#but because those stunts are doing just that. the stunts are degrading to louis. and are meant to overshadow his music | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

whereimfeminine · 7 years

Text

Ahh yes, a classic case of I-haven’t-had-my-coffee-yet-and-some-moon-is-ascending-or-something-so-lets-get-angry-for-a-sec. It’s been a while. I saw this gem of a screenshot floating around earlier, being shared and enjoyed by some self-proclaimed feminists. If there’s one thing I am definitively not here for (lol there are a lot of things I’m not here for who am I kidding), it’s the larrie phenomenon of trying to pretend blatant misogyny is something else, and that these types of posts are not incompatible with feminism. This type of behavior upsets and angers me because there are a lot of people, especially young women, on this site and in this fandom, whose understandings of feminism are shaped by what they read here. I sure know mine were. And a lot of the most popular larrie blogs spreading this type of crap are older bloggers (relatively speaking) who can spread a type of faux-authority (-even if they don’t ~mean~ to, there’s no denying their influence within their fandom-) on making young women think this is compatible with feminism.

It’s not. Of course you can critique women’s behaviors and not be a misogynist. But that’s not what this is doing. This is drawing a clean, sharp line between the “desperate, pathetic women” who are ruining Louis’s life, versus the “good, perfect men” like Harry, Steve, James (probably even Oli). It’s no accident. If (if) you think this is all one giant stunt-- then Briana, Eleanor, Danielle, and all the other “desperate women” are doing their job. It is their JOB to be in his life. They have, no doubt, contracts about what they can and cannot do. Louis is a multi-millionaire-- if this is all a contract-based rouse and he wanted to get them to stop posting pictures on instagram, he could.

And for crying out loud, Eleanor didn’t even do anything! Louis followed her! How does that make her the desperate one? If she’s a fake-ex-girlfriend that he’s fake-rekindling with, then it’s, again, because of a CONTRACT. She is doing her job. Just like Steve and James and Oli are doing their jobs. But Eleanor and Briana are women performing conventionally female roles-- of the supportive, feminine partner; of a mother. Steve has absolutely made the most of his association with Louis. Yes, Steve seems to be a wonderful friend and support system for Louis. But he’s also absolutely right now, and going into the future, going to profit off his business relationship with Louis. Louis’s name has helped raise his profile, even if he was decently famous before this (look at how much more successful Just Hold On was compared to his prior works). Those are deals made with Steve while under the same constraints he had when starting contracts with Eleanor and Briana. If Louis has no control over his life in the hiring of Briana and Eleanor, it’s hard to think he had total exclusive control over hiring Steve. It’s all business.

Eleanor and Briana are making the most of their ties to Louis to advance themselves in the (largely-woman-dominated) social media/instagram industry. Steve is using his to advance his own music career. James is using his to promote his own show. It’s how the industry works. It doesn’t make any of those people bad people. Especially (!!!) if you really think Briana and Eleanor (and Danielle) are just contractually hired and playing a part. They’re just playing a part you don’t like, and they’re playing a part that has been degraded by a misogynistic society that has “entrepreneurial” men and “desperate” women.

... okay back to my regular content now.

#kdjsjflk sorry y'all #larry stylinson #larry #larrie discourse #me rambling #ill go back to reading law review articles now rip

54 notes · View notes

recentnews18-blog · 6 years

Photo

New Post has been published on https://shovelnews.com/homophobia-isnt-funny-so-why-do-liberal-comics-keep-using-it/

Homophobia Isn't Funny. So Why Do Liberal Comics Keep Using It?

Last week, Sacha Baron Cohen, while in disguise on his new show, got the notorious Joe Arpaio ― the former sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, and a loyal supporter of President Donald Trump ― to say he’d accept an “amazing blow job” from the president.

The stunt illustrated, as it was meant to, how far some Trump backers might go in supporting the president (though Arpaio later said he “couldn’t understand” Baron Cohen’s question). The absurdity of it draws a laugh, even from many of us who are queer.

But the joke nonetheless rests on the tired premise that gay sex is one of the most grotesque things anyone could possibly do. It anticipates a certain amount of shock on the part of the audience at the thought of two men engaging in a sex act. If the roles were different ― if Arpaio were an openly gay man who was being asked if he’d go so far as to have a female politician he supported perform oral sex on him ― the joke wouldn’t work. It would likely be seen as degrading to the woman to even raise the question, but Arpaio wouldn’t be the butt of the joke.

Baron Cohen could just have easily asked Arpaio if he’d clean Trump’s toilet with a toothbrush or eat maggots from a bowl if the president asked. But for many people, those actions wouldn’t be as funny as Arpaio receiving a blow job from Trump, and that says something about our popular culture.

Casual homophobia ― the perpetuation of anti-gay tropes and language ― persists in our society, including among those who consider themselves supporters of LGBTQ equality.

It appears more glaring in the Trump era. We’ve seen well-meaning liberals and late-night comedians, from Jimmy Kimmel to Stephen Colbert (and, more recently, even the New York Times editorial page), come under fire for joking that Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin are sex partners, often with Trump in the submissive role. Trump is Putin’s “cock holster,” Colbert cracked last year.

Chelsea Handler attempted to demean Attorney General Jeff Sessions a few months ago by calling him a “bottom.” She’s also joked that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) ― who’s long denied rumors that he’s gay ― must be a victim of blackmail, with someone holding a “dick sucking video” over his head. “Wouldn’t coming out be more honorable?” Handler asked.

Queer people have certainly joked about Graham and the rumors. I have myself. But Handler’s tweets about these Republican men, coming from a straight liberal within a particularly mocking context and using gay and bisexual men’s sexual slang, comes off as an attempt to humiliate the target by associating them with gay sex.

Holy, fuck fuck. I just the video of trumps bipartisan “meeting” yesterday. Hey, @LindseyGrahamSC what kind of dick sucking video do they have on you for you 2 be acting like this? Wouldn’t coming out be more honorable?

— Chelsea Handler (@chelseahandler) January 11, 2018

In fact, bottom shaming is a running theme. Kimmel, feuding with Sean Hannity on Twitter in April, asked Hannity whether Trump prefers him to “bottom,” trying to ridicule him in the same way Colbert tried to ridicule Trump with his “cock holster” line. Over the past decade we’ve seen similar kinds of jokes in Seth Rogen’s films and films by director Judd Apatow. Yet both men ― like Kimmel, Handler and Colbert ― are progressive Hollywood champions of LGBTQ rights.

Tolerating casual homophobia opens up a space for more blatant forms of bigotry. Thus, in 2018 we still see comedians imitating gay men with stereotyped, effeminate, high-pitched voices, something Dave Chappelle continually works into his routines. Another classic smear persists as well: calling someone gay as an insult in retaliation for something offensive he or she did. The most prominent recent example was Kim Kardashian’s slap back at Tyson Beckford for fat shaming her in discussing her body. “Sis we all know why you don’t care for it,” Kardashian tweeted, followed by teacup, frog and nail polish emojis.

The use of anti-LGBTQ epithets by people who otherwise position themselves as supporters of LGBTQ rights ― or at any rate, who don’t pose as enemies of LGBTQ equality ― is still commonplace. Rapper Cardi B and her fiance Offset, while defending a song where Offset raps “I cannot vibe with queers,” claimed in February that they didn’t know the term “queer” has been used to refer to gay people, let alone its history as a slur. (Offset argued that the dictionary defines “queer” as “odd” or “weird,” which seemed pretty weak.)

In recent weeks, we’ve seen the resurfacing of racist and homophobic tweets from three Major League Baseball players, all of them white. Atlanta Braves pitcher Sean Newcomb, for example, used “fag” in tweet after tweet while in college. All three players issued apologies, and other players spoke out against the language. Sean Doolittle of the Washington Nationals tweeted out a terrific and powerful thread that went viral.

It’s been a tough couple of weeks for baseball on twitter. It sucks to see racist and homophobic language coming from inside our league – a league I’m so proud to be a part of that I’ve worked really hard to make a more accepting and inclusive place for all our fans to enjoy.

— Sean Doolittle (@whatwouldDOOdo) July 30, 2018

“There’s no place for racism, insensitive language or even casual homophobia,” he said. That Doolittle felt he had to say “even casual homophobia” was a telling indication that demeaning LGBTQ people is widely considered acceptable in a way that demeaning other groups isn’t ― at least in the male sports world. Doolittle also likely wasn’t aware that when he said it “sucks” to see racist and homophobic language, he was, ironically, engaging in bottom shaming. After all, what exactly are people talking about sucking on when they derogatorily say someone “sucks”? The truth is, many of us unknowingly use language every day that subtly stigmatizes.

The website NoHomophobes.com, a project of Canada’s University of Alberta, tracks homophobia on Twitter, tallying the numbers daily and listing tweets that include the terms “faggot,” “dyke,” “no homo” and “so gay,” each adding up to thousands per day.

“Homophobic language isn’t always meant to be hurtful, but how often do we use it without thinking?” the website asks, leaving it to readers to judge the tweets in context.

Don’t break a nail trimming those roses faggot

— tinn (@thecrack_man) August 7, 2018

Why are we speaking out more about casual homophobia now? My theory is that it’s not because of how far we’ve come ― it’s actually because of how far we’ve realized we haven’t come.

We accepted casual homophobia among liberals, particularly comedians, just a few years ago. We seem to have thought it was all right for them, in specific contexts, to use anti-gay slurs and make gay jokes, since they ― and much of America ― were supposedly so much more enlightened in the Obama era.

An example of this was Louis C.K. and his “faggot” monologue in 2011 that received millions of views on YouTube and elsewhere. In the routine, C.K. uses the word “faggot” over and over again, but he jokes that he isn’t referring to gay men or men who have sex with one another. He just means guys who are a particular kind of annoying ― feeble-sounding guys with high-pitched voices who say “faggy” things like “People from Phoenix are Phoenicians.”

youtube

Partly due to his talent, but mostly due to the time we were in ― in which we thought full equality had arrived, and a seemingly enlightened straight man could throw this word around ― a lot of people bought that. Those who criticized C.K. were considered overly sensitive, or were accused of not getting the joke. Of course he wasn’t being homophobic, defenders said. And yes, they said, he could use that word.

But looking at the clip now, given the accusations of sexual harassment several women have brought against C.K. ― which he confirmed were true ― and the onset of the Trump era, it’s pretty cringeworthy. Misogyny and homophobia are interconnected (bottom shaming, for example, is both sexist and anti-gay), as both emanate from anxiety about masculinity.

Comedian and author Guy Branum, who is gay, sent the 2011 clip to his followers on Twitter shortly after the sexual harassment allegations against C.K. went public. “Just a reminder he did this a few years ago and you guys were still declaring him the greatest comic alive,” Branum wrote. Someone replied, “I have had so many straight dudes use that routine as a justification to say that word.”

Indeed, giving a pass to any public figure promoting anti-gay tropes or language ― including those considered well-meaning allies ― allows homophobia to flourish throughout the culture.

This Sunday, Sacha Baron Cohen was back with a new episode of “Who Is America?” where he tangled with a gun rights advocate. The punchline? He tricked his target into simulating oral sex with a dildo. Hilarious.

Michelangelo Signorile is an editor-at-large for HuffPost. Follow him on Twitter at @msignorile.

ALSO ON HUFFPOST OPINION

Source: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-casual-homophobia-comedy-trump-jokes_us_5b698a50e4b0de86f4a5143d

0 notes

fashiontrendin-blog · 6 years

Text

Go Ahead, Take This Opportunity To Say You Always Hated A Creep's Art

http://fashion-trendin.com/go-ahead-take-this-opportunity-to-say-you-always-hated-a-creeps-art/

Go Ahead, Take This Opportunity To Say You Always Hated A Creep's Art

Have you always believed that Quentin Tarantino makes dreadful movies? Have you always wondered how a director could be so celebrated for work that luridly depicts the abuse and degradation of women and black people, and that offers little more than exploitative ’70s pastiche?

Maybe your belief that Tarantino sucked spoke in a small, niggling voice, something you pushed down because you felt embarrassed that you couldn’t appreciate the auteur’s work. Or maybe it was louder. Maybe you even got into arguments with your film school classmates or your boyfriend about it.

Either way, this past week has likely brought a sense of grim vindication.

First, in an interview with The New York Times’s Maureen Dowd, Uma Thurman revealed details about Tarantino’s direction of “Kill Bill,” including his role in pressuring her to perform a car stunt that went awry and left her severely injured, as well as scenes in which he personally choked and spat on her in place of her acting partners.

With the spotlight now on Tarantino, news outlets are digging up other disturbing moments from his career. Thurman wasn’t the only actor he’d choked during filming ― he’d also choked Diane Kruger for a scene in “Inglourious Basterds.” Perhaps most damning, audio surfaced from a Howard Stern interview in 2003 in which Tarantino not only defended director Roman Polanski against his notorious rape charge, but insisted that his 13-year-old victim “wanted to have it.”

Though Tarantino defended his on-set behavior in a lengthy interview with Deadline’s Mike Fleming Jr., and both Thurman and Kruger went on to praise his direction on Instagram, the public reckoning with his oeuvre had already begun; plenty of naysayers jumped on the opportunity to admit that they’d always hated his movies.

Like Louis C.K. and Woody Allen before him, Tarantino had become, almost instantly, the new cool entertainment dude to have always hated.

I’ve never understood the allure of Tarantino or his films. I’ve never seen Kill Bill (1 or 2), DJango, or the rest of them, except Pulp Fiction. Once. After reading that NYT article about Uma Thurman, I know I made the right call. He is unmitigated trash.

— April (@ReignOfApril) February 3, 2018

I’m glad that my once unpopular opinion that Tarantino films are rubbish because it’s like watching the worst thoughts of the annoying lad you don’t fancy but he bothers you anyway playing out in hypercolour, is finally getting it’s moment.

— Jess Phillips (@jessphillips) February 4, 2018

You know, I thought by this point there would be at least one of these Hollywood dudes where I’d be like, “that’s a shame, I want to like his work.”

But….all of them are of mediocre talent

— Kelly Ellis (@justkelly_ok) February 6, 2018

But is this … bad? Should we resist the urge to distance ourselves from the fandom surrounding a detestable creator, to declare to the masses, “I always hated that creep”?

This week, that declaration was met with the usual pushback, as critics accused Tarantino cynics of turning a serious conversation about misogyny and assault into a conversation about superior film taste:

Revelations that Tarantino is a piece of shit (not new) doesn’t suddenly require you to tell the world how much you have always hated his films (which suck incidentally).

— Richard Whittall (@RWhittall) February 3, 2018

Ah, we’re in the “I always knew he was shifty…” phase of Tarantino discourse, then.

It tends to overlap with the “I was always an outlier in the court of public opinion and now I’ve been vindicated!” phase.https://t.co/V7Xxt62pyo

— Darren Mooney (@Darren_Mooney) February 6, 2018

All the people that never liked Tarantino films are feeling somehow vindicated and that’s fucking awful. You’re profiting off the sadness and hurt of another human being to feel morally superior to the rest because you feel that your critical opinion feels somehow accurate??

— Jaime Grijalba (@jaimegrijalba) February 6, 2018

The initial urge does seem self-serving, a way to retroactively claim credit for knowing better than everyone else. The #MeToo moment should not be viewed primarily as a plum opportunity to hipsterize disliking Louis C.K., to smugly claim, “I hated him before it was cool.”

Nor should we reflexively vilify people who loved the work of people like Louis C.K. and Tarantino. We all have problematic faves; the hardest and most vital part of changing a toxic culture is holding those faves to the same standards as artists we dislike.

But you know what? Go ahead and take this moment to tell the world you always hated a creepy dude’s art. Feel extremely free to unload on all the troubling hints in his work that he thinks of women as objects. Why shouldn’t you? We should have that conversation, too.

The #MeToo movement emerged as an urgent reckoning around sexual abuse and harassment in the workplace, but it’s churned up discussions of issues beyond that ― not only sexual abuse outside the workplace, but also a broader culture of misogyny. Those discussions have revolved around the art of abusive and chauvinistic men, and how their visions have defined our culture, often in ways that harmed women. They’ve also included talk of how white critics have long taken up the air in the room; how they’ve been empowered to curate an artistic canon by and about them, while people of color, women and other marginalized groups have not.

We’re now grappling with how admiration of these problematic men became de rigueur, and how frustrating this enforced consensus was for the many people who felt exploited or forgotten by the canon.

For years, when I’d balk at watching Tarantino films because the content made me uneasy, I was told I was being too sensitive. Between this and Uma Thurman’s devastating stories, it’s all coming together. https://t.co/X0G0kv9F4K

— marisa kabas (@MarisaKabas) February 6, 2018

Since I was around 12, the dudes in my life constantly told me I was being too sensitive when I questioned the misogyny and racism in Tarantino’s work. I was often told I “didn’t get it.” Well… I think maybe… YOU guys didn’t get it, actually? #quentintarantino https://t.co/K4dXjvEJxM

— Brigit Young (@BrigitYoung) February 6, 2018

This is not to say that only white dudes (or all white dudes) are fans of unsavory artists like Tarantino or Louis C.K. Plenty of men have been happy to note that they never liked Tarantino anyway, and plenty of women loved “Louie” and “Manhattan” and “Pulp Fiction” and have been struggling, in the aftermath of unsavory allegations, to resolve their admiration of the art with the personal crimes of the artists. (Personally, I never had the stomach for Tarantino films ― blood makes me queasy ― but I grew up on Allen’s daffy early films and liked a decent amount of Louis C.K.’s comedy.)

Still, it’s impossible to disregard the fact that an almost entirely white and male set of tastemakers (not to mention creators and investors) elevated certain male artists to the level of demigods, so above criticism that one’s dislike signaled one’s own inferior taste rather than the artists’ failings. Most critics with major platforms have long been white men; the lack of diversity in the ranks has not only stunted the breadth of conversation, but fostered the false sense that white men’s concerns are the most pressing, their opinions the most objective, and their viewpoints the most conducive to great art. Even when women or people of color dissented, their voices did little or nothing to alter the perceived consensus.

Take Allen: Pauline Kael and Joan Didion, both prominent female critics, savaged his opus “Manhattan,” which revolves around a 42-year-old man who is romancing a 17-year-old student, for, respectively, “pass[ing] off a predilection for teen-agers as a quest for true values” and telegraphing that “adolescence can now extend to middle age.”

Then-Columbia professor John Romano quickly rebutted Didion in a letter to the editor, describing her review as a result of “pique”; the letter twice describes Didion as “complaining.” Meanwhile, critic Roger Ebert had a startling take on the artistry surrounding Allen’s character’s sexual predation, writing, “It wouldn’t do, you see, for the love scenes between Woody and Mariel [Hemingway] to feel awkward or to hint at cradle-snatching or an unhealthy interest on Woody’s part in innocent young girls. But they don’t feel that way.”

As the years passed, “Manhattan,” beloved by male critics who were unbothered by or eager to explain away the movie’s troubling sexual undertones, became cemented in film canon. If Kael and Didion couldn’t get us to openly acknowledge the flaws in Allen’s work, who could? At least now it seems right to go back and examine the catastrophic failures of some critics to tease out these threads. Many critics, including the New York Times’ A.O. Scott, are now openly reckoning with the insufficiency of their past criticism of Allen’s work, and they’re right to do so.

It’s also fair to point out that some people wanted to have this conversation before the #MeToo moment, but that a patriarchal hegemony of taste served as a bulwark against it. The cultural change didn’t just begin in October. For example, when Tarantino released “The Hateful Eight” in 2016, critics explicitly called out his dicey use of extreme violence toward women in the film, questioning whether it was artistically essential or even justifiable.

#MeToo was possible in part because women in Hollywood, and elsewhere, have spent years advocating for more respect and representation.

This is exactly my problem with Tarantino. He glorifies violence against women and people of color, makes an industry out of movies centered on violence towards minority groups, and gets called a “genius” for it. That’s the kind of regressive junk we need to cut out. https://t.co/RDKt9rhBu9

— Heidi N Moore (@moorehn) February 4, 2018

The central connecting thread between all of the aforementioned morally ambiguous or nihilistic art and so much more in that vein: it was all primarily by and for white men and wistfully imagined worlds where white men were never held to account for anything.

— David Klion (@DavidKlion) February 6, 2018

But despite these rising questions, the classic films ― “Pulp Fiction,” “Kill Bill” ― seemed untouchable, and disliking them remained taboo. If you’ve ever told a date, a classmate, a mentor or a friend that you can’t watch Tarantino because you find his work to be exploitative of women, only to be informed that you simply don’t understand his art, the indisputable revelation this month that he’s a bona fide creep is, in a small but real way, liberating. It’s something solid to cling to, at last, evidence that you’re not overreacting or too obtuse to appreciate the aesthetic perfection of his tobacco-spit trajectories. Distaste for his work, often cast as a mental flaw or tragic unhipness, has become, in an instant, a mark of discernment.

In a tit-for-tat sense, it does seem just that artists like Louis C.K. and Tarantino ― whose reputations were long bolstered by the plaudits of critics and the reflexive hipster posturing of fans ― have now slid to the wrong end of the “my taste is better than yours” hierarchy. That’s not the point of this moment, nor should the goal of this reassessment be to simply unseat one set of white male icons, to turn the same smugly superior judgment on their fans that their detractors have experienced. It’s only human, though, to feel vindicated.

And yet, vindication isn’t the only feeling at play. There’s something about this sudden shift that’s wildly infuriating as well. Oh, NOW you’re listening? I thought recently when a writer I’d criticized as sexist ― only to have my critique neatly brushed aside by male colleagues and friends ― faced career consequences after being accused of personal misbehavior toward women. Why couldn’t you take me seriously when I broke down all the none-too-subtle misogyny in his writing?

Saying “I always hated his work” might be a cheap hipster pose, but it also might be bitterness born of long-suppressed, impotent anger. If you’ve grown used to being shamed or condescended to for caring about an ugly thread that everyone else seemed to be overlooking, the sudden shift is gratifying, but also exhausting. All the years of churn and self-doubt suddenly feel like a cruel, unnecessary burden forced on you by the people who insisted you were wrong.

So go ahead; vent your spleen. Give yourself the tiny shred of comfort that comes from claiming your long-simmering, now-validated disdain. Take the opportunity to try, once again, to have a real debate about the artistic merit of works like “Kill Bill” and “Manhattan.” It’s a first step to envisioning a world that isn’t just rid of monsters, but that actually offers everyone an equal place in constructing our culture.

http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

0 notes

louehvolution · 6 years

Note

I just want to say -- seeing the contents of that twitter moment and how it just bashed Louis over and over for no good reason-it really broke my heart. It really just made me cry. It really made me awfully sad for Louis. This is so undeserved. It's unbelievable how people hate on him so publicly and THEN to make matters worse, Twitter Moments takes all the insults, none of the good things, and puts them together? It's awful. Especially since Queer Eye is so popular - so many people will see it

all the discourse about a coming out makes me sad for louis for another reason, and it’s because if/when he ever has his moment where he gets to speak his truth, i don’t think it will be a beautiful moment like it will be (currently is?) for h. he will be ridiculed. he will be made fun of. his closet and his former stunts will be a punch line. just reading the queer eye reactions reminded me of the reactions during the beginning of babygate. louis is always turned into the butt of the joke.

Same, anon. It’s been a difficult day.

Under the cut because this gets very long.

The worst is that this isn’t anything unusual. It’s the norm when it comes to Louis. It’s relentless—from big smear campaigns to constant micro aggressions like this, you know? I know I go on about it, but the Ash London debacle was so telling: two hosts on a radio show disrespected and insulted their co-host’s guest while she made at most a lukewarm protest. What does that tell you? They wouldn’t do that to an artist who was popular among the public for fear of backlash, or to an artist who had a team behind the scenes looking out for him, or whom other artists would stand up for. And this latest Twitter moment is another such example. Why out of all the tweets one could choose from go for those that are cruel and degrading toward Louis?

Yes, Queer Eye is very popular at the moment. Among the LGBT+ community, as well. In the end it’s just a Twitter moment, but it’s the principle of the thing. It’s the constant, casual, Louis bashing. And it’s the fact that that’s practically all he gets in terms of press and exposure.

And all of this isn’t random. It’s the result of years of Louis being belittled and degraded by 1DHQ, to the GP and to the fandom. There’s a cumulative effect. Marketing plans, brand building, is measured in years. It’s a gradual process. It’s been there from the start, but since the hiatus, since his solo launch, it’s been full force. All artists sometimes get shit from the tabloids, but there are other things to balance it out. Louis doesn’t get that.

–

And, I agree, anon. A lot would have to change for it to play out in even a neutral way for Louis. His closet hasn’t been farcical out of clumsiness or laziness. Dozens of baby pap walks weren’t a mistake. All the coffee runs, and the beards latched to his arm everywhere. It is impossible to separate Louis’ public image from the stunts. You’d expect a closet to be at least neutral if not beneficial. Definitely not so invasive, damaging, and humiliating. Louis’ closet has never been of any benefit to him whatsoever. Even his bearding situation hasn’t been regular. The focus has always been on his unknown or D lister girlfriend. He has never got anything out of it.

And then there’s BG. Traumatic in and of itself. And if there is one thing that has been cemented in the public’s mind about Louis it’s that he’s a dad. It’s everywhere; even little mentions. This can’t just be swept under the rug.

And what are the options for an end?

A quiet end and the notion will linger, after so long. If it were going to go away it would have been before they pushed it and pushed it with his solo launch. And what’s the narrative? That he slept with Briana and parented a child for upwards of two years… leading to pity or ridicule. And pity is not much better, you know? To have to pretend to mourn a fake son, to uphold the lie that you were a dad and now you aren’t. And, again, this isn’t just articles and interviews. It’s everyone but his inner circle. Public perception of the self, reputation, is important and has a big impact on people’s mental health. And this is big. It’s also problematic if he ever got to come out. Having to say you’re bisexual is one thing; bisexual who was tricked into thinking he’d had an oopsie baby with a one night stand for years, complete with baby mama custody issues, is something else. Aside from it coming off as very weird, which could lead to speculation that it was fake.

And if the fatherhood is exposed as fake. With what explanation? Look to the Blind Gossip article from 2016 going around earlier for a blueprint with the people in power. An expose seems impossible. And who will believe that Louis was forcefully closeted under 1DHQ/Sony while Harry got all that freedom? From 2014 ‘not that important’, to rainbow mug in DMD music video, to IG posts, to not labelling his sexuality, to Ryan Gosling, to rainbow flag parade and public LGBT+ support, to syndicated press speculating on his bisexuality. While Louis is ever so close to Simon that he signed with Syco again. The impression will be that he signed up to pretend fatherhood—with an actual child involved—to closet himself and promote himself—because that is all that’s been promoted. The timing of music release and BG press, the headlines for interviews, etc. were not coincidental. Where does that leave Louis? (And, where would it fit with HarryandLouis, by the way?)

Like a gangrened limb, all this is poisoning him, and this illness and amputation leaves sequelae. Psychological, personal, professional.

And this is all tied up in the blatant career sabotage, that’s come with the reinforced message that he is in control of everything and makes all the decisions. MY was blacklisted and got no US promo. He is getting zero raising of his profile, chances to reach new audiences, the barest of engagement with his dwindling fandom… What’s going to happen with his debut album, that he cares about so much and has put so much work into?

And yet in these circumstances people still insist on downplaying and dismissing what’s going on.

At this point to keep talking about a secret team or that Louis is burning shit down behind the scenes, is beyond optimism, it’s a level of denial I can’t fathom. The music and entertainment business has done away with people before. Just see Kesha, George Michael, Michael Jackson. And those are big names and the ‘success stories’…

And Louis is a human being, with human emotions. How can he not be affected by this!? This is his actual life. Not just an annoying subplot in our entertainment.

I’m not going to go into Harry and what’s going on there. Except that the chasm is real. And that for years Louis has been severely punished for the tiniest act of defiance; burdened with an invasive, degrading, reductive closet; forced to issue the larry denials in a framework of homophobia. Larry is two people. It’s not 2014, it’s 2018. In this, too, there’s a cumulative effect. The default has become that Louis carries all the weight always while Harry is praised for being allowed to be bold and brave. It’s become normalised, accepted. Harry’s girlfriend isn’t mentioned in every article. He hasn’t been papped with her everywhere he’s gone, or only had press linked to her. Months in and she’s still his rumoured ‘girlfriend’. He is never made to confirm anything. Now he has LGBT+ endorsements from the current darling Adam Rippon, and Troye Sivan. Just… compare that to Louis’ situation.

I’m very sad, anon.

#anon #solo louis

76 notes · View notes

louehvolution · 6 years

Note

I agree with some parts of your tag post because I don't care who runs a charity as long as the money is going to a good cause but what concerns me is the end result of the project. You say louis' fans wouldn't be upset if they didn't get the reaction they want but I think some maybe would and others who hate him will use a possible lack of reaction as a way to justify hate towards him and continue to say he is homophobic. And I don't trust his team to not make some kind of counter active move.

This is a tricky subject matter bc historically Louis has been punished for LBGT messaging. While Harry was on stage with rainbow flags, Louis was doing a Larry isn’t real promo tour (the dagger means nothing, my gf isn’t paid, Larry isn’t real obviously). He’s has to his his triangle tattoo. He can’t even acknowledge 1Dfansgive. His situation is so different and more precarious. So while I think the charity project is good intentioned, I think it could quite literally get him in trouble.

Hi, anons.

The main aim of the True Colours Project is to raise awareness and money for Stonewall, an LGBT+ charity. It’s also meant to bring louies together, and give them a space in which to express how Louis has impacted their lives, in particular in terms of LGBT+ identities and experiences. There’s a vague hope of perhaps collecting these testimonies and creations in physical format and giving it to Louis at a M&G—which are public only up to a certain extent, it must be noted. Though if we believe Louis keeps up with fandom, then it can also be hoped this all might reach him regardless. However, this isn’t just about the hypothetical book, it’s also been connected to Louis’ fans taking rainbow flags and other symbols of Pride to his concerts, and whether that’s acceptable or not.

I understand the concerns of whether it might get him in trouble. And it’s up to everyone to come to their own conclusions, but policing others and targeted harassment is not admissible, whatever your opinion on the matter.

Personally, I think this idea that it could get him in trouble is null and void. Louis is being ruined as we speak. He is under attack personally and professionally. Anything and everything can be used against him, no matter how innocuous. This ties in with those who believe calling out his team—remaining polite and addressing specific concerns—can be harmful to him. How? The course for his destruction is set. Ignoring the stunts and the sabotage won’t make them stop. Keeping silent won’t make it stop. Speaking up and standing with Louis… won’t make it stop. But it leaves a record of what they are doing to him, and it might make it a little more difficult for them, it might help minimise the damage—and it shows Louis that he’s not alone. However limited our power, the point is showing him—and all—that he continues to have support. For Louis as person—an individual whose identity is being violated and erased with a suffocating, invasive, degrading closet and character assassination; and whose career is being blatantly sabotaged.

Could this potentially be used against him? Perhaps. But I think of everything Louis has done through the years to express his truth and to show support for the LGBT+ community and his fans knowing that it would be used against him… knowing that it would come with a price, every time. And he keeps doing it. He literally framed himself in pink triangles in the MY music video. It just may be because he thinks it’s worth it? Because after having his self under attack and silenced for so long, his need to find an outlet of expression, and his desire to find an empathetic connection, is greater than anything?

How is wanting to give him a book in a somewhat private setting invasive? And how is it any different than our presence on SM pushing for the real Louis to be known against the damaging, alienating image spread by his team? Should we all shut up there, as well? Who are we protecting if we do that? Louis? Or the people set on keeping him from making music, and the inhumane closet forced on him? A closet that he continues to defy even within the most severe restrictions?

As for the fans. Those who hate him will find any excuse to do so. And I think any fan who would turn against him for this is showing a selfishness or an obliviousness that is difficult to counter. I don’t doubt there are fans who will be mad at him upon not getting the hoped for reaction. But I think those fans’ expectations are set by Harry’s situation and they will always be disappointed. Failing to see that Harry whose brand includes being an LGBT+ ally and who has a closet that allows him certain freedom of expression and action, is not in the same situation as Louis.

Fans threw rainbow flags at Harry and Harry made personal statements about it, besides running around with them. He was involved personally. And everyone was glad to have his fans find a safe space, that included Harry himself, who could feel a part of the community. Shouldn’t Louis’ fans be allowed to feel something similar, and shouldn’t Louis himself? Louis, who unlike Harry has been isolated from his community at large by being labeled a homophobe, and who has been burdened for years with a stunt that is isolating, psychologically traumatic, and will have long term consequences no matter what happens? In fact, given those circumstances, shouldn’t it be even more important to present that incongruity of how this so-called homophobe manages to attract the love and support of LGBT+ fans?

That is my opinion.

#anon #truecolours project

50 notes · View notes

louehvolution · 7 years

Note

What scares me the most is that Louis will be someone only his fans appreciate at the end of his time, like most lgbt artists who inspires those who takes time to get to know them but never really got more than one headline after they die :(

Anon, let’s get philosophical—and long.

To quote Hamilton, “Legacy. What is a legacy?”

What determines the worth of your work or your art—of your life? Is it headlines? Is it being known to a million people, or is it enough being known by one? Is it having a massive impact, or is it enough making a difference to one person?

Louis has made a difference. [Focusing on his music, not getting into his loved ones and his charitable efforts and the importance of those.] One Direction would not have become One Direction, the cultural phenomenon and the personal experience for millions of people, without him, without his courage and his persistence, without his talent and his gifts. And he’s made a difference in people’s lives being who he is and through his music, both as part of 1D and as a solo artist.

[Just Hold On], lyrically, […] has connected with so many people around the world. […] Thanks to Louis’ incredible voice and who he is as a person, his connection with his fans, his audience.

Think about the impact of Home on the LGBT+ people it reached. Think about the validation contained in Just Like You. Think about fans holding up “You make me strong” banners at concerts.

Think about the comfort and hope Louis has spread with his music. The empowerment and self-acceptance. The compassion and love. The simple fun, too. Think about how meaningful these songs that are his creations—that are a part of him—have been for some people.

One of my biggest things, as a writer anyway, is getting a connection with the lyrics.You just gotta keep working, keep making people happy.

I hope he knows that he makes good music that connects with people, and that he makes people happy.

But then we get to the issue of recognition and treatment. His career is being sabotaged and he’s not been allowed to enjoy it, hounded by stunts, exploitation, and mistreatment. And Louis has been dismissed and belittled from the beginning; his contributions and his talent disregarded or denied. Louis Tomlinson the crucial member of One Direction, the creative genius and gifted songwriter and vocalist, does not exist for a big part of the world.

Is it enough that we know? It’s definitely not fair. It’s not fair at all.

And there’s also the matter of identity, artistic and personal. Louis has been degraded and erased. He is fighting to express his true self and not be totally obliterated and consumed by the stunt narratives and image built around him.

Very honest lyrically.Vulnerable and real.

Do you see him, do you hear him? Do you take every bit of himself that he shares with us and cherish it? I hope you do. But again, is it enough that we know him? It’s definitely not fair, that he should have to fight like this to preserve his personhood—his humanity. It’s not fair that he should have to live in chains of lies and suffer the world believing him—judging him as—someone he is not. It’s not fair at all.

The most important thing is the album is received well by the fans, the people who care.It’s more important that they get to know who you are, who I am as an artist.

I hope it’s some comfort to him, that there are people who care and who see him.

So, essentially, anon. What I mean is that… Louis is important. And that no matter what happens no one can take everything he’s done away from him. They can rewrite the public narrative and they can scratch his name off the history books, but he’ll still be there. Because he made a difference in our lives, because he shared himself with us and let us know him—and we’re here to remember, and we’re here to stand for the truth—for his truth… for him.

I hope it won’t be like that. I hope he’ll be able to live as himself, unburdened, unshackled. I hope he’ll get to live on his terms, and make his own choices. I hope the world will get to know him and love him, and that he’ll finally get the respect and the recognition he deserves. I really, really hope so. Because he deserves his sweet happiness, so much. And though past suffering cannot be erased, I hope future happiness might ease the pain.

But if it doesn’t happen like that. If he ends up being “someone only his fans appreciate at the end of his time, like most LGBT+ artists who inspire those who take time to get to know them but never really get more than one headline after they die”… it won’t diminish everything he did and how important he was, as a person and an artist.

It would be dreadfully sad and unfair. So unfair. But I hope that he—and you, as his fan—can take some comfort in the thought that… he made a difference? That they never owned him, even when they enslaved him. That he stayed true to himself and he made people happy.

I just hope that he can find happiness, and peace, and comfort in his life, no matter what. Legacy? What the hell is a legacy? I just want him to be happy.

#anon #don't know if anyone will want to read it. but anon just got me thinking and i wanted to sort out my thoughts and feelings

65 notes · View notes