#the intersection between fandom and queer culture as a whole | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

wickedpact · 3 years

Text

A ranking of all the TTT stories in order of how much I liked them.

(Oh god this is so long)

1 My Mother's Axe

BABY ANDYYYYYYYYYYYY. Honestly this one had the trifecta of developing a character's motivations, developing a character's backstory, & developing their personality. The story starting out with Andy teaching Nile to use the axe was so charming and fun, and you could feel that chemistry they had in Opening Fire, the way they teased and bickered with each other so naturally. I loved the wedge between them on the subject of the axe, how Nile was perhaps a little too young to understand Andy's feelings about whether or not its the 'same' axe. I also love how the axe is obviously the symbol of the franchise and hugely important, but you never get a sense of exactly how important it is to Andy until you read the story.

I love the entire Ship of Theseus theme, and how it feels so natural that for Andy she has to get attached to the idea of things rather than the things themselves because she'll always outlive the things themselves-- the axe is symbolically her mom's axe, even if physically it isn't. And I love how she clearly clings to that concept so tightly. "This is the labrys she held in her hands...." IT GETS ME.

And the fact that this sense of BELONGING, of FAMILY, of CULTURE is so important to Andy that she clings to it (figuratively and literally) with both hands. And of course it's important to her, she spent so long alone that the woman doesn't even remember her birth name. That axe (or the idea of that axe) is all she has left of her mother and that family/culture she was born into.

PLUS on that note I love how Andy doesn't remember if her mom was her actual biological mother, but it doesn't matter to her. This woman was her mother in all the ways that counted. And how her mom BETRAYED AND KILLED Andy but Andy loved her so much that she avenged her and carried her axe for thousands of years. THOUSANDS OF YEARS!!!!!!

I also loved how the story transcends the timeline of the whole franchise and seeing Andy through the years. Loved seeing her with the varying squads and with varying axes. Also baby Andy was so cute. It was cool seeing her so young. like holy fuck. Andromache The Scythian, Immortal Warrior (but smol). Love that.

Also I think this one is one of the few ttt stories that doesn't suffer from length problems.

tldr: goddammit greg you've done it again.

2 Zanzibar and Other Harbors

Zanzibar my beloved. I've said before, but it's downright comedic how little regard there was for Joe and Nicky's character designs in this story. The same person who does the colors for the regular comic did the colors for this one too, and you can tell, every panel of this story was Beautiful.

Ik there was A Lot of criticism of this one (lmao @ how the fandom had no idea what was to come) but I thought a lot of The Discourse was a bit dramatic. I did think Nicky came off as a little oblivious to Joe's feelings in this story, but I've said before, I honestly think that was a 'tone not translating' thing. It felt like Nicky was nagging Joe for [checks notes] saving innocent people, but Joe was so amused by Nicky's complaints I really do think it was supposed to come off as teasing.

Plus I know the 'Joe running off into danger and Nicky reluctantly following' dynamic wasn't popular (I'm a pretty meh on it meself) but I did love how Joe's impulsiveness (if you want to call it that) was interpreted as heroism and not hot-hotheadedness. All of the examples Nicky and Joe talked about included Joe explicitly saving people. (and it also took A Lot for the nazi to actually provoke Joe).

I also feel like their characterization here was closest to the movie canon-- the bit where they hear the woman scream and Joe goes running in to save her while Nicky swoops in on Joe's heels to comfort her while Joe and the nazi were fighting reminds me of the train car scene. Joe had suggested First that they go find Nile because she needed to be protected, and Nicky later added that Nile probably also needed emotional support. Similar reactions.

But it was So Good, the themes of queer community and the enduring nature of queer culture are Not themes you see in media that often and it was such a delight how it was done. Also it's one of the few more modern TTT stories that has a completely valid excuse for taking place when it did. Chef's kiss.

3 Passchendaele

I love the Duality between seeing baby Andy and then seeing Mama Andy in the very next issue. This story doesn't have a ton of meat to it, but the entire concept of Andy adopting a war orphan straight off the battlefield PLUCKS MY TENDER LITTLE HEARTSTRINGS, and I think it's especially poignant for comic!Andy. I think most people wouldn't think twice about movie!Andy doing something like that but comic Andy is so hardened and almost cruel sometimes, and seeing that even for her the world hasn't beaten all of the compassion from her yet is SO!!!!!!! this woman contains MULTITUDES okay, she's violent and angry and tired and Done but she's also so kind and compassionate and THE STRENGTH OF HER!!!!! Also the idea of her and Yitzhak co-raising a kid together is so damn cute. It was #mysterious pre-Yitzhak-story but now it's cute. holy fuck. It's cute.

& the headbonk panel of her and Zeus lives in my heart. anyways.

4 Many Happy Returns

I Know people weren't thrilled about Booker being in this one, but I've developed a pet-peeve about that: this story was *not* booker-centric. Booker only exists in this story to the extent required to explain the importance of the gesture Nile makes towards him. If there was a story about Booker making some grand gesture of kindness to Nile no one would be saying it was Nile-centric. bc it wouldn't be! Booker exists in this story to explore Nile's kindness, its not about him. I saw that a couple times and it bothered me. anyways.

AAAAAAAAAA I loved this one, the art was beautiful, I loved how Andy Nile and Booker were drawn (like their comic selves but.. more looking like actual people). I loved Andy and Nile's Bants, how Andy wanted to jump right in and Do Violence but Nile was basically telling her to hold her horses.

I feel like I'm just repeating the post I made on this story a few days ago, but I LOVED how Nile's plan revolves not around violence or Cool Mercenary Skills but on Nile's own life skills (as she canonly did a lot of minimum wage job-hopping before the marines in comics canon). Her plan used her skills, not the skills of an immortal warrior, and HER SKILLS were in fact more useful for the situation! lov to see Nile's resourcefulness and planning skills.

AND HOW NILE WAS PROBABLY WATCHING BOOKER??? it's so Much bc 1.) nile knew booker A SINGLE DAY and yet he made such an impression on her emotionally that she had to keep an eye on him and 2.) she said in the movie she wanted Booker to get off free with an apology. Yes she's a member of the team but that doesn't mean she's necessarily going to follow orders like a good little soldier. I also love how she convinced Andy to go along with it. her HEART, her KINDNESS, her THOUGHTFULNESS, UGH.

5 The Bear

Honestly I have like no negative things to say about this one other than a.) character design issues which is less about the story itself and is more of a 'tog comic in general' criticism and b.) too short, but it was supposed to be a tease, so.

But I loved Yitzhak, I wasn't expecting to really like him at all but like I said in my other post, he tickled me. I love characters who are Kind™, especially if they have little reason to be so given their backgrounds. Chef's kiss. Lov him.

6 Bonsai Shokunin

I know this one was a little controversial bc of the outsider POV but whenever I see people upset about that they never point out that the Outsider Guy (the samurai) existed as a reflection on Noriko. His ideas are explained in the text to develop hers. The whole story follows how she gave mercy to a scared young man and in response he murdered Noriko, repeatedly! Who gave him the right to inflict such pain and suffering on the world? In his opinion, the lack of response from the gods was his permission. And for Noriko-- over and over again she dies and suffers because she gave mercy, which lines up with her ideas in FM about how it's their fate to rule mortals and if they don't align with that plan/fate/whatever then they suffer. It shows some background to those ideas and how they developed in her mind outside of Ocean Madness™. Additionally, his idea of 'the Gods have done nothing to strike me down so it's fine if I do these things' kind of explains how Noriko may justify her own morally corrupt actions-- she's died so many times and it's never stuck. Maybe if she did die any of those times, or while she was in the water, maybe that would've been a sign she was doing something right, or at least doing something normal. But she hasn't died. Fate isn't done with Noriko yet. And maybe there's a reason for that. In her mind, it's just not a very pleasant reason, is all.

There were things I was kind of meh about tho. I did kind of wish we saw something of Noriko and the team, or smth explaining the way she was before her dip in the pool-- personality, likes dislikes, etc. but it wasn't bad or anything. It was super vague tho, I had to read it a few times before I got what it was going for. Liked the art. Liked the bonsai metaphor. And of course I Respect the decision to use the 1300s (1200s? I don't remember off the top of my head) rather than using the last 200 years.

7 Strong Medicine

Honestly looking back, this one made me kind of sad because both this one and Bonsai Shokunin explored character's ideas on Fate and The Divine and how that intersects with immortality and I totally thought that theme would be continued, especially with Love Letters. But Then It Wasn't™.

Admittedly.... I had to re-read this one to remember most of it. I liked Booker's ideas on God, 'The conductor of the symphony just may not be very good at his trade' but the plot itself was kind of forgettable. Some fuckin cowboys try to kill a doctor (their second) because he couldn't save their sickly brother. Book tries to stop them, gets killed, and then comes back and kills them all before they get the doctor. Alright. I liked the artstyle because the characters were ugly in a similar way that leandro's are, but way more bearable.

I love the Irony of Booker concluding that there is no such thing as fate or destiny and nothing has meaning, AS HE UNKNOWINGLY SAVES MERRICK'S GRANDFATHER FROM BEING KILLED. Booker getting fucked over by life/god/destiny yet again. It also kind of explains about where the fuck hell Merrick's interest in immortal mercenaries even came from.

I originally had this one a lot higher and then I thought about it and moved it down like two spots.

8 Never Gets Old

I liked seeing Booker interact with his kid. And we got a name for the kid! Philippe was a little bitch though, he was a little obnoxious. I liked how Booker was so thrilled to experience a restaurant with his kid (and since we know he was there before, it can be assumed he went with all of his kids and yet he was so charmed each time). It fits with his line to Nicky in the moon landing story about how you don't appreciate beautiful things 'unless you have someone to share them with'. It was charming to see Booker interact with his kid, and to see him so happy. Also lmao @ Booker's big fat Ye Olde Crush on Andy.

However at the same time it was like.. of all the things to write about,,, I guess? Booker's Night Out...... alright. Especially since Book had so many stories.

I don't know, it was alright. The old man killing him really came out of nowhere, (but the 'Salut, asshole!' panel was funny tho).

9 How To Make a Ghost Town

I've hit a point where talking about these stories has gotten less fun. I liked this one but I felt like Achilles getting lynched was not really necessary for a story that was already tragic (a story that already involved Achilles doing a lot of suffering at the hand of bigots). When we first got the blurb for this story I thought it would be about Andy returning to the squad and making friends with Booker after losing Achilles and them butting heads on the idea of family and when to cut off ties. So a little bit of my underwhelmedness about this one might be just my expectations being different.

Honestly I was pretty interested in Andy and Achilles' relationship and I would've liked to see more of them-- like, what was their dynamic like? What did they love about each other?

But anyways Andy leaving and Achilles getting killed anyways feels so pointlessly tragic (which I suppose is the point..... I don't like tragedies) she left to save him and yet people killed him anyway. Meh.

I did love the bits about Andy wanting to have a domestic life (Andy and her multitudes again) and the little detail about how she buried her axe near the road but he buried his guns under his bed-- he was an escaped slave, he never had the luxury of assuredness like Andy did. It was a sad story.

10 Lacus Solitudinis

'You put this one above love letters crim??? how could you???' easy, lmao.

There was stuff in this one I liked. But to talk about stuff I didn't like: (I'll keep it brief, I know ragging on this story has been done time and time again)

UH, setting aside the 6 year cold shoulder between Joe and Nicky, I thought their chosen method of conflict resolution was... bad at best. Nicky's inability to talk about his feelings was also annoying, especially since the entire point of this story is a fight Joe and Nicky had, and yet we don't get both sides to the story, which is...... important? That fact is especially annoying bc in the absence of Nicky explaining his side of the story, it's absolutely a possible (and admittedly probably unintentional) interpretation of the text that we do get that Joe routinely resolves conflict between him and Nicky by simply cutting Nicky out of his life entirely until Nicky just. caves? Even if it takes years?

WHICH i could get into that interpretation and how fucked up i find it. but im not going to. out of restraint.

I don't know, I think there are a lot of interesting ways to go about this conflict but 'Nicky wants to kill a guy and Joe refuses to acknowledge his existence until he stops because he thinks Nicky is too much of a Good Boy to get his hands dirty like that' ('I wont watch as the world turns his (...) compassion into something ugly'. ) wasn't.. how I would've done it. (I mean you know Joe doesn't give a shit about what Nicky is doing in a moral way, because Joe doesn't even care or mention that Booker is killing those cops too. Joe only cares because he doesn't like the idea of Nicky changing in a way he finds undesirable.)

admittedly I've said before, I do like the emphasis Joe's reaction puts on Nicky's kindness. Joe has a complete inability to cope with Nicky simply Not Being Kind. It speaks to the steadiness of Nicky's compassion all those years. but still that fact doesn't make it the conflict feel worth it

hm. I said I would be brief and I wasn't.

oh well. basically I thought there was interesting conflict potential there but it wasn't done the way I would've liked, and the way it was done leaves a lot of disturbing (and again probably unintended) interpretations to lie.

What I did like? Andy and Joe having that pessimist/optimist dynamic. Joe nerding out about science. Andy not being impressed by The Achievements Of Man. I loved Booker needling at Nicky about his outdated slang and also trying to give him Older Brother advice practically in the same breath. I loved Booker giving The Worst relationship advice ever and Nicky being like 'I Will Not Do That, Ever, Thanks.' the family vibes were so good. The Joenicky vibes left a lot to be desired tho.

11 Love Letters

I talked about my problems with Nicky in this story (and Lacus Solitudinis). I don't know, the story isn't bad but I do hold a little bit of a grudge towards it because its very existence begs the existence of a solo Joe story and we didn't get one. If we never got this story, then we could happily count Lacus Solitudinis and Zanzibar as The Joenicky Stories™ and move on with our lives. sigh.

I remember when we first got the blurb for this story I was really curious about why Nicky specifically + the setting, and the answer kind of feels like 'the author had an idea for a story like this and saw ttt as a good enough place to utilize that idea'. Plus I was really underwhelmed by the Romantic Sentiment in the letter. If you look at it line-by-line, the majority of the letter is actually Nicky talking about how lonely and disturbed he is, rather than actual,, yknow,,, Romantic Sentiment. I mean, compare the van speech and this letter and this letter is just kind of meh in comparison. I liked nicky calling joe wise! and I liked the brief sun/moon metaphor! and otherwise it was eh. It didn't even have cute squad banter, which is why Lacus Solitudinis is above this one.

12 An Old Soul

Nun orgy. Nun orgy?????? Nun orgy.......

The whole story felt like a setup to have a nun orgy. Why did Booker have abs? Why did they do that to Andy's nose? ?????? the art was good at least.

nun orgy.

#tales through time spoilers #obviously #long post #seriously dont open that read more unless youre committed to scrolling past all these Words

32 notes · View notes

lais-a-ramos · 4 years

Text

On Lovecraft Country and the way the narrative presents queerness

"No masters or kings when the ritual begins

There is no sweeter innocence than our gentle sin

In the madness and soil of that sad earthly scene

Only then I am human

Only then I am clean"

Hozier, Take Me to Church

oh, boy...

i knew some of these deaths could happen in the finale, but i definetely wasn't prepared for any of this, wow.

i guess that, with the events of the finale, including atticus' death, there really is no point in getting the show renewed for a season 2, as as i hoped and wished before, because all of the conflicts that were set up were resolved. i mean, there's always the possibility of using time-travel to do a retcon and bring all the dead characters back, or, at least, two of the protagonists and the villain, but, maybe it would take too many alterations in the narrative, because it seems like the whole thing was planned for a mini-series.

so, now, all we have left is to do a breakdown of what worked and what didn't in lovecraft country's limited series run.

i think that, overall, the message of black ppl taking back the power of ancestry that was stripped from them by white supremacy and structural racism was well-done, and the symbolism was very well-crafted in the final takedown of the season's main villain, which was a representation of how the racism based on indifference born out of white privilege is almost as bad as the racism based on pure hate and despise, which is a valid message, considering the former is a bystander to the abuses and rise to power of the latter.

although i still find the timing was poorly chosen because, well, as of now, all over the world, it's not white ppl who dub themselves "liberal" or "progressive" and claim themselves to not be racist but refuse to act anti-racist that present an actual threat to our human rights, but literal, actual fascists and neo nazis...there are bigger fish to fry now...

but i digress...

on the final score, i guess that when it comes to queer/LGBTQ+ representation, the show fell actually felt real short for a product that crafted so well the race issues, proving that there is still a lot to go before we get to see intersecting identities being portrayed in media the same compex way they exist in the real world.

no, lovecraft country is not guilty of queerbaiting, unlike some of the same ppl in fandom that are the firsts to either erase the half of a couple that is a BIPOC or to deny a canon cis het biracial ship to hype up a fanon white wlw ship and other problematic stuff plenty of times in LGBTQ+ fandom spaces might say.

but that doesn't mean that the treatment of LGBTQ+ issues was satisfying or can be considered good rep, and it actually repeats some of the same tired tropes about queerness and blackness.

while we can say that the show did a relatively good job with montrose as an individual, the same can't be said of the other characters and the final messages.

like, for example, introducing a trans/non-binary indigenous, the Arawak two-spirt Yahima, only to kill them on the next episode was insensitive, to say the least.

while it's true that misha green apologized for the mistake, and said she and the writers tried to make a point that even oppressed groups are capable of oppression, the final score was that a trans/non-binary character was introduced as a plot-device and brutally murdered before having even a chance to properly develop.

in other words, used as a prop.

in a world in which trans ppl are brutally murdered at alarming rates, and most of the victims are BIPOC trans ppl, that is something that we can't let it slide just because the general message of the show was good for cis het black ppl.

the same can be said on the treatment of sammy in the narrative.

while it's true that montrose being aggressive and acting the way he did, pushing ppl he cared about away and shunning every chance of vulnerability due to internalized homophobia, toxic masculinity and misogyny, as this very interesting critique by amani marie hamed of nerdist pointed out, his characterization nonetheless falls into the same old stereotype in american culture of accusing black ppl of falling behind when it comes to queer acceptance and associating black masculinity with homophobia.

also, the author of the article says it better, but, overall, sammy's existence ends up being just another plot device, serving to say to the audience that the producers and writers know that queer ppl existed in the 50's, but, at the same time, repeating some of the same tropes as usual, like associating being queer with being clandestine and deviant instead of showing it as a natural thing that was perceived as deviant at the time, as we can see by that scene of sammy having a sexual encounter in the alley behind his bar.

the author even mentions that queer ppl overall had houses, and most of the encounters actually happened there, and that scene reinforces the idea that queerness is inherently animalistic.

the article also points out how sammy is mostly there just to be shutted out, first by montrose and latter even atticus, and, ends up being another prop to lift montrose to deuteragonist status, being rejected and abused by montrose solely to highlight tic's father journey with his personal issues that apparently he simply wrapped up in a span of 2 episodes.

the fact that sammy was a also a more feminine gay man, even participating in ball culture as a drag queen, and yet most of his appearences involved him being degraded or shut out or overall mistreated by montrose, even tic, and that scene in which atticus forgives montrose after he revealed he never acted on his homosexuality and cheated on tic's mom, even though it's implied she did cheat on him with his brother george, just reinforces the idea it's ok for black and brown men to be gay, as long as they are not THAT GAY™️.

the introduction of thomas in episode 1x09 only to be murdered in the riots is another example of how queerness seem to come with a price in this show if you act on it.

once again, a gay character was introduced in the narrative to further montrose's pain and trauma.

and his introduction was absolutely not necessary, because being a survivor of a massacre like the tulsa riots and a survivor of parental physical abuse is already was already enough for making tic and the audience begin to emphatize with montrose's pain, there was no need to kill another queer character just for that.

not to say we should agree with everything the nerdist article says, of course.

at times, it felt like the author was saying that addressing these issues in the black community is a problem on itself, and that is definetely not the solution.

but, when we consider the setting of a limited series with a plot-driven approach to the scripts, the way the topic is addressed ends up being superficial and rushed, and what could have been a delicate approach to a complicated man discovering his sexuality if the show was an on-going series, ends up being just a narrative built to put montrose in the spotlight in an attempt of getting a few emmy nominations for outstanding performances, and that's about it.

now, what really serves to cement the LGBTQ+/queer representation in lovecrat country as a disservice is the treatment of ruby, christina and their relationship.

i did a few metas explaining christina's and ruby's characterizations, including one i posted before the finale started explaining why ruby was so important to queer black and feminine-aligned nbs being a dark-skinned fat black queer woman discovering her sexuality and figuring out there was more to life than the social roles that were pushed into her, and how the parallels between her and christina, two different women separated by race and class but with the common feeling of being interrupted by social restraints that binded them, were a way for a character like ruby to be treated by the narrative the same way white women get to be treated in fantasy stories, as someone worthy of being courted and romanced as a light-skinned and thin black woman like her sister leti.

but with that finale, and the way the whole thing played out, with not only christina and ruby dead, but also with christina killing ruby, felt, ironically, like the very same trope that's been the norm for queer characters for a long time.

if we consider the tropes of the genre the show and the source material draw inspiration from, pulp fiction magazines, a medium that was very popular until the rise of the cinema and TV in the 50's and 60's that also served as an inspiration for them, then we know that in this medium some of the harmful tropes about queerness that exist until this day were particularly prevalent, including that of the queercoded villains.

to talk about this, i'm going to refer to this amazing article by tricia ennis on the history of queercoding for syfy wire.

first, a definition:

"queer coding, much as the name suggests, refers to a process by which characters in a piece of fictional media seem — or code — queer. this is usually determined by a series of characteristics that are traditionally associated with queerness, such as more effeminate presentations by male characters or more masculine ones from female characters. these characters seem somehow less than straight, and so we associate those characters with queerness — even if their sexual orientation is never a part of their story."

between the hays code in cinema going from 1934 to 1968, the comics code authority in the comics industry from 1954 to the early 21st century (with dc comics and archie comics being the last to break with it in 2011, mind you), the code of practices for television broadcasting from 1952 to 1983 and its predecessor for radio NAB code of ethics, the authors all over mass media couldn't approach the topic of queerness and portray openly and proud queer characters under the risk of being persecuted by the censors, and so, begin to hide queer chracters under the disguise of subtext.

and given the content creators couldn't show any form of positive queer/LGBTQ+ representation under the risk of being punished by the censors, the alternative they found was to portray the queer characters as the villains or antagonists or degenerates, and punish them with death.

the syfy wire article says it better than i ever could:

"even dangerous LGBTQ tropes rose out of this time period, as the depictions of pulp noir femme fatales and other deadly women rose in popularity. these women were usually written as promiscuous and sexually devious, both with men and sometimes with women. they were also evil and usually met their end as a result of their sins. While depictions of LGBTQ characters were frowned upon, depictions of them in this specifically negative light were not. you were not endorsing an “alternative lifestyle” if your gay characters always met an untimely demise. Instead, they were merely paying for their poor choices. this trope would eventually give way to what we now refer to as 'Bury Your Gays.' "

and the thing is, all those censorship laws are over by now, but the tropes/clichés that arised on that era are still prevalent in pop culture 'till this day, consumed by the audiences and reproduced by content creators, in the industry or in fan spaces, whether they are aware of said trope/clichés or not.

now, that is where ruby, christina and their affair on the show enter.

to explain how problematic and harmful the way these characters have been portrayed is, and what kind of message it sends about black queerness, i first have to explain christina's function on the story.

christina, as a character, was basically the texbook pulp noir femme-fatale, checking most of the boxes of the tv tropes description of the trope, from the "red equals evil and sin" imagery to being a wild card, that character who changes sides according to their own desires and individualistic goals.

in her specific case, helping the white supremacists and the black heroes alike in her pursue for unlimited power to protect herself from the oppression that comes with being a white woman, particularly a wealthy one, in which the very same presumption of innocence that gives them privilege over BIPOC is used to infantilize them and strip them from their agency, putting their bodies and choices under the tutelage of cis het white men.

so, her function on the show was basically to manipulate the characters on the two sides alike.

and that is where the problems in queer representation come in, because, to manipulate them, she acts as a sensual seductress.

and what does the script uses to highlight that this is a character willing to go to the most immoral places to achieve her goals? it makes christina a sexually fluid and gender fluid character.

that is basically playing a move straight from the hays code era.

not only does the show plays christina's sexual and gender fluidity as her being "freaky" and a proof of her deviant nature, but it makes her seduction of ruby as a central part of the scheme that positions her as the main villain of the show.

this portrayal of christina as a textbook femme-fatale with a touch of white feminism is already very problematic on its own, especially when we consider her death and how brutal it was, because, yes, while it's true she is privileged because she is white and wealthy, she is still a woman and a queer one at that, and giving her the same traditional treatment for femme-fatales in pulp fiction ends up reinforcing harmful stereotypes about gender and sexuality.

but, when we consider what it means for ruby as a character, it gets WAY worse.

ruby is a character that's been shown to feel very frustrated about the ways in which societal structures of power interfere in her life, not only on a professional level, but even on a personal level as well, making her feel "interrupted".

dealing with the same issues that all black women and feminine-aligned nbs who don't fit into the eurocentric standards of femininity and of beauty do, and not matching the criteria for being hypersexualized by society as the black women considered conventionally pretty -- with thin bodies like the white women or hourglass body frames, being light-skinned and so on --, ruby has her humanity stripped from her because everyone expects her to be stronger than it's humanly possible.

everyone seems to expect something of her at home, her younger sister took advantage of her money for years, and not only all of her goals in the professional realm seem to be frustrated by social structures of oppression, but even her relationship goals as well, given that most of the men that she gets involved with, whether they are black or white, seem to believe they have the right to abandon her and treat her like trash because she doesn't feel a thing and is "strong" enough.

ruby feels frustrated and tired, and she has every single right to do so, because, as what happens to most black women and feminine-aligned nbs, she is disrespected and disregarded by everyone, white and black alike.

so, when christina comes in with an offer of improving ruby's life with magic, of course she takes the opportunity.

and it seemed like the show was willing to deal with the moral complexities of christina's shapeshifting potion and validating ruby's feelings, or at least, sort of validating.

but, by killing her at the end, it just played out as if ruby's feelings meant she was merely a traitor to the race, and not a woman who was tired of feeling frustrated with all of these impossible obstacles society sets for black women and feminine-aligned nbs, especially dark-skinned and fat ones like her, and justified in her anger and frustration.

she did everything right and accomplished nothing, and, when she finally decided to rebel and focus on herself for a change, she met her demise.

but that is just the tip of iceberg, really.

what makes this situation with ruby so frustrating is the fact that, when the show presented christina's queerness as another sign she was "on the wrong side of the tracks" and a villian that should be defeated by the black heroes, which consist in a family, the narrative is implying that a person has to choose between their queerness, on one side, and their blackness and community on the other.

of course, one might argue that the fact montrose was turned into a gay man himself in the adaptation prevents this from happening. but, when we consider montrose was forgiven by tic only after reinforcing he never did cheated on dora and acted on his queerness and lived his gayness, when he really had every single right to do so, especially because it's implied dora slept with his brother george and the three of them knew she was just montrose's beard, then we have the message that it's ok to be queer as long as you don't act on your queerness at all.

there is a part in the review for nerdist that i mentioned above, in which the author says that one of the book's best qualities was that "the source material also illustrates the importance of family and community ties between Black protagonists", and that the TV show ruins it when it "introduces abuse, alcoholism, and family dysfunction, and strips Black characters of their own magic."

that is a part of the article, published in october 14 2020, that now no longer makes sense after the finale, because that message is there.

but, the actual problem is that the ideas of family and community shouldn't be taken for granted bc they are always under political dispute, and are oftenly used to reinforce backward messages when it comes to gender and sexuality, serving as a tool for the control of the bodies and authonomy of ppl of various marginalized groups and intersecctions, including women, BIPOC and queer ppl alike.

while these things are not inherently good or bad, and they are also part of the culture and identity for plenty of BIPOC ethnical identities, the concepts of family and community are usually weaponized by conservatives and used to justify things like queerphobia and the restrictions over reproductive rights.

queer ppl in all walks of life and skin colors all over the world have to deal with plenty of conflicts about coming out because, by deciding to live their own truth, they can never know for sure whether coming out will put them at odds with their families and community until they dare to do so.

so, ruby's dillemma for not knowing what to choose, her family or a life with christina, plays out as the type of experience queer ppl have to deal on a daily basis, and when we consider the intersection with race/ethnicity, it gets even more cruel because our gender identities and sexual/romantic/aesthetic orientations, that are natural parts of us, make us being invisibilized and silenced in our own cultures and feel like we have to give up on our own communities in order to be able to live our queerness.

there are few things more gut-wrenching than that feeling of fear that you might be disowned by your family and relatives and your community -- whether is it a neighbourhood, a village, a small town etc -- because a part of yourself is considered at odds with your heritage.

and when we consider all the christian imagery in the show, the final result is a really troubling one.

while it's true that being christian and believing in god doesn't authomatically makes anyone a bigot (i actually still retain some of the beliefs i was raised into as a catholic latin-american), it's also true that now, more than ever, we can't ignore science, including history.

the entire way in which they referred to magic as a devil's work was very troubling and evocates the same discriminative rethoric that white european colonizers used to justify the destruction of the ancient old religions and beliefs of BIPOC in their own homeland, the ancient culture of our ancestors, and also the oppression of peasant women in europe.

while we can't generalize, given each culture had its own particularities, there's an agreement in the scientific community that, overall, the cultures of the first nations and indigenous folks from the american continent, the african continent, the asian continent and oceania/pacific islands were far more accepting of different manifestations of queerness.

that means that queerphobia was part of the colonial project, once the traditional family values of christianity were used as a tool for the white colonizers to regulate the bodies and sexuality of the colonized and keep them under control.

and that is why the association of these ideals of family and community as inherent to blackness ends up being problematic, because we can't discuss racism without discussing colonization, and we can't discuss colonization without considering the ways in which queerphobia and religion were used as tools of colonial oppression.

the worst part is that, when it comes to ruby, the producers and writers really didn't need to do kill her at all.

and while the show did right in not showing how christina killed ruby, sparing the audience from watching another black body being brutalized, it's also true they didn't have to kill the character to get her out of the way from the final confrontation between christina and tic's family.

they literally went and changed her background from her book counterpart and made the woman a musician, and a blueswoman at that.

all they needed was to have her share a goodbye scene with christina the same way she had with leti, saying that she wanted to be with christina but couldn't fight her family and friends like that, grab a copy from the safe travel negro guide and set off in a bus to travel all over the U.S., singing very sad blues songs about falling in love with a white devil once.

that's all the producers and writers needed, to use the "sent in a bus" trope.

but the choice was to portray ruby as a character facing the consequences of following her desires , which ends up feeling like a punishment for a dark-skinned and fat queer black woman for daring to question the position society has placed her because of who she is.

this is in no way an attempt to "cancel" the producers or the writers, because a) their work is still important as a team of mostly black creators and b) canceling doesn't seem to have significant consequences, and seems to lead only to more social media wars than anything else.

but now that it finally seems diversity is getting more space in media, this type of discussion gets more important.

there is a slow increase on more representation of queer/LGBTQ+ characters in media and more productions involving queer/LGBTQ+ creatives, but, most of the time, the characters and are white, or, when there are biracial couples, the characters of color are just token minorities, and the same happens with the creatives involved in the production.

there is a slow increase in BIPOC characters representation in media and more productions involving BIPOC as creatives, but, most of the time, the characters are cis heterosexual, and the same happens with the creatives involved in the production.

but, for pop culture and media to be truly diverse, there has to be more space for the narratives of ppl that exist and belong to the two groups to raise our voices and be heard, whether is it in the entertainment industry, society at large or even in fandom spaces.

because she shouldn't be forced to pick between one identity over the other.

our existences shouldn't be interrupted just because society doesn't know how to deal with them.

and if that make us sinners, then so be it.

#lovecraft country #ruby baptiste #christina braithwhite #ruby x christina #rubtina #rutina #montrose freeman #lgbtqiap+#lgbtq representation #queer representation #poc representation #woc representation #moc representation #black women representation #representation in media #representation in fiction #tv representation #it's ok for non-BIPOC queer folks to reblog #and it's ok for non-queer BIPOC folks to reblog

83 notes · View notes

thehollowprince · 4 years

Note

Two cents from a female cis-het passing queer person who grew up in a deeply compulsory heterosexual environment. Media and mainstream het culture socialises girls and women to identify so much deeply problematic and violent male behaviour as perfectly normal, romantic behaviour. Prime example, Spike and Buffy. imo this is heavily reflected in the mlm slash ships that straight people love to fetishize, prime example St*r*k. When I discovered they were a ship it made me really sad.

Oh, you're preaching to the choir.

That was a pattern I picked up on years ago, one that I actually had to look for, because as a guy, I was told that it was okay to behave like the men we saw on television. Well... half told. My grandmother always told me to be nice first, because if you start off by being an asshole, no one's ever going to think your anything but an asshole. I also realized all on my own that maybe I should just care about other people, but that's just me.

The thing that really gets me about this phenomenon is that it's on here. Naturally, I don't expect Tumblr to be completely absent of this, but come on! This is Tumblr! You could throw a stick and hit a post about how men shouldn't treat women like that, or how women shouldn't put up with it, but then those very same people turn around and make apology posts for Kylo Ben, or Snape, or Damon Salvatore or Klaus Mikaelson or Spike. Oh, god, Spike! That whole "romance" (see: obsession) between the two just blew my mind, even back when the show was airing (yes, I'm old enough to remember when it aired on the WB and then UPN).

The fact that anyone can look at the intersections between Buffy and Spike and call that a romance disgusts me. And that's without even including the attempted rape. Just his obsession with her since the fourth season and how that spiraled into everything. That show really should have just ended at season five.

Spike is actually the earliest example that I've seen of a fandom loving a villain so much that the production decides to keep bringing them back. Except, you can't keep them around as the villain (y'know, the version of the character that everyone fell in love with), because it eventually gets to the point of "why can't the heroes beat the villain?" Simple, we'll give them a Tragic Backstory™, have them make the sad puppy eyes, and bam! We got us an antihero.

And people just eat that shit up.

It happened with both Damon and Klaus on The Vampire Diaries and The Originals. We have two characters who are introduced as these outright villains, killing people for their own amusement or to prove a point, but fans loved them so much that they got turned into antiheroes and all their bad deeds forgiven. I mean, its outright nauseating to see the way Damon treated Elena throughout the run of the show, invading her personal space, trying to compel her into kissing him, manhandling her, taking her choices away, and fans calling that love. Same with Klaus, who repeatedly threatened Caroline, actually tried to kill her (twice!), and Kl*r*line shippers thing that's the peak of romantic behavior because Klaus makes the sad puppy eyes. (See also: Theo from Teen Wolf)

And don't even get me started on the fandom fixation on Bonkai!

It all stems down to this weird phenomenon where one of the two characters is a self-insert for the reader/viewer, because they want to bang the male character/actor. That's why Rey is usually written so one-dimensional in R*ylo fics, because the reader is thirsty for Adam Driver. And that, of course, just leads us back to Teen Wolf and St*r*k. Although, that one's a little tricky, because you'd think that so many of these St*r*k shippers would insert themselves into Stiles (which there are a fair share that do), but more often than not, Derek acts as the self-insert, because most of the fans want to bang Dylan O'Brien. Seriously, I will never understand fandom's fascination with white twinks, but it's an all-encompassing thing.

Part of me understands because I'm old enough to remember the early years of internet fandom. Okay, I was there for FF.net before the purges. I remember Anne Rice's militant legal campaign against her own fans. I remember when the BNFs started gatekeeping, harassing the self-insert OCs in fanfic. Hell, I remember Ms. Scribe and the Inner Circle! I have seen things! And that crackdown against OCs was what led to the rise of fangirls in the slash fandom. Equal parts hiding from the BNFs and fetishizing mlm sexuality for their own amusement/pleasure.

The thing that really baffles me about it all is why St*r*I. Ignoring the obvious reasons (*cough*racism*cough*), why them. As I already pointed out, Tumblr loves their posts about self worth and not standing for abuse, but then turn around and advocate for one of the most abusive crack ships I've ever seen. Why not, say, Scott and Danny, who had actual moments that, if taken out of context, could be portrayed as moments of a building romance ("its Armani"), or Scott and Isaac ("Be careful"/"I don't want you to get hurt" and "Dude, I love Mexican"). Like, the subtext between Scott and Isaac was so strong that one could just call it text.

We had four canonically gay characters (Danny, Ethan, Mason and Corey) and yet the focus is still on two straight characters. Hell, Mason was literally the version of Stiles that fandom cooked up (incredibly smart, did the research, openly gay, had a crush on a hot werewolf that he was very open about) and yet he doesn't get even a fraction of the attention that Stiles does, despite fulfilling the criteria they claim they want in the form of more queer representation. It can't be because he's black, right? I mean, they've told me they're not racist, despite numerous examples of racism, so it's hard to know what to believe (insert sarcasm here).

But still, fandom put these two characters that couldn't stand each other, and who both had much stronger connections to Scott, together in their heads and then cried queerbaiting when they didn't get what they wanted. There comes a point where you have to question whether these people are that influenced by media and propaganda or they're being willfully ignorant.

Anyway, thanks for listening. Apparently I had more of that bottle up inside than I thought so thanks for giving me an outlet to express my frustration. And now, back to your regularly scheduled blogging.

#ask and ye shall recieve #fandom racism #fandom nonsense #anti sterek #anti reylo #anti klaroline #anti delena #anti bonkai #anti spuffy #teen wolf fandom problems

19 notes · View notes

incarnateirony · 5 years

Text

15.07 Thoughts

1. Y’all know I’ve been very opinionated about certain things, but my inbox has been such a perpetual onslaught that I haven’t had time to really *sit and genuinely write*

2. This is premised 100% off of an expansion on a beautiful post by @heliodean (x) -- or more, I would say that heliodean already wrote most of what I would begin to say, and very elegantly about the text, subtext, representation, visibility, canonicity, but that all as a simple underline to the growth evidenced by Dean. 2b. That is to say, that while the queer text is itself indivisible from the original text, I would like to expand on a few points that are also character-specific, and I didn’t want to kidnap a representation-leaning post to discuss only phantasmally attached affairs.

So again, @heliodean‘s post is an absolute must-read, but building aside on the discussion of Dean’s growth as expressed in the episode, I wanted to focus on some personal John-facing issues.

While helio mentioned Lee’s last advent of Dean being when he idolized John Winchester, which is very true, but I think several of their engagements -- including, yes, the queer narrative but not dependent on it -- are hugely reflecting.

Even if we take, in example, Dean, ass slaps, waitresses and Lee -- a common discussion point is for example that despite open flirtation, Dean dismisses her like she brought his burger over too well done, implicitly. She was there, literally while they talked about double dogging someone down, and despite ass slaps and flirts and posturing, she just kind of vanished into the aether, a thought to neither of them.

How this attaches to the John related issues actually requires dropping a level deeper, when you realize that while the implication is itself surface level text, the words hang instead in old canons, just reflecting at the surface; the sense of history being tangible between them is there for a reason. Even if you took the most heteronormative read on how to double-dick down an ungendered individual, that we hetly decide was female, and that the balls never touched or whatever because *big gay panic* the choice to literally bring that to center discussion after Dean implicitly seemed to forget it ever existed, or act like he didn’t want to talk about it until being charmed by the memory in particular.

Or perhaps, more realistically in the subtext to the *actual text* as expository line everybody is spinning circles on -- quite simply, there were triplets and there was a woman shared between them, but she wasn’t what he remembered. As far as Dean was concerned, there was one woman and, very quite-down-to-point, one man has was sharing. The fact that he happened to have trimmings of a spare woman as a commentary didn’t even plink his memory. *Holy shit*

-- (and let’s be real, MOST OF THIS WAS IN DIRECT TEXT TOO. The only “subtext” is the most liminal understanding that words connect to each other and sentences are usually related to the discussion at hand, but that’s about what people call subtext these days. Dean literally forgot and had to be reminded. I guess “subtext” is applying the working adult brain to figure out how the FUCK you forget who you were putting your dick in. The tryst itself, the bizarre things Dean forgot, these are all... well, text. And the rest is so narrowly subtext that someone missing it out of genuine ignorance and not petty malice and active choice/reconfiguration is pretty much contingent on someone literally not thinking at all)

I’m not gonna heavily debate textuality in this post because at this point, fandom dialogue is a helium inflated parody of itself on most of that, but like I really? Don’t give a shit? How someone tries to move the goalposts around? Seriously grab that whole scene at the table front to back, and then the stage, and show that to some random straight guy you know that doesn’t even watch the show. I’m going to tell you 99.9999% right now the first thing to come out of their mouth is “That’s fuckin gay” or some variation of it into various fields of PC-facing culture. The hilarity of trying to run defense lines for them at this point is somewhere out in orbit in Alpha Centauri, bitching about a whole other solar system of shit.

But taking back to that -- that waitress, that woman that just evaporated. That was a different time. That’s when Dean wanted fodder between him and anyone else he had a deep connection with. That’s when Dean *did* womanize. Did bury himself in skin.

And frankly that’s a Dean that hasn’t existed for a long time while fandom has sat in general denial about it, or the canonicity or *sets off carousel music*

(My mood every time a young bright eyed LGBT warrior thinks they’re doing a service by dismissing, deleting or denying low-visibility LGBT text)

Mutual ass slaps and vigorous bisexual reactions be damned, Lee’s adoration OF John was even brought into text, be it the solemn vigil he held up in his service, or his textual “I’m you” to Dean, and everything old Dean might have become if things hadn’t dramatically shifted gears in his life; but something the *here* and *now* is trying to make him become.

Reaching into the alchemical stuff again, be it Silver And Gold, or Nothing Gold Can Stay, or Golden Time, or now, the monster that spits out fake gold as long as you feed it, and stop caring. The thing Chuck is trying to make them. The things -- the people -- the building treasures in their life of Eileen, and Castiel, and yes, lost several episodes but not forgotten, Jack and Mary; Eileen treasure found anew, Cas a treasure lost that took the last light of his family, and Jack and Mary’s shadows, with him.

The force that broke their chain, the force that was first ready to face authority, because this was not a new battle to him; it had just been given new meaning, many years ago, when he first faced Dean. Dean echoes the broken despair Cas once saw life as from angelic roost, and Cas stands instead for every lesson Humanity taught him, and continues the fight, and walks away from a toxic vortex of destruction drilled and doubled down on by Chuck’s purposeful machinations -- machinations Dean convinced him to break from long ago, but the man that the angel fell for is not who he is now; the fire he gained from Mary went out in her death into the dark and obsessive and introverted blackened side of John Winchester, not the one that, taking his wife’s hand, disappeared into gold.

(Don’t even get me started on the recurrence of this exact shot in Dabb’s SPN, we’ll end up in a whole other aside.)

“Nothing Gold Can Stay.” This is the lesson Chuck has been trying to force down their throats alongside murder suicide. It is our target subversion, but--

This episode fundamentally *exists* to just *put Dean Winchester’s growth into perspective*. Be that textually affirmative bisexuality (regardless of if it’s visible enough for everyone’s taste, which I hold in bizarre levels of wtf question/suspicion), or about the boy of vices and basically casual misogyny and grim habit that has grown into a man that -- while he may remember it fondly with crinkles in the corner of his eyes, he doesn’t flit it to whatever filler is in the seats between them, but to that old “friend” that, you know. *jazz hands*

About his fight with resignation that has griefed him since his first demon deal, and of self worth, and of what he has learned, and of what he will deep down never let anyone take away, even if he’s made to question it.

(Dabb on 14.13 Lebanon and the lessons imbued)

This episode??? Like??? Jeremy Adams didn’t blow me out of the water. I jettisoned somewhere into another galaxy or some shit. Here I am holding tentative resignation about how bad the new (presumed) straight white male author on crew is gonna do while looking at history, but giving benefit of the doubt, making a few jokes??? And then it’s like HELLO YES ALL OF THIS SHIT RIGHT HERE. WHAT KIND OF FIRST EPISODE BLACK MAGIC? THAT WAS A BOBO LEVEL FIRST EPISODE.

Oh my god.

I mean, I’m sure we all saw it coming, like deadass you all know I’m not a genius for saying and expecting -- Dean, lessons learned and remorseful from these last few misadventures, coming in to want to talk to Cas, who has had no such giving and keeps his focus on the target, outside of his perceivably crumbled relationship. Like, expecting this is about as simple as expecting them to fight monsters, or Sam and Dean disagreeing over a method/plan.

But as unsurprising as it is, it held weight and value, after the episode -- as given in my addition to the original referenced link -- spent its entire time framing loss of best friends, empty space, the ramifications of turning one’s back, and knowing gold when you have it and what’s worth fighting for.

Now, to fall back to touching on the textuality topic: I thank 15.07 for the display of performative absurdity. It’s not the first episode to rip open and expose fandom’s dirty underbelly and intersectional marginalization forces wearing an LGBT Activism Suit -- 14.03 also did so loudly by Bobo (eg read: “The Problem with Dreamhunter” [A post that points out what people will accept for canonization when there isn't a rival ship or excessive projection of antis specific to a ship which is *SPOILER ALERT* nowhere near what everyone pretends is needed when they want to argue just to argue and some intersectional WLW vs MLM issues]) -- but it was the first to approach it directly with Dean, much less so textually.

The ridiculous redefinition of words, of “what *I* think canon means” whipped completely out of fandom generated buzz and no dictionary on the face of the planet -- the demands, and the active erasure of existing LGBT text because it wasn’t *visible enough* -- really does show a seedy side of fandom that wears a nice Representation Warrior dress sometimes, but betrays a series of issues:

Most points boil down to “I won’t acknowledge any text unless it is loud enough to argue down any idiot I ever meet”, putting the focus not on representative resonance and value of quality of text, but on personal vindication for raw argumentation. A world where trolls and their personal agendas have actually taken *greater importance* to people than the representative text, and is an absolutely abysmal motivation or bottom line for any discussion and yes, if you recoiled and feel ashamed or called out about that, rather than patching over your pride and doubling down, maybe skim the reblog tags bisexual people have left on my several dozen posts about the damages of them being actively deleted is doing.

If you care about representation, you’ll think about that. Even if it’s not the loudly visible version of representation you *want*, it is what it is, and well--it is. Pretty simply. There is no perfect fantasy world where everybody understands and wants the thing you do. And I’m not just talking about LGBT rep. I’m talking about the people you pretend to need to argue gay canon with still being absolutely flummoxed by canon itself, like them saying “family don’t end with blood” and “found family” are “fanon concepts”. People that are confused where demons go when they die. People that rebuke literally many-times textualized non-gay things just to suit their personal agenda. And shockingly, they have a personal agenda about the gay content too.

I’m talking about straight pairings like mulder and scully that got no romo’ed around even after they kissed and got pregnant and the whole nine, because bawww that’s not what the show is about so *allow me to build elaborate theories that make no sense and pretend they have standing in canon equal to the straightforward read*.

Cuz that’s where we’re at right now. Our fandom is just particularly bonky, and has been allowed to go so far off the edge of the map and away from center GA-resonant discussion that the bog standard antis have literally come up with body-mutilating necrophilia as an answer to avoid the gay, and somehow... *shruuuuug?* people act like these people not only are of equal worth but like... deserve... any consideration long term? Which is when we lean into the next point on MOTIVATION.

So ask at what point arguing with tinhats beat out your actual interest in representation and LGBT rights and media issues. Ask at what point you surrendered your focus on feeling resonant with a character that has been textually acknowledged, and traded that for implying you suddenly can’t relate to the character until he performs [X] exact function, exactly how you want, and when you want. Hell, I have even gotten an anon that literally said they would have acknowledged it if SPN had given them what they want when they wanted-- so basically, too late, not enough.

That’s not how text works. Whether the text came ten years ago or now, the text is the text. Your personal fulfillment aside, text is text. And I highly urge people to stop demanding tokenism above demographic-targeted representative types (eg bisexual, raised in the 80s in a patriarchal/power/grit based society and its own associated dogmas, fairly masculine identity, and so on) or demanding characters perform as if they were from another demographic (be it age or gender) because that’s your demographic.

Once you start removing elements of the represented demographics (LGBT, male, age, origin, etc) and wanting it to perform by way of *your* demographic’s behaviors or base line needs/wants, that’s when we’ve left representation. That’s when we’re demanding tokenization. And when you’re demanding tokenization to win internet fights with people who don’t even believe what they say, you have long left the representation wheelhouse. That’s what we call troll wars.

Do not let LGBT media representation be kidnapped into troll wars. Do not let content be degraded or removed just to engage in troll wars. And if you want to engage in troll wars, and you value the arguments more than the discussion *of* representation intersectional issues, and methods, and all around it -- then just... stop. Stop saying you want representation. Don’t.

I’m tired.

#supernatural #spn #meta #my meta #pagan life #gold #alchemy #hermeticism #jeremy adams #15.07 #dean winchester #mine

84 notes · View notes

fanhackers · 5 years

Text

Tumblrpocalypse Special, Part 13

Our final scholarly reaction to the Tumblrpocalypse comes from Allison McCracken, DePaul University. Allison is a co-editor of A Tumblr Book: Platform and Cultures (forthcoming 2019). I first went on Tumblr in 2010, because I was a Glee fan. As a fan and scholar of musicals--their social and industrial contexts as well as the texts themselves--Tumblr was a dream come true, a wide-open town with every kind of content related to the show available in the same place. And because Glee was its own kind of TV animal –a teen musical with I-Tunes hits and live tours -- and because its immediate popularity coincided with the rise of social media, there was an enormous amount of content immediately available on the platform: entire episodes, every separate musical number (video and audio), every performance from every “Glee Live” show, every tweet by cast members or production staff, all show publicity and promotion, and literally every public sighting of the show’s stars anywhere. Because the cast were young and because they were network TV stars who had to do a lot of promotion, they were more accessible than many film stars (they flew on commercial airlines, for example). They were more covered than the Beatles in their early days just in terms of the volume and depth of material provided by both the press and the social media fans in those first few years (for example, it was quite possible to know where Glee’s top stars were almost every minute of their lives everywhere around the world). Tumblr’s “endless scroll” was ideally suited to accommodate Glee’s 24/7 news cycle, but of course, Tumblr also constantly made available fan creative production as well: art, video, and fan fiction; indeed, many of Glee’s early fan production integrated Tumblr as essential to its character’s lives, just as it had become part of its writer’s lives. Either as a fan or a scholar, I had never seen anything like it before. As someone who has also always been fascinated by the cultural work of popular texts, Tumblr was goldmine of a different sort. In the early 2010s, I began to focus my attention to the way fan tumblrs visibly integrated other kinds of social discourses. Fan media practices have always been rooted in particular social contexts and dynamics, and I have focused most of my work on the fandom of marginalized groups (women, queer people, people of color, working class people). Tumblr made these intersections between fandom and marginalized identities and social justice politics publicly visible in a way, again, I had not seen before; the fluid nature of its interface made them part of the fabric of Tumblr fandom as a whole. Most of these intersections involved discourses of feminism, queer/gender identity affirmation and formation, public education, alternative porn and pleasure, critical media analysis, and social justice. The greater effects of this integration on young people’s lives first crystallized for me at LeakyCon 2012 in Chicago, a smaller con (4-5,000 people) targeted at feminist and queer teens. I attended it (my first time) for a single Glee-related event, and while waiting in line I met two 16-year old best friends who were deep into discussion about Glee’s “heternormativity” and possible “transphobia.” I asked them whether they were learning these terms in school (both of them attended Michelle Obama’s alma mater, the excellent magnet school Whitney Young), and they replied that no, they had learned these terms from Tumblr. That single conversation determined much of my research for several years, which has focused on the cultural work and significance of Tumblr ad its users. Since I was particularly interested in young people’s uses of Tumblr, I subsequently attended and wrote about several similarly targeted cons between 2013 and 2015: LeakyCon, GeekGirlCon, and DashCon. These cons were one of the few “Real Life” spaces where Tumblr’s users were both publicly visible and in which they were able to exercise a great deal of agency in the construction of the space. The producers of these cons developed panels and events in response to fans’ interests and concerns. Therefore, the cons reproduced the integration of fandom, alternative identities and social justice that characterized Tumblr and had become naturalized for its young users. These cons not only hosted standard fan events devoted to “squee-ing” over fan content and fan performances, but “social track” and “community connection” panels and gatherings devoted to learning, for example, about how to live with chronic pain, mental illness, and disability (“spoonie living”); feminism (rape culture, intersectional feminism); body positivity; alternative sexual practices and pleasures; ethical cosplaying; queer community; alternative sexual and gender identities; and social justice discussions (charities) and opportunities for “on the ground” political action. Panels devoted to media criticism integrated these tracks in the most obvious ways, producing cutting edge media analysis that often surpassed that of the scholarly conferences I was attending at the same time. I found these cons enormously educational and inspiring, and I really felt like these young people represented a generational shift in fandom and in the larger culture. Today, I see the legacy of Tumblr everywhere, in the discourses of #metoo, in media criticism (especially regarding representation), in the rise of black women as significant public voices on media platforms such as Twitter and Teen Vogue, in the way the Parkland students speak about social justice, in the attention to mental health and chronic pain, in the calls for more sexual education, in the mainstreaming of alternative sexual and gender identities such as asexual and non-binary, in the greater attention to and activism of transgender publics, and in the rise of intersectional feminism. Tumblr made spaces—however limited, unstable, and sometimes wounding they were—for young people to find community and comfort and pleasure, to self-construct their identities, to create and share their art, to critique the mainstream, to network with each other, to learn from peers and mentors about sex, about history, about activism, about self-care. The outpouring of sorrow and criticism that greeted Tumblr’s announcement, on Dec 3, that the platform was banning adult content made Tumblr’s cultural impact more visible in the mainstream, all at once, than it ever has been before. And I believe we all will feel that impact for years to come.

#tumblrpocalypse #tumblr #fan studies #social justice #conventions #activism #real life

61 notes · View notes

writsgrimmyblog · 6 years

Text

On the Fourth Wall and Transformative Works in RPF Fandoms

The fourth wall is a massively complicated area, which engages debates around fan labour, the power dynamics between TPTB and fandoms, the power dynamics between celebrities and celebrity oriented fandoms and the silencing/shaming of transformative works, specifically erotic fanart and fanfiction.

Derived from the abstract notion of the fourth wall in the theater (i.e. the three walls of the stage and the ‘invisible’ wall between action on stage and the audience) discussions of the ‘fourth wall’ have extended into film, television and take on its own definition as part of fandom parlance, with its increasingly more illusory and permeable construct in today’s social media driven world.

Fandoms are under more scrutiny than ever as non-fandom people pick up on intra-fandom activities and ships, and the fourth wall disintegrates as a result. It’s not just fans that break the fourth wall. It’s frequently dismantled by celebrities, the media, talk show hosts, TPTB and so on. There are a lot of convincing articles that suggest the fourth wall actually should come down, because clinging on to its last bricks heightens the sense that we should be ashamed of creating fanfiction, fanart, vidding and so on, particularly stuff with an erotic and/or ship focused slant. However, I think the conversation, when it comes to RPF, is different.

Here’s why.

Celebrities who have no real understanding of fandom space, often get weirded out when they find they are the subject of RPF fanfic. In a hot button moment in my early days of being active in this (Radio One RPF) fandom, I expressed views on that which I have since refined. Honestly, I do think a bemused response is understandable from people with zero knowledge of the role of fandoms in pop culture or the creative freedoms those spaces have historically provided to participants operating within them. Where I sit now is that I wish celebrities who benefit enormously from a large fandom with a significant transformative element might invest a little time to work out what these spaces are all about, and certainly not disingenuously exploit those spaces for humour and/or financial gain, but I get the understandable moment of not being sure what’s going on and reacting in a way that doesn’t jive well with fandom. By way of early caveat I’m also stripping out debates around any kind of harassment (ship related, stalking and so on) from this post, because if I haven’t been abundantly clear about it before, I think that is NOT okay. This post focuses on the celebrity response to RPF - real person fiction - and specifically erotic works of fanfiction. It does not deal with how celebrities might respond to attempts to establish any kind of ‘real person fact’, because that’s a whole different ballgame. FWIW, on that, I’m with V. Arrow’s excellent essay on RPF in Anne Jamison’s ‘Fic: Why Fanfiction is Taking Over the World.

Some celebrities have been confronted with the information that the fictional characters they play are the subject of transformative works, and even that breaking of the fourth wall has historically not gone great for fandoms. With the exception of some fandom darlings like Tom Felton in Harry Potter fandom, it has frequently been met with the dreaded ‘no homo’ response or convention circuit engagement which makes fandom at large feel ashamed for seeing slashy potential in subtext. As much as people want to hold creators to account for capitalising on large slash ships without offering any meaningful endgame, there are also large portions of those fandoms that wish those questions wouldn’t get asked in public forums in the first place, because of the spectacular potential they have to go wrong. See, Jensen Ackles on bisexual Dean Winchester, William Shatner on Kirk/Spock, Benedict Cumberbatch on Johnlock, the Phelps twins on Weasleycest and countless others.

The difference with analysing how these conversations play out in the case of the examples above and RPF, is that the former engages debates around text/subtext, queer readings of texts, authorial control over narrative, queerbaiting in media and so on. There are undoubtedly all kinds of blurred lines which include debating the utility of shutting down slash ship questions in fan-driven forums when shows actively play with those ships in canon, the issues with framing shipping as activism and so on, but these are all big topics in and of themselves. The tl;dr is that celebs can get weird about transformative fandom activity, even if such fandom activity is centered on the fictional characters they portray. When it comes to transformative works in an RPF context, you might argue the image a celebrity cultivates as a fiction in and of itself and to an extent there is an artificiality in terms of what gets presented to the world at large, but fundamentally, a lot of the language we use to talk about fictional narratives doesn’t easily translate in the context of real people, because they’re not fictional characters. They are real people, living real lives.

That’s not to say I think people creating transformative works in RPF fandoms should feel more squeamish about doing so, but I do think the conversation around the sanctity of the fourth wall is different in RPF fandoms. For a start, for some people part of being in an RPF fandom is actually all about breaking the fourth wall. Interacting with your faves in a publicly visible way is part of celebrity fandom. However, I question the extent to which it is appropriate/helpful to extend that celebrity/fan interaction to the workings of transformative fandom and the slashing, femslashing, shipping and headcanoning associated with it. Let’s be very real about the fact that if celebrities are responding negatively to what fandom does with its interpretation of the fictional characters they depict (and oh boy I have thoughts on that which I will shelve for another day), the potential for a celebrity to find erotic works of fiction about themselves or their friends weird must surely be heightened.

This is ultimately why, in my view, @ ing celebs about fictional ships and headcanons rarely, if ever, ends well, with the possible exception of celebrities who are fannish themselves - i.e. the ones who can speak back to fandom in their own language. It most frequently ends up in a situation where not only the person sending the original message - but the fandom at large - is led to feel like your fave disapproves of something you put a lot of unpaid labour into producing and feel proud of, and it’s a pretty awful feeling. I’m staunchly in defense of RPF and I will bring out all the receipts which back up my perspective if required, but I have no desire for any of the stars of my RPF fiction to ever become aware of the fiction I’m writing about them in real life. I don’t want their approval, I certainly don’t invite their censorship, and I ultimately produce transformative works for the people that are here for it, i.e. the people in fandom who want to read the stuff I write.

When it comes to debates about the fourth wall with fictional narratives, there’s an element of holding the fiction to account, of exploring how shipping finds its way into the narrative but the actual (invariably queer) ship doesn’t. That is all part of a broader campaign for diversity in media, which in and of itself is loaded with the complications of vitriolic ship wars, skewed perceptions of fan/creator control, investing in commercially viable content where the queerness resides within subtext and is hyped within fandom space as opposed to less commercialised and already diverse queer content and so on.

With RPF and the fourth wall, you strip away a lot of those issues around diversity in media because - aside from debates about problematic faves - your faves just are. The fiction that exists is the facade of celebrity, but it has a real person behind it all and the possibility of ‘changing the narrative’ doesn’t hold weight in the same way as it does with fiction. For many celebrities their ‘celebrity’ image is very much part of showing the world their authentic selves.

When the transformative side of RPF fandom intersects with the actual celebrities in question, I always come back to who benefits from the works produced within these communities. Aside from the arguments about the financial benefits a large ship can wield, primarily, transformative works offer a space of great creativity, solace and freedom for the participants within those fandoms. That’s the thing I feel most strongly about protecting. When celebrities are confronted with transformative works featuring even the characters they represent on screen, let alone fiction or theories about themselves or their friends, their response to that has the potential to upset the fandom at large, and that just makes everyone feel like shit. I would dearly love to see the fourth wall as an impenetrable construct in these spaces for that reason, but it’s not always to be. This post is a slight subtweet to something that happened in the particular fandom I’m in today, but it has, I hope, broader application.

I struggle to see the upside of showing RPF celebrities transformative works featuring them, but, if you have counter perspectives, please do share. I’d love to know your thoughts.

#fourth wall #ugh #i promised myself i would stop having Opinions #for a while #i just think this topic #is actually interesting

70 notes · View notes

bitchinparty · 6 years

Text

Panel Voting is open!

Since we only got 7 more panel submissions than there are slots for panels, we decided not to do two rounds of voting as planned. Instead, voting will be open from now until February 18th. The voting form contains all the panels and descriptions along with mod names--please let me know ASAP if I missed any of the co-mod arrangements flying around! Voting closes at 11:59pm on Sunday, February 18th. VOTE HERE! (Voting instructions are in the form. You must be registered for the con for your vote to count. Side effects may include increased heart rate, shortness of breath, uncontrollable gigglefits, and inability to can. Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.) Panel Descriptions SINGLE FANDOM Women of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (mod: Minim Calibre) Natasha Romanoff, Peggy & Sharon Carter, Jessica Jones, Shuri, Gamora, Valkyrie, Maria Hill, and many, many more! Let's talk about the wonderful women of the MCU and why we love them. Avengers Reassemble (mods: Lucifuge5, mizface) MCU's been kicking it for 10 years and counting. Where is it going and where would we want it to go next? Captain America: The Star Spangled Man With a Plan* (*for certain values of plan) (mods: Minim Calibre, Gwyneth) From a kid from Brooklyn to a bearded outlaw, come talk about Captain America and Cap fandom as it stands on the eve of Infinity War. Pacific Rim: Uprising - Next Gen Heroes Yay? (mod: Raine Wynd) Pacific Rim Uprising gave us another apocalypse and a set of new heroes to like. Let's talk - and maybe discuss where Raleigh and Herc were doing while this was going on. :-) The Real Bad Place Is The Friends We Made All Along (mods: SDWolfpup, Brynn, Minim Calibre) The Good Place started with a straight-forward premise and became one of the most complicated, delightful, and philosophy-loving shows on TV. Let's talk about why we love it (so many reasons!), how it manages to keep turning its own premise with such skill, and what we hope for next season. The State of Bandom: 2018 (mods: aethel, Lucifuge5) Bandom in 2018 is a different beast from Bandom in 2007. We'll chat about how the fandom has changed (and how it hasn't) and what the musicians are up to now. Come reminisce about your time in Bandom! A short time ago, in a fandom not so far away... (mods: bessyboo, exmanhater) Let’s talk STAR WARS! Originals, Prequels, Sequels, Rogue One, Clone Wars, Rebels, EU—which parts are you really feeling, and why? Which parts that you’re not already into should you check out? What did you think of The Last Jedi? Everything from the galaxy far, far away is on the table! Miss Fisher's Intersectional Feminism (mod: krytella) The adaptation of MFMM from books to the screen aged Phryne up into a rare portrayal of a glamorous heroine over 40 surrounded by a broad range of supporting female characters. The show tackles social issues around gender and class and occasionally attempts to grapple with racism and Australia’s colonial history. What do we love about it, what do we wince at about it, what do we wish we had fanworks about for it? Visit Themyscira (mods: cyborganize, metatxt) Share your Wonder Woman story, whether you're a movie lover, a Lynda Carter devotée, or a long-suffering comics fan. A conversation about the conversation about Wonder Woman: why we feel how we feel about her, what she represents, how she has been represented. Explore Diana's origin in the early 1940s (see: Professor Marston and the Wonder Women) and her fictional origin in the Amazon culture of Paradise Island / Themyscira, and why the character and her worlds are still relevant. Will involve the F word – feminism! (And the other F word – femslash!) META AND MULTIFANDOM Sometimes we pay for it (mod: rivers_bend) come talk about queer romance novels, fannish tropes in pro fiction, and finding the perfect book for you. It's the End of the World As We Know It, And I Feel Fannish (mods: SDWolfpup, cyborganize) Post-apocalypse shows & fic are plentiful, and have plenty of fans, even though they're (usually!) very dark. What draws us to these worlds? What are your favorite post-apocalyptic media and why? What do we learn about ourselves from watching others struggle with the destruction of everything they knew? Where Do We Go From Here? (mods: Minim_Calibre, cyborganize) As the Internet changes and sites rise and fall, how do we stay connected as a community? Can we? Explore the state of fandom in 2018 and how has it changed since the first Bitchin' Party ten years ago! Fandoms That Won't Die (mods: aethel, Lucifuge5) Come talk about the fandoms you love that surprised you with their longevity! Why do some fandoms last and others don't? Fannish Osmosis Fic Exchange (mod: Scribe) Write a stranger the fic of their dreams...for a canon you only know about via hearsay! Other types of fanworks welcome, as long as they can be completed in about fifteen minutes; reading/sharing with the room is encouraged for maximum hilarity, but not mandatory. You Like My Thing Wrong (mod: bessyboo) You know that moment when you’re really into a popular thing, but you hate the popular pairing, or character, or fanon characterization? Or maybe you’ve been into something for a million years and suddenly everyone else is on board too, but everything they’re saying and creating is just…WRONG? Friends, let us get together and discuss strategies for taking a breath, chilling out, and avoiding feeling like horrible fandom hipsters or Bitter Old Fandom Queens when other people just Like Our Thing Wrong. Cest is Best (mods: bessyboo, metatxt) Incest and step/pseudocest have seen a rise in popularity recently in the mainstream, from Game of Throne to Billy & Billie to The Flash, but they've been popular in fandom for over a decade. What's the continued appeal of incest in fandom? And why do you think it's starting to hit more mainstream popularity now? Do you have limits on what you will or won't read--and has that changed? Are you here for the sitcom fluff, the dirtybadwrong angst, or something in between? Let's talk about fandom's fondness for keepin' it in the family! Feelings Are The Worst (mod: jedusaur) Emotions run high when you care a whole lot, and fandom is all about caring a whole lot. Let's talk about different types and contexts of fannish feelings, what sparks and alters our fannish interests, how and why conflicts arise in fandom, what feelings even are (your mod will make a sincere effort not to derail the conversation too far into the intricacies of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex), and what situations lead to fandom obsession, frustration, gradual indifference, and loving everyone in this whole damn bar. Alphas, Omegas, Doms, & Subs: Alternate Gender System Tropes (mods: krytella, keerawa) Why do A/B/O, BDSM AU, and other AUs that play with alternate gender designation have such strong appeal? Do they provide a safer space to eroticize gendered oppression, create a dystopian critique of gendered oppression, or both at once? Are slash gender system AUs an expression of internalized misogyny or badly written female characters or something else entirely? Do slash and femslash uses if this trope serve to straighten the queer relationships they depict? How about alpha/alpha and omega/omega stories, or D/s AUs centering switches? Wait, we only have 50 minutes? Documenting Fandom (mod: aethel) Fans have been writing down the history of fandom since fandom began. Let's discuss the various ways and reasons that fans document fandom! And also Fanlore. Speed Dating Small Fandoms (mods: metatxt, cyborganize) A semi-structured con-game where we share and explore why we love the small fandoms we love. By generating a creative categorization structure, together we will match-make fans with new small fandoms relevant to their interests. Our goal is for everyone to leave with a new fandom to date and a new fan joining one of their small fandom faves. TECH AND WORKSHOP A Song and a Dream: Now What? (mods: SDWolfpup, scribe) You've got the perfect song for your fandom - what's next? How do you get source? What do you do with mkv files? Square pixels? Frame rates?! To outline or not to outline? Do I really need a clip database? Let's talk about it all! Break on Through: Getting Beyond the Block (mods: Minim Calibre, thewightknight) Come share tips and tricks for defeating a creative block. Why We Write: Fandom Needs You! (mod: keerawa) This panel is aimed at aspiring writers, experienced writers dipping their toes into fanfiction, fanfic writers who've been going through a dry patch, or anyone looking to get the creative juices flowing. Topics will vary based on the participants, but might include how to start, where to find cheerleaders and betas, where to post, how to get over that hump and throw ourselves into writing something we and other fans will love. I'm sure the FBI has a file on me: research and fandom (mod: Minim Calibre) Ever find yourself needing to know the marriage requirements in places you'll never live? In-depth information on weaponry? Best ways to hide a body? And, of course, sex tips you may or may not ever need. Come share your tales of research gone wild and/or pick up research tips and tricks from your fellow fans. Oral Not!Fic (mod: bessyboo) In this workshop, we’ll define what oral not!fic is, talk a little about how to create it, and then finish up by creating an oral not!fic before the panel is over! Cosplay 101 (mod: bessyboo) Have you ever wanted to get into cosplay, but weren’t sure how or where to start? This panel is for you! We’ll discuss strategies for choosing/designing a character & outfit, and putting together a costume (for both DIY & “I am 0% crafty” options!) Makeup Fandom 101 (mods: bessyboo, visionshadows) Do you not wear makeup because you find it intimidating, but would like to start? Are you a total makeup pro who loves to talk brands and share your knowledge? Maybe you're somewhere in between, but want to know how that person on tumblr achieved that super sweet eye look or particular nail art you loved. This panel is for all of you, as well as anyone else who wants to come talk everything from skin care to shadow to nail polish. (There may be a makeup swap at the end of the panel!)

#bitchin' party #bp panels

8 notes · View notes

i-will-not-be-caged · 7 years

Text

Social Contract Theory and Fandom Libertarianism

An essay in which I finally get to put my political science degree to work

So I was out walking my dog this morning and ruminating over why I have such a hard time with the conversations in fandom that seem to assume that the only two options when it comes to content are “all fan works must be pure vanilla innocence” and “all criticism is policing and evil.” To be clear, I think both extremes are, well, extreme and lacking nuance. But since I don’t actually see a whole lot of “no one can write characters doing anything wrong” in my corner of fandom (although I’m aware that plenty of it exists other places), I was much more interested in trying to figure out what bugs me so much about the “policing is the greatest evil in fandom” side of things.

Here’s the epiphany I had — people on that extreme end of things bother me because they sound so much like libertarians, much like a lot of us see echoes of fundamentalist purity culture on the other end. And then I got excited because once upon a time I was a political science major and now I get to take my epiphany and my degree and talk about social contract theory like the giant nerd I am :)

Strap in, folks; this got crazy long.

(This is, obviously, going to be pretty U.S.-centric. I’m assuming libertarianism exists in various forms in other countries, but I’m most familiar with the U.S. version, being an American and all, so that’s the lens I’m working with.)

The Libertarian Party in the US is all about “minimum government, maximum freedom.” Their website claims that they are the “the only political organization which respects you as a unique and responsible individual.” They “seek a world of liberty — a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values.”*

Sounds pretty good on the surface, but when you start to look at the practical implications, well, there are a lot of problems.

Libertarians believe that people should only pay taxes if they want to, which sounds nice if you don’t like paying taxes, but also means there would be no government-provided social programs to help people in need. No WIC, no EBT, no unemployment assistance, no libraries (at least none that weren’t privately owned).

They believe that an unbridled market, free of government interference, will lead to greater prosperity and equality for everyone. Except their version of government interference includes things like child labor laws and environmental protections and product safety regulations.

They support civil liberties for everyone, claiming that “other political parties prioritize the rights of some, but not others.”* Again, sounds good, but when combined with their emphasis the free market, in practice this means that most libertarians end up supporting business owners’ right to discriminate rather than protecting customers from being discriminated against.

And don’t even get me started on school choice.

From the many conversations I’ve had with libertarians over the years, I’ve learned that what it boils down to is basically libertarians wanting all the benefits of living in a society without any sort of responsibility for their fellow community members. They don’t understand just how much of their life is a benefit that comes from the work other community members have done. They believe that everyone should just take care of themselves and leave everyone else alone, which can sound appealing, but breaks down as soon as you add in the existence of history, inequality, and injustice.

“Responsible individuals” who are “sovereign over the own lives” thinking everything would be best if we all just did our own thing and ignored everyone else…starting to sound familiar?

Fandom libertarians, then, would be the people who insist that if everyone just did the fannish things they wanted to do and stayed out of everyone else’s business, we would all have a great time in fandom. And just like with political libertarianism, that sounds pretty good on the surface.

And here’s where we get to social contract theory. Because in addition to thinking libertarian politics would be ineffective, I also believe they violate the social contract underpinning American society.

Social contract theory has existed for basically as long as Western civilization has existed (and probably arguably even predates that, although that’s out of my realm of expertise). There is a lot of nuance and a lot of variation, but for the purposes of this essay, I’m mostly concerned with Jean-Jacques Rousseau��s version.

Rousseau interpreted the social contract not just as an agreement between individuals and a ruler for the sake of protecting oneself from the State of Nature and death (the more Hobbesian view), but rather as a form of reciprocity between individuals and a ruler as well as between each individual. Rousseau believed that people could not both determine for themselves whether to fulfill their obligations to society based on their own interests and be allowed to reap the benefits of belonging to that society. This is basically the argument a lot of people use with libertarians — you don’t get to use roads, fire trucks, and other municipal services and refuse to pay your taxes.

One thing I (and many political theorists) would add to Rousseau is that in the 21st century, the social contract is not an opt-in contract. Unlike legal contracts, which you can choose to enter into or not, as soon as you are born into a society, you are part of that contract. As much as we might like to erase what we’ve got and start from scratch building society, we’ve got to start with where we are now (Even Rousseau talks about the impossibility of returning to the State of Nature in his work).

You can want it to be voluntary, you can argue that it should be voluntary, but ultimately, it’s not. Even if you have the ability to relocate and join a different society, you will then be a part of that society’s contract. We are all part of human society and that comes with certain responsibilities and requirements. There’s a lot of debate about what those responsibilities and requirements are, but only libertarians seem to think they shouldn’t actually exist.**

Fandom, on the other hand, is an opt-in community. You can choose whether or not you want to participate. Which is awesome! We all like having choices! And as many fandom libertarians will tell you, if you don’t like what’s happening in fandom, you can leave. Which is true.

However.

I would argue that if we choose to participate in fandom, we are also choosing to have some measure of responsibility for our fellow community members. If we don’t want that, we can opt out - we can make our blogs private, we can create a private subscription list for our fan works, etc. But by posting our fanworks in a public forum, by engaging in fandom activity openly online, we are agreeing to be a part of a community and all communities have guidelines and responsibilities.

Of course, we have a hard time determining what those responsibilities are even when we have laws and constitutions and things, so it’s not like something as fluid and unwieldy as fandom is going to have a codified list of rules and responsibilities outside of the terms and conditions of the platforms we use. But it boggles my mind that some people would then argue that they have no responsibility for the well-being of other community members at all.

And this is what bothers me about so much of the “Do whatever you want! People are responsible for their own experience!” side of fan culture. Yes, we can write/draw/do whatever we want. Yes, people should do what they can on their end to protect themselves. But we should also do what we can to help our community members protect themselves.

When someone claims they shouldn’t have to do that, all I can hear are the people who complain about paying taxes that they don’t benefit from or whine about having to include wheelchair ramps in their building plans or say that poor people should just work hard and get a good education. When fanwork creators call any and all criticism “policing,” all I can hear is people screaming “taxation is theft!”

And just like those people, when we refuse to make reasonable accommodations for our fellow fans — like tagging posts and fanworks accurately, avoiding racist/homophobic/transphobic tropes in our writing/art, listening when marginalized groups say something is harmful, etc. — we are actually harming our community. No one is advocating that we require people to have every single thing they create approved by a panel of judges, just like no one who wants single-payer healthcare is advocating for “death panels”. We just want to be a part of a fandom community that prioritizes minimizing harm to its members and freedom of expression.

I can already hear people screaming, “But who gets to decide???” And you know what? I don’t know the best answer to that. Here’s where that nuance that I talked about in the very first paragraph comes in. I believe that fandom communities have the capacity to navigate these gray areas respectfully and usefully without resorting to attacks or falling into the trap of fundamentalism. Maybe that’s overly idealistic of me, but well, my idealism is hard-won and refuse to give it up.

But I would also encourage us to remember that when it comes to issues of racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism — anything outside the realm of personal preference — fandom is not immune from the power differentials that exist in the broader world. Which means that the burden is on those with more power — white fans, straight fans, cis fans, abled fans, etc. — to work to make their own positions more nuanced before demanding it of fans with marginalized identities (and to remember that people exist at the intersections of all of those identities as well, so that I don’t use my queer, mentally ill identity to excuse myself from doing the work my whiteness requires).

Of course, this post assumes that most of the people in fandom agree with me that libertarianism generally turns people into arrogant assholes who don’t give a shit about others. I might be wrong about that; maybe fandom is full of libertarians and think it’s absolutely right and good to bring libertarianism into fandom as well. I just wish libertarians, both in fandom and outside of it, would stop insisting that people should have complete freedom without any acknowledgement that 1) that freedom has the ability to hurt someone else and 2) not everyone has the same access to that freedom.

*Quotes are pulled directly from the Libertarian Party’s website

**Note: there are a lot of criticisms of social contract theory, often through a feminist and/or race-conscious lens, that believe the idea of a social contract is inherently flawed; those criticisms, however, have more to do with acknowledging the ways in which people other than straight white men have been excluded from these contracts, and actually argue for greater responsibility for other individuals in society.

#fandom #fan culture #i tried to bold some of the main ideas #just in case you don't have time for 1800 words of political theory today

276 notes · View notes

shark-myths · 7 years

Text

On Bandom and Queer Community

This morning I was thinking about my fandom origin story (the real one, not the gritty reboot starring Christian Bale. That was a joke. I was never that into Batman Begins, though I spent a lot of time there, as it was the favorite of my best friend.) Specifically, I was thinking about how 15 years ago, at summer camp, I made a friend because she hung up pictures of the same band I was obsessed with (all I packed that summer was AFI t-shirts and skater tanks to go under an AFI hoodie) and we spent the rest of the week whispering on a Wisconsin hillside about two boys kissing.

I was 13 years old. I’d never heard of slash or fandom. It was something I did alone, saving pictures to my hard drive in the basement when there were only 8 Google image results for Jade Puget and only 3 were actually him, staking out Fuse to try and catch a music video, living a private world through headphones as I listened to each album on loop til I could set my heart to it. To me, fandom was born and created in that moment: Eden and me together on a hill. It became the glue of our friendship, which was almost instantly personal and intense. We talked whole stories together. I wrote my first fics for her, mailed them to her in pink envelopes. I fell in love with her, of course, though I did not have the language to identify my love at that time.

Fandom, to me, has always been about community. When I found out we weren’t the only ones, that it was this whole thriving, collaborative marketplace—I was blown away. I was too shy to enter without invitation, sure it must be an exclusive club. I was Dorothy, discovering that my home had been there all along.

Fandom continues to be the driving force behind my participation in friendship. It’s where I make new connections and it hosts the activities of my relationships. 90% of my emotionally intimate relationships started in fandom and 95% occur within fannish domains. AFI, Lord of the Rings, X-Men and Marvel comics, The Matrix, Star Wars, Star Trek, Supernatural, Smallville, Harry Potter, Buffy, Battlestar Galactica, Firefly, X-Files, Fall Out Boy, and every pit stop in between—everything I’ve ever been brilliantly, urgently, feverishly consumed by. This is where my life happens. This is what I do with people. It’s where I live. It’s how I love. Obsessively, constructively, consumptively, with generativity and the joy of shared spaces, shared creation. It is how I know myself, the bridge I build between myself and anyone else.

I remember the soundtrack song Nemo Egg playing on loop in the background of a midnight phone call, while I eased my IRL best friend into slash and internet fandom. It was a school night, as it often was when we whispered into phones in the dark. We were writing a self-insert X-Men fanfiction together. She said, “What if… Iceman and Northstar… kissed?” “They could do that,” I said. I’d been in those corners of the internet. I knew that they could, and did. I remember following her, reading and rehashing Linkin Park fic, fueling her fires and my own. Watching TV shows and clutching each other and shouting about the tiniest scraps of intense queer love. Reciting movies and making our own. Terrifying enthusiasm is my love language. I am who I am, and how I love, because I’m a fan.

So the next question is, has my fandom experience always been inherently queer? It’s not for everyone. But there is a reason I have only ever had queer ships, why I have explored queer relationship forms and conflicts from the outset, and why so many of my narratives were constructed around coming out and backlash and gay panic. I have written relatively few stories that follow heteronormative forms, instead being drawn again and again into intense, muddy, found family stories and fandoms. Overwhelmingly, I have spent my fandom time (which, who are we kidding, is basically all of my time) in RPF slash bandom.

There is something magic about queer bandom spaces. I think we’re gayer, for one thing. I think we drift there, more urgently creating role models and heroes we can see in the flesh than in other fandoms where cultural myths are also restored, repaired, and repurposed. I think we have a deliberate engagement with visibility and representation and lived queer experiences that is simply more dense in slash bandom. I don’t yet have a cohesive theory of why that is, save for our desperation to see ourselves and our stories and hope for our futures, save for the way a band offers an alternative to traditional heteromonogamy, providing four- and five-way bonds of intense love, intimacy, family, and caretaking that otherwise don’t have names and spaces in mainstream culture.

It’s through this same magic that all my closest friends are queer. We found each other and banded up before we knew we were queer. (I have one, exactly one, emotionally intimate relationship with a perfectly straight person. We met through our graduate studies, a different archive of intensity and critical thought and passion—an academically puritanical space with no niche carved out for queerness. We are wonderful friends and I treasure her role in my life, but I would never call her to cry about the use of the word ‘gold’ in a Fall Out Boy lyric, nor would I text her til 3am with questions about the intersection of relationship anarchy and my own sexual identity. It’s not like that, outside. That’s how we ended up in here.)

Bandom pulled us in like a siren. It showed us ourselves. It taught us our own narratives, the norms of our tribe, the language to explore our selves, the relationship forms and queering of traditional forms with which to self-identify. It taught us the inherent revolution and anarchy of queer identities. It taught us that our relationships can transcend the shallow, radio-button choices mainstream culture would give us. My fandom has always gone hand-in-hand with, been part of, been made of, incredibly intense, queer, romantic, intimate, affectionate, devoted relationships that heteromonogamy has no name or space for. For me, fannishness is a performative activity of my queer identity. It is not just part of it; it is the primary expression of my queerness.

No wonder it feels like home.

July 2017

#bandom #fandom #queer identity #fandom meta #queer community #i found this in my journal and thought it was very cogent and interesting #so enjoy #writing

37 notes · View notes

super-queer-hannibal-obsession · 7 years

Text

The M/M Shipping Thing: Misogyny, the Male Gaze, and Feminist and Queer Representation

Follow up post to this one, here. Read this to see my thoughts on the importance of allowing women to see men through a lens where male sexuality is something to be celebrated, not feared. Seems like a lot of people can relate to this, and I just love talking about it so have some more of my thoughts.

First of all, it’s a numbers game…

Going off of this point by @colt-kun which I’ve copied and pasted here. This gives a great overview of a purely statistical analysis of why m/m ships are more common.

“There’s also the sheer numbers to take into account.

Take the first Avengers movie as an example (because frankly its one of the few recent blockbusters with two female speaking roles). Two females, Black Widow and Maria. Then eight males, Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, Hawkeye, Hulk, Loki, Fury, Coulson.

Not counting polyships/selfships for ease of math, and using the characters cisgender identities bc that is what they are largely seen as (no disrespect meant to any trans/nb interpretations)

Possible f/m ships: 16 (35.5%) Possible f/f ships: 1 (2.2%) Possible m/m ships: 28 (62.2%)

That’s not even accounting for screentime, character chemistry, interaction times, etc. thats just the NUMBERS.

When there’s a large disparity in character gender then yeah, you’re going to see a heavy inclination to m/m ships because that’s really ALL THATS POSSIBLE. The fans have a natural desire for more story and romances, they want to world build and AU. We’ve done that since stories were first told.

So of COURSE you’re going to see a lot of women - of all sexual orientations - leaning towards m/m pairings because when there’s only potatoes at the buffet… you eat the potatoes. Think of all the shows an movies with only one female character in a cast of men. Is it really difficult to see WHY there’s a lot of m/m ships there?”

Mainstream media is male-centered and male-dominated.

Going beyond just the numbers the fact is that in the majority of popular films and TV shows many of the female characters aren’t well-rounded or on screen as much as most of the men. There is a tendency for women to be the secondary characters or maybe to have one main female character. This makes it hard to really relate to and invest in a lot of the female characters out there. Not that people don’t, but it’s not going to attract a huge following.

Take Supernatural (low hanging fruit I know) where even if there are a large number of women that appear throughout the series, there aren’t many that stick around(and let’s not even go there with all of the deaths and how sexist that is right now ha)or interact with each other in a way that would lead to a lot of shipping. Even in my lovely Hannibal fandom, the Marlana ship which people love and people write for just isn’t going to have as much of a following just based on the fact that they aren’t the main characters. And Marlana is a good example of a w/w ship where they aren’t objectified, don’t die, and still it’s a secondary focus. There obviously are some exceptions, but they are few and far between.

The Male Gaze:

Also, women (and any gender that isn’t cismale) are trained to see film through the male perspective. Film and TV is usually shot with the male gaze, so women learn to see through this lens. We grow up learning to empathize and put ourselves in the shoes of male protagonists because otherwise we would have very little media to enjoy. I think this is part of why it’s natural for women to ship m/m ships. I also think that shipping men and sexualizing them can be a subversion of the male gaze and is an empowering way to flip that script for many women.

We could go into a whole other discussion on internalized misogyny and patriarchal culture and why there are some not so great reasons women might gravitate towards m/m ships, but I think it’s important to see all the reasons why this is and to not demonize women for doing something that makes sense both statistically, sociologically, and psychologically, etc.

Men rarely have to put themselves in the shoes of women in film. So, I do feel like there is a difference between straight dudes watching lesbian porn and women who thoughtfully engage in a m/m ship. You can’t ignore the gender politics at play and how these factors interact. In an ideal world, people of all genders and sexualities could enjoy bodies without all the baggage of sexism and homophobia, but sadly that’s not our world.

This famous, awesome thread really sums it up:

Disclaimer:

I do think there are women who fetishize and act awful when it comes to m/m ships. (I also realize there are lots of other intersections at work in film such as race and class that I’m not really addressing.) Especially those who don’t do any of the emotional or intellectual work around the history of the queer community and who don’t engage in activism of that sort. Plus, if you are a straight woman who loves and supports gay male ships but you’re grossed out by queer women or you’re objectifying actual queer men in your life, it’s time to check yourself and stop that.

Homoerotic Subtext:

Also, women, and queer people across the board, have been trained to read subtextual clues like pros. Women are especially adept at reading into stories since they are so rarely represented in positive ways. Queer people do this, too. It makes sense that women, especially queer women, would pick up on interactions that have homoerotic subtext easily. And, since film is male dominated, it is much more likely the subtext will be between two men. Also, let’s just face it, the history of film is male centered and homo eroticism is a big part of it, and it’s usually about good looking white dudes. The LGBT community itself still has a long way to go in portraying and magnifying people of all genders and sexualities more equally.

The weight of the male gaze on queer women.

There’s also the problem of objectification. I like to write, read, and see fan art about w/w ships, but there’s always that weight of feeling like you’re objectifying women all over again and feeling unsure about it. Honestly, I think that many of us in fandom should probably do what we can to write more femslash and write original queer female characters, but there are a lot of reasons why these ships aren’t as popular as m/m ships. There’s a lot of baggage around portraying women and female sexuality. And lesbian sex is so objectified that it can be a minefield to navigate even when(once in a blue moon) a good f/f ship opportunity comes along. But, even with that, there are some thriving ships such as Korrasami and Clexa(oh look another queer woman is dead. This is why we can’t have nice things). Queer women do celebrate and create fandom around good w/w ships when we get the chance.

Misogyny and Mocking Fandom:

Lastly, and I’ve read lots on this before so this is just my take, people tend to demonize fandom and m/m shipping because it is something that is driven by women, mainly made by women, and made mostly for other women (and nonbinary folks, too).

Even in the LGBT+ community, there is a lot of misogyny. Cis gay white men are the face of that movement, and they often don’t realize the sexism that is still alive and well in the community. It’s easy for people to laugh at, mock, and critique shipping because it is very much a space not created by men. I also think it’s easy for some privileged gay men to point out perceived injustice but not realize the sexism inherent in what they are saying.

Fandom is very much a place where women explore their sexuality and can enjoy seeing men being acted upon, not just being the actors. It’s no surprise that women are intrigued by the sexual politics of queer men given the messages about being penetrated and being acted on that women get all the time. Analyzing sexual dynamics through a m/m relationship makes a lot of sense psychologically as it isn’t tied to a male/female gender dynamic in the same way. I think it’s a very natural way for women to see sexuality , and things like dominance and submission, as a personal preference and the beauty and excitement of different ways of expressing sexuality.

People like to enjoy women’s work while also mocking it.

Also, I know many queer men who enjoy m/m smut, fan art, etc. from fandoms where I’m sure that 90 percent of the work is being produced by people who aren’t cisgay men, and are very likely people who identify as women. So, while I know that some queer men are cool with it and some aren’t cool with it, I think it’s important to keep in mind that many of them are benefiting and enjoying from the work that female driven fandom is creating.

In conclusion:

Once again, it’s important to not be a homophobic, fetishizing, clueless person. I see instances of problematic behavior and thinking among women who ship men together often, and it’s a problem and needs to be called out when it happens. But, for all that is holy, stop acting like all of these women are gross, homophobic fetishizers and look at all the reasons why m/m shipping is such a phenomenon. I always think being self-critical and analytical is important. It’s also good to listen to different perspectives because these are intersectional issues with valid discussions to be had.

Sorry this was so long. I really could go on and on, and this is what happens when I miss writing feminist/queer theory papers. ;)

#fannibals #queer theory #shipping #m/m ships #lgbt representation #fandom #hannigram #marlana #destiel #clexa #johnlock #yuri on ice #hannibal #queer representation #queer studies #feminist theory #korrasami

880 notes · View notes

incarnateirony · 5 years

Note

Why do you think so many people in fandoms of tv shows, movies, games and pretty much anything have such a strong resistance to a character being revealed to be LGBT? I've seen it so many times, and I know you've seen it a lot as well, and it's just so weird to me how offended people are by this. A recent example is in the fandom of a videogame I'm in, were many are just outraged by the notion some believe that a main character, a white, male soldier that exists since 1997 could, maybe, be LGBT.

The fight over this crap is kind of intersectional. Everything from homophobes to our own. This is heavily tied to (America, since this is intersectional with an american show, but also global) opinions shifting on things like oh, gay marriage. (x) Such as modernly 15%~ of citizens are homophobes and think The Gay Sexinating should be illegal. Which sounds shitty as all kinds of fuck until you scale that against 43% in 77′, and 77 was actually *before* the AIDs epidemic really became central or anything so you can imagine what those numbers realistically became then.

We’ve made progress, and there’s still progress to be made, but it was literally less than half a century ago – two generations ago – here, in many of our lifetimes, or at least in the lifetimes of people the younger reading audience here *knows* – that this landscape wasn’t even *recognizable*

So socially speaking this works in waves of conversation– be that the gays being cursed by god yadda yadda and thus deserve to die of AIDS and be treated like lepers – down to “Why do they even need included in anything” following shortly after, with a mindset of “perversion” still heavily steeped in the population that would plague children of the 80s and 90s heavily. You wanna deal with some internalization, there’s some internalization.

Keeping a thumb on the fact that the needle *has* shifted is a great deal of it, I think – obviously not “OK! WE’RE DONE NOW!” but being aware there’s not a 50%~ chance someone you walk by thinks you should be arrested or killed anymore, that more than 1 in 8 douchebags are going to be whole thundergeese about it, and that it is what it is, and it sucks, and we’re waiting to get further-again. Also there’s whole other issues WRT MLM vs WLW and what earns what kind of resistance but that’s a WHOLE other rant.

The thing is, when people grow into an environment of being *disadvantaged*, if they don’t as much take time to celebrate our *progress* as much as rant about everything that *isn’t going perfectly right*, we lose our scale. It maintains this feeling of being the completely 100% hated unseen minority that the whole world still hates, when we can’t look back and go, you know what, in 2019, 83% of people don’t think it should be illegal, 2% have no opinion. That’s just a very congealed residual screaming mass of assbags and subconsciously we all know it, but continuing to gear the conversation as if we’re fighting from the pits of the 60s or 70s is??? really weird???

But at the same time understandable?

So on the one hand you get The Gays arguing from being an angle of being incredibly more disadvantaged than they are. And then, you get people from this shifting demographic – be it the 15% remaining douchebags congealed into a screaming lot, or the 40% slide that have come to realize we’re just minding our own business and loving who we want between 77 and now – that, still lost *in* that dark history and frankly propaganda hold onto *resistances*. So if we’re talking about a character that, say, probably straight white guys have attached to since the 90s, if they attached to that character in the 90s, odds are, they were fairly developed and at least 15 years old if not more already. And odds are, they were subject to everything from the impact of the epidemic to just older nonsense clouding their vision, and whether we like it or not, these people *will* have likely resistance.

Because we may not like that chapter of history, and we give no excuse for homophobia, but in perspective when an entire country’s homosexual population was ravaged by something ignored by government and hospitals, and dismissively packaged as a curse by evangelical america in a country about 75% christian, just how *much* that *completely* fucks up people’s internal understanding. It’s the same dehumanization that was used against anyone else genocided, in other major historical moments we all know about. It doesn’t make the passivity right, but welcome to how literal propaganda can fuck up entire populations.

So to roll back to the Nonnie: These fights in general seem to strike me as a mix of intersectional… lack of understanding. Young Gays that don’t really get what the world was like 40~ years ago or even 20~ are absolutely baffled why anyone would get so reactive to an idea. Old Gays do want better representation, but some have had a hell of a time *from* internalizing those ideas. The Straights of the time have a WHOLE other mess of shit to sort out in their heads before coming around to being open and understanding. Everybody’s talking across each other, instead of talking with each other, and some have unfortunately entirely convinced themselves they are still as hated as they were back then, which turns into more circular representation visibility fights, which turns into another circus, yeehaw.

Which sometimes even turns into striking down their own representative work (be that SPN here or the goblins we all know on this hellsite that tear down anything that looks vaguely like representation because it isn’t XYZ enough). Because in the interest of arguing with *maybe 15 percent of the population that doesn’t think you have the right to exist* about *fictional content* being made to *represent YOU, not them*, we ironically do a lot of damage to our queer canon by just stomping on current incrementalization and expansion without minding the history and steamroll it. Which frankly makes us all look like disorganized lunatics trying to Make Everything Gay™ even if that’s not what it is remotely.

And because I know this will be misunderstood I’ll continue to frame this point from a few angles before it’s misrepresented: Wanting rep/seeing queer narratives wherever you go is fine and the nature of the fight, I’m just trying to explore the divide between r/NiceGuys that get mad at the gay vs the modern LGBT comm and frankly the general bloated, inflated relevance they have that the community at times lets, or even invites dialogue of, their heteronormative framings, often rooted back from times of REALLY DARK PROPAGANDA AND GENOCIDE and how it affected culture – to damage and bury their own content, generally in the logic “if they don’t see it, then it doesn’t count!” when, if-and-when queer coding or open in your face textual coming-out canon or even just low-visibility text is conscious, that is content for *you.*

And it’s not saying “stop and settle” to put this into perspective. It’s “don’t piss on the work everybody else did before you – or worse on what they’re doing right now – just to argue with the couple of assbags left in the universe.“ They’ll go away too eventually. It doesn’t happen overnight. And they’re not going to stop happening overnight. No matter how many gay video game soldiers you find at this type, no matter if Dean Winchester just quietly voices his repeat encounters with men in a way that landmarks it so loudly you NEED to break out alt-right dialogues those same 1 in 8 have that I have beaten to death – to choose to interject that kind of long-ago-addressed conversational edge is literally to choose to interject homophobic dialogue into conversations of how LGBT rep should work and honey if you need an indicator that you may be leaning in the wrong direction, there’s your sign.

But it can be hard to unplug and stop thinking the world is still as bad as it is back then, BECAUSE you run into those assbags that resist it loudly. But like many things, numbers show they’ve died off into a minority. We still have a way to go, but this is a weird ongoing self-inflated fight that seems heavily unaware on WHY people react like that (as per the original ask) much less how ridiculous it is to keep dragging dialogues born in the AIDS epidemic days into these discussions.

Simple point? If you aren’t able to really mobilize on content (yelling online generally ain’t it, chief), ignore them. Enjoy your content if it’s yours, because there’s a lot of effort in simply erasing normalizing queer content because if it’s not EXTREME enough to win against THOSE GUYS *POINTS AT* then NYEAAAAAAAAAH.

It was never gonna be enough to win on those guys, even if it was full queer cinema canon LGBT stories and not stories that just include LGBT people normally.

Look I don’t even know what soldier you’re talking about, and I don’t care. Enjoy your shit your way and remember how easy it is for a minority to be ruthlessly loud when they can connect themselves across the wholeassed internet.

But until people really learn the history of why certain mindsets cropped up or how they invaded conversation or what rattled entire generations to their core, prople are gonna have a hard time fucking communicating with each other instead of just talking over each other. And sometimes even talking over their own within the community/engaging in deletion/the carousel runs in a circle.

But *why* that mindset exists? It’s not difficult. It’s because this nation got saturated in propaganda that warranted letting the homosexual community suffer and die in numbers that would make your head spin, where everyone knew someone with it, as coffeebrainblog has said, where we were treated like lepers, or “cursed by god”, or as lesser, inhuman things and climbing out of that hole has been a hell of a ride, but the community has to also de-internalize that propaganda and realize WE’RE PRETTY MUCH THERE. Like the road isn’t over, the war isn’t 100% won, but if the statistics alone don’t get you, if you *really* sat and read this reply, maybe where the din and eternal upset has buried our *progress*, you’ll realize that progress has dramatically pitched that into being the minority.

But it keeps everybody arguing from disadvantaged levels and even some choosing to self-handicap by creating their own definitions, rules, boundaries and almost states of the universe they’ll accept, because 1 in 8ish people hate them, but they’re still stuck in a world where 1 in 2 might want you dead, somewhere in your headspace. It’s like setting your own handicap bar which… is kind of the opposite? Of what we’re supposed to do? We’re supposed to knock down those cages? And point out we’re the same as everyone else? Running to prove things to people who still think we might carry God’s Plague And Be Judged that haven’t listened to decades of correction so far, just to dissect and dismantle your own contents or enjoyments – it’s a really, really weird backwards pedaling thing to aim for.

I *get* why people think it’s the right way, again, as per all of this, but it’s… it’s pedaling backwards and thinking it’s moving forward.

So while I don’t know what soldier you’re talking about, it was a chance to address A) why there’s resistance in some generations B) what that did to us, as a community C) where sometimes we lose track of ourselves in a carnival of competition.

EDIT:

This note by @amitywho rings home:

Excellent analysis. I’m extremely ancient - I was a grown-ass adult in a flyover state back in 1980 when the first whispers about “the gay cancer” in New York and San Francisco began to make their way to us. I had to drive 150 miles to find a bookstore that carried any kind of gay-positive literature. We parked across the street to watch and see who might be loitering in the neighborhood - if they had baseball bats, no one would be coming to help.

I’ll also add there seems to be OUSA influence, but I centered on the american demographic of an american show; but it still impacts online worldwide net conversation. That OUSA influence varies between highly oppressed countries having heartier ala-80s POVs on LGBT, to on the exact opposite OUSA fans not really having their heads wrapped around the American side of the history beyond what it means in a few articles if they came from more progressive countries that didn’t, like, genocide their gays. So even older LGBT OUSA people look at it from the disembodied angle of a few headlines they remember, not being in the blast zone and resulting fallout.

Also to drift to another topic of LGBT exploitation: If you want to know why CW has “dare to defy” as a slogan just behind the idea that they have PoC or gays on their channel, I really need someone to sit and think about that. Welcome to a bunch of older people that remember these days that see it as *DEFIANT* to do at our current intersection. Nevermind them now exploiting that to try to find a new center for their network after CBS fucked them WRT Netflix, but hey. Yeah. Put that in scale. Why does it need virtue signal marketing, and moreover, what are they “defying”? This. This kind of mindset. Which is heavily sourced in an age demographic likely to be the core of CW Exec boards and marketing.

If you want an idea how deep rooted in our psyche stunted dialogues are, the fact that few people even blink at that says a fuck of a lot to me. No, we dared to defy decades ago, you’re just trying to profit on what you still run through marketing and demographics and ho-hum but think you can pull money from. There’s a difference. But it does betray the minds behind it. It should be more like “DARE TO LOSE 15% OF OUR PROFIT MARGIN AND HOPE WE GET THAT 20-30% OF GAYS INSTEAD” – it’s profiting off of the work the LGBT community did and acting like they’re brave for doing it at a point that they actually risk more losses to NOT start. It’s signaling themselves as heroes in a battle they had nothing to do with. And it’s pretty standard fare.

(And, ON that aside, it spins me out how often I’ve seen in misc fandoms fans acting like queer content that is canonically queer doesn’t count if it’s not overtly marketed and shopped explicitly as LGBT content, rather than content that happens to have LGBT elements – why are you BEGGING to be exploited before you consider yourselves valid, I’m confused. We’ve already had our big grand coming out stories and tales of struggle and there’s a whole queer canon history I’ve posted about this. The whole point of our current junction is getting content everywhere that reflects how normal-and-everywhere we are, why are y’all like this)

14 notes · View notes