: a writer is writing a story that has some heroes who are educated, capable, kind and brave.  All of them are white people.  In fact, the story doesn’t have any black people in it.  The harm here isn’t in the negative ways black people are portrayed, but in the positive ways that black people fail to be portrayed.  Every opportunity to have a black person be the intelligent hero is an opportunity to counter the portrayal of black people as evil thugs.
Of everything I’ve said in this article, this last is the one most likely to cause discomfort among writers and their fans, so I want to make sure I’m perfectly clear about what I’m saying. The failure to make a black person the hero of a story (and/or a woman, a LGBT person, a religious minority, a disabled person, a non-neurotypical person, etc.) is harmful.  It is harmful because it perpetuates stereotypes of what people from these groups are not: they are not smart, they are not heroes, they are not members of families, they are not empathetic characters, etc.  The absence (or extreme rarity) of black heroes not AS HARMFUL as including a black character who embodies the worst black stereotypes, but it’s still harmful.
Now, there are many levels of moral responsibility.  Most people choose to believe that an inaction that hurts someone is not as bad as an on-purpose action that hurts someone, and an action where you are just one contributor to the harm is not as bad as one where you are the sole contributor.  Again, I would point to the “would the person harmed be willing to absolve you?” rule of thumb.  If you’re a black person, and you see that many (most?) people unconsciously stereotype you as violent, uneducated and untrustworthy and that this is in part because of the lack of peaceful, smart and good black characters in popular fiction, how likely would you be to forgive a writer who has had multiple opportunities to make one of their heroes black but has consistently chosen not to?
The first major counter-argument here would be to list some black heroes and say “no, see, there are black heroes, so it’s not a big deal.”  I would counter that there aren’t enough black heroes and that too many of the existing black heroes fall into a range of known stereotypes (e.g. the tough, street smart, ethically-questionable black hero).
Imagine you are an alien, studying humanity based on early 21st century books, movies, games, etc.  What would you conclude about white people?  You’d probably conclude that they can be anything: they can be good or evil, tough or gentle, brave or cowardly, smart or stupid, honest or deceitful, shy or outgoing, rich or poor, chaste or sinful, they can stagnate or they can make themselves better people.  What would you conclude about black people?
The second major counter-argument is that, for many pieces of fiction, having a black character would not be accurate.  Say this is a historical piece set in medieval Europe: shouldn’t all the characters be white?  Quite a few people have spoken to this counter argument, and have done so better than I can, so I’ll keep my responses brief.  First of all: are you sure?  Have you actually done the historical research to know that people of color weren’t to be found in medieval Europe?  Second: Have you kept as slavishly to other aspects of realism in this piece, or are you only towing the realism line when it comes to the color of your heroes?
The third major counter-argument is that writers are artists and must listen to their “creativity” and do what it tells them to.  If their “creativity” tells them a character is white, who are they to disagree?  Except writers aren’t abstract painters, they are craftspeople.  They have lots of creative ideas (hopefully) and they throw away the bad ones, keep the good ones, and select the good ones that fit for the current story.  Going with one’s first impressions of a character is not a good way to write, it leads to shallow, predictable, uninteresting, cliche characters.  Second guessing your first impression of a character (e.g. “hmm, this character is white, does she need to be?”) is actually a good way to make more interesting characters.
An additional excuse is that writers should “write what they know.”  If a writer is a white male, they should write white male characters, because that’s what they know best and writing anything else would be difficulty and would likely be seen as ingenuine.  Except most authors, especially in the world of speculative fiction, write about stuff they have no personal knowledge of.  The writers are most likely not spies, nor magic users, nor have lived in Victorian London, nor are globe-hopping adventurers, etc.  Most writers are fairly boring people, and to write something interesting they have to do a lot of research, put themselves in another person’s shoes, and hopefully have someone with more experience of that world read it for errors.  The same can work when it comes to including a character who is a woman and/or minority in a story.
In addition to what stereotypes the portrayal of characters contributes to, there’s the matter of what characters are valued for in fiction.  Insomuch as fiction affects culture (which, I believe, is a lot), what is valued as important or necessary in characters becomes what is seen as valuable in real people.  If female protagonists are all portrayed as attractive (and especially if it is Hollywood’s very narrow range of values for attractive), and if other characters seem to value them primarily for their attractiveness, and if the story puts them in situations that revolve around or show off how attractive they are, and if any other characters that are not attractive in this way are portrayed as sad (e.g. the fat loser friend who is not the protagonist) or bad (e.g. the ugly villain), then that pushes onto the culture an unspoken belief that attractiveness is what is valuable in women.  This unspoken belief is extremely harmful to women: it causes no end of anxiety and self-esteem problems, compulsive harmful behavior (e.g. anorexia), and it causes people (men and women included) to overlook the actual and valuable characteristics that women have when they do not meet the current standards for attractiveness.  There is real harm done to real people, and the authors who knowingly (or by willful ignorance) contribute to it are guilty of contributing to this harm.  I could say the same of male characters (valued for their strength, bravery, ability to act stereotypically masculine) or characters of other groups (what are native characters valued for in fiction?  Black characters?  Gay and lesbian characters?).
So, to sum up: can fiction harm people?  Yes, possibly directly (see last article) but more often by contributing to harmful prejudices.  The effect is real, the harm is real, and writers have a choice not to contribute to the harm.  Insomuch as a writer does not want to do harm (or does not want to be called out for doing harm) writers should make positive attempts, to the best of their abilities, to avoid perpetuating negative stereotypes, to give previously-stereotyped peoples a place as heroes and sympathetic characters in their stories, and to avoid consistently valuing characters for stereotyped characteristics (e.g. physical beauty).
In the end, I think the excuses given by writers (and their fans) against adopting reasonable guidelines of the portrayal of women and minorities are largely ingenuine, don’t actually match with the reasons they don’t want to do it.  I don’t even think prejudice is the major reason for most authors.  I think the real primary reasons are: first, they are afraid a non-white-male character will not be as commercially successful, second, they think it will be more work and they are lazy, and, third, they are afraid to legitimize a “new” system of judging fiction (one not centered around straight white men) that might find their fiction wanting.
Note: I primarily used black people as an example in this article.  Mostly this is because I am too lazy to think up a variety of examples.  Also, prejudice against black people is something I know a bit more about (from research I did for my book Hoodoo Blues) than other types of prejudice.  I don’t mean to imply that black people are the only people on the receiving end of prejudice or that prejudice against other groups is less important.
0 notes
mexisco · 3 years
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
TOTALLY FUCKED UP (dir. Gregg Araki)
2K notes · View notes