#A straight. cis. white ‘male’ - and often even middle or upper class

[canichangemyblogname]

What the fuck even is gender?

[femmespoiled]

ID: Video that is a stitch made by @professorneil on tiktok.

The person in the video stitched says: "which is that it seems like quite a lot of people, particularly white liberals, will very often take on all these different queer and neurodivergent labels and feel as if they have to be oppressed by something because…”

And the person stitching said video continues by saying: “so, yes, this is absolutely a thing and not only is it a documented sociological phenomenon, but sociologists have come up with a name for it and it’s called the race to innocence and sometimes also the race to the margins, it’s the same thing. Now when Mary Louis Fellows and Sherene Razack coined this term back in 1998, they were thinking mostly about white feminists within the multiracial feminist movements, so bear that in mind as I read from their article, it is more broadly applicable, absolutely, yes, but that is their focus here.”

The person in the video proceeds by quoting from the article mentioned: “When a woman fails to pursue how she is implicated in other women’s lives and retreats to the position that the system that oppresses her the most is the only one worth fighting and that the other systems (systems in which she is positioned as dominant) are not of her concern, she will fail to undo her own subordination. Attempts to change one system while leaving the others intact leaves in place the structure of domination that is made up of interlocking hierarchies.”

The person in the video continues: “So, Fellows and Razack are implicating and critiquing here that the very second wave feminist, white feminist idea that all women share a common struggle, which it is only possible to suggest if you are ignoring the unique oppressions of queer women, women of color, women in poverty, etc. When faced with that challenge, the people who occupy a position of privilege, so in this example, the straight, middle and upper-class, white women will say “That’s not the issue that we’re talking about here, we’re talking here about being women, we’re talking about patriarchy, misogyny.” They will race to innocence; they will race to their own marginalized identity categories in order to avoid admitting that they have power and privilege and are also the oppressor. And, sometimes, that race to innocence is very calculated (in this part the screen in the video shows text that reads: *and defensive!), it is deliberate, it is strategic. I might be avoiding talking about my male privilege, my white privilege, when I am also discussing being a wave slave because I want to preserve those privileges, while attacking the oppression I feel, but it’s, at least, as often, if not more often, something that we are doing reflexively, uncritically. It is easier to claim solidarity, it is easier to feel empathy, if we are doing it from our own position of marginality, it’s easier to speak credibly from a position of oppression and to do so with authority, if you also possess privileges that allow you to appear unbiased, neutral and to do so safely, if afterward you can retreat to a place of privilege. So, it is certainly possible that, at least in part, this explosion of straight, white, cis men leftists claiming neurodivergence is explained by some sort of desire to claim oppression, to build those alliances, to feel that empathy and to access that credibility, but even if it is sincere, it is still dangerous. Of course, it could be strategic and insincere. When you race to innocence, race to the margins, be mindful of the privileges you’re leaving at the center.”

END ID

- Here is the article mentioned in the video, if you want to check it out (in PDF):

The Race to Innocence: Confronting Hierarchical Relations among Women

[rocknrollsoniye]

Curse of Sexism

How many times have we heard the statement "oh he is such a stud. He bas slept with many women" or "she has a high body count and she is a whore"? Ever wondered why there is a difference in attitude to both genders when they are sexually active? It is because of patriarchy and misogyny. Now personally I, being a demisexual, can never understand hookup culture. But it is ok if 2 consenting adults agree to it. Who am I to stop them? But the way a society demonizes a woman for being sexually active is beyond imagination. Women are allowed to enjoy sex and shouldn't be made to feel bad in any way for that. The misogyny is changed from boomer generation to GenZ. Earlier it was " my wife is bad." Now it is "cum and dump the whore" Not gonna lie I have slut shamed many women in my head too. Honestly I feel good that those words didn't come out of my mouth. I have even slut shamed myself for just the fact that strap of the bra was out. I forgot that it was just a piece of lingerie. Also thank you Mom for making me believe I was seducing men of 35 years at 14. Yeah sure a child can seduce a full grown adult! The recent over turning of Roe vs Wade is the biggest encouragement to slut shaming and also shaming women for their bodily autonomy. Yeah a cluster of cells have greater value than a woman.

With the ongoing sexual frustration of teenage boys there seems to be a growing number of incels. Incels are described as involuntary celibate. Incels are usually part of online forums on reddit, discord , telegram etc. The overall themes of failure and frustration along with anger and hate towards women are the perfect recipe to incels. I mean dating was always biased towards good looking people. But it doesn't mean that avg looking people didn't or don't date. Incels have weird vocabulary of the people -chad and stacy. Chad is a sexually successful young man. He has blonde hair and pulsating muscles. The thing is that it is not restricted to internet forums. Elliot Rodger killed six people and turned the gun on himself in 2014. He is an inspiration to the Incel community.

Earlier I used to think that people have a problem with women being promiscuous as they fear that she might cheat on him. But lesbians are also fetishised. Even though they will never sleep with a man or get sexually attracted to men. Yet a section of straight men do watch lesbian porn. Promiscuity for women is a high risk low award proposition. Women are taught to hate themselves from an early age. We give so many adjectives to women who engage in hookups as insecure and lacking self respect. In India we also have tight gender roles -women cook, clean, wash dishes etc. I think there is nothing wrong with doing the tasks. But it becomes tiring when only the women have to do the task.

Now I know it is a common notion in radical feminist spaces that men benefit from patriarchy. At the expense of sounding like a liberal feminist I am going to say patriarchy affects men too. Men who do not fit the ideal of "strong, tough, earners of society, emotionless, sex hungry" are often deemed worthless. The need to be "manly" is so overhyped. Societal pressure on men to conform to patriarchy not only has men fearing the concept of expressing emotions.

Male rape is not talked about a lot. This is again in accordance with the idea that men love sex in any condition. The joke of " it is dream of every middle class boy to be raped by a woman" is so harmful and pathetic. It is dehumanising to men who have been raped.

Honestly i think patriarchy is a power structure. All men don't hold power. In US be a white cis upper middle class heterosexual man. In India be a Upper Caste, Upper middle class , cis, heterosexual man. With these conditions met you will be able to reap benefits. I was thinking something like this. There can only be a few leaders and there will a lot of followers. There seems to be this idea that is promoted that anyone can be "The Alpha Male". But most likely you will be the one under the thumb of an "Alpha Male." Part of Patriarchy is to not only control women but to control men too.

* The Despotic King that conquers another kingdom and forces all the people to follow him instead.

* The Dictator that rules the country with an iron fist and oppresses anyone that steps out of line or any minorities.

* The Hypocritical Church leader that forces oppressive rules on people but will not always follow them.

* Actual Slave Owners that beat and can potentially kill his male slaves and sell the children they fathered.

* The Bad Boss who treats you badly, underpays you, and can steal your ideas for his benefit.

* The Abusive Father that beats his son, tries to "toughen him up", he is also neglectful and withholds his love from his own son.

All of these men have the power to make the lives of other men a living Hell. Power is easy to abuse. Women clearly suffer under these men too. And sometimes I feel like women and children become punching bags for the powerful abusers and punching bags for men forced into following the abusers. And it sucks how a lot of men can't even see how they are being exploited and manipulated by Patriarchy.

[crossdreamers]

What's the difference between radical feminism and liberal or intersectional feminism? I'm confused ^.^"

What is the difference between liberal, radical and intersectional feminism, and what does this mean for transgender people?

Any attempt at reducing feminism to distinct, neat, types or categories will ultimately fail, as there is much diversity and feminism is in constant development. That being said, here is a very simplified presentation of various types of feminism, as they are often understood in an American and North European context. 

Note that these categories are overlapping, both in space and time.

FIRST WAVE -> Liberal Feminism

There has been a female liberation movement going as far back as the 18th century, but in the Anglo-Saxon context the first wave is considered the one that started in the 19th century with the suffragettes and the women’s right to vote movement.

Suffragettes, London.

Many of the ideas of first wave feminism is found in what these days is  referred to as liberal feminism. The idea is that you may gradually change the system from within, making people see that women are in no way inferior to men, and that they deserve the same rights as men, both as regards property, work, education, political influence and pay.

Liberal feminism does not challenge liberal, capitalist, democracy as such. These feminists want to improve it. They share the individualism of liberal democracy, and fight for women’s right to personal autonomy and freedom. 

In many ways this approach has been a success, as is seen in the increasing participation of women in working life, culture and politics.

The limitation of this kind of feminism is, as I see it, that these feminists tend to think of the social system as a rational system. The point is to make people understand that the current system is unfair and oppressive. When people do understand, they will change their behavior. 

As we have seen with the recent traditionalist backlash, many people – both men and women – do not care so much about facts or rational discussions. They see traditional gender roles as a part of their identity, reality be damned, and feel threatened by anything that may weaken their fragile view of the world.

These days most liberal feminists support the rights of transgender women. However, it should be pointed out that there was a time when  liberal feminists argued that even lesbians should be excluded, as their presence might undermine the legitimacy of the feminist movement. Betty Friedan did not want to allow what she called “the lavender menace” into the US National Organization for Women back in 1969. 

I have no idea what she thought about trans women at the time, but you will sometimes see the same kind of embarrassment among some liberal feminists today as regards the presence of trans women.

SECOND WAVE -> Radical Feminism

The second wave appeared in the 1960s. Radical feminists believe that the system that oppresses women, by them referred to as “The Patriarchy”, is a system created by men to control and exploit women. You cannot achieve victory within this system, they argue, as it permeates everything around us: laws, language, mythologies, art, entertainment. 

The Ladies’ Home Journal sit-in 1970

The system makes it hard to think differently, as the oppression is integrated within social institutions like marriage, the traditional nuclear family, and the health care system, as well as in the words we used (”woman” understood, for instance, as someone who is assigned female on the basis of genitalia). 

In the Patriarchy, being a man is the default. Women are “the Other”. The goal of radical feminism is a society where your genitals no longer define your role and influence in society. 

Radical feminists see pornography and prostitution both as signs of, and tools for, the oppression of women. Some lesbian radical feminists even see heterosexual sex as a tool of oppression. Lesbians have freed themselves from male domination by not having sex with men, they say.

Radical feminists have criticized the liberal feminists for wanting to become like men. The point is not to gain the right to do what men do, they argue, because that leads women to devalue what women do.

Influential radical feminists like Catharine MacKinnon, Andrea Dworkin, John Stoltenberg and Monique Wittig, recognize  trans women as women, which makes sense in a movement who is based in the idea that genitals should not define your worth, your role or your status.  

Radical feminist author Andrea Dworkin viewed surgery as a right for transgender people.

There is another strand of radical feminism, however, known as trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERF), people who argue that trans women are men in disguise, and that they  perpetuate the ideals of the Patriarchy. The trans women want to take over “womyn’s spaces”, they say. 

In order to prove that trans women are men, the TERFs point to the fact that some trans women are sexually attractive (thus living up to the sexism of the Patriarchy). At the same time they use stories and photos of those that are not living up to the aesthetic standards of the fashion industry to prove that all trans women are men. 

The fact that many cis women try equally hard to please the male gaze is ignored. The diversity of transgender women is ignored. Nor do the TERFs consider that trans women who have been raised as men have been harrassed and bullied for their female identities and feminine expressions throughout their lives. In other words: That they are also victims of the Patriarchy. 

Recently much of the transphobic radical feminism has degenerated into biological determinism, as in “genitals or chromosomes determine whether you are a man or a woman”. Many of these “radical feminists” also deny the existence of gender, as in the cultural definition and expression of gender roles and gender identities. This is the exact opposite of what radical feminism was meant to be. These “gender critical” activists are, as I see it, not true radical feminists.

Among the transphobic radical feminists we find people like Germaine Greer, Janice Raymond,  Sheila Jeffreys, Julie Bindel, and Robert Jensen. They have very little support in the US, but have managed to gain some influence in the UK. The Norwegian organization for radical feminists, Kvinnefronten, welcomes transgender women.

THIRD WAVE -> Intersectional Feminism

The third wave of feminism began in the early 1990s (although you will find its roots back in the 1970s). It embraces individualism and diversity.

Both the first and the second waves of feminism have been dominated by white, cis, middle and upper class women from “Western” countries. Many of them are academics. They are not representative of women in general. 

Because of this they have  been criticised for generalizing about the female life experience on the basis of their own lives, ignoring the unique experiences of – for instance – women of color, women in developing countries and trans, nonbinary and queer women.

Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw.

The term intersectionality was introduced by Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw in 1989, and it was soon adopted by third wave feminists. Intersectionality reflects  postmodern insights into the way the current social and cultural systems creates  hierarchies of oppression. 

This oppression is not only about men oppressing women (or the upper class exploiting the working class). In a world dominated by privileged white, straight, and “masculine” men, everyone who does not live up to their ideals are oppressed, whether their “otherness” is caused by sex, skin color, sexual orientation, homeland, religion or gender identity. 

The third wave has also been strongly be influenced by queer theory and gender theory, which look at  the social and cultural constructions of masculinity and femininity, sexualities and gender.

The third wave is often seen as sex positive. There are “girly”, “lipstick”, feminists who embrace feminine gender expressions and female sexuality and who argue that noone, not even feminists, have the right to to define or control how they should dress, act, or express themselves.

Needless to say you won’t find many transphobes among third wave feminists.

Some have also coined a fourth wave of feminism. It seems to me to be a continuation of third wave, intersectional, feminism, with a strong focus on the use of modern media. Some TERFs have tried to appropriate the term, joining right wing extremists in their attacks against queer gender theory, but do not be fooled by this. They are, at best, to be considered an offshoot of the second wave. They do not represent women. They do not represent feminists. They do not represent radical feminism.

Top illustration: iStock 

See also:

On lesbians,transgender people and feminism.

Transadvocate on transgender feminism.

The rise of anti-trans “radical” feminists, explained

Idol Worship: Julia Serano Talks To Autostraddle About Fixing Feminism

Andrea Dworkin Was a Trans Ally

[bagilgulhaze]

MAYBE ITS BECAUSE, RADFEM CIRCLES ARE INHERENTLY ANTI FEMME/BUTCH CULTURE? SCREAAAAM. IMAGINE HATING TRANS WOMEN SO MUCH THAT YOU DONT CARE THAT IDEOLOGY YOU ASSOCIATE YOURSELF WITH DOESN'T FALL IN LINE WITH THE WAY YOU IDENTIFY ("FEMME'OK LMAO)

1. Feminine women using make up etc aren't oppressed by ACTUALLY GNC women. And bc you're dumb and white and cis and radfem, there isn't point of saying how hyper feminine behaviour is associated often with the presentation of certain WOC, lower socio economic class women, and TRANS women. Who are then VILIFIED by TERFS (mainly, trans women) for "LITERALLY cooperating with the patriarchy for putting make up on or having long acrylyc nails or whatsoever". Because you wouldn't care about any of that.

The fakes you call radfem butches aren't doing it because they're misogynistic femme oppressing butches. "Gender nonconformity" is praised, in white women, in cis women, and when it's just the right amount to still be aactually very conforming, and not, you know, "actually crazy dysphoric man-copying butch". Like, again. The entire Radfem agenda !?

How can you be femme when it sees the femme and butch identities for those reasons as sexist heterosexuality emulating and regressive! With complete disregard to other cultures of color. The entire radfe ideology is informed by racism and classism stated as neutral things. What a woman is, is completely based on those standards in which everyone is judged. Not to talk about, of course, trans women who are outright shunned, not secretly, and ignored from the "female experience" (and prosecuted).

Then ignoring how often all those things appear together in butch/femme spaces (butch femme culture as something that was formed in the bar scene with lower class communities of color?! Hello!? Even around the world wherever this culture naturally was adopted its usually not white and lower class and very trans inclusive, from my experience).

2. And by everyone who doesn't paste the word feminist over it and tries to explain it that way, it's just treated as trashy, and less enlightened and progressive to appear hyper feminine by the same women who also conform to femininity, white cis middle upper class femininity that registers in many cultures as less hyper feminine, so they get creds for being more GNC while being AS gender conforming with their make up-less face and wide clothes and short but still feminine haircuts, just by their cultures standards.... which again, the radfem agenda is informed by since it's made out of white upper middle class cis women.

Like, yeah, my mom totally outside of radfem circles and ideaology, get talked down to at work despite being the manager that makes most profit compared to her male counterparts but also compared to her white, cishet, pants wearing no make up on no heels female counterpart. They treat her like a little girl and with less respect and unfairly dismiss her often. Is it because she puts make up on and is feminine and being feminine, as a cis woman gets you discriminated ? no. It's because she is VISIBLY. BROWN. And her hyper feminine appearance doesnt assimilate to ashkenazi white femininity standards and seen as REGRESSIVE. YOU ALL are SO thick. If my mom was ACTUALLY GNC by ashkie standards or so was her female coworker? They would get SHIT for it.

3. Those bitches you call butch bc they dont put make up on or whatever aren't butches, and if they're cis "butches" who care more about hating trans women then being in spaces that respect them, then definitely those places dont praise them, if a butch dare be dysphoric, she is mentally I'll. This isn't a valid experience. If a butch binds and buzz her hair and packs shes trying to be a man. What's wrong with your vagina? Why are you trying to be a man? Its internalized misogyny. No, terfs spaces dont praise butches, nor do they praise femmes (neither do you it seems, by the way you view those topics) because they're inherently anti butch/femme culture.

4. Butch/femme spaces I've been to, have been constantly the most accepting to hyper (brown&black, lower class, in your face) femininity lol. Whenever you see a space with actual butches you would look around and see lesbians and bi women with crop tops and bright red lipstick and long neon acrylic nails who wrap around their butches. It's the queer spaces I get LEAST looks for being a femme, because it's not seen as anti-queer straight or problematic and unattractive. There isn't a sense of superiority from white western-GNC queers that look down at it (and would, admittedly, look down at the butches too.but they're not regressive for appearing feminine but usually for adopting mannerisms associated with brown and lower class people (men). As the femmes do with mannerism of women... ) so as you can see... even not radfem spaces it's still about racism, and classism.

5. And these are just about the two topics radfem dont claim proudly to exclude (lower class and woc). Trans women, who's safety usually depends on passing but also again, are held to much higher standard of femininity in order to conform and cant walk with sweatpants, no make up and sneakers and be as conforming as a cis white lady (...thin. did I mention thin lol all connects doesnt it...amazing how it's not femephobia on every aspect) would, isn't more backwards and regressive for doing any of that but again lost fight bc shes just another "man" who is part of the patriarchy, which is even worse than "females" who are co operating with it.

Edit: sex workers too. Apply to all of it. Same criticism but not that terfs pretend to care about them either.

[tierneysinclair]

“Nobody’s ever been arrested for a murder; they have only ever been arrested for not planning it properly.” ― Terry Hayes, I Am Pilgrim

Basic Information

Full name: Tierney Sinclair Pronunciation: Tier-Knee Sin-Claire Nickname(s): Not if you like to live. Tierney doesn’t do nicknames. Tierney is the only name he’ll answer to. Birthdate:  September 8, 1979 Age: 40 Zodiac: Virgo Gender: Cis-Male Pronouns: he/him Romantic Orientation: Straight Sexual Orientation: Bisexual Nationality: American Ethnicity: White Current Location: Miami, Florida Living Conditions: Tierney lives in a small apartment above his new garage. It’s nothing fancy and that’s the way he likes it. Well worn couches, outdated kitchen appliances, wear worn towels. He doesn’t live in the slums but owning only new things has never been a part of Tierney’s lifestyle.

Background

Birthplace: Las Vegas, Nevada Hometown: N/A Social Class: Presents as lower-middle class but has enough money in the bank to be upper class if he really wanted to be. But he never will. Educational Achievements: None. Tierney never went to school. By the time he was released for the testing facility it was too late and too hard to get someone like him caught up. Sporadically home schooled by staff and other people Tierney isn’t the sort of person you want on your trivia team. He struggles with complex math, history, and all other assorted ‘average school knowledge’. Father: Unknown Mother: Unknown Sibling(s): Unknown Birth Order: N/A Pets: None Previous Relationships: Nothing lasts longer than a night. Do one night stands count? Arrests: A lot. By the time Tierney aged out of the foster program he’d been arrested more times than he had fingers and toes. Nothing major, minor mischief and petty theft. It wasn’t until he was picked up by the Syndicate that he started doing bigger crimes. And by then he had the support network to not get arrested. Prison Time: Surprisingly, not a lot. Accumulated, no more than a few months. It pays to have friends in low places.

Occupation & Income

Current Occupation: Hitman for the Blackburn Syndicate & Freelance Motorcycle Restorer Dream Occupation: None. Tierney has a limited view of both his life and the world. The idea of having a ‘dream’ anything is a foreign concept to him. Past Job(s): He was boy once at a greasy diner once. When they found out he’d lied about who he was a week later he was fired. Chicago wasn’t kind to kids with rap sheets and level five rankings. Falling in with the Syndicate has been the only ‘real’ job he’s ever had. Spending Habits: Tierney is a very frugal person. He buys almost everything second hand or used and very rarely spends it on anything new. The only expensive things he owns are his bikes and a flat screen TV. Tierney’s not ashamed to admit most of his money gets spent on bike parts anyways. Debt: Never. Credit cards mean government ability to track him. And being in debt t other people is a one way trip to being killed over it at a later date. Tierney repays any debts he can’t avoid as quickly as possible, but he tends to avoid accruing debts as much as possible. Most Valuable Possession: Some people might say it would be his bikes, and from a purely financial stand point it most definitely is, but according to Tierney it’s the Blackburn Syndicate, hands down.

Skills & Abilities

Physical Strength: Above Average | Average | Below Average

Tierney works out twice a day, every day, no exceptions. He needs to be in top physical condition for every job and now it’s just become a part of his daily habits. He’s supremely strong in his own right but mix his powers in with it and a supremely dedicated force of will he could probably lift a car above his head.

Speed: Above Average | Average | Below Average

Tierney isn’t the fastest hitman on the market but he’s perfectly capable of darting in and out of a situation with speed. It’s part of the job to act quickly and what he lacks in sheer speed he knows he more than makes up for elsewhere.

Intelligence: Above Average | Average | Below Average

Tierney never went to school. What schooling he did get the few years he had between testing and aging out was sporadic at best. He’s not ashamed of his faults but he doesn’t go around talking about them much either. Besides, being able to recite the presidents holds no bearing on his life choices so...what’s it matter? Tierney knows how to do his job exceptionally well. What Tierney doesn’t know ranges from complex math to the English Oxford Comma.

Accuracy: Above Average | Average | Below Average

Tierney’s powers require a certain degree of needed accuracy coupled with the fact he’s exceptionally talented with a range of deadly weapons. He prides himself in hitting exactly what he’s aiming at every time. Sure, he misses, but that usually because his target makes an unexpected move before he can account for it.

Agility: Above Average | Average | Below Average

He���s getting older, he won’t lie about that, and that’s starting to show. Tierney is less likely to look like a stunt double these days. No somersaults or daring roof top leaps happen these days. Besides, it’s more dramatic to sweep in like an avenging angel and sweep out just as quickly. Agility is good for running away. But you only run away when you get caught. And Tierney never gets caught.

Stamina: Above Average | Average | Below Average

Tierney’s powers are tied directly to his stamina. It’s taken him years and years of practice to build up the stamina he has now. He can use his powers for hours before he starts to feel winded and hours more before he gets tired. (Unless he goes for the super taxing activities like lifting buildings or psionic explosions.) It’s perhaps his greatest strength, his ability to keep going when others weaker than him might stop.

Teamwork: Ciara Sawyer is his go-to partner. Hell, most would call her his only partner. He doesn’t like working with other people and tries very hard not to do it. He will when he must but he’ll be begrudging about it the whole time. Talents/Hobbies: Motorcycles, Lockpicking, Murder Shortcomings: His sense of justice, the inability to kill someone who isn’t involved with what he’s doing. It’s a bonus he can erase minds when he wants to. Anyone who knows Tierney from work and outside of work knows he has a severe weak spot for his gang. Touch a hair on their heads and he tends to lose focus. Languages Spoken: English Drive?: Yes. A MV Agusta Brutale. Jump-Start a Car?: Yes Change a Flat Tire?: All the time. Ride a Bicycle?: No way. In hell. Swim?: Not because he likes to. Play an Instrument?: Nope Play Chess?: Yes Braid Hair?: No Tie a Tie?: Yes. Of course! Pick a Lock?: Oh hell yeah. With his mind. Cook?: Yes, but not well.

Physical Appearance & Characteristics

Faceclaim: Joel Kinnaman Eye Color: Brownish/Greenish Hair Color: Ashy Blonde Hair Type/Style/Length: Average/Well Kept/Short Glasses/Contacts?: None Dominant Hand: Right Height: 6′ 2″ Weight: 187lbs Build: Athletic Exercise Habits: Two session, morning and evening. Every day, two hours. With intermittent practice in between with others. Skin tone: Fair Tattoos: Left shoulder reaching to just below his elbow, spiders out to cover some of his chest and back. Got it to cover up an old gunshot scar. A faded string of numbers on his right arm (080879-58-05). Piercings: None Marks/Scars: Tierney is covered in scars. From battle wounds to childhood scrapes, to remnants of his life as a test mutant. Most can be found on his chest and back but part of why he wears pants and sleeves is to hide the others. Don’t want his identifying marks to get out and doesn’t like explaining to others what happened to him in order to get that many scars. Clothing Style: Dark colors, long pants, long sleeves, deep pockets. Usually a coat when the weather allows. The more places to hide the things he needs to work the better. But he cleans up well, he has plenty of suits in his closet too. Usually second hand stuff, the only time he buys something fancy is when he’s on a job. Jewelry: A set of dog tags labeling him a level five mutant. Nothing more. Allergies: None Diet: Average. More fast food than probably healthy. Physical Ailments: Stiff knees. Jumped off a few too many building in his younger years. Spent too many hours kneeling behind walls after that. They don’t bother him much but anyone with eyes can see they’re stiff. His left shoulder is also stiff, he favors it. Perhaps on of his worst gun shot injuries to date. It haunts him. And aches when the weather changes.

Psychology

MBTI Type: ISTJ-A (The Logistician)

ISTJs are often called inspectors. They have a keen sense of right and wrong, especially in their area of interest and/or responsibility. They are noted for devotion to duty. Punctuality is a watchword of the ISTJ. As do other Introverted Thinkers, ISTJs often give the initial impression of being aloof and perhaps somewhat cold. Effusive expression of emotional warmth is not something that ISTJs do without considerable energy loss. ISTJs are most at home with "just the facts, Ma'am." They seem to perform at highest efficiency when employing a step-by-step approach.

Enneagram Type: Type 6 (The Skeptic)

The committed, security-oriented type. Sixes are reliable, hard-working, responsible, and trustworthy. Excellent "troubleshooters," they foresee problems and foster cooperation, but can also become defensive, evasive, and anxious—running on stress while complaining about it. They can be cautious and indecisive, but also reactive, defiant and rebellious. They typically have problems with self-doubt and suspicion. At their Best: internally stable and self-reliant, courageously championing themselves and others.

Moral Alignment: Lawful Neutral

A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.

Temperament: Choleric

Cholerics are extroverted, quick-thinking, active, practical, strong-willed, and easily annoyed. They are self-confident, self-sufficient, and very independent minded. They are brief, direct, to the point, and firm when communicating with others.

Element: Earth & Fire Emotional Stability: Stable Introvert or Extrovert?: Introvert Obsession(s): Motorcycles. Tierney doesn’t know a lot outside of how to kill someone and get away with it. But he knows practically everything there is to know about motorcycles. How they work, how the break, how to fix them. Everything. Some would call him obsessed but Tierney calls it laser focused. Compulsion(s): Protecting his family. It’s what’s on his mind in every situation. All of his actions are dictated by this fact. Even for decisions that aren’t going to impact the Syndicate are measured against this need. It’s never occurred to him that it might, in fact, be a problem. It’s just natural. Phobia(s): Mutant testing facilities. It’s irrational, especially now, to be afraid of getting taken back to the white walled hellscape he grew up in. But he is. He scrubs his name clean where ever he goes and actively avoids anyone in a lab coat who starts asking questions. He even takes down fliers asking for mutants to ‘willingly’ submit to testing. He doesn’t talk about those years for damn good reasons. Addiction(s): None Drug Use: None Alcohol Use: Often Prone to Violence?: Always Prone to Crying?: No Believe in Love at First Sight?: No

Mannerisms

Accent: Depends. A bit of a hodgepodge of Boston and Midwestern. Tends to adapt to the common accent after a while when staying in a place for a prolonged period of time. Speech Quirks: None Hobbies: Motorcycle Repair, Motorcycle Rebuilding Habits: Spinning things in the air when he’s concentrating. Leg bouncing. Ordering more food than he can eat so he has left overs in the fridge. Nervous Ticks: Rubbing his nose and spinning objects in the air at high rates of speed. Drives/Motivations: Protecting his family. Fears: Losing his family, someone dying on him, being taken back in for testing. Sense of Humour?: Dry. Like the desert. Do They Curse Often?: Like. All the time.

Favorites

Animal: Bear Beverage: Heineken Beer and/or Black Coffee Book: None. Tierney hates reading. Color: Deep Green Food: Ciara’s Flower: None Gem: Emeralds Mode of Transportation: Motorcycles Scent: Fresh brewed coffee, rain on the horizon, motorcycle oil, pizza grease on your fingers Sport: Football and Hockey Weather: Rain Vacation Destination: None

Attitudes

Greatest Dream: End mutant testing. Tierney sees nothing productive in the act and goes out of his way to end it whenever and wherever he can. Mutants are people. Not lab rats to be poked at or taken away from their families. Greatest Fear: Losing one of his family and being taken back for mutant testing. Most at Ease When: Elbow deep in one of his bikes with of his closest friends lounging on the couch across the way. Least as Ease When: He doesn’t know what’s going on around him. When his plans has fallen through and he’s no longer in control of what’s happening around him. Worst Possible Thing That Could Happen: Alma being murdered. Biggest Achievement: Taking out the president of the company that held him as a test subject when he was a child. Biggest Regret: He has exactly Eleven. Eleven deaths that weren’t supposed to happen but did.

[hellyeahheroes]

I like this article for many things. One is the high praises it sings to Monstress

My favorite recent example of this kind of relentlessly detailed, re-centering worldbuilding is Marjorie Liu and Sana Takeda’s comic book series Monstress. There’s no naïve narrator here. The reader is thrust into Maika Halfwolf’s complicated, danger-fraught quest—for revenge, self-knowledge, and to possibly to save her kind—without any lead up at all. If The Lord of the Rings were Monstress, the story would’ve started already in Moria. Different races, societies, magical orders, cities, and families weave together in a dense tapestry that serves its own internal logic perfectly. Monstress borrows from any and every genre—high fantasy, horror, steampunk, alternate history, magical girl manga, paranormal romance—and makes itself an entirely new thing that has to be met on its own terms. To help the reader along who is craving more “telling,” every issue includes a bonus feature, a “history lecture” of a professor cat to her kittens. Monstress rewrites the rules so completely that it isn’t until a male character shows up on the last page of issue 4 that one realizes he’s the first male to appear since the very first scene of issue 1. It doesn’t feel “strange” to have an almost completely female cast in Monstress—it doesn’t even feel like some kind of explicitly feminist literary experiment—and it doesn’t feel “political” to have diverse ethnicities and skin tones represented, because it comes across as simply the way things are in that world.

The other is deconstructing how the white cis straight male authorities have set up what is considered good writing by them to be seen as “universal” features of one when it often steems from their own privileged position (in this case being able to emphasize with other white cis straight men they do not need to have expositions to understand the cultural context of their actions)

The first literary writer I heard express open frustration with the literary establishment’s rules for literary fiction was David Foster Wallace, at a talk he gave at the Boston Public Library shortly after Infinite Jest was published. In lit fic you aren’t even supposed to use brand names, he said, because that would “date” your story to a specific time, and literary fiction is supposed to take place in a “universal” world… Which he then pointed out was still supposed to have telephones and automobiles in it (so obviously WAS dated) but not—apparently—IKEA or Coca-Cola (i.e. not THAT dated). Wallace called bullshit.

Wallace was white, male, and privileged, but he was treated as a “young whippersnapper” by the establishment who wanted to tell him what he was and was not allowed to do in his writing. He had no qualms calling out the older generation of writers who had established the rules for modern fiction under the assumption that their experience was “universal.” It wasn’t. It was only “universal” for them. The particular strain of the literary establishment Wallace pushed back against was strongly invested in this mythic ideal of universality. Why? What did they gain from this idea?

They gained the ability to write stories where they could “show” and not “tell,” that’s what. They had this ability not because they were masterful stylists of language or because they dripped with innate talent. The power to “show, not tell” stemmed from the writing for an audience that shared so many assumptions with them that the audience would feel that those settings and stories were “universal.” (It’s the same hubris that led the white Western establishment to assume its medicine, science, and values superior to all other cultures. We’ll come back to that shortly.)

Look at the literary fiction techniques that are supposedly the hallmarks of good writing: nearly all of them rely not on what was said, but on what is left unsaid. Always come at things sideways; don’t be too direct, too pat, or too slick. Lead the reader in a direction but allow them to come to the conclusion. Ask the question but don’t state the answer too baldly. Leave things open to interpretation… but not too open, of course, or you have chaos. Make allusions and references to the works of the literary canon, the Bible, and familiar events of history to add a layer of evocation—but don’t make it too obvious or you’re copycatting. These are the do’s and don’ts of MFA programs everywhere. They rely on a shared pool of knowledge and cultural assumptions so that the words left unsaid are powerfully communicated. I am not saying this is not a worthwhile experience as reader or writer, but I am saying anointing it the pinnacle of “craft” leaves out any voice, genre, or experience that falls outside the status quo. The inverse is also true, then: writing about any experience that is “foreign” to that body of shared knowledge is too often deemed less worthy because to make it understandable to the mainstream takes a lot of explanation. Which we’ve been taught is bad writing!

Bolding mine. And I want to emphasize that last part strongly since this is what is behind a lot of rhetorics used by critics of more diverse books, comic books or movies. Claiming that they are badly written and breaking “show don’t tell” rule or “all about being a minority” when the book needs to explain where the character is coming from because the white cis straight male mainstream simply lacks knowledge necessary to get it. Or declaring character to be acting “bad” or “unlikeable” when the story concedes to these claims and does not try to provide that context they need to make character actions make sense.

Finally, there is this part that I agree wholeheartedly with

So if relentless centering of the naïve is not necessary in SF/F in order to meet the demands of literature, can we take things one step further? I would like to “decolonize” fantasy and science fiction. Literary fiction, I fear, is beyond help because of its overreliance on shared knowledge for its power. The only way to meet the literary “standard” of a “universal” story while writing about any marginalized individual—whether by culture or subculture, whether of color, queer, or even just a woman—is to make the story accessible to the educated white upper middle-class point of view. Even many of the great works of gay male literature like Edmund White’s A Boy’s Own Story fit squarely into this tradition, exploring the angst of discovery of one’s own homosexuality within the framework of a “great American novel” akin to The Catcher in the Rye.

But SF/F can do better. We can break the status quo and leave it broken into a completely new shape. This doesn’t reduce the potential power of an SF/F story: it increases it. Instead of a set of shared assumptions about “universal” setting, the SF/F writer has more control over every aspect of the reader experience. All fiction is metaphor, but in a story where the society, customs, and language are crafted rather than inherited, the reader experience of that metaphor can be all-encompassing. The reader learns powerful cultural norms and acquires the new language the same way they acquired their first one: through experience.

- Admin

[terpsichoreed]

I had a hellacious conversation while I was trying to leave work to get to rehearsal. Blatant homophobia and transphobia. It made me so uncomfortable that I couldn’t go to rehearsal because I was so shook up. People really think like that. And talk like that. And they’re everywhere. And they truly believe it, which is what made me so sick.

It all started because I called him out for sexism. I won’t use his name but I will describe him: straight, white, male, able bodied, mid-forties, lives in a fairly small town, upper middle-class, hunter, community college degree. These are by no means bad traits, I’m only listing them to help prove he’s not as worldly as some of us and how set he is in his ways (as in, he had fewer opportunities to learn about progressive intersectional feminism, but had a wealth of other opportunities and privileges he will probably never know how to check).

His first mistake was saying, “Goodnight ladies. And Abdellah.”

By ladies he meant me (cis female) and Harry who is the butt of all office jokes. I know this is something guys do to each other, but I hate this form of casual sexism. I called him out for his implications that being female implies weakness/that it’s the worse of the two binary genders. Then he, Harry, Jeremiah and I all had to sit down and have a conversation about sexism, stereotypes, language, and connotation. He did sincerely apologize for his behavior and I don’t believe he meant to be sexist. The language is so commonplace that we often don’t think about it’s deeper meaning or origins. I was ready to move on, forgive and forget.

But the conversation quickly turned transphobic, and then homophobic.

Trigger warning!!! skip to the next paragraph... After his first casual transphobic statement, I called him out immediately and told him why it was wrong to say out loud. He claimed "I’m not transphobic: I am against liars and deception”. He said all trans people need to come out to everyone they meet, or else, God forbid, a straight guy could end up in bed with another guy. He also refuses to use correct pronouns when referring to trans people, and he claims homosexuality and transgenderism are classified as diseases in the DSM. I. shut. that. down. I was livid and gave him an earful, as did Harry. Later on he said “I have no problem with gay people, I just don’t agree with what they do.” Why are all homophobic arguments along the lines of “I don’t like PDA when anyone of any gender does it”? Try as you might, I can’t be convinced that’s how you truly feel. Contrary to popular belief, even this uncuddly cactus (ace, aro, touch averse) bitch supports respectful PDA.

At first I thought Harry was just playing Devil’s advocate, but it felt like he believes in acceptance and tolerance. I had no idea he was so socially liberal. Even though we disagree on most everything, the two of us worked together to argue in favor of the liberal agenda. Thank goodness Harry came out of left field and spoke so eloquently because I was so shook I couldn’t speak without stuttering. Today would have been his last day at the company if his layoff hadn’t been cancelled.

I was just sick over this. While Harry and Jeremiah don’t have any trans friends, I do. This felt like it was a direct attack on them. My friends are great people and this guy would never be able to see past the “trans” or “gay” labels to see their greatness firsthand. There is nothing wrong with being LGBT. A salty married man tries to justify homophobia/transphobia by telling of his fears of being hit on by someone of his same gender. His strongest argument against homosexuality is that it’s “icky” and cringeworthy. We can fight this. We have to fight this.

I voted in the primaries and plan to vote next week, but I have been severely uninformed about what’s going on with the rest of the world. This conversation made me wake up to the fact that lives are at risk here. This is real and it has to be stopped. My inner bitch is awake and ready for a fight. This is one we can’t afford to lose.

[toomanyfeelings5]

@ everyone who says that la la land deserves all of its oscar nominations, that people who are anxious/disappointed/angry/etc about moonlight’s comparably smaller amount of award nominations “have an agenda,” and that la la land was a “risk” to make:

1. you are, of course, entirely allowed to think that la la land deserves all of its nominations and that it’s a great movie, your favorite movie of this year, your favorite movie of all time, etc. 

2. in terms of its genre (movie musical) then yes, it can be considered a “risk.” after all, there hasn’t been a movie musical made in a while, let alone one that references “singin’ in the rain” etc etc.

3. that being said: la la land is a movie that stars two white, straight, cis, well-known leads, it takes place in LA, it pays tribute to Hollywood’s Golden Age of film and musicals, it features a moving romance, and it’s in part about the magic and power of art and film-making. of COURSE it was going to garner praise and attention from Hollywood and notable critics.

4. la la land reaffirms Hollywood’s belief in its mythic past of its Great Tradition of Great Films, and musicals are included within this Great Tradition; it lovingly pays homage to a variety of musicals, and clearly celebrates the Golden Age’s films with nary a critical eye in sight. again: is it really so surprising that such a film would become so well-liked and popular amongst the very people who live their lives in a similar state of admiration of Hollywood’s quality and greatness, or who otherwise stake their living on the value of art and film?

5. la la land isn’t gathering awards and nominations solely because it is a well-made, well-acted movie; it’s getting so much attention from the Oscars, the Golden Globes, big-name critics, etc, because it feeds off of nostalgia, praises the history of Hollywood through homages, references, and tributes, and reaffirms the validity of Hollywood’s past, Hollywood’s present, and Hollywood’s future, and all those who work within or alongside the film industry.

6. “but genre!” yes, yes, movie musicals are relatively rare, and aren’t often given Academy Awards. and yet, here are the 10 (ten) movie musicals that have won Best Picture:

The Broadway Melody (1928/29)

The Great Ziegfeld (1936)

Going My Way (1944)

An American in Paris (1951)

Gigi (1958)  

West Side Story (1961)

My Fair Lady (1964)

The Sound of Music (1965)

Oliver! (1968)

Chicago (2002)

here it is also important to note that the following musicals received other Oscar nominations and/or awards:

Fiddler on the Roof, Moulin Rogue, Les Miserables, Cabaret, Hello Dolly, Funny Girl, Mary Poppins, The Music Man, The King and I, and 42nd Street

(source)

7. clearly, musicals and movie musicals have a lasting, if not mega-popular, foothold in the industry and in the Academy specifically. there is a history here. there is a legacy. there is a continued interest in making musicals.

8. not a single one of these musicals have starred a black person, let alone had their protagonist be a poor, gay black man. la la land continues the Great Tradition’s overwhelming whiteness and heterosexuality, both as a function of its tribute-paying and as a function of Hollywood’s past-and-present-day lack of diversity.

9. “what does this even have to do with moonlight? it’s impossible to really compare moonlight and la la land anyway, they’re entirely difference genres!”

yes. you’re right, they are different genres. and yet what both Oscar-nominated musicals and Oscar-nominated LGBT films have in common is that between the two genres, none of them have had a a gay black man as their protagonist. (source)

IN FACT, not one Oscar-nominated film, in its 89-year history, regardless of genre, has a gay black male protagonist. until now.

10. la la land is one of multiple musicals and movie musicals to be nominated for Oscars. moonlight is the first of its kind. la la land reinforces Hollywood’s white, straight, cis, middle-and upper-class status quo. moonlight’s VERY EXISTENCE rejects the mainstream stories/tropes Hollywood often fawns over.

11. with this history in mind, one cannot argue that la la land was as risky or just as much of a risk as moonlight to make. to do so would be to willfully ignore the facts of the Academy, of Hollywood, and the history of film in general. simply put: if you say that the risk of making la la land is equal to or greater than moonlight’s, then your agenda is showing.  

11. “but moonlight is an Important Film, the kind of movie that the Academy loves! it’s Oscar bait, and because it’s the first of its kind, it’ll totally win!”

 if moonlight is so beloved by the Academy and prime for sweeping up awards, then why is it the first and therefore only movie that features a black gay protagonist to be nominated for any Oscar? one would think that were this movie Oscar bait, there would be plenty others like it being nominated left and right. there aren’t.

if you’re going to argue that moonlight will win solely because of its diversity, then you need to step back, think for a minute, and stop criticizing people who say that they don’t like la la land because it’s straight, cis, and white, because you clearly aren’t as objective as you think you are, and identity politics impact everyone.

if you’re honestly going to say that moonlight’s subject matter alone is what will cause it to win Oscars, then you’re implying that story DOES matter when it comes to Best Picture and other award categories, and that something besides technical/directorial/acting/etc skill is what makes a film Oscar-worthy.

you’re implicitly saying that la la land’s STORY (characters, plotline, themes, etc) matters along with everything else, and that should it win Best Picture, it does so because of its storyline along with its other factors.

a valid critique can in fact be made, then, that part of the reason la la land’s racked up so many nominations is because of its generic, white-centric, hetero-centric story. if moonlight’s story matters, then so does la la land’s. similarly, if la la la land’s technical achievements matter, so do moonlight’s. films contain multiple elements. to argue that moonlight will win solely for Diversity Points is not only racist and homophobic: it does the film a disservice, and indeed does all films a disservice.  

12. CONCLUSION: la la land is super white, cis, and straight, and it pays homage to other musicals and films that are super white, cis, and straight, thus upholding Hollywood’s past and present white, cis, straight, upper-class agenda, which is part of the reason why it’s gotten so many nominations and so much attention. 

la la land is also not nearly as much of a risk as moonlight was to make: while musicals and movie musicals are relatively uncommon and aren’t awarded as often as other genres are, they have still won Best Picture and other nominations and awards throughout the Oscars’ 89-year history, and they are still very much a part of Hollywood’s Great Tradition of its Great Film Canon. 

moonlight, by contrast, is the very first movie to be nominated for an Oscar to feature a poor, black, gay protagonist. there is no other film like it within both the Great Tradition and within the Academy itself. thus, by virtue of its subject matter, Hollywood’s entrenched racism, classism, and homophobia, and by its much more limited budget, moonlight was the riskier film to make. 

the story a film tells matters along with the way it is told. la la land’s story fits neatly into hollywood’s white, straight, cis, upper-class agenda. to argue otherwise is to be a part of that agenda. you can still like la la land. but every film is made with an agenda/viewpoint/etc, and that should be recognized, even when that agenda is implicitly racist, homophobic, etc. la la land and moonlight are not on an equal playing field. 

13. tl;dr: moonlight was more of a risk to make, la la land ultimately upholds the racist, homophobic, and classist Hollywood status quo, and what determines which film gets nominated for which category or win which award is partially determined by their stories, the people who judge them, and the history of the Academy and film. both moonlight and la la land are good films for various reasons. one can’t, however, dismiss the fact that la la land is in many ways a comfortable, easy piece of escapism for a select, privileged few, while moonlight offers respite, validation, and healing to people who were previously erased, ignored, and dismissed entirely from the Hollywood that la la land adores.  

[blessedarethebinarybreakers]

Hi! I often see articles about the limitations of "white feminism" and how to transfer to a different kind of feminism, lately I've been wondering if there is anything similar in Christianity. I learned from teachers and books written by white cishet upper-middle class men and I'm wondering if there is material and figures I can check out that are not that. Any little thing pointing me in the right direction would be helpful! I'm not even sure how to start Googling it.

Hey there! Awesome question. Yes, Christian theology has been largely dominated by white, straight/cis men for much too long -- luckily, there are places you can go to find theology beyond that. It’s so important to read theology from diverse perspectives in order to gain a rich reflection of God and Christianity, so it’s great you’re looking into this!

Some of the books I read for my first semester of seminary that I definitely recommend are:

Jesus and the Disinherited by Howard Thurman, a Black theologian

On Job by Gustavo Gutierrez (Latino liberation theologist)

Just Love by Margaret Farley (white woman)

We Have Been Believers by James Evans, a book on Black Theology

Some other authors and articles I read:

“Reading Her Way through the Struggle: African American Women and the Bible” by Renita J. Weems

“Language about God,” chapter 3 of Feminism and Christianity: an Essential Guide by Lynn Japinga

“A Sacred Hope and Social Goal: Womanist Eschatology” by Joan M. Martin

“Adjusting Jonah” by Jione Havea, a theologian from Tonga, Oceania -- writes often on theology from a colonized perspective 

Finally, some works I’ve not read (or have only read parts of):

Take Back the Word: a Queer Reading of the Bible compiled by Robert E. Goss and Mona West

Sharon Bezner is another queer theologist 

The Next Evangelicalism: Rescuing the Church from Western Cultural Activity by Soong-Chan Rah

Most works by Nadia Bolz-Weber and Rachel Held Evans 

Works by Dr. Randy Woodley, a Cherokee theologian -- see some of his responses to an “ask a theologian” question series

Works by Richard Twiss, a Lakota Sioux Evangelical educator and author -- hear him speak in this YouTube video “Drumming, Chanting, and other Christian Things”

To look for more works written by theologians that aren’t all white, cis/straight men, here are some areas you can look into:

liberation theology

Black theology and womanist theology

queer theology

immigrant church theology

Asian (or Asian American) Christian theology 

I just googled “disabled theology” out of curiosity to see what would come up and some good looking books did! 

honestly, pick a marginalized group and type “_____ theology” into google and you’re likely to find at least some works

If anyone else has other suggestions, please share. The Body of Christ is not solely white, straight, cis, ablebodied, middle/upper class, male, and otherwise privileged -- other voices have so much to contribute to our faith and need to be heard! 

[tardigradetheking]

god i feel like the world is out to get me right now

i mean i dont want to opress anyone but im straight im white im cis and im male and people (on tumblr) hate me for it.

 the economy is a wreck. i mean i dont even want to be rich i just want to be middle class, have a secure job and retire in my idk late 50s. i mean my life expectancy is what 79, i want around 20 years of retirement. but job security is going down the tube. the middle class is shrinking. Republicans are making it harder for me to get an education they’re (trying(?)) to under fund libraries. the damn republicans are suggesting a 4o1k that gets taxed going in (if over a small amount of money) AND going out. after all that people still vote for republicans. its legal to suppress votes as long as its only based on party not race or sex.

my dad is upper middle class (i know so privileged STFU why do you care who is highest in the pile when we’re both stuck in a hole) but hes years from retiring and hes 54 (grant it we have unusually high living expenses and my sister and i are going through college but its still a ways off)

its legal to suppress votes based on political opinions 

america needs to sort its shit out and im tired of having the middle class and poor getting kicked in the face often by themselves while that happens.

[lightheartedrascal]

What’s going on with queer visibility and will we ever break out of the gay tropes in TV and movies?

In writing, film, media and advertisements the depiction of queer characters is often easier to write, or perhaps easier for the audience to accept, if they fall into a familiar stereotype, or better yet a well-known trope.  Queer character have been written this way for as long has there has been writing, film and more recently advertisements.  But why do character have to fit into these neat little pre-packaged storylines, why can’t they just be people living their lives in three dimensions like everyone else?  Part of it may have to do with the Hays Code that began in the 1930’s, when, for moral reason, depictions of queer characters was not permitted.  This, of course, did not keep the film and television industry without queer characters, rather they began working out a series of stock characters that could be identify, many of which lead to our modern day queer tropes.  “Characterization, narrative and sexuality tropes commonly applied to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual or queer characters. While in the real world, LGBTQ+ persons are just as varied in personality and traits as straight/cisgender ones, it has suited television writers to use common stereotypes for their gay characters in lieu of actually making them ‘real people’ ” ("Queer as Tropes - TV Tropes," n.d.).  These conventions make it easy for a writer to convey background with less actual story, tropes are similar to stereotypes but with more backstory, they give context, where stereotypes just give us a single aspect of a character.  With tropes we can guess what the character might do, say or feel just because we know what trope they are portraying.  And how does this relate to queer visibility?  Does it enhance queer visibility, or diminish it by reducing it to a set of pre-made rules and character traits.

An argument could be made that many cis/straight characters are also based on tropes, so why is it a big deal that most queer characters are trope-based?  I think the biggest reason is that they’re not good tropes.  Cis/straight characters get the positive tropes, both the good guys and the bad guys.  Some examples I found include: The Damsel in Distress, The Cool Old Guy, The Chick Who Can Hang with The Boys, The Mama Bear, The Casanova, The Evil Step-parent, The Overprotective Dad, The Hot Scientist, The Corrupt Hick, The Mommas Boy and many more ("Stereotropes," n.d.).  But the queer community is relegated to: Gay Pedophiles, The Why are All the Good Men Gay, The Bait-and-Switch Lesbians, The Club Kid, The Drag Queen, The Magical Queer, Nobody Over 50 Is Gay, The Sissy Villain, The Transparent Closet and many more ("Queer as Tropes - TV Tropes," n.d.).  The tropes do nothing to enhance queer visibility, rather they keep the queer community on the outside as an other.

One recent gay show, that had a great opportunity to break from these norms, but didn’t, was the HBO Original series Looking.  The show centers around a group of mostly gay, white men, living in San Francisco (nothing new here).  The characters are overall flat, and follow more mild versions of familiar gay male tropes.  There’s the unsure-of-himself main character, boyish and mostly sweet, Patrick.  There’s an unsure artist, who’s a little dirty and experiments sexually, Agustine.  There’s the handsome Peter Pan-type who just won’t admit he’s getting older and tries to keep seducing ever younger boys to bed with him, Dom.  And the sister of Dom, Doris, who is the ultimate fag-hag, not living her life while she waits for her brother to get his together. The rest of the cast also reads like watered-down tropes with a kindhearted older man trying to help Dom ease into middle age.  Patrick get’s mixed up with his boss, and Agustine’s sexual drive drives his partner away.  There are plenty of club scenes and parties, not to mention fabulous living spaces, even though most of the characters complain about money and of course there are drugs; maybe one of the only positives is the show does discuss the use of PrEP in the gay community but that ends up being dropped as a plot line.  

Perhaps after the “shocking” shows like Queer As Folk, The “L” Word and others of the late 90’s and early 2000’s writers just don’t know what to do with gay characters, or if there isn’t sufficient view potential.  And to be clear, I’m not saying that those shows of the 90′s-00′s were ground breaking in terms of queer visibility from a character development point of view, but they were important from an in-your-face look-at-us kind of way, that drove more queer visibility.  

I found an article that echoed my suspicion of the flattened characters in Looking, “In a certain sense, Looking is what happens when you try to expand this argument [of gay lifestyle] —the core of the ‘post-gay,’ nothing-unique-going-on-here ethos—into 30-minute chunks of television” (Lowder, 2014).  So what’s next for queer character?  There has been some traction in getting trans characters into television, in shows like Transparent and Laverne Cox’s character on Orange is the New Black, though her role is minor.  Bisexual characters, however, are basically nonexistent, “It's been noted...that in contrast to gay characters and their stereotypes, bisexual characters are virtually unknown on TV” ("Queer as Tropes - TV Tropes," n.d.).  So, I guess my question remains, what does the future of queers in mass media look like and how does this effect queer visibility? Because people feel that mainstream “gay” has been accepted, do they not see the need for other members of the queer community to also get visibility, and the work isn’t done with gay characters - the media is still saturated with white, upper-middle class, people with limited struggles.  I think the future of queer visibility needs to be included of the entire queer/LGBTQQ+ community and all backgrounds.

————— Lowder, J. B. (2014, January 21). Looking: HBO’s gay show is boring and bad for gays, straights. Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/01/21/looking_hbo_s_gay_show_is_boring_and_bad_for_gays_straights.html

Queer as Tropes - TV Tropes. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/main/queerastropes

Stereotropes. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://stereotropes.bocoup.com

Waldron, L. (2014, January 7). Seeking Queer Visibility, Rejecting Assimilation | The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lucas-waldron/seeking-queer-visibility-_b_4525703.html

[afriendofthebirds]

okay im sorry if i offend anyone and im open to anyone trying to correct me but i am just getting really frustrated at the amount of people who get angry when straight, white, middle/upper class, cis males try to defend them or help in the fight for their rights. yes. it is your battle to fight and it might make you angry that he is trying to help you and apparently doesn't think you're capable doing it yourself. he may lack understanding and empathy. but he's trying his best, because when he doesn't say anything to help, he's called "racist" " sexist" "homophobic" etc. and you also dont realise that in this twisted society, these men are often the most powerful people. they can be heard more easily than many who are fighting for their rights. that's not a good thing, but it is good to have them on our side, because it means we're getting somewhere. the average person is listening to us. we can't give them hate, because we can't afford to lose their support for us. trust me. if you see a man trying to help you get your rights, you should help him with understanding what it's like to be a person of colour/woman/non-binary/queer/lower class etc. it's not his fault for being what he is. i sometimes hate myself for being white and living a middle class life, because i feel bad for trying to help anyone else. i feel like that is so wrong. anyway. my point is just don't hate on people who are trying to help you even though they may lack understanding. we're all trying our best in life. thankyou.