#I'm willing to post the model for free use if anyone was interested but idk if it's optimized enough for that

[worldyea]

soil

[thisiskatsblog]

Hi Kat, I'm feeling sad and sort of mad here so I might rant, I'd like to know what you think I don't know if you're gonna post it or answer it to avoid controversy and negativity in your blog but I appreciate you got to read it bc I needed to vent, tysm in advance...

I see so many people hating on Harry because he said "clothes are fun" without "making any social statement about it and that he doesn't recognize his privilege of wearing what he wants cause he's rich and famous" and can I just say that it's because of that same privilege he's so influential and has helped so many queer fans to be who they want to be, he's using his privilege for good and also, I hate when people try to force activism out of everyone...

I understand being critical but activism should be genuine and intentional. It just seems to me that they're people from the q community who had an agenda against him before this interview got released, sometimes it doesn't even seen this is about social justice. I've seen the most cruel and hateful comments wishing for him to be miserable and unsuccessful (that's not happening anytime sooner, honey, go off)...

And they don't really know him, they don't know he does more than waving flags and putting stickers on his guitar, he has donated to non-profits, spent money on queer artists, he protested and signed petitions for BLM, he has helped fans to come out, he does have talked on social issues, they're just looking for a reason to be mad tbh...

He might not get too deeply political because he has stated that politics divide people and that is 100% true. He has INDEED recognized he is privileged on a RS interview and that he just wants to show people he sees them and he's here for them. Everybody does activism in different ways, and Harry's certainly isn't performative, he's not obnoxious about it but he's not tone deaf either, he's self-aware.Honestly, I don't understand what this people want?...

If they see this cis boy speaking on gender issues and gender expression on a Vogue interview and talking about trans/nb/gnc people who are opressed then they may fill Twitter with comments like "he doesn't do anything for us, why is he talking about it? he's not our icon" but if he doesn't do it then he's pandering? Do they want an ally who leads a movement and speaks on issues or an ally who does acts of service for the movement and doesn't speak for it? I don't understand, idk if I will..

Finally, no one should be a certain sexuality to be allowed to break gender roles, yes, straight people do have privilege even when they dress androgynous but they shouldn't be cancelled for that...

Now, entering hypothetical (basically confirmed) field, can we talk about how problematic is accusing a closeted person of pandering? If someone have ever told artists like Bowie or Mercury to "stop profiting of queer people" while they weren't out in the public eye, then no one would have paved the way for other men to express themselves, break toxic masculinity and help other gender non-conforming kids. Kids like Janelle Monaé, Billy Porter, Lil Nas, P!nk, Sam Smith and yes, Harry Styles.

(that was the end of my rant btw, it was like 8 asks, I think, hope nothing got lost, sorry for the length but this people literally want Harry to fail because of freaking wearing a skirt and not getting too political about it and I was certainly not having it)

----------------------- Hi anon,

They all arrived! 

I’m glad it helps you just to be able to vent, without expecting to be published, so anyone who needs a vent: do feel free to use the service of my inbox 😊

I will publish because I think you are making a few interesting points.

It’s true that Harry can do the things he does because he is privileged – and I completely agree with you that it’s a good thing he is using that privilege to the fullest and thereby changes things for the better for other queer people.

On the other hand, I do understand the frustration of queer people who are less privileged when they wish he would recognize that privilege. It isn’t true that in this day and age anyone can dress the way Harry does on the cover of Vogue, and it could make his “statement”, which in itself is positive for queer people, all the more powerful if he recognized it and expressed his wish for that to change. To me, it’s a question of gradation. Wearing a ruffled dress is really good and changes lives; saying that you wish everyone had the freedom to wear that dress in the way you now have that freedom is even better and raises awareness of intersectionality (when you are LGBTQ and poor, being LGBTQ is more difficult than when you are LGBTQ and rich).

I don’t think Harry is the kind of person you’d need to force activism out of, I do see him as someone who has been activist as well as political on many occasions. Maybe not as political and activist as I’d like him to be, maybe not in the way I would be in his position, but definitely committed to the same causes that I find important, and not afraid of using the position he has to influence when he feels comfortable to do so. I wish he’d been more vocal on a great number of occasions, but I agree with you in that you cannot look at your idols in music and simply expect them to be fervent and perfect political activists. Art can be activist, but it doesn’t have to be, you cannot expect it to be.

Furthermore, I think Harry definitely has some privilege that he’s shown to be unaware of, and I’ve also seen him take things in, learn, change his position (see the RS interview you also mention), and become more vocal politically. In other words: Harry is human.

I have not seen the criticism you are talking about, and it seems there have been various different ones, so I won’t be going into them, some seem more valid, others are not. In any case I would be very hesitant to put it all aside as “queer people who had an agenda against him” or “they’re just looking for a reason to get mad”. That thinking may put you at ease, and stay on your side of things, but it won’t help the conversation. I think it’s important when you’re on two sides of an argument, to try and understand where the unmet need is on the “other” side.

Since I haven’t seen the original arguments, I am not completely clear on this – but it seems that the common thread in your understanding of the criticism he receives is that Harry’s ambiguous identity (while having amply suggested he may be not cis/straight, he hasn’t been straightforward about it) makes it possible for people to criticize him both ways.

I agree with you that you do not need to be queer to be allowed to break gender norms, and that closeted people should not be criticized for breaking gender norms and paving the way, to come out themselves, and for others. But I do see where the frustration on the other side comes from – I don’t think it’s necessarily evil willed towards Harry. What I see, a strong wish and urgent need to have out and proud role models who do these things; and – guessing that a lot of the people criticizing him suspect he is indeed closeted – an enormous frustration that closeting still happens, and about the mixed messages Harry, as a role model, may implicitly gives to queer kids in this way. It’s okay to dress outrageously and challenge norms but it’s not okay to be explicit about your identity and orientation, do keep that vague. I personally feel extremely frustrated about that, even if I also believe this is outside Harry’s will.

“We don’t talk enough, we should open up, before it’s all too much…”

Anyway, long story short anon: I get you. And I think I get the other side too. In the end we all choose whether we want to see the glass as half full or half empty. And I’m siding with you that it’s half full, and with the critics that I wish it were completely full, but then again with you that you cannot really fault Harry for that not (yet) being the case... But it’s okay for it to be said: I wish the glass were full.