#like its the stereotypes vs violent homophobe?

[02x14]

John's homophobia is more like if Sam comes out as gay he'd say it's good esp since males don't form long-term relationships so it's better for hunting

[ardenttheories]

Though I believe the relationship between most of the hs fandom and the hs2 writing team is pretty toxic I think your 'us and them' attitude is going to perpetuate this. Your posts frame them as villain of sorts and the actions of some justify your distane of them all. I do not know the lives of these people nor all the beliefs they hold within themselves or if they all agree with each other. You need to lurn to be concise in your arguments and where to draw the line between fiction and reality.

The “us and them” mentality was founded by their attempts to isolate a significant percent of the fandom away from the recent content. This is not me perpetuating an ideology; it is me pointing out the flaws in what is happening, currently, and giving voice to the people who have been isolated by the writers and feel as if they are the only ones who feel the way they do. 

I have stated several times how things could improve, and frankly, I think I have been rather fair in many of my assessments - especially at the beginning, when most of the content was being released. But the fact of the matter is, it probably won’t change unless the writers can change the views of people like Kate or talk over her views in Homestuck^2 itself. Because the fandom isn’t the issue, actually; it’s solely in the hands of the writing team.

They are the people with the power, here. They decide what goes into the text, how things are presented, what views come through. They are capable of implementing every transphobic, homophobic, abuse apologist, anti-survivor sentiment we’ve seen in the comic so far - and they’re just as capable to... not do those things. They know their content is triggering. They know how much of the fandom can and cannot handle these things, and how much trigger warnings are important to individual people. And they have actively done everything they can to harm the fandom - have admitted to doing so, actually - that they possibly can. 

You do not take chapter-by-chapter trigger warnings away if you do not want to hurt the people reading your content. You do not respond to criticism by calling your fanbase transmisoynists because you don’t want to admit that your favourite is an abuser. You do not try to make everything you do better by claiming that canon is dead when you are writing the official story. 

What you seem to have completely misunderstood is that we are powerless in this relationship. Yes, we can complain; yes, we can plead; yes, we can try to appeal to them; but they are the ones writing the content. We are only the consumers. They can literally do anything they want to these characters, and they will, and have, merely to spite us. They can make the comic as dangerous as possible to mentally ill people as punishment for daring to say that they weren’t handling triggers well. 

I likewise do not know the lives of the people on the HS^2 team. I do, however, know most of their beliefs - because they do a damn good job of being transparent about it on Twitter. Their beliefs are toxic at best, and outright violent at worst. The problem is, of course, that it doesn’t matter if they don’t agree with each other on these views; they’re still coming through loud and clear. 

If the “good” writers are unable to stop the “bad” writers from pumping HS^2 full of untagged triggers, badly-handled sensitive content, incest, abuse apologism, transphobia, and victim denial, then that honestly says a lot about either: 

- How loud the “bad” voices are that the “good” ones are being spoken over

or 

- How quiet the supposed “good” voices are, and how much they might actually agree with the “bad” voices

I would also like you to, quite kindly, go through and read literally any of my posts. I have gone over several times the distinction between fiction and reality -and how, also, the opinions of a person in fiction tend to shine through in their reality as well. Kate’s abuse apologism isn’t just towards Vriska. She genuinely believes that. The same way as her transphobia isn’t just a fictional thing; she talks over transmen and masc-aligned enbies all the fucking time, and tells them that they don’t have a voice. Her racism is evident in the trivialisation of the BLM movement - and her outright hatred of Gamzee, who is very clearly meant to be an anti-black stereotype, as well as a representation of psychosis. 

The fact of the matter is, they need to be held accountable. We cannot just say, “oh, actually, us vs them doesn’t work”, because us with them didn’t work, either. They have started this mentality, made it clear that they are not with us, and in fact that they actively want to hurt us. All we want is for them to listen to genuine criticism and accept it, to take into account what people are saying - what transmen, mentally ill people, poc, and abuse survivors are trying to tell them - and handle the topics they’re bringing up with slightly more care.

I’ve said several times in my posts that this would literally fix everything. If all we got was an apology, an “we, as a team, are sorry for the hurt we have caused; we have reinstated a better trigger list on each chapter, we are listening to views more closely and have retconned some events that were transphobic/racist/homophobic, or we will take more care with them in the future, and for those instances that did happen, here is an explanation that isn’t just denial or us saying that we’re the writers and you have to accept what we do”, then... we’d have nothing to be upset about. The fandom would be content, would support HS^2, would be more than happy to praise the writers and break the “us v them” mentality. 

But they haven’t, and they seem to outright refuse to do so. And why the fuck should we be the ones to give? If we don’t hold them accountable, they will never change. They will continue to implement harmful and toxic views into Homestuck^2 without criticism or care. We, as a fandom, should not be the ones to end the “us v them” mentality when we are the ones being actively hurt, when they are the ones with the power, when they began the mentality to begin with. 

Of course, if you don’t find that this ask sits well with you, I’d like to suggest some advice to you the same that the writers like to tell us about Homestuck^2 and its content:

If you don’t like it, you’re free to leave. You are in no way obliged to interact at all. In fact, this could be the perfect place for you to write your own posts! Because, naturally, mine have no actual sentiment behind them and should not be viewed in any capacity by people who don’t agree with me, specifically. 

(I want to point out, of course, that the above paragraph is satire. You can do as you damn well please, and this blog IS meant to be interacted with. But maybe now you can see the irony - and fury - behind HS^2 for fans. Imagine if every time I got an ask even vaguely going against my own views, I just turned around and said, “sorry sweetie, not my problem, go do your own shit”. After a while you’d get fed up, and I’d get a callout for actively ignoring valid criticism. I don’t see why, in this capacity, the HS^2 writers shouldn’t be faced with the same.)

[waitingtoexhale]

Queer Media One Tragic at a Time Has Reprogrammed My Brain

I find myself continually lowering my standards for the type of media I consume. Queer character? Check. Limited tragedy? Check. At least once instance of happiness? Check. Alright, that’s good enough for me. I LOVE THIS *insert media type here* SHOW, MOVIE, SONG! But, along with the good comes the bad and the ugly. Along with the brief instances of happy, complex, characters come the violence, the stereotypes, the woe. At this point, simply having a queer character that doesn’t die is the best I can hope for and that truly stresses me out. On a regular basis.

In Queer Youth Cultures, Karen said it perfectly, “I think there's a lack of homosexual characters who are presented in a positive and uplifting, or not even positive and uplifting but just represented on the screen or in the media in general. I guess it's a desire to have a voice. I know this sounds like pure shit, but it's a desire to have a voice, to feel that l'm being spoken for or even just represented. But that there's a voice up there that's representing, or at least trying to represent my own experience. I want to have a say in what's going on and I'm not willing to just accept the images that are represented in front of me as being the only possibility. I take it maybe beyond its limitations of what's there. I try to expand, try to just open it up to possible choices that exist for me that might not exist for the creators for that particular film or TV show. But I will be heard” (2008, p.175-176).

Shameless acceptance of the toxic gay dynamic:

While sexuality is particular to each individual, the social constructions of heterosexuality and homosexuality are cultural categories humans use to make sense of their sexuality (Queer Analysis, 2010, p.198). Shameless, an American comedy-drama television series based on a British show of the same name, stars Cameron Monaghan as Ian, a closeted teenage boy who realizes he is gay and navigates the complexities of his queerness as a social identity and Noel Fisher as Mickey, a closeted homophobic thug who upon realizing he is gay engages in a sexual relationship with the one other queer person he knows who also happens to be the kid he violently bullied. Ian and Mickey start as a toxic portrayal of settling and acceptability in its truest form. Ian is in a predatory relationship with an adult and still possess a great deal of internalized homophobia when he is essentially propositioned by Mickey and their turbulent relationship begins. Mickey is struggling between his desires as a closeted gay teen and his need to match the criminal ideals expected of his father and family name. They are an explosive pair that seem to cause each other physical pain and mental anguish, yet the fans are wholly supportive. Even when healthy potential partners are introduced, the toxic couple of Ian and Mickey are reunited time and time again because media has established a trope where queer characters are only allowed complicated togetherness. Queer characters are punished for choosing their queerness and therefore not allowed true love and happiness. Despite having this knowledge and nothing in common personally with these characters, I love this couple and I love this pairing, so I am part of the problem. I am a product of this generation of idolizing toxic behaviors between characters because unfortunately those are the only “happy” queer characters I have seen continually produced. I have settled into a pattern of accepting negative stereotypes as simply good enough. I have traded the simple fact that the queer character doesn’t die for the harsh reality of their lives.

Another sad queer lacking Glee:

When queer characters are introduced, there are a set number of personality types and lived experiences they are allowed to have. Take Dave Kurofsky from Glee who serves as the closeted homophobic bully who after being outed in the “On My Way” episode attempts suicide and is comforted by the out-and-proud effeminate Kurt, a previous victim of Kurofsky’s wrath. We get to observe the pointed shift in Kurofsky’s personality from homophobic bully to repentant closeted queer, but the lack of character development unfortunately makes it difficult to feel sorry for him as a character. Instead, as an audience, we are forced to revel in “media representations of queer culture as essentialist, marking out the dichotomies between male and female, heterosexual versus homosexual (Queer Youth Cultures, 2008, p.175). Kurofsky is unable to learn what it means to be a queer man and grow from his internalized homophobia because he is coming his existence and framing his life experiences through that of Kurt; this is apparent when Kurofsky is unable to dance with Kurt at prom because of the perception of gayness. We accept Kurofsky’s story as powerful and real and heartbreaking because it is, but at what point do content creators have an obligation to tell the story a different way, in a positive uplifting light?

Degrassi: The Next Generation of bury your gays tropes:

Degrassi: The Next Generation, a Canadian teen drama television series, made history for tackling the tough social issues affecting teens, but frequently not talked about. They embraced diversity in their casting and range of topics covered while spearheading a progressive movement of introducing characters traditionally absent from popular media. Adam, a trans male character played by a cis female actress is a well-rounded first introduction to many into the lives of trans youth. The audience is familiarized with concepts such as passing and outing as well as the complexities involved in sexuality vs gender. Adam, besides being inaccurately portrayed by a cis woman, which is damaging to the idea that trans folks are the gender they have identified with rather than their gender assigned at birth, provides a much needed avenue of representation for queer youth in popular media. Continuing with our previously identified tropes, as a result of Adam being happy, relatively healthy, and well-liked he has to die. Queer characters are not afforded regular happiness in media they are given a taste then sacrificed as tools of writing via violence, sacrifice, or martyrdom. Adam is not gay bashed or driven to suicide as other queer characters are, but instead tragically killed as a texting while driving PSA. This death is particularly hard felt because Adam was truly shaping out to be a normal high school kid facing the complexities of life and surviving, but the creators, once again, took a queer character as the source for a lesson in some predetermined idea that queer happiness is short lived and tragic regardless of circumstance. There is a need for punishment of their queerness.

Queer punishment, a Supernatural concept:

What do shipping, fandoms, and heteronormative dominant culture have in common? Queerbaiting. Queerbaiting, “a term employed by media fans to criticize homoerotic suggestiveness in contemporary television when this suggestiveness is not actualized in the program narrative” (Brennan, 2016, p.1). A concept typically negatively connoted is a primary tool of heteronormative culture ensuring queer culture remains as a subculture rather than its own, established independent source of media. Audiences, particularly queer individuals, are forced to imagine scenarios and worlds where their identities are represented and dominant. “By creating a fantasy space, queer youth have an environment where they are free to explore many possibilities” (Queer Youth Culture, 2008, p.174). From these creative worlds come the likes of couples like Dean and Castiel (#Destiel) from Supernatural. The creators introduce intimacy and connectedness; the couple is ideal and non-stereotypical or superficial. Unfortunately, our trend of no happy endings for queer media continues because despite the fan observations and urging this couple is never acknowledged or confirmed as such. They instead give several seasons of romantic teasing culminating in a teary subversive confession immediately preceded by death and not just any death, a death where Castiel, an angel character is drug to hell. The sub context is overwhelming in deciding queerness is so offensive that any acknowledgement to the sort should result in punishment akin to biblical reckoning.

Lingua Franca, the road to universal language and communication:

Even as queer media continually evolves becoming evermore accurate and inclusive the conditioning I have been subjected to, as a consumer of queer media, completely reprogram my brain. While watching something as relevant and present as Lingua Franca I am unable to completely enjoy the film as I am waiting for the proverbial other shoe to drop. Lingua Franca is a progressive film about a trans Filipina woman seeking a path to legal immigration in Trump’s America. The film is written, directed, and stars Isabel Sandoval an actual trans woman of color and therefore the portrayal is very real. As a film about a trans woman, the pace is melodic and light while the subject matter is focused on the life of Olivia rather than her transition or identity as a trans woman. While watching the film, I found it beyond refreshing that there were no invasive surgery questions or blatant misgendering by supposed loved ones. That being said, as a first watch through, it was anxiety inducing; the lack of discussion regarding Olivia’s trans identity led me to worry for her safety in a cis-heteropatriarchal world. When Olivia is engaging in her relationship with Alex I see the natural connections, simplicity, sensuality, and beauty, but I also worry about the potential for the violence I have come to expect when viewing true queer happiness. The scene where Olivia is outed by Alex’s friend shifted the entire tone of the film for me as I watched Alex spiral and truly cringed at the thought of watching another film showing an act of physical violence against a trans woman of color. While that thankfully did not happen, the fact that I remained restless throughout the entirety of the film waiting for it alludes to this reprogramming of sorts that has occurred. Creators show queer characters as poor unfortunate souls brought down by their queer identities therefore, I have come to expect and root for in some regards, a victim. There are limited instances when I can truly enjoy a queer film without a sinking feeling in my stomach waiting for the catch, waiting to exhale and simply experience queer joy.

[ttxrtledeerr-olemtala]

Olem Tala

Main Story (Taussma)

Side note: All of these are mostly unfinished, and i change the stories a lot, so chances are they will change at some point. (Also, if you see any flaws, please point them out, thank you!)

The main story is about a schizophrenic wolf (Winter’s Howl). He ‘hallucinates’ about demons from a hell-like realm called Taussma.

Winter is constantly bullied and pretty much has no friends, so instead of imagining them as the demons they are, he imagines them as good people. He ‘imagines’ that Taussma is a place near where he lives, so he goes out to find it, thinking that he’ll be welcomed there. Well, he isn’t. He realizes that they aren’t as good as he thought they were.

The demons slowly gain more and more power, until somehow, they are physical entities (hopefully that makes sense). He runs away from Taussma after he realizes that they’re slowly trying to kill him, but little does he know, they followed him, and they’re gonna kill him, and everyone else pretty much.

Secondary Stories

Finley (Tw: abusive relationship, murder, etc)

Finley is the story of a woman named, well, Finley. She was forced into a relationship with a controlling and abusive 42 year old man named Scavenger.

Scavenger was very abusive towards Finley, but they end up having 4 kids together: Bella, Ezekiel, Clover, and Max. Finley adored the children, and would do anything for them. Scavenger hated the children and would get annoyed at them even talking to him. Eventually, when Max was 9 years old, Scavenger brutally murdered them.

Finley, rightfully devastated, finally realized that she needed to get away from him. She hid the children from Scavenger, and killed him the same way he killed Max, except this time slower, so that he would feel every bit of pain. She took her children, and they escaped off to a place far away called Taussma.

Greedy (Tw: homophobia, child neglect, etc)

Greedy is about a family of 4 people: Quin, Heinrich, Simon, and Pike. Heinrich is the father of Simon and Pike. He is a very kind man who looks for the good in everyone. Simon is really brave, and is a closeted gay. Pike is really adventurous. Quin is the mother of Simon and Pike. She’s very greedy, selfish, and homophobic.

In the family, there are also two pet foxes named Karkeo and Masseren. Karkeo is very sassy, and kind of a smartass. Masseren on the other hand is more calm.

When Quin finds out that Simon is gay, she beats him and tells him to leave. After he leaves, she takes her anger out on the rest of the family, mainly Heinrich, Pike, and Karkeo.

Sick of her bullshit, Karkeo leaves to go find Simon. Months pass, and Quin becomes more and more hostile. Pike decides that he’d rather die alone looking for his brother than die from neglect, so he leaves. Masseren, being protective over the young boy, follows him. Somehow, they manage to find Simon. Simon is now living with his boyfriend, Cecil.

Meanwhile, back at home. Quin becomes more violent. After a heated arguement between her and Heinrich, she beats him, ties him up with rope covered in thorns, burns the house down with him in it, then runs away to Taussma.

Rainbow (Tw: transphobia, violence, etc)

Rainbow is about a German family with three members. Verdrehte is the mom, Leemit is the older sister, and Viktor is the younger brother. Viktor comes out to Leemit as trans (ftm). Leemit is very supportive of him, and helps him with things like binding, training his voice, etc. She helps him work up the courage to come out to Verdrehte, thinking it would go well, but it didn’t.

Verdrehte was furious, calling him numerous slurs. She also started screaming at Leemit for supporting and helping him. She burned Viktor’s arms, chest, legs, neck, and face, and she broke Leemit’s jaw and nose. She told them that if they tell anybody what she did to them, she would kill them.

Viktor and Leemit both agreed that they would try and run away, and get help. They ran away from home, but Verdrehte caught them. Viktor managed to get away, but Leemit wasn’t as lucky. She was caught, and after refusing to tell where Viktor was, she was killed.

No more (I use humor for this one because I’m not really sure how to explain it in a serious way without it sounding cheesy or cringy. Tw: graphic)

No more is the stereotypical good vs evil story. Taussma is really strong now, so they’re gonna try and kill everybody. Some teenagers and 2 foxes decide that they’re stronger so they fight the demons.

One of the teens (Praise) shot the cougar in the head with a bow and arrow. It went through his brain and somehow put him in a rabid state. Bella somehow managed to yank out her own tooth and its somehow sharp enough to rip someone’s stomach open. She also stabs someone else’s eyes with her teeth and makes them go bilnd.

Eventually the goth h0 almost kills the gay demon prince, which leads to the rest of them retreating.

Canary (I’m gonna use humor again bc this is kinda fun lmao. Tw: abuse)

Canary is about these two twins (Remy and Charlie) who decide that it would be a good idea to explore an ‘abandoned’ factory. They go in and quickly find out that it is in fact, not abandoned. Almost immediately they encounter 3 people. Ryann, Ellie, and Oliver.

Remy and Charlie are seperated, and Charlie encounters some of the people that are stuck there. Some of those people are Pogo, an insane but friendly woman who looks like a cymbal monkey, and Ginny, a motherly woman who kinda looks like a burlesque dancer, and Lola, Ryann’s daughter who was supposed to die a long time ago but he keeps bringing her back to life just to abuse her and treat her like shit.

Remy encounters also encounters different creatures. Their names are Babyface, a mute clown, Herstel, a bear that looks like she got drenched in clown/fun house/carnival acid, and Urlen, a strange looking creature that looks like a combination of a bird, a deer, a sheep, and a very thin cat.

Eventually, Ryann tortures Charlie and tries to get him to show emotion, except he’s physically unable to. Ryann injects Charlie with something that makes him show emotions.

Ryann for some reason decides to burn the place down, with everyone in it, then escape, except the workers there are kinda stupid and forgot to contain literally the most dangerous creature there, which is Con. The cougar who was supposed to die, but didn’t somehow. Con attacks, and kills Ryann. Con tries to kill Charlie, but Pogo comes in and kicks Con into the fire and helps Charlie escape, So then they all escape and go home and pretend that nothing ever happened.

[spaceshipkat]

an interesting dynamic i’ve realized i have in my work requires a little explanation: to avoid my characters’ voices sounding too similar, i typically bounce between male- and female-identifying protagonists from WIP to WIP. so my Courier WIP, the one i worked on before Immortals WIP, had a female narrator while Immortals has a male narrator. and bc i like to switch up the kind of story i write and how central romance is in the plot (it’s never overbearing, though i think Immortals WIP is my most romance-centric WIP in a while, given its slow burn Good Omens vibe) the dynamics of the characters therefore change. 

SO, what happens is that my male narrator stories are typically full of soft love; you know the kind, hand-holding and gentle looks and careful first kisses, confessions over cuddles and warm cider. by comparison, and like i mentioned to @bittenwrath the other day in a rb from her, my female narrator stories are typically a little more...brittle, shall we say? what i mean by that, and to use my comment to Eri, it’s more the “kiss after argument” type of romance. ofc it’s not violent the likes of sj///m (i love vanilla, okay?) it’s not the confessions over cuddles but the confessions while they’re back-to-back fighting a losing battle, while one is bleeding out and the other is dragging them through a tunnel while yelling obscenities at them bc how the fuck do you get stabbed in the chest by a monster that doesn’t even go up to your knees and has t-rex arms to boot

i’m not even sure why i’m rambling about this, but it’s something i’ve been thinking a lot about lately bc my narrators are always bisexual (since it’s the sexuality i know best) while my love interests are across the spectrum (but never straight; Riph, for instance, is pansexual, while Silver from my Courier WIP is a lesbian). i want to portray male characters in soft, loving relationships, as positively and happily bisexual, bc i feel like we need more soft men in the world (i also like to challenge the “manly man” appearance = aggressively hetero; Riph and Az are fucking huge, being as they are immortals, and neither of them look like the “typical gay man”. i guess this is me giving the finger to anyone who says that Dean Winchester isn’t a soft bisexual at heart bc he performed performs as this aggressively hetero dudebro that, to anyone with a brain cell, was obviously a facade but was strong enough when paired with his outward appearance to allow homophobes to aggressively overlook it). 

by comparison, i want to give women the freedom to be the unlikable female character. i’ve always written them bc those characters absolutely fascinate me, and though that archetype has more often than not led to rejection from agents and editors and publishers, i continue to write those characters (but, i’ll admit, in a more nuanced way as i’ve become a better writer; i wrote my first unlikable female character in 2014, so i’ve learned a fuckton since then) bc i want to push the fact that having ambition as a woman =/= being villainous. and as i start to plan my next WIP, figuring out the balance of plot vs romance (my books always contain romance, even in Adult fantasy, bc i like romance and romance does not make a fantasy lesser than the ones that don’t include it. this is a hill i will gladly die on), i’m also gearing up to write my first antiheroine who does, in fact, have a romance but whose villain is her own greed and ambition. it’s the classic man vs self kind of plot, which should give me ample room to explore the ambition vs villainous stereotype that needs to die in a fire. 

in conclusion, this is a fucking ramble but it feels good to get it out of my head and hey, here’s a look-see into my writer brain so you can see how i plot a book’s trajectory and a character’s arc and a romance’s growth

[mothsmen]

Gay people aren't hypocritical about representation, you just can’t read:

Ok so after the whole “ the babadook and pennywise are gay and dating” thing (which is super fucking homophobic and here’s a link explaining why), I noticed a lot of people seem to think gay people (or the lgbt community in general) are hypocritical because they want representation, but when people say X character is gay, they get mad. 

There’s two things wrong with this:

1) They act like gay people can’t want better rep and should be happy getting something shitty just because it’s something. Well, how would you like it if you asked for a book for your birthday, and someone gave you a few crumpled pieces of paper stapled together. It’s something right? Its paper, books are paper, what’s the difference? Just be happy you got a book. Oh right, one is terrible and the other is what you were asking for. See the difference? 

2) Specifically referencing the IT argument, WHY on EARTH would gay people want to be “represented” by something that perpetuates violent stereotypes? Gay people want diversity in media because the point is that it will show characters that defy homophobic stereotypes, making those stereotypes less credible and therefor less likely to be used against us in real life. 

IT is a child predator, the physical embodiment of childhood abuse and trauma, says and does sexually, mentally, and physically abusive things to children, and is a literal monster. One of the biggest and most harmful stereotypes for gay men is that people think they are child predators. Saying Pennywise is gay just enforces that disgusting homophobic stereotype. Why the fuck would gay people want that. Thats the opposite of what we want when we say “diversity” because it’s reductive. It’s not hypocritical for people to be mad.

Also, IT kills a gay man after he is assaulted by two men and thrown off a bridge, and it’s implied that IT was the one that caused the two men to assault him. So no, Pennywise/IT is not gay representation, and you can fuck off with that idea. 

Finally I just want to say that it’s not that gay people can’t be villains or be problematic characters. There are bad people that are gay in real life, and so they have a place in fiction. The point I’m trying to make is that it is too early in the game for people to see the difference between "villains can be gay" and "gay people are villains". Monsters can be gay vs gay people are monsters. Gay people are still seen as monsters and villains in real life, and it’s hurting us. 

When you blow that up on a big screen, and our media is filled with characters that are horrible and abusive in a way that is just irredeemable and call them gay, its not representation. It’s perpetuating a stereotype. It’s violent and homophobic. 

[swordlesbianopinions]

yeah, without a doubt nintendo is awful about lgbt characters and gay men are the biggest target

for context if you havent played the game: at one point in the game you have to get into gerudo town, which only accepts women within their walls.

You have to find this character who is a man-in-a-dress joke, who gives link the gerudo vai outfit. After you dress up as a girl you can enter the town.

They have a long history of gaycoding their villains (ghirahim and yuga are the main ones, but theres other villains who are coded to lesser degrees)

and like it doesnt end with villains? For example theres a joke character in hateno village in botw who is heavily coded as a gay man and its meant to be humorous.

And then as you said the whole gerudo quest is , Really Bad like theres the transphobic jokes about both the person you get the gerudo vai outfit from but also the various comments link gets while wearing the outfit.

if you take the outfit off in the town the guard will also say something along the lines ‘you do realise you are a voe right’ lmao lmao fuck off

also, not only that but the gerudo are still steeped in awful arabic stereotypes and i frankly expected that part of the game to be Bad News when i saw the gerudo were back cause i simply dont trust nintendo :/

At the very least they’re not a villainous race anymore so thats. a minor plus, but theyre still sexualised and now all Obsessed With Finding A Husband lmao. yikes.

it would be Real Great if those big game websites that make those criticisms that lead to things like nintendo making twilight princess in response to criticisms about how wind waker looks, and the whole skyward sword vs botw, would criticise these major issues in the series so they’ll be forced to address these too lmao.

botw is so open world because people criticised how enclosed and linear skyward sword was, which is great and all! but there should also have been more criticisms of ghirahim’s violent gay coding!

again for context if you havent played that game, ghirahim is the main antagonist in skyward sword and he is a very flamboyant heavily gay coded character who also plays into the homophobic stereotype that gay men are predatory, amongst other things.

nintendo has gotten barely any backlash for this, they proceeded to do this again in ALBW with yuga and now BoTW is no better.

anyway im not really going anywhere with this other than i love zelda and all but god is it flawed and i wish it wasn’t so shitty in this area. i talk about this a lot on my personal & twitter tbh :/

[sanaseva-archive]

whitsskamfyfaen replied to your post “why didn’t skam have even and isak sing heal the world instead like ...”

jesus christ not everything is about being write ...

idontknowwhatnametohavehehe replied to your post “why didn’t skam have even and isak sing heal the world instead like ...”

Dude chill

The lyrics are what its aboutp

Not the fact that hes white

not really ? sure what any of you are trying to say here tbh ?

i would like for not everything to be about white folks, but ??? that’s not a society that exists today? even now, YOU’RE making it about white ppl?

and if we’re going about the lyrics, here’s literally a part that was in the freaking clip:

Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion, too Imagine all the people Living life in peace...

a clip, which, as i stated in my post you’ve decided to butt in on, ended with muslim men of colour and (coded) non-religious men of colour physically fighting - perpetuating to the idea that men of colour are aggressive, violent and th*gs, a scene which also included a chokehold on the only black guy. and we’re not supposed to be worried about the message this clip has given to people?

this entire clip is a fucking mess, t b h ? just look at what happened afterwards - people jumping onto the train that the muslims are homophobic, of course, because there’s no other way, despite the fact that they wrote in two characters [(for the audience) intentionally] misreading the entire situation and assuming that homophobia must have been the reason why the fight took place.

the entire clip then ended with a man of colour, who had been built around as sana’s love interest, kissing a white girl, as if the white vs non-white girl isn’t an old trope as it is???

not to mention that the lyrics in this song literally shits on all religions for that one single line, because somehow, in the world of lennon, religion is the cause of evil, and that’s the song they choose for a clip in a season about a muslimah?

are you both seriously not seeing how fucked up this is? despite it being “redeemed” later on, or it being “intentional and to be fixed” we’re sitting here in this mess, fighting off islamophobic and racist assholes every day because the series is thus far feeding into toxic and harmful stereotypes.

which is.... not a good thing to do, regardless of the whatever good intention you have.

[hipandcriticalblog]

Man vs. Masculinity pt.1

May 4, 2017

With this series of writings, I hope to discover more about masculinity and how it affects the common man, more specifically its emphasis on the black man in America.

I plan to gather information from personal experiences, interviews with other men, and other literary works about masculinity to help answer some key questions. Part one will consist primarily of interviews from men considered to be millennials. Part two will focus on men 30 and up, while part three will look at masculinity from the perspective of women. My goal - purely motivated by curiosity, is to satisfy the urge to understand more about myself as well as human nature regarding men.

    What is Masculinity and who is affected by it?

   The dictionary vaguely describes the masculinity as: the possession of qualities traditionally associated with men. With this definition, it is not directly implied that masculinity only applies to men nor does it follow a set of specific characteristics. Instead, it suggests that manliness rests completely on the culture of the people. If this is the case masculinity, or manliness, is not a monolith - meaning that it can vary greatly between different groups of men (or women).

    So how does it apply to the black man of America? In my youth, I thought of a man of being a strong, hairy, muscular figure (much like American superheroes), with the capability to achieve almost anything. Men were who you turned to when you needed something done. They were the ultimate problem solvers, able to lift and move the things that I was too weak to. They were the facilitators of obtaining wealth, by giving me dollars to chase down ice cream trucks, and the ones to bring down a harsh punishment when I committed a household crime.

    In parts of my interview with Charles Davis, a 20-year-old cook and artist, he revealed that like my own childhood depiction, he had very similar ideas of what a man was.

What do you think it means to be a man?

A man is a provider, protector, and a warrior. He takes care of his own by any means necessary.

What was your image of a definitive man as a child versus now?

Someone who loved his family and someone who is kind. Still is now, just now I have more respect, it’s hard out here.

 If your son were to ask you right now how to be a man, what would you tell him?

Just be about your word. All a man has is his word, and his word is bond.

               Masculinity in Practice

   Having these views and images of what a man is, how many of us actually live up to these depictions? Eric Garland, a business advisor, says all American men grow up with figures that reinforce these types of attributes of a man. In his article, The Crisis of American Masculinity Garland writes,

“ Every male in America grows up with these older images of masculinity - soldier, cowboy, farmer, family man- and fewer men than ever are able to connect their real lives to those archetypes.” In my interview with Charles Davis, he agrees with this idea, explaining he doesn't fully feel connected to his own depiction of a man. When asked how does he describe his own masculinity, he responds by saying its “a subtle form of masculinity.” But what brings about this disconnect? Are we setting our expectations so high that they are just not achievable? Or has something changed that renders this form of masculinity irrelevant?

    When looking back on the definition of the word masculinity, it says that it depends on the traits traditionally associated with men. If these traditions have changed, where does that leave our view on men? In my experiences from growing up from childhood through my teen years, violence and aggressiveness became the main attribute of masculinity. Having to prove that you are stronger than everyone else, through aggression and imposing your will upon others through force became the new way of the man. This new-found aggression however, has bred a negative form of masculinity, hypermasculinity. Hypermasculinity is a psychological term for the exaggeration of male stereotypical behavior, such as an emphasis on physical strength, aggression, and sexuality. This form of masculinity becomes extremely dangerous to everyone who lives outside of this archetype, and even to some that do.

    Some of the most targeted by hypermasculinity are, women, homosexual men, and young men. I think the reason that these people are targeted, is because they pose the biggest threat to masculinity. When asked what he thinks is the biggest threat to masculinity Davis responds, “To be honest with you as shallow as it is, a strong independent woman. I feel, if she's so independent, all I am is just a mate, not a provider, because she can do that on her own. Just feels like that would make me useless”. In regard to same sex love, it’s viewed as perverse and unmanly to those living by the code of hypermasculinity. It undermines what they feel a man should be. But if someone is gay, can they not truly still be a man and hold some of the same views of that of a heterosexual man? The answer to this question isn't something as easily found. As I go back to my interview with Davis, we briefly touch upon the topic.

 Do you think sexual orientation affects manhood?

   Yes.

How so?

Honestly, I don't know. Some gay men are more aggressive, some straight men like myself are more passive, there's no clear answer if that makes sense.

But I wonder what are the views of the subject from someone who is homosexual. With the urge to discover more I interviewed Brian Whitsett, a 23-year-old man who works in retail. In the interview with Mr. Whitsett, I ask similar questions that I did for Davis, but also questioned what shaped his view on masculinity.

 What do you think it means to be a man?

   To be a man? To be strong! Never cry, don't show emotion, take care of everyone else no matter what! I don't personally believe this but this is what we are taught! I believe that being a man is just being the best “you” you can be.

How would you describe your masculinity?

   My masculinity is different from the way the world will describe masculinity. My masculinity is open; it has emotions, it's not closed up like we are taught growing up as black men.

What experiences do you think helped shape your view on masculinity?

   Hmmmmm. A lot. The school and community I went to and grew up in. Growing up in the church and the different men in my life.

What role does a woman play in defining your manhood, if they do at all?

A lot. They teach you that manhood is not a steel door with no emotions. It opens and talks and feels. It’s like watching Angel Beats, and it loves hard.

Do you think sexual orientation affects manhood?

   Yes, it does.

How so?

   Sometimes when you decide to be with someone of the same sex, some guys are more feminine then other guys, and they take on a feminine personality and they forget that they are still a man.

What do you feel threatens your masculinity?

   My sexuality.

   Looking back at the interview, Brian reinforces the ideals previously stated, while also revealing another important factor that plays a part in hypermasculinity. Having no displays of emotion. I can vividly remember being told by older male family members that boys don’t cry, whine, or even smile in pictures. This lack of emotional display coupled with the misguided need to express violence and aggression, creates a need to associate oneself with dangerous lifestyles. However, the thing I found most surprising about this interview was, that he felt his own sexuality was his greatest threat to his masculinity. His answer helps solidify the idea that homosexuality is indeed an enemy to hypermasculinity. Yet, I find this conclusion deeply unsettling. To have to constantly question your manhood, due to your sexual preference, is a struggle I will never be able to fully understand. After reviewing the interview, I had nothing but sympathy for anyone who is going through the same internal struggle.

                  Reflections

  Looking back at my younger years, previous experiences with other men, and the two mentioned interviews, I’ve started to get a new understanding of what masculinity means to me. By looking at what threatens masculinity, it shows me that it is homophobic and misogynistic in nature. Not only does it seek to victimize homosexual men and women, but it also leaves those following its code emotionally disconnected from themselves. It strips away one’s ability to express love, sadness, loneliness, and compassion and replaces it with aggression and violence. This notion that a man must live up to these dangerous ideas, wreaks havoc on the black community.

   It glorifies violence as being manly, and helps push young men into the vicious lifestyle of drug and gang culture. It also promotes the stereotype that all black men are violent thugs. It traps a man’s mind into holding these views as gospel. Although I do believe there is way disengage from this harmful ideology, it requires one to interact with those whom have already been labeled a threat to the person seeking to escape. Some men maybe won’t even think there is another way to live after years of indoctrination into this set of beliefs.

    Even after coming to these assessments of masculinity and its hyper form, I wanted to still get another perspective from someone else. This lead me to interview Greg. A new father of a young son, and a man who works in the home aide profession. Within our interview, he shows to have a negative outlook on masculinity.

 How would you describe your masculinity?

   Honestly in and of itself it's fragile. Never self-defining, it always relies on the set standard - even when I know that it's toxic.

Is masculinity something you’re born with, is it something that’s earned, or is it taught?

   I think at the end of the day it's something that is taught. I had no concept of it growing up and that was fine, until others told me that I was doing it wrong.

What experiences do you think helped shape your view on masculinity?

   It has all but ruined sexuality and intimacy. The unbelievable standards and inability to access emotions for years has made it difficult to really invest myself in meaningful relationships especially platonic ones. Especially things such as being told that men do not cry and that I've got to be tough no matter what. There are times when people need a cathartic release and masculinity cuts that off. Then I recognize that it's also afforded me many opportunities that non-men don't get. So, the privilege is something that comes with its own set of guilt.

What was your image of a definitive man as a kid versus now?

   As a child, I viewed a man as a big tough person who protected those near to him and always did the right thing. Now I know that a man is nothing but a person who identifies as such. The traits of being strong and passionate and everything else have manifested themselves in folks of all genders and associating them with myself seems more egotistical than anything.

What role does a woman play in defining your manhood, if they do at all?

   Initially they played the entire role because manhood was nothing if not in proximity to the type of women that engaged with me. Still I hold on to the toxicity of it so especially women I know play a part in making sure that I stay responsible with my privilege and making sure not to use it to be abusive in any way, which is harder than it sounds. I have a duty to do my best for women because men like me have taken advantage of them for too long.

Did having a child change your view on manhood?

   Absolutely, I now aspire first off not to pigeon hole my child into a lifestyle based on what's in their diaper. And should my child identify as a man I want to teach them not only the responsibility that comes with privilege but also how to reject those toxic roles to lead a more fulfilling life.

If your son were to ask you right now how to be a man, what would you tell him?

   Simply to feel as such. I'd tell Amal that being a good person is so much more important than being a man.

    In this interview with Greg he seems completely aware of the negative circumstances that are associated with masculinity. He sees the affect that masculinity has on others, as well as himself. Other than him pointing out the flaws and ugliness of masculinity, he speaks about the privilege of being a man. Even though he knows he is plagued with the burden of masculinity, he still knows that he has a privilege above other people by just being born a male. The thing that stood out to me the most in this interview, was what he would tell his son. Not to be an alpha male, or unemotional, strong, but to just be a good person.

 In summary, I have uncovered an old view of masculinity and witnessed its transformation into perverse set of ideals. In the next series of writings, I want to dig further into this ideology, by interviewing an older group of men.

                                                  J. Covington (Jamm)

[treysenglishclass-blog]

Opinion Series

Religious Conservative Parents:

In today’s world, you may have started to notice more and more LGBTQ+ characters in your TV shows, movies, books, etc. As normalization of these types of characters is integrated into various media, you may start to feel uneasy about these characters and why they’re in your story. My intent is to help you understand why LGBTQ+ representation is important and why an understanding of this community is important when raising your children.

I understand that change is scary.  According to research, older generations are more reluctant to change because they were raised in religious and conservative backgrounds, where change is not deemed favorable. A study that was conducted in 2015 found that throughout America, the more religious and conservative a person is, the more likely they are to oppose the LGBTQ+ community. (cite)  This is because when America was first founded, religion was at an all-time high. The laws and societal standards set by our founding fathers were based on religious bias, and created a status quo; a status quo that encouraged the discrimination of LGBTQ+ people because of what their religions taught. Because of religion being highly ingrained in America’s culture, conservatives often share the same ideologies as religious people. These ideologies are resistant to change and oppose equality in order to maintain the status quo. People who were raised in these conditions understandably get scared and angry when the status quo begins to change. They’re not used to seeing LGBTQ+ people, and everything they knew when growing up is being flipped upside down. 

Over the years, the status quo has been changing as people come to understand that LGBTQ+ people are not an issue. The American Psychological Administration created a pamphlet to help people understand the LGBTQ+ community better. The pamphlet teaches that people start to become aware of their sexuality during middle childhood and early adolescence, and while there is no scientific consensus as to why people have a certain sexual orientation, people overwhelmingly feel no sense of choice in their identity. (cite) Homosexuality is not a mental disorder either. “Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience”. During adolescence, people tend to be the most exploratory with their sexual feelings. When these young people come to their conclusion, it’s important to be supportive no matter what. Support leads to happy, satisfying, and healthy lives.

The idea of support is also backed by a researcher and social worker, Caitlyn Ryan. Ryan has worked with families and LGBTQ+ people for over 40 years. In her work, she has found that there is a lack of communication between families and their LGBTQ+ youth. Caregivers have admitted to not knowing how to treat their LGBTQ+ children; they’re unsure of the LGBTQ+ community and grow scared and angry when they see the paths their children are going down. Many times caregivers feel there is pressure to choose between their religion and their LGBTQ+ child. These findings led Caitlyn to create the Family Acceptance Project; an organization that aims to teach caregivers about their LGBTQ+ youth, and help these caregivers understand how important their support to their LGBTQ+ youth is. When an LGBTQ+ child is rejected, that child is “more than eight times as likely to have attempted suicide, nearly six times as likely to report high levels of depression, more than three times as likely to use illegal drugs, and more than three times as likely to be at high risk for HIV and 2 sexually transmitted diseases.” (cite) Caitlyn has helped numerous families with tips on how to accept your LGBTQ+ children. Her method is just to love and support them. You don’t need to choose between your child or religion. 

Through my research, I have found that a lot of homophobia comes from just a lack of understanding of the community. Because of religion creating the status quo, there has been a lot of misinformation spread about LGBTQ+ people. These people are not sinful. They are normal people who were born with a different sexual preference. Because children start becoming aware of the sexual orientation at such a young age, we need to start showing them support at that age. If you demonstrate homophobic actions or use homophobic words in front of your children, think about how that may affect them. If they’re LGBTQ+ you may send a message that your child is wrong. This is seen as rejection and puts your child at risk of struggling with many mental illnesses, stresses, and lead them to indulge in high-risk activities. If they’re not LGBTQ+, your actions and words may send the message that it’s okay to discriminate against these people. This inadvertently can lead to bullying of other children. You don’t need to choose between your religion, but I hope you gain a better understanding of LGBTQ+ people and learn that they didn’t choose to be the way they are. Why would someone choose to be discriminated against? Also, please understand the importance you play in your child’s life. You never know if your child is going to be LGBTQ+, so make sure to watch your actions and words around your children. 

Media executives:

Over the years, there have been more and more representations of LGBTQ+ people in media. While this is incredible, and I thank you for letting these representations pass censors, there is still some stigma around the LGBTQ+ community. I feel you should know just how important this representation is, especially for LGBTQ+ youth. 

In 2014, a study was done through twitter that asked LGBTQ+ people 14-21 about their social connectedness, truancy due to feeling unsafe, school-based and cyberbullying victimization, sadness, suicide ideation and attempt relating to their sexual orientation and gender identity. The study concluded that these people are more than twice as likely to have suicidal ideologies and attempts. Some of the people surveys reported feeling safe at home and school, but there was still a gap outside of those places. Because of the stigma of LGBTQ+, it is harder for people of this community to reach out for help, and instead internalize their feelings. For the people that don’t feel safe at home, school, or anywhere in between, there should be a place for them to escape and feel accepted. This journal argues that integrated learning, without excluded anyone, on LGBTQ+ people and issues is most beneficial for decreasing LGBTQ+ bullying and suicide ideology. The Journal also argues that with youth suicide in LGBTQ+ people increasing, adults should be calling for action. Since these adults have the power to teach their children, they need to be teaching their children that these people aren’t an issue. The study shows that exposure to LGBTQ+ people helped decrease LGBTQ+ youth suicide rates. 

So what’s one of the best ways to show support for this community? TV and movies!  By seeing a positive representation of themselves in TV and movies, they can escape into a different world where they feel accepted. These people can start to gain a better understanding of themselves and see themselves in a happy future. By having positive LGBTQ+ representations in family-friendly content, you not only tell LGBTQ+ people that they’re important and cared for, you teach their straight peers that these people are normal, and they deserve love and support. Children are extremely perceptible to what they see on a screen. You see children playing pretend and acting out their favorite movies and shows all the time. In 2005, there was a study done that recorded how children responded after 6 months of watching prosocial content vs watching violent content. The results found that children who watched prosocial content behave more prosocially than those who watched violent content. With this finding in mind, think about how that can relate to LGBTQ+ content! By showing LGBTQ+ people being treated as equal and loved, you can teach all children that LGBTQ+ people are equal and loved! This would be doing what the previous study suggested. Decreasing suicide rates in teens form the LGBTQ+ community, by teaching everyone through integrated learning!

If you’re scared of how LGBTQ+ people will be interpreted by audiences, take a look at an example from Rebecca Sugar. Rebecca showcased the first lesbian wedding in her show, Steven Universe, and crowds went wild for it. Her show centers around healthy relationships and queer identities, and it’s one of the most viewed shows on Cartoon Network of this decade.  After years of heteronormative content, LGBTQ+ adults thanked Rebecca for her fight for inclusion in the show. Rebecca argues that by deeming LGBTQ+ content as not child appropriate, you are teaching children that there is something wrong with them at a young age. By including LGBTQ+ content in children’s shows, children don’t have to learn they’re wrong just to unlearn that as an adult. 

Ultimately, you guys are the ones with the final say of what goes into the creator’s content. In years past, there have been fights with censors to get LGBTQ+ content approved. By understanding that children are perceptible to what they see on screen, and the positive effects showing this content would have, you guys have the ability to mold youth’s minds and save lives. 

 LGBTQ+ young adults:

While LGBTQ+ has been becoming more normalized over the years, thanks to the media portrayal of these people creating more exposure, there is still a lot to do. A researcher in Denmark did a survey with a bunch of youth groups asking them about heteronormativity on TV. A lot of them have an understanding that being LGBTQ+ is only about sex when we know that its just part of who we are. The researcher also learned that a lot of these groups didn’t have Anti-LGBTQ+ Bullying endorsements, leaving the children to learn that being gay isn’t natural and should be seen as a joke.  Obviously, this is wrong. 

Looking at how the media portrayal of our community has positively changed over the years, you can see a lot of change was made during the Stonewall riots. These riots helped start paving the road to equality and awareness of our community. In the years that followed, more and more networks pushed for LGBTQ+ content to be presented in TV shows. Some of the most notable in family-friendly content include Korra being Bisexual in Legend of Korra, Steven Universe’s statements on gender and same-sex couples, Princess Bubblegum and Marceline’s relationship in Adventure Time, etc. All of this began as a push from the public to raise awareness of our community. 

It is up to us older LGBTQ+ people to raise awareness on the matter. As children, we don’t make much of a difference in the world of media. Adults think that they know better, and are the ones that are listened to. Since children don’t have this voice to get things changed in how LGBTQ+ is presented, it’s up to the older generations to stand up for them. We need to fight for LGBTQ+ representation because it’s important for kids to understand at a young age that they matter and that being LGBTQ+ is completely normal. While we push for this inclusion, it’s important to remember to respect the people with power. I know they haven’t respected us, but if we fight fire with fire, it just creates a bigger fire. I know it’s hard to confront this because a lot of people are hateful, so it’s better to just ignore it? We have to be strategic about it. I’m not saying we have to excuse their actions, especially with how many people are hurt from straight people in power, but we do need to work with them to make the progress we want to see. 

As adults, it falls on us to push for inclusion of the LGBTQ+ community in family-friendly media, but we must be strategic about our approach. If we just yell and complain about the lack of representation, it can both paint a negative picture of the LGBTQ+ community, and also send us further back. No one likes to be yelled at. If we come from an angle of understanding and love and take the time to fully explain why this is important in our lives, chances are people are more likely to listen to us. We’ve seen people push for this acceptance in the past, and it has made a difference in the long run. We’ve seen progress in our representation in TV and movies which helps normalize us and decrease bullying. I’m not asking you to forgive people who’ve hurt us, I’m asking you to be the bigger person. Yes, we’ve suffered for years, but we’re on the rise. While there is still this imbalance, and while we’re young, we need to show the older generations that LGBTQ+ is not an issue. We need them to listen to us, and people will listen when it comes from a place of love and understanding.

[flauntpage]

The Velveteen Dream is WWE's Chance to Move Beyond Gay Panic

Patrick Clarke Jr. is only 22 but he has come a long way since 2015, when he finished 9th in the WWE reality series Tough Enough. These days you probably know him better as the Velveteen Dream, sexually ambiguous, gender-fluid ascendant NXT superstar. On Saturday night, he participated in one of the marquee matchups at NXT Takeover: War Games, an extremely entertaining affair that ended in a close loss to the unbeaten Aleister Black and served as the culmination to what has been one of the most interesting feuds on NXT television for weeks.

For as athletically gifted as Velveteen Dream is, it’s his innate, unteachable ability to truly inhabit a character that puts him lengths ahead of where most wrestlers are at the same age and experience level.

There was certainly no guarantee that Clarke was going to be able to make this kind of character work, but he has completely thrown himself into the role, and wrestling fans—not stereotypically known as a particularly progressive or tolerant audience—have responded in kind. The course of his career going forward will say a lot about how WWE, which has a long history of reducing these types of characters to lazy and offensive stereotypes, has evolved—or hasn’t.

To really understand the type of character The Velveteen Dream is, you have to take a look back at professional wrestling history. As long as it has existed, it’s been a medium that plays on its audiences most basic fears and desires. Up until the 1940’s it was mostly an endless cycle of the same generic story—clean-cut hometown hero vs. evil foreign or ethnic stereotype—but it didn’t really begin to resemble what we recognize as pro wrestling until generic Nebraska boy George Raymond Wagner grew his hair out, bleached it platinum blonde, donned an extravagant cape and became Gorgeous George. Coinciding perfectly with the rise of television, he quickly became one of the most famous and highly paid athletes/performers in the country, single handedly dragging both the wrestling industry and American culture itself into a bold, modern direction. He did this not by appealing to a sense of nationalism, but by challenging and mutating what were then very rigid gender norms, and causing the massive audiences he would draw both on television and in person to simultaneously fear and revere him.

Since then, this eagerness to challenge traditional views of gender has become one of pro wrestling’s most recognizable tropes, from Gorgeous George to the Exoticos of lucha libre to Adrian Street. In a way, it’s one of the most progressive things about the sport—there have been gender non-conforming or queer-adjacent characters in pro wrestling for a lot longer than most other mainstream storytelling mediums—but at the same time it’s reactionary; a way to play on the basic prejudices of its audiences in order to sell tickets to a violent spectacle. Although wrestlers like Ric Flair, Rick Rude, and Shawn Michaels have incorporated various elements of this particular trope into their personas to tremendous success, it was always in service of their portrayal as heterosexual lothario figures. Any time in the modern WWF/E era that a character has attempted to really lean into the inherent homoeroticism of the business, it’s almost always ended up as a negative, reactive exercise in shock value and, in wrestling terms, cheap heat. A tool that a villain uses to gain the upper hand by turning his good guy opponent’s traditional masculinity against him.

From “Adorable” Adrian Adonis, who began his career as a generic bruiser and was re-branded in the early 80’s as a walking collection of every negative homosexual stereotype imaginable, to late 90’s tag team Billy & Chuck, who started as a comedy act in the vein of SNL’s ambiguously gay duo but eventually led to a now-infamous “wedding” segment that was denounced by GLAAD, WWE has repeatedly botched any efforts at portraying these kinds of characters with anything resembling subtlety or nuance. When Darren Young came out and was subsequently supported publically by the company, many believed it was a sign that WWE had turned a corner in this regard and were serious about presiding over a more inclusive modern era, but it’s hard to square that with the reality that Young was unceremoniously released a few weeks ago after a few minor pushes never went anywhere. Goldust was the closest WWE came to a genuinely subversive, androgynous character, and his appearance in the still squeaky clean era of mid-90’s wrestling essentially kickstarted a more adult-oriented focus that would lead to the biggest boom period in the company’s history; but this may have had more to do with Dustin Runnels’ skill as a performer, as Goldust’s initial storylines with Razor Ramon and Roddy Piper veered into ugly homophobia and the character’s ambiguous elements were eventually toned down.

“I think the evidence is pretty clear that Vince McMahon and the WWE treated queerness as a device for generating heel heat and had zero interest in channeling gender-fluidity into a positive "face" trait,” said Josh Howard, sports historian, wrestling fan, and co-author of A Secret Fascination, a study of gender non-conformity and masculinity in pro wrestling.

His co-author, writer and queer theorist Elizabeth Catte, was inclined to agree.

“I think many of the wrestlers who did gender non-conforming gimmicks were reactive, in the sense that they were reacting to exaggerated stereotypes of masculinity that are native to wrestling, but also to our culture itself (a bit like camp),” she told VICE Sports.

Yet despite the company’s negative track record, The Velveteen Dream feels like an opportunity to do something that rises above the outdated and inherently-conservative form of storytelling they’ve always relied on and present a gender-fluid character that actually feels progressive and subversive. The feud with Aleister Black has served as a tremendous opportunity to show that the character works under a bigger spotlight, and at the same time has really challenged Black, himself one of the company’s top prospects, to transcend the limitations inherent to his own persona—a stoic Satanist who kicks people in the face—and prove he is capable of backing up his significant in-ring ability with equally compelling character work.

NXT audiences have indicated that they’re happy to be along for the ride. During their match at War Games, Dream—ostensibly still a heel—was just as popular with the crowd as his opponent. And when Black pointedly said his name in a brief post-match promo and later glanced back at Dream while making his way up the ramp, finally giving him the precious acknowledgment he had been demanding, fans cheered hysterically.

In 2017 and beyond, wrestling audiences are ready for boundary-pushing characters and storylines that aren’t simply vehicles for gay panic and subsequent homophobic rage. The question now is whether or not WWE is ready as well. If they can take advantage of Velveteen Dream’s significant gifts as both an athlete and performer and truly embrace the unapologetically non-conforming elements of his character, it will go a long way to proving that their talk of being a more modern, progressive company that has moved beyond its reactionary conservative roots is more than just empty corporate jargon.

The Velveteen Dream is WWE's Chance to Move Beyond Gay Panic published first on http://ift.tt/2pLTmlv

[amtushinfosolutionspage]

The Velveteen Dream is WWE’s Chance to Move Beyond Gay Panic

Patrick Clarke Jr. is only 22 but he has come a long way since 2015, when he finished 9th in the WWE reality series Tough Enough. These days you probably know him better as the Velveteen Dream, sexually ambiguous, gender-fluid ascendant NXT superstar. On Saturday night, he participated in one of the marquee matchups at NXT Takeover: War Games, an extremely entertaining affair that ended in a close loss to the unbeaten Aleister Black and served as the culmination to what has been one of the most interesting feuds on NXT television for weeks.

For as athletically gifted as Velveteen Dream is, it’s his innate, unteachable ability to truly inhabit a character that puts him lengths ahead of where most wrestlers are at the same age and experience level.

There was certainly no guarantee that Clarke was going to be able to make this kind of character work, but he has completely thrown himself into the role, and wrestling fans—not stereotypically known as a particularly progressive or tolerant audience—have responded in kind. The course of his career going forward will say a lot about how WWE, which has a long history of reducing these types of characters to lazy and offensive stereotypes, has evolved—or hasn’t.

To really understand the type of character The Velveteen Dream is, you have to take a look back at professional wrestling history. As long as it has existed, it’s been a medium that plays on its audiences most basic fears and desires. Up until the 1940’s it was mostly an endless cycle of the same generic story—clean-cut hometown hero vs. evil foreign or ethnic stereotype—but it didn’t really begin to resemble what we recognize as pro wrestling until generic Nebraska boy George Raymond Wagner grew his hair out, bleached it platinum blonde, donned an extravagant cape and became Gorgeous George. Coinciding perfectly with the rise of television, he quickly became one of the most famous and highly paid athletes/performers in the country, single handedly dragging both the wrestling industry and American culture itself into a bold, modern direction. He did this not by appealing to a sense of nationalism, but by challenging and mutating what were then very rigid gender norms, and causing the massive audiences he would draw both on television and in person to simultaneously fear and revere him.

Since then, this eagerness to challenge traditional views of gender has become one of pro wrestling’s most recognizable tropes, from Gorgeous George to the Exoticos of lucha libre to Adrian Street. In a way, it’s one of the most progressive things about the sport—there have been gender non-conforming or queer-adjacent characters in pro wrestling for a lot longer than most other mainstream storytelling mediums—but at the same time it’s reactionary; a way to play on the basic prejudices of its audiences in order to sell tickets to a violent spectacle. Although wrestlers like Ric Flair, Rick Rude, and Shawn Michaels have incorporated various elements of this particular trope into their personas to tremendous success, it was always in service of their portrayal as heterosexual lothario figures. Any time in the modern WWF/E era that a character has attempted to really lean into the inherent homoeroticism of the business, it’s almost always ended up as a negative, reactive exercise in shock value and, in wrestling terms, cheap heat. A tool that a villain uses to gain the upper hand by turning his good guy opponent’s traditional masculinity against him.

From “Adorable” Adrian Adonis, who began his career as a generic bruiser and was re-branded in the early 80’s as a walking collection of every negative homosexual stereotype imaginable, to late 90’s tag team Billy & Chuck, who started as a comedy act in the vein of SNL’s ambiguously gay duo but eventually led to a now-infamous “wedding” segment that was denounced by GLAAD, WWE has repeatedly botched any efforts at portraying these kinds of characters with anything resembling subtlety or nuance. When Darren Young came out and was subsequently supported publically by the company, many believed it was a sign that WWE had turned a corner in this regard and were serious about presiding over a more inclusive modern era, but it’s hard to square that with the reality that Young was unceremoniously released a few weeks ago after a few minor pushes never went anywhere. Goldust was the closest WWE came to a genuinely subversive, androgynous character, and his appearance in the still squeaky clean era of mid-90’s wrestling essentially kickstarted a more adult-oriented focus that would lead to the biggest boom period in the company’s history; but this may have had more to do with Dustin Runnels’ skill as a performer, as Goldust’s initial storylines with Razor Ramon and Roddy Piper veered into ugly homophobia and the character’s ambiguous elements were eventually toned down.

“I think the evidence is pretty clear that Vince McMahon and the WWE treated queerness as a device for generating heel heat and had zero interest in channeling gender-fluidity into a positive “face” trait,” said Josh Howard, sports historian, wrestling fan, and co-author of A Secret Fascination, a study of gender non-conformity and masculinity in pro wrestling.

His co-author, writer and queer theorist Elizabeth Catte, was inclined to agree.

“I think many of the wrestlers who did gender non-conforming gimmicks were reactive, in the sense that they were reacting to exaggerated stereotypes of masculinity that are native to wrestling, but also to our culture itself (a bit like camp),” she told VICE Sports.

Yet despite the company’s negative track record, The Velveteen Dream feels like an opportunity to do something that rises above the outdated and inherently-conservative form of storytelling they’ve always relied on and present a gender-fluid character that actually feels progressive and subversive. The feud with Aleister Black has served as a tremendous opportunity to show that the character works under a bigger spotlight, and at the same time has really challenged Black, himself one of the company’s top prospects, to transcend the limitations inherent to his own persona—a stoic Satanist who kicks people in the face—and prove he is capable of backing up his significant in-ring ability with equally compelling character work.

NXT audiences have indicated that they’re happy to be along for the ride. During their match at War Games, Dream—ostensibly still a heel—was just as popular with the crowd as his opponent. And when Black pointedly said his name in a brief post-match promo and later glanced back at Dream while making his way up the ramp, finally giving him the precious acknowledgment he had been demanding, fans cheered hysterically.

In 2017 and beyond, wrestling audiences are ready for boundary-pushing characters and storylines that aren’t simply vehicles for gay panic and subsequent homophobic rage. The question now is whether or not WWE is ready as well. If they can take advantage of Velveteen Dream’s significant gifts as both an athlete and performer and truly embrace the unapologetically non-conforming elements of his character, it will go a long way to proving that their talk of being a more modern, progressive company that has moved beyond its reactionary conservative roots is more than just empty corporate jargon.

The Velveteen Dream is WWE’s Chance to Move Beyond Gay Panic syndicated from http://ift.tt/2ug2Ns6

[flauntpage]

The Velveteen Dream is WWE's Chance to Move Beyond Gay Panic

Patrick Clarke Jr. is only 22 but he has come a long way since 2015, when he finished 9th in the WWE reality series Tough Enough. These days you probably know him better as the Velveteen Dream, sexually ambiguous, gender-fluid ascendant NXT superstar. On Saturday night, he participated in one of the marquee matchups at NXT Takeover: War Games, an extremely entertaining affair that ended in a close loss to the unbeaten Aleister Black and served as the culmination to what has been one of the most interesting feuds on NXT television for weeks.

For as athletically gifted as Velveteen Dream is, it’s his innate, unteachable ability to truly inhabit a character that puts him lengths ahead of where most wrestlers are at the same age and experience level.

There was certainly no guarantee that Clarke was going to be able to make this kind of character work, but he has completely thrown himself into the role, and wrestling fans—not stereotypically known as a particularly progressive or tolerant audience—have responded in kind. The course of his career going forward will say a lot about how WWE, which has a long history of reducing these types of characters to lazy and offensive stereotypes, has evolved—or hasn’t.

To really understand the type of character The Velveteen Dream is, you have to take a look back at professional wrestling history. As long as it has existed, it’s been a medium that plays on its audiences most basic fears and desires. Up until the 1940’s it was mostly an endless cycle of the same generic story—clean-cut hometown hero vs. evil foreign or ethnic stereotype—but it didn’t really begin to resemble what we recognize as pro wrestling until generic Nebraska boy George Raymond Wagner grew his hair out, bleached it platinum blonde, donned an extravagant cape and became Gorgeous George. Coinciding perfectly with the rise of television, he quickly became one of the most famous and highly paid athletes/performers in the country, single handedly dragging both the wrestling industry and American culture itself into a bold, modern direction. He did this not by appealing to a sense of nationalism, but by challenging and mutating what were then very rigid gender norms, and causing the massive audiences he would draw both on television and in person to simultaneously fear and revere him.

Since then, this eagerness to challenge traditional views of gender has become one of pro wrestling’s most recognizable tropes, from Gorgeous George to the Exoticos of lucha libre to Adrian Street. In a way, it’s one of the most progressive things about the sport—there have been gender non-conforming or queer-adjacent characters in pro wrestling for a lot longer than most other mainstream storytelling mediums—but at the same time it’s reactionary; a way to play on the basic prejudices of its audiences in order to sell tickets to a violent spectacle. Although wrestlers like Ric Flair, Rick Rude, and Shawn Michaels have incorporated various elements of this particular trope into their personas to tremendous success, it was always in service of their portrayal as heterosexual lothario figures. Any time in the modern WWF/E era that a character has attempted to really lean into the inherent homoeroticism of the business, it’s almost always ended up as a negative, reactive exercise in shock value and, in wrestling terms, cheap heat. A tool that a villain uses to gain the upper hand by turning his good guy opponent’s traditional masculinity against him.

From “Adorable” Adrian Adonis, who began his career as a generic bruiser and was re-branded in the early 80’s as a walking collection of every negative homosexual stereotype imaginable, to late 90’s tag team Billy & Chuck, who started as a comedy act in the vein of SNL’s ambiguously gay duo but eventually led to a now-infamous “wedding” segment that was denounced by GLAAD, WWE has repeatedly botched any efforts at portraying these kinds of characters with anything resembling subtlety or nuance. When Darren Young came out and was subsequently supported publically by the company, many believed it was a sign that WWE had turned a corner in this regard and were serious about presiding over a more inclusive modern era, but it’s hard to square that with the reality that Young was unceremoniously released a few weeks ago after a few minor pushes never went anywhere. Goldust was the closest WWE came to a genuinely subversive, androgynous character, and his appearance in the still squeaky clean era of mid-90’s wrestling essentially kickstarted a more adult-oriented focus that would lead to the biggest boom period in the company’s history; but this may have had more to do with Dustin Runnels’ skill as a performer, as Goldust’s initial storylines with Razor Ramon and Roddy Piper veered into ugly homophobia and the character’s ambiguous elements were eventually toned down.

“I think the evidence is pretty clear that Vince McMahon and the WWE treated queerness as a device for generating heel heat and had zero interest in channeling gender-fluidity into a positive "face" trait,” said Josh Howard, sports historian, wrestling fan, and co-author of A Secret Fascination, a study of gender non-conformity and masculinity in pro wrestling.

His co-author, writer and queer theorist Elizabeth Catte, was inclined to agree.

“I think many of the wrestlers who did gender non-conforming gimmicks were reactive, in the sense that they were reacting to exaggerated stereotypes of masculinity that are native to wrestling, but also to our culture itself (a bit like camp),” she told VICE Sports.

Yet despite the company’s negative track record, The Velveteen Dream feels like an opportunity to do something that rises above the outdated and inherently-conservative form of storytelling they’ve always relied on and present a gender-fluid character that actually feels progressive and subversive. The feud with Aleister Black has served as a tremendous opportunity to show that the character works under a bigger spotlight, and at the same time has really challenged Black, himself one of the company’s top prospects, to transcend the limitations inherent to his own persona—a stoic Satanist who kicks people in the face—and prove he is capable of backing up his significant in-ring ability with equally compelling character work.

NXT audiences have indicated that they’re happy to be along for the ride. During their match at War Games, Dream—ostensibly still a heel—was just as popular with the crowd as his opponent. And when Black pointedly said his name in a brief post-match promo and later glanced back at Dream while making his way up the ramp, finally giving him the precious acknowledgment he had been demanding, fans cheered hysterically.

In 2017 and beyond, wrestling audiences are ready for boundary-pushing characters and storylines that aren’t simply vehicles for gay panic and subsequent homophobic rage. The question now is whether or not WWE is ready as well. If they can take advantage of Velveteen Dream’s significant gifts as both an athlete and performer and truly embrace the unapologetically non-conforming elements of his character, it will go a long way to proving that their talk of being a more modern, progressive company that has moved beyond its reactionary conservative roots is more than just empty corporate jargon.

The Velveteen Dream is WWE's Chance to Move Beyond Gay Panic published first on http://ift.tt/2pLTmlv

[flauntpage]

The Velveteen Dream is WWE's Chance to Move Beyond Gay Panic

Patrick Clarke Jr. is only 22 but he has come a long way since 2015, when he finished 9th in the WWE reality series Tough Enough. These days you probably know him better as the Velveteen Dream, sexually ambiguous, gender-fluid ascendant NXT superstar. On Saturday night, he participated in one of the marquee matchups at NXT Takeover: War Games, an extremely entertaining affair that ended in a close loss to the unbeaten Aleister Black and served as the culmination to what has been one of the most interesting feuds on NXT television for weeks.

For as athletically gifted as Velveteen Dream is, it’s his innate, unteachable ability to truly inhabit a character that puts him lengths ahead of where most wrestlers are at the same age and experience level.

There was certainly no guarantee that Clarke was going to be able to make this kind of character work, but he has completely thrown himself into the role, and wrestling fans—not stereotypically known as a particularly progressive or tolerant audience—have responded in kind. The course of his career going forward will say a lot about how WWE, which has a long history of reducing these types of characters to lazy and offensive stereotypes, has evolved—or hasn’t.

To really understand the type of character The Velveteen Dream is, you have to take a look back at professional wrestling history. As long as it has existed, it’s been a medium that plays on its audiences most basic fears and desires. Up until the 1940’s it was mostly an endless cycle of the same generic story—clean-cut hometown hero vs. evil foreign or ethnic stereotype—but it didn’t really begin to resemble what we recognize as pro wrestling until generic Nebraska boy George Raymond Wagner grew his hair out, bleached it platinum blonde, donned an extravagant cape and became Gorgeous George. Coinciding perfectly with the rise of television, he quickly became one of the most famous and highly paid athletes/performers in the country, single handedly dragging both the wrestling industry and American culture itself into a bold, modern direction. He did this not by appealing to a sense of nationalism, but by challenging and mutating what were then very rigid gender norms, and causing the massive audiences he would draw both on television and in person to simultaneously fear and revere him.

Since then, this eagerness to challenge traditional views of gender has become one of pro wrestling’s most recognizable tropes, from Gorgeous George to the Exoticos of lucha libre to Adrian Street. In a way, it’s one of the most progressive things about the sport—there have been gender non-conforming or queer-adjacent characters in pro wrestling for a lot longer than most other mainstream storytelling mediums—but at the same time it’s reactionary; a way to play on the basic prejudices of its audiences in order to sell tickets to a violent spectacle. Although wrestlers like Ric Flair, Rick Rude, and Shawn Michaels have incorporated various elements of this particular trope into their personas to tremendous success, it was always in service of their portrayal as heterosexual lothario figures. Any time in the modern WWF/E era that a character has attempted to really lean into the inherent homoeroticism of the business, it’s almost always ended up as a negative, reactive exercise in shock value and, in wrestling terms, cheap heat. A tool that a villain uses to gain the upper hand by turning his good guy opponent’s traditional masculinity against him.

From “Adorable” Adrian Adonis, who began his career as a generic bruiser and was re-branded in the early 80’s as a walking collection of every negative homosexual stereotype imaginable, to late 90’s tag team Billy & Chuck, who started as a comedy act in the vein of SNL’s ambiguously gay duo but eventually led to a now-infamous “wedding” segment that was denounced by GLAAD, WWE has repeatedly botched any efforts at portraying these kinds of characters with anything resembling subtlety or nuance. When Darren Young came out and was subsequently supported publically by the company, many believed it was a sign that WWE had turned a corner in this regard and were serious about presiding over a more inclusive modern era, but it’s hard to square that with the reality that Young was unceremoniously released a few weeks ago after a few minor pushes never went anywhere. Goldust was the closest WWE came to a genuinely subversive, androgynous character, and his appearance in the still squeaky clean era of mid-90’s wrestling essentially kickstarted a more adult-oriented focus that would lead to the biggest boom period in the company’s history; but this may have had more to do with Dustin Runnels’ skill as a performer, as Goldust’s initial storylines with Razor Ramon and Roddy Piper veered into ugly homophobia and the character’s ambiguous elements were eventually toned down.

“I think the evidence is pretty clear that Vince McMahon and the WWE treated queerness as a device for generating heel heat and had zero interest in channeling gender-fluidity into a positive "face" trait,” said Josh Howard, sports historian, wrestling fan, and co-author of A Secret Fascination, a study of gender non-conformity and masculinity in pro wrestling.

His co-author, writer and queer theorist Elizabeth Catte, was inclined to agree.

“I think many of the wrestlers who did gender non-conforming gimmicks were reactive, in the sense that they were reacting to exaggerated stereotypes of masculinity that are native to wrestling, but also to our culture itself (a bit like camp),” she told VICE Sports.

Yet despite the company’s negative track record, The Velveteen Dream feels like an opportunity to do something that rises above the outdated and inherently-conservative form of storytelling they’ve always relied on and present a gender-fluid character that actually feels progressive and subversive. The feud with Aleister Black has served as a tremendous opportunity to show that the character works under a bigger spotlight, and at the same time has really challenged Black, himself one of the company’s top prospects, to transcend the limitations inherent to his own persona—a stoic Satanist who kicks people in the face—and prove he is capable of backing up his significant in-ring ability with equally compelling character work.

NXT audiences have indicated that they’re happy to be along for the ride. During their match at War Games, Dream—ostensibly still a heel—was just as popular with the crowd as his opponent. And when Black pointedly said his name in a brief post-match promo and later glanced back at Dream while making his way up the ramp, finally giving him the precious acknowledgment he had been demanding, fans cheered hysterically.

In 2017 and beyond, wrestling audiences are ready for boundary-pushing characters and storylines that aren’t simply vehicles for gay panic and subsequent homophobic rage. The question now is whether or not WWE is ready as well. If they can take advantage of Velveteen Dream’s significant gifts as both an athlete and performer and truly embrace the unapologetically non-conforming elements of his character, it will go a long way to proving that their talk of being a more modern, progressive company that has moved beyond its reactionary conservative roots is more than just empty corporate jargon.

The Velveteen Dream is WWE's Chance to Move Beyond Gay Panic published first on http://ift.tt/2pLTmlv