#now obviously there would ideally be trans representation as well but I simply do not trust them to cast those roles appropriately : | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

rudjedet · 5 years

Note

According to Wikipedia, the Egyptian language had a word for a third gender or sex, often translated as "eunuch" but perhaps referring more often to nonbinary or intersex people. Do you know more about gender variance in pharaonic Egypt?

Full disclosure before I answer this: gender studies with regards to ancient Egypt are not my specialty, and I’m unlikely to do all the nuances proper justice.

First, about the word sxt.y (plural: sxt.yw), which is the word you’re referring to that allegedly refers to a third gender or sex but which is translated as “eunuch”. It is not conclusive, per the knowledge we have now, that this is a separate gender/sex category. It’s mostly translated as “eunuch” because it comes close to a word for castrate, sxt. But that translation in itself is debatable.

@thatlittleegyptologist said the following about the word sx.ty in this ask:

Sekhti is the word that has a possible translation of ‘eunuch’ but it’s absolutely far from certain. We only say ‘eunuch(?)’ because it has a similar writing to ‘sxt’ ‘castrated’, of which there is only one attestation meaning it’s a hapax legomenon (only existence of the word). There are several other verbs written as sxt including: to run, to turn back, to destroy, to grasp, to weave, and a bird trap.

There are only 4 attestations of the word in the Egyptian corpus. Three refer to it as ‘sage’ or ‘sorcerer’ and one refers to it as ‘castration(?)’ meaning it has an uncertain translation. The text that does this is the hapax legomenon one I mentioned previously.

It has no depictions in art, and doesn’t exist as a term until the Ptolemaic and Roman periods, as Eunuchs themselves were not a thing in Ancient Egypt until this period. Therefore we cannot say that this is a separate ‘gender’ in Ancient Egypt, because before the Ptolemies this concept of sxti doesn’t exist. The Ancient Egyptians themselves did not have them so we cannot place them within their gender roles.

However, if you want to read more about eunuchs in Ptolemaic and Roman times I would suggest looking at Greek and Roman Eunuchs and their function in society, as they will tell you far more about how they were seen in gender terms than looking at anything from Ancient Egypt.

As far as gender variance goes, this is tricky because the ancient Egyptian gender division is different from ours, and also subject to change throughout the millennia that span Egyptian dynastic history. Not only that, it’s nigh impossible to transpose Western modern gender terms (such as nonbinary) onto an ancient non-Western culture because there is a disconnect between how they saw the world and the way we do.

But it wasn’t as simple as “Egyptians only knew the male and female sex/gender” either. At least in the realm of the divine, something akin to intersexuality may’ve been known. Sometimes Nut, a goddess, is portrayed with a phallus to indicate power; or Neith is said to be part man, part woman. But at the moment we do not have conclusive evidence (i.e. textual or pictorial) to show that there were mortal people who considered themselves outside the known Egyptian gender binary.

This might be because the Egyptian societal ideals were very strict (and we do know that not everyone held as rigidly to the ideals of society and religion), and they were therefore never mentioned in text or on reliefs because it was simply not done. But it might also be because there weren’t any people who (had the tools to) consider themselves outside of that gender binary. Without unequivocal evidence, it will always be some degree of inconclusive.

I will probably regret bringing up Hatshepsut again, but I’d be remiss if I didn’t use her example to explain why exactly it is so difficult to transpose our modern definition of what constitutes evidence of “this individual is transgender/nonbinary” onto the Egyptian record.In our modern society, the use of pronouns is a fair indication of whether someone is cis or trans. In ancient Egypt, since the Egyptian languages itself are gendered and thus sometimes, the use of masculine or feminine markers specifically was a matter of grammar, not so much.

The people who know only (the bare essentials) about Hatshepsut will say that she was transgender, or at least nonbinary, because she used “male pronouns” to refer to herself. However, she did also use female pronouns and markers, and almost all other female kings that we know about did the exact same thing. Sobekneferu and Taweret also referred to themselves with a mix of male and female markers and epithets. And because we know that certain Egyptian words (such as “king”) only take male markers no matter the sex of the person using it, it’s far more likely that we’re dealing with a grammar issue rather than three genderqueer queens.

However, that doesn’t mean none of the three could have been genderqueer, we just don’t have the tools to definitively say they were. The best indication of gender we have, in modern and ancient times alike, is the individual’s own words. In case of Hatshepsut, Sobekneferu, and Taweret, we know that they referred to themselves with feminine markers wherever and whenever they could. That’s something you absolutely can’t ignore when you try to argue the gender-identification of any of these women (and I use “women” here as the term to refer to the ancient Egyptian gender identity. I have never used nor will I ever use the term “cis” to describe any of them. They were women. Not cisgendered women, since cis, too, is a modern gender identity and thus equally difficult to use when describing an Egyptian individual).

I wouldn’t argue that the Egyptians didn’t have gender variance beyond the man/woman binary that we see in e.g. art and literature, but it is hard to pinpoint the exact nature of the variance, if any, considering they didn’t think about these things the way we do now, as well as their long history.

Deborah Sweeney, who we’ve cited many times before, wrote a really excellent paper on sex and gender in ancient Egypt. She talks about these matters with more nuance than I can, so I absolutely recommend reading the paper, which is only 16 pages long. And if you’re interested in certain topics she covers, check out her references/bibliography. But for most laypeople, Sweeney’s article will cover the majority of Egyptian sex & gender in enough detail.

Here are some highlights from the article in case people want a quick laydown:

The Egyptians considered the world a place of dualities. The two halves of any given concept weren’t divided eternally however; instead, they reconciled them. The best example is the king incorporating both aspects of Horus and Seth into his rule, even if Seth was chaotic and too raucous to be of any use on his own. This seems to apply to their views of gender as well.

In Egyptian art, representation of gender is very strict, e.g. men are portrayed with darker skin than women and women only take half a step forward or even stand with both feet together, and the art almost never deviates from these conventions. In real life, this division didn’t always seem to be as strict. Take for example New Kingdom female entrepeneurs; women who either made a name for themselves or took over their husband’s trade after his incapacitation or death.

“Masculinity” as a concept in ancient Egypt differed even between social groups. A scribe would have had to meet other standards of masculinity than a soldier or a farmer would. There also seems to be a divide between elite masculinity and masculinity for the lower social classes. Still masculinity mightn’t have been expressed the same way by everyone, even within the same social grouping.

Women were in the text corpus often juxtaposed against men, i.e. it was their relation with the men in their lives that was highlighted, and very little is known about interpersonal relationships between women. We obviously know more about royal women, but their experiences aren’t at all indicative of general female experience in ancient Egypt.

The Egyptians didn’t categorize people based on sexual preference (i.e. “this is a homosexual scribe”, “that market lady is bisexual”). While same-sex relationships weren’t the social norm and were usually depicted as an abberation and/or an insult, there’s strong evidence in favour of same-sex couples/relationships in real life.

For any further in-depth questions, I’d refer to @thewanderingarchaeologist, whose PHD research is on this very topic.

Please consider donating to my ko-fi if you enjoyed this rather incomplete explanation!

#Egyptology #gender identity #ancient egypt #anon asks

161 notes · View notes

ploppythespaceship · 4 years

Text

@imsadidontknow asked me on this post why I referred to the TNG episode “The Outcast” as “a hot mess” (this might have been a while ago but I’m only just seeing the reply now). So I thought I’d take a moment to address it! Because this is an episode that gets brought up a lot and while I vaguely respect it for its efforts, it really did drop the ball. I think the more time passes, the more Trekkies will look back on it with embarrassment.

Side note, some of what I bring up below is from this post written by my friend Eros, shared with permission. They just don’t want their post reblogged, please respect that! Reblog this one if you want.

A recap if you don’t recall the episode! The Enterprise crew is helping a race called the J’naii, who are androgynous -- they have no gender. During their work together, Riker grows closer to one of them, a pilot named Soren, and eventually falls in love. Eventually Soren reveals something very personal: she is actually female, but cannot be open about this in her society. Soren is later found out by her people, and her passionate plea for them to accept J’naii of all genders into their society falls on deaf ears. She is forced into a treatment to “correct” her -- at the end of the episode, it appears that she longer views herself as female, and she no longer has feelings for Riker.

One thing that’s important to remember for this episode is that, despite the story having an apparent focus on gender, it was actually intended as an allegory for homosexuality. By this point in the series, Star Trek was coming under more and more fire for not having any gay characters, which was largely thanks to head producer Rick Berman being a homophobe and a coward. (Renegade Cut has a fantastic video essay on the many ways Berman screwed over the series and its actors here.)

So that’s one point of issue with this episode. Instead of actually including a gay character -- which would have been quite easy to do! -- the writers wrote this episode. An episode that doesn’t even bring up homosexuality. In fact, a line referencing sexual orientation was cut from the final version! Addressing serious issues with allegory is of course a Star Trek staple, but in this instance it’s just frustrating.

There’s also the fact that several people, including Jonathan Frakes, requested that Soren be played by a male actor to strengthen the impact. But Berman refused, on the grounds that “having Riker engaged in passionate kisses with a male actor might have been a little unpalatable to viewers.” Clearly, homophobia was still winning out.

(In fairness that likely would have opened a whole host of other issues, such as two men only being allowed to kiss when they’re portraying a straight couple, but still. The root cause was homophobia and viewing two men kissing as gross. I digress.)

The episode is also troublingly sexist. In one scene, Soren asks Dr. Crusher about the differences between men and women, and if one is better than the other. Crusher replies that in the past women have been considered weaker, but “that hasn’t been true for a long time.” Considering the rampant sexism behind the scenes of TNG, especially directed at Gates McFadden -- look it up, or watch the Renegade Cut video I linked above -- this is a pretty hypocritical statement to make. Star Trek has always looked to a brighter future while stumbling over the same issues in the present day, that’s nothing new, but it’s still upsetting.

Worf is also displayed as a raging sexist during a poker game, which makes absolutely no sense. Klingons certainly believe in rigid gender roles, as we’ve seen in other episodes, but Worf has also displayed an appreciation for strong women over and over again, and he clearly respects the women around him. Making him super sexist for this one scene to make a point? Not a fan.

When considering the episode as a parallel to homosexuality, it does work a little bit better. I will grant that. Soren’s final passionate speech in particular makes more sense and feels less cringey. However, the episode is ultimately based around gender, and that’s not something to just shrug off because the writers didn’t intend it that way.

So how did Star Trek handle a genderless race with a transgender character in 1992?

Ehhhhhhh.

First, there’s the J’naii themselves. All are played by female actresses, which has received criticism from many, including Frakes as mentioned above. The ideal would be having them played by actual non-binary actors, but I grant this would have been near impossible to pull off in 1992. The next best thing would to cast a mixture of men and women in the roles. But instead, we have all women.

Also, pronouns! The episode spends its full runtime dancing around not having pronouns for the J’naii, and it’s honestly painful to watch. Riker says there is no genderless pronoun in his language. But singular they/them pronouns have been around for a long time, well before the airing of this episode. The J’naii also explain that they have their own pronouns in their language -- if there is no proper translation, why not simply borrow the pronoun from their language? I grant that would probably be a lot to juggle in an already tight script, especially with viewers unused to non-traditional pronouns, but it could have been an excellent teaching moment. Instead, we get to watch everyone carefully construct sentences to not include any pronouns at all.

Riker (and the rest of the crew) is also pretty distinctly uncomfortable and unused to the idea of someone existing outside of the gender binary. Obviously this is an episode from the early 90s and it’s not going to be perfect, but it’s still disheartening to see people from the future who are supposedly so enlightened, the best of humanity, struggling the instant something challenges their viewpoint. In particular, struggling with an alien who exists outside of the gender binary, when there are humans who exist outside of the gender binary right now.

I’ll just quote my friend here, because they sum it up better than I ever can:

to think that humanity could become so advanced 400 years from now, but my gender still won’t be accepted. and yeah, it’s just a tv show, and yeah, it’s sci fi and none of it is necessarily meant to be a prophecy for the future. but it IS supposed to represent an ideal future. and not having non-binary genders be part of that ideal future hurt then, and it still hurts now.

The episode does show a pretty realistic view of homophobia/transphobia with the J’naii’s lack of acceptance. And the unhappy ending does prompt more thought than a perfect happy ending would -- and importantly, it’s not shown as being a good ending. It’s clear that the viewer is meant to feel sad about what’s happened to Soren.

But consider that for many trans and/or non-binary people, this is essentially the only representation they have on Star Trek. Someone who is outed against her will and forced to conform, to return to a society that doesn’t accept her for who she is. And then she’s never brought up again. It’s frankly pretty upsetting.

As an aside, I think The Orville has honestly handled a similar concept much better. The episode “About A Girl” deals with parents in an all-male race having a daughter, and debating whether to have her surgically altered to conform or to let her decide for herself when she is old enough. The ending is similar, with the decision forced upon the child -- their daughter is now their son. However, this is not the only time the issue is brought up. The son is a recurring character, and the parents discuss what’s been done to him. It has a lasting impact on their relationship. It’s not perfect, but it’s leagues ahead of anything TNG did.

There are also more episodes dealing with the same issues, showing women of that race who did not have this forced upon them. It’s treated as a more serious plot arc, instead of a strange thought experiment for a single episode. There’s also a scene where the men come to find the women in hiding and the women kick their asses while Dolly Parton’s “9 to 5” plays in the background, please watch The Orville please pleASE

But back to Star Trek! The episode also has the unfortunate implication of portraying the genderless race as entirely villains. Again, there’s nothing automatically wrong with this, as it fits the allegory quite well. But when that’s the only example of such a race in Star Trek to date, when the only non-binary representation is a group of bigots... that’s not great.

And that’s a long list of reasons why “The Outcast” is a hot mess. There are some other criticisms as well, such as the romance between Riker and Soren feeling quite forced and rushed, but those honestly pale in comparison to everything else. I love Star Trek, I love TNG, but this episode just... does not work.

#personal #star trek #the next generation #the outcast #honestly i get scared of talking about this episode sometimes cause there's just... so much to unpack #hopefully i did it justice #transphobia /#homophobia /#sexism /

12 notes · View notes

velveetacrackncheese · 6 years

Text

Thoughts on that Gillette Ad

I didn't disagree with the message of the ad, but I did have issues with how the issue and message was addressed and delivered. It could've been delivered better and it should've addressed the power structures being perpetuated by the way our society functions on the basis of social hierarchy and environmental influences. Should men hold themselves accountable? Sure. How? Gillette would probably just rub their heads and say "Um.. just don't do the bad thing.. y'know?" Obviously men should want to be better, but if they aren't aware of how our society is built and engineered to consistently establish a power structure that will inevitably bring up these same issues in a new form, then what's the point?

Initially I wasn't very critical of the ad (Albeit, I did point out that it was just part of a marketing strategy and the creators of the ad didn't give a flippity floppity fuck about issues revolving toxic masculinity) but I had to think critically and acknowledge that... Because it is a company delivering this message, they probably will never address how men are conditioned to behave in a certain way due to the way our society is built around social hierarchies that perpetuate power struggle. They can't because then they'd be forced to address other forms of hierarchy that also proves to perpetuate power struggles, and Gillette as a company is a prime result of hierarchy that fails to justify itself. It's why you'll never hear woke ads address anything involving social hierarchies, and when they do, it's often a very watered down message added with feel good quotes and motivational words that's just a cover up for any real substance that would be spoken about otherwise. Ever notice how whenever ads feature MLK it's always revolving around his "I have a dream!" quote and literally nothing else? Nothing regarding his beliefs of capitalism and how he didn't particularly care for it, and nothing about him addressing his own distaste for 'The White Moderate."

Companies appropriating progressive language, and then watering it down to the typical basic "liberal understanding" is harmful because then you begin to give companies the benefit of the doubt. You start to view them as a living entity, and not simply an "it". Start looking at companies as things with beliefs, and truly wanting to best for people, when the reality is that they simply appropriate progressive language just to earn more profit and appeal to liberal consumers. It's companies' way of attempting to legitimize themselves, and them trying to distract everyone from actual criticism of the mere existence of large companies. Commodification of liberation movements may seem like they're spreading good values, but they're doing it to benefit themselves. They see a movement that's picking up steam, they'll go in, water down the message, and then use their watered down message to sell products, and to benefit themselves. And when companies talk about donating to a good cause, they only donate maybe a very, very, very small percentage of their profits. Think about companies and how they saw pride parades as a way to advertise themselves and act like they genuinely cared about gay rights.

"Oh. but it still spreads a good message and spreads progressive ideas!"

Except when consumers see liberation activists pushing for more progressive ideals, and then people learning the watered-down ideals become angry with the activists for "asking for too much" or "you already got what you wanted, just shut up already!

"Gays have equal rights now! They have no reason to complain!"

Watering down the messages and issues being addressed hurts the movement itself due to how it's in a way, a deradicalization of ideology. So when you have liberation movements demanding what they were initially asking for in the first place, they're now considered extreme. Can't challenge the status quo too much, now. Anyone can preach equal rights without acknowledging ALL the things that restrict said liberty and equality. How many companies have addressed legal LGBT workplace discrimination, or housing discrimination? How many have addressed the overbearing representation of violent crimes committed against trans-women of color? How many have addressed how class struggle further perpetuates systemic oppression towards literally anyone who's considered part of a marginalized group? It's one of the bigger issues I have. The reliance of companies delivering progressive messages is very ineffective, and actually stagnates progress. Our reliance on faceless companies and big figurehead celebrities, delivering any sort of truly progressive message doesn't make sense because their place on the societal hierarchy is one that also perpetuates power struggle, particularly class struggle, but I digress.

Only way to really enable progressive messages to be spread is to let actual activists have the stage, and allow them to speak the message they deserve to deliver. That message shouldn't be shifted to faceless corporations and rich individuals. (Ask yourself how these wealthy individuals are negatively affected by our society's power imbalances, and chances are you'll realize that they're doing pretty damn well for themselves.)

The ad targets individual men, without realizing that many men that exist are simply a result of social conditioning built upon the basis of a harmful status quo. You can ask individual men to change, but unless you acknowledge the way our society enables the harmful ideals that men end up falling victim to, the same issues remain existent. They just change, evolve, or become hidden. If more people acknowledged where our societal issues derived from, maybe we could actually make some quick progress. But no, instead many are infatuated with advertisements and the messages they deliver, rather than acknowledging that our societal issues run very deep, and maintain prevalence because we fail to address those in particular, and we fail to criticize companies for delivering messages that were never theirs to ever deliver in the first place. If men want to be the best they can be, they should not only acknowledge that their behavior perpetuated by social hierarchies is harmful, but they should also ask where these toxic ideals derive from, why they’re still prevalent, and discuss ways to dismantle these hierarchies.They ought to question the foundation our society is built upon, and work to change those or simply get rid of them. They should question the way men are conditioned, and they should be addressing these issues themselves, and not relying on corporations to speak for them. Although, I will say that witnessing men, anti-sjws, incels, and manbabies having an aneurysm over the ad and stating “MASCULINITY ISN’T TOXIC” was pretty fun. Hard to criticize others for being overly offended when they lose their shit over a dumb ad lol. However, I will say I am a bit annoyed with the lack of critique from the opposition. I say that because this ad certainly is not perfect, and people acting as if the ad was perfect and delivered what it needed to should honestly analyze it further and realize how disconnected it is from the real issue that plagues societies across the world. It’s easy to say how toxic masculinity is bad. How you provide context and address the origins of these awful behaviors that benefits literally no one (except the ruling class) is another thing entirely. The ad dilutes the actual message that needed to be expressed, and it shows when the ad shapes individual men as the ones entirely responsible for all the wrongdoings of other men, and failing to acknowledge how men are conditioned to even be that way. Yes, men can be better. Yes, men should strive to be the best they can be. The issue comes down to how society dictates what “best” is and whether or not the hierarchies that perpetuate the flaws being addressed, should be dismantled, and how that message, is also being addressed... Or rather, the lack there of.

I don’t stan Gillette. They’re a company with their only goal being earning profits. Nobody should be worshiping and characterizing a company as something with “ideals and beliefs.”

#gillette #gillette ad #toxic masculinity

1 note · View note

obdurare-archive-blog · 7 years

Note

How was LGBT stuff back in those days?? Gender wise and sexuality

what portion of pirates do you think were lgbt? ( @justificd )

pirate historian ama | anonymous | @justificd

I’ve been wrestling with exactly how to answer this, because the truth is, there is no right answer. I know there’s a lot of guff about the whole “they were very close friends” bullshit when two dudes or gals were veeery obviously into each other, and I can tell you younger historians are getting a lot better about this, but you’re going to start seeing the words “possibly” and “probably” a lot. But I’m also going to explain why this is, and give you a peek into how we do things, if you don’t already know. The problem with quantifying lgbt in an early modern historical context is the fact that even the idea of being lgbt didn’t exist yet. We folks who are Definitely Not Straight have always existed, but how we’ve thought about ourselves has changed so much over time, and only just now, in the modern era, are we truly putting labels to things to better identify ourselves, because the idea of lgbt is a very, very modern one. Our not hetero asses - always been here. Labeling ourselves - very new.

So when we sit down and write about people and things, what we mainly do is strip away modern connotations we might try to put upon it, and any biases and morals and ideals we have because it’s not important how we view people in the past, as far as history is concerned. What is, honestly, is how they viewed themselves. And if you met someone who was very gay in the 18th Century, they would not apply that label to themselves, because it would not fit their world view. So we avoid saying definitely because they didn’t have the vocabulary to describe themselves, nor did they have the ideals yet to do so, and to us it’s slanting the narrative to slap a label on them because we could be wrong. That woman we think might have been a lesbian? She might have been pan. And we genuinely don’t want to mislabel and force what is basically history headcanon on someone that it might not apply to. We write about people in their context, not ours.

That out of the way.

So sodomy was an offense punishable by death. It might be the age of reason, but churches still hold a lot of sway, and there are still many laws with heavy religious context. The early modern period was not friendly to what we would think of as lgbt folks now. But the thing is, you weren’t thought of as, say, a homosexual, but as someone who participated in homosexual acts. The world view was heteronormativity with some people slipping off the track now again. The ideas of being lgbt and anything other than cis simply wasn’t formed at this point in time, so you can’t definitively point at anything and say yes. This is a trans person. Which sucks, because I’m pretty sure there were plenty of trans and genderfluid and gender queer people throughout history because literally there are things that are neon signs that say YES PROBABLY but applying a modern label (in an academic sense) is something we just can’t do. But I can tell you there were plenty of lesbians, plenty of bisexuals, plenty of ace folks, plenty of gay folks, plenty of trans folks, plenty of everything we have right here and now in what we have, at best guess, assumed is proportionate numbers to now. I have my feelings, for example, on Anne Bonny and Mary Read, and also both of them and Jack Rackham. But I can’t definitively back that argument up in an academic sense - I can’t make it falsifiable - enough to to charge full steam ahead anywhere but here. Yet. But the point is I imagine you’d see a representation much like we have now, just in smaller numbers due to population differences. It’s no secret that sailing did attract what we think of as bisexual and gay and pan men, because it wasn’t explicitly accepted, but it was common for sexual and even romantic relationships between shipmates. There’s really no difference in numbers or proportion from real world averages, however, as nearly as we can figure, from the population as a whole.

This is sailing as a whole, and it pretty much holds true for piracy, as well, because piracy attracted all kinds regardless of gender or sexual orientation. These were people who were looking to make a lot of money fast, and Idk about you guys, but I am a very pansexual person who would also like to make a lot of money very fast. Sex between shipmates? Yeah, it totally happened. Romantic relationships? Yep. There’s a lot of talk about matelotage being gay marriage, and in some cases it was, and in some cases it was a platonic agreement, and in others something completely different. But it most definitely was marriage in some circumstances, much like how some straight marriages in this time period were simply an agreement between a man and a woman to shack up until one of them kicked it.

I hate that I can’t give a better, more definitive answer, but the truth is, while we’ve always been here, as far as numbers? We just don’t know. People simply didn’t identify themselves that way, and so it makes our job that much harder because we don’t want to mislabel and get the narrative wrong. But, again, while it was very much not a thing you’d ever really be open with because of laws against it that could get you dead if convicted, our best guess is that proportionately it’s always been the same across the board.

#anonymous #hard time killing floor blues | answered #in hell i'll be in good company | ooc asks #half the things you've been taught in school are just convenient fictions | history #// historical lgbt

8 notes · View notes

the-bi-writer-blog · 7 years

Text

Not all Deaths are Created Equal (Musings on WLW Deaths in Popular Media)

I want to take a sec and talk about character deaths, and the way they differ between queer and non-queer characters. Below are major spoilers for the show “The 100″ and for the game “Life is Strange.”

So! I just played through the Square Enix game Life is Strange, and I was entirely delighted in the beginning. You start as a high school senior in a cute coastal town, taking photos and solving mysteries via time travel.

Cool, right?

What’s even better is that the main two characters, Max and Chloe, are wlw. (It’s sort of left up to reader interpretation if they are bi or gay, but since Chloe at one point literally calls boys, “gross,” and says that no one but her is good enough for Max, I’m going to go ahead and say she’s a lesbian who’s still in the process of figuring that out.)

Anyway! In the first few episodes of the game, you have these sweet story about these two childhood friends reuniting and having adventures. They watch the sunset together overlooking the ocean, they walk along train tracks and reminisce about their shared childhood, they go for a midnight swim after breaking into the school pool.

These aren’t the best life choices, but the game shows a genuine and sweet relationship that develops between the two.

Aside from a lot of flirting, however, and a very brief kiss as the result of a dare, the Chloe and Max never acknowledge their feelings for each other. That is, until Chloe’s about to die. (I said major spoilers, didn’t I?)

The climax of Life is Strange involves Max and Chloe standing in front of a giant hurricane that’s about to wreck their town. Max is given the choice to either save the town, or to save Chloe. For unknown reasons, Max can’t do both.

Yes, you heard that right. Our lesbian MC either has to choose between saving her childhood best friend/long lost love, or doing what is obviously the more moral choice. How can you save a single life instead of hundreds? The “moral” choice here is meant to be obvious.

So, here’s the thing about the two endings: if you choose to save Chloe, the two of you wait out the storm, and then drive off together into the sunset. Nothing is acknowledged or talked through, including the fact that you just let everyone die.

More conspicuously, the girls never discuss their feelings for each other, and the game doesn’t end on a kiss.

Guess when the game does end on a kiss, though?

That’s right, you guessed it! When the lesbian is about to die. More specifically, when one lesbian is forced to choose between saving the love of her life, or an entire town full of people.

If Max chooses to save the town, letting Chloe die, you get a passionate kiss from Chloe (finally!) before, well, going back in time and watching her slowly bleed to death as you do nothing to stop it.

Which is bullshit.

It also brings us back to the “not all deaths are created equal” idea. I mean, ideally, the amount of dead lesbians in your story would be 0, but in a mystery story where there are multiple wlw, it’s understandable that death may be involved.

However.

How characters die also makes all the difference. Did they knowingly sacrifice their own life? Did they die a hero? Or were they killed off screen, probably in a brutal way, simply to further the plot?

If we’re talking Life is Strange, it’s the second one. Rachel Amber, our missing bisexual girl who started this whole mystery, is revealed to have been dead and buried since the game began (which, after giving multiple hints that she’s still alive, and can be rescued if the player makes the right choices, is a really, really shitty way to end things. But I digress.)

So we have Rachel, our first queer woman, literally buried in a shallow grave after a brutal death, before the game even begins. Then we end the game with a choice to either kill another queer woman, who the MC now loves, or to let the rest of the town die.

As a reminder, to bring this all home: Life is Strange starts out with a light and hopeful aesthetic, and does everything but come right out and say, “Rachel is still alive, and all three queer girls can reunite and be friends if you make the right choices and solve the mystery.”

Then it reveals a brutally murdered wlw, and heavily pressures you to kill another. Leaving you, the last standing lesbian, utterly alone. The last scenes of the game, if you choose to save the town, are literally of your lady love’s funeral.

Not at all depressing, right?

Bringing this back to message again, I want to underline how many different ways this could have gone:

1. Rachel Amber (our missing girl) could have been alive, and been found/rescued by the player. There is literally nothing added to the story by Rachel’s death, especially after the audience has been repeatedly baited to believe that she’s alive.

Furthermore, having Rachel (and most likely Chloe) dead removes the possibility of sequels for these wonderful characters. It means that in the new prequel series, you get to watch Chloe and Rachel fall in love...knowing all the while that Rachel is going to die before the next game.

What value does Rachel’s impending death add to the prequel game? As I said in a previous post, the LGBTQ community does not need a reminder that life is subtle and fleeting. Believe me, we know.

In a world where wlw are killed and shunned for the way we love, sometimes we just want a little escapism and a happy ending. Especially from a game that all but promised us one.

2. Second scenario: Max could have figured out a way to save Chloe without killing everyone else.

Since the rules of time travel are never established in game, it was a conscious choice on the part of the creators to allow for Chloe’s death; not a narrative inevitability.

Once again: old white cishet men decided, of their own accord, to kill the lesbian. There’s literally nothing stopping the creators from creating a way to save Chloe. At all. Besides perhaps an understanding that for LGBTQ characters, survival is a far more radical ending than death.

Question: If, as a creator, have the choice to tell literally any story, and imagine any world, why do you imagine a world where 2/3 of the queer women die?

3. Scenario three: If, for some reason you absolutely had to kill Chloe in game, you reaaaaaaaaly shouldn’t do it immediately after Max and Chloe confess their feelings for each other, and finally kiss.

From a storytelling angle, I do understand wanting to save all the Big Emotional Moments for the climax, but here’s the thing: once again, not all storylines are created equal.

For a cishet love story to end this way might be interesting, because there are a million happy cishet love stories out there. A single sad ending for a single cishet couple is a drop in the bucket compared to the massive amounts of happy stories to be easily found.

But queer love stories are few and far between, and they almost always end in tragedy. Burying your gays isn’t revolutionary; giving them happy endings is.

And if you can’t give them that, give them happy lives before they die.

In Life is Strange, Max and Chloe only ever kiss/confess their love if you make the choice to sacrifice Chloe. That’s right folks; in order to have the “happy ending” of the two characters getting together, one of them has to watch the other die.

In a world where queer relationships are tested at every turn, that’s NOT the message the LGBTQ comunity needs.

The message that finding love will only end in death? We’ve heard it. We’ve heard it from The 100, where Lexa dies literally minutes after finally consummating her relationship with the woman she’s loved and been flirting with for several seasons. (Also, she dies from a stray bullet, not in battle like she would have wanted to, as a leader of a warrior people.)

We’ve heard it from Buffy, where Tara is killed- again by a stray bullet - seconds after reuniting with the love of her life. Tara’s death scene is literally her happy reunion with Willow.

Are you seeing a pattern? In popular media, the message is, “If two women are happy together, one of them will die.”

Would these few examples be as big of an issue if there were hundreds of other examples of happy wlw in media? Of course not. But are there hundreds of other examples of happy wlw in media? Nope. Not at all.

To bring this all back to Life is Strange: as a wlw myself, I was delighted to play through this game, and watch two reunited friends figure out what they meant to each other.

Then, once I was entirely invested, I was crushed to realize that there was no possible happy ending. Really, the “happiest” ending possible involves a confession of true love and a kiss...immediately followed by a lesbian dying via (you guessed it!) a bullet.

Taken on its own, I do love Life is Strange. I’ve read several theories on the meaning behind it, and, taken in a vacuum, I can appreciate the story for what it is.

But I don’t exist in a vacuum. I exist in a world where I lost my entire support system when I came out. I live in a world where my parents disowned me and kicked me out of the house, even though I didn’t have the ability to work due to disability. And in that world? I don’t need a reminder of the fragility of life. I need a reminder that love matters, and can save the day.

tl;dr All I’m asking for is wlw who get happy endings in mainstream media. It doesn’t feel like too big of an ask, but apparently, it is.

As an important end note: every piece of media listed above is also severely lacking in other areas of representation, most notably when it comes to PoC. Joss Whedon’s work is well known for its racism and misogyny; The 100 has almost exclusively white MCs, and treats its characters of color atrociously, and Life is Strange barely contains any characters of color at all. All of which are unacceptable.

Additionally, none of these pieces of media contain a single trans or disabled character. White, ablebodies cis gays are the only LGBTQ characters that seem to be represented in popular media at all. Which again, is unacceptable.

So I want to acknowledge that there’s a lot more work to be done, and that the LGBTQ community should be as diverse on screen as it is in real life. LGBTQ representation absolutely has to include PoC and disabled characters to be complete.

#wlw in media #lgbtq #pricefield #not sw #long post #my essays #mine

8 notes · View notes

lealca · 5 years

Text

DIGITAL QUEER UTOPIANISM

Emerging from a need for an alternative to the standard heteronormative nature of the internet. The Digital Queer Utopianism movement challenges the inherent heteronormative nature of the internet challenging ideas of gender and sexuality.

The movement takes a DIY, makeshift approach to digital art making connecting various artists from across the world. The work created deals with lives traumas through images or imaginings of a queer utopian future. The movement started deep within the far reaches of the deep dark queer web and developed through small online chat groups and forums pertaining to queer identity. Through this formation the moment gained it eclectic style.

Interview with co-founder of the movement Ray Quinn delves a little deeper into the new movement.

Ray, as I’m aware you’re one of many co-creators of this new movement who are the can you tell us a little more about the formation of the movement and the other co-creators.

Ray:

“The web built up on a history of cis, het mostly white and mostly male intelligence, white men built the internet and filled it with all the info that is there right now, it is inherently biased. All far reaches of the internet are densely overrun by cisnormativity. The movement really came out of a need to connect the dots so to speak, joining and essentially archiving all the rest of what’s out there that isn’t built upon the ideals of the patriarchy.

As for the rest of the creators the group is so large and we draw upon the knowledge of a very large group of people with variying identities in a vast amount of different places around the globe who can all bring very different yet specific experiences and knowlages.

Interviewed:

A lot of critics have claimed that this movement is polarizing, in that it aids the distance and sustain between the nominal ‘left’ and ‘right’. Do you think that this movement aids in the gap between political groups?

I think it’s easy to point to a negative alienating nature of the movement, but unfortunately the fact of the matter is that there simply are people out there with very specific experiences that happen to be different to the majority of people and these people need a space to connect with others like them, that on top of the fact that 99% of the wider web is informed by the knowledge of cis-het white men, I don’t think it’s a problem to have a space that is totally free of that history.

A lot of queer youths are severely isolated from others like them, a lot of queer kids grow up in small towns or just conservative close knit communities that don’t accept or acknowledge gender difference or homosexuality. These kids are lucky enough to have these spaces on the internet to turn to find some sort of representation.

Interviewer: Although This movement strives for inclusivity, you must struggle to keep up with the high demands of the ever evolving PC society we live in today, do you suffer any backlash at all or experience any obstacles in this sense?

Ray: I think it’s only as hard as you want to make it to be as inclusive as possible, that being said there’s obviously a large number of people who we are in able to reach and that’s because a lot of what we do takes place online and therefore there unfortunately a lot of people who don’t have access to the technology required to experience the work. We’re trying our best though to make our work more available offline as well now.

Interviewer: Tell us a little more about your artists, who’s really leading this movement?

Ray: Well that’s a tricky one because a lot of our work is collectively produced and a lot of our artists remain completely anonymous for a variety of different reasons. The movement is a sort of rejection of the singular named artist.

Interviewer: Very interesting, could you tell us a little more about this anonymous approach to art making?

Ray: well I think for one it’s a political move, trying to strip the word from gender, a sort Agender AI for example, a group of our artists have been working on the creation of a new form of AI that is completely free of gender in all of its form, from the specific voice tone and pitch as well as entirely neutral facial features. This is a challenge and it’s taken a large research team working on gender performance and the way in which we as humans read gender, which obviously differs from person to person. Unfortunately the rest of this project is top secret for now so I can’t say much more.

Interviewer: wow that sounds fascinating, seeing as you can’t tell us any more about this project, would you mind telling us about another artwork that you think really defines the Digital Queer Utopianism moment?

Ray: I think a really great piece is, No SWERFS, No TERFS, by Wes Leal, the Digital collage is a very simple composition that contains a statement that really shows what our movement stands for. The statement is about denouncing, SWERFS (Sex Worker Exclusionary Feminists)and TERFS (Trans Exclusionary Feminists), access to our movement.

No SWERFS, No TERFS

Wes Leal

2019

0 notes

polyrolemodels · 7 years

Text

How Representation Works...or Doesn't

How Representation Works...or Doesn't A Follow-Up

In the early afternoon of Thursday May 11th, I got an email from a colleague. First, she congratulated me on my upcoming book about the intersection of race and polyamory, then she congratulated me on my appearance in the New York Times. The piece, Is an Open Marriage a Happier Marriage?, had just been published that morning. The congrats were both a friendly greeting and a way to lead into the real content of the email while also saying, “I see you there, Kev. Doing big things.”

The true purpose of the email was to ask if I'd be interested in taking part in a round table about family and parenting. Eventually, I would respond that I was indeed interested. But before I had a chance to even read that email, I received a second one from the same colleague. Delivered only eleven minutes after the first, it simply read “Oh my gosh, Kevin! I just read the article. You must be upset. I’m so sorry!” While this wasn't the way my day started, it pretty much encapsulated how the whole day went. Boundless excitement followed quickly by frustrating disappointment.

My wife and I contributed to Is an Open Marriage a Happier Marriage? because our names were thrown into consideration by Mark A. Michaels and Patricia Johnson, the authors of Designer Relationships: A Guide to Happy Monogamy, Positive Polyamory, and Optimistic Open Relationships. Mark and Patricia are familiar with the impact nonmonogamy has on our family and our work regarding race and polyamory. Logically, they thought we'd offer some insightful perspective to such a piece. And what a mainstream piece! I’d be lying if I said that hadn’t factored into my decision to participate. My Poly Role Models blog, while a fairly popular free resource, couldn’t hope to hit the broadcast range of even the lowliest New York Times article. An increased readership could help countless people find their way to and through ethical non-monogamy. Unfortunately, any perspective I could add or range I could reach is buried beneath a sad story of floundering marriages. To be clear, the sad story of floundering marriages are both valid and valuable. My work definitely covers that as well. But it covers more than that...and therein lies the problem.

Is an Open Marriage a Happier Marriage? is predominantly the story of a married couple, Elizabeth and Daniel, who have grown dissatisfied in their lives together. Their mismatched libidos create an unbearable strain on what was otherwise a happy union. If you’ve ever been in a similar situation, you understand. Sexual incompatibility is such a weighty factor that it can severely hamper strong relationships; even if it’s the sole stressor. In response to the growing displeasure, Daniel researched ethical non-monogamy and discussed it with his wife. What followed was not ethical non-monogamy.

Elizabeth shot the idea down. Only to find romance with a new fellow anyway. First, behind her husband’s back, then to his face without his willful participation...despite his pain. The guy Elizabeth took up with? He was also unhappily married and cheating on his spouse. He didn’t even have the benefit of an unresolved conversation about the vague possibility of opening his marriage to use as a justification. Look, I’m not judging. Unreasonable expectations of exclusivity, in the face of incompatible sex drives, need to be discussed. Partners that come to ethical non-monogamy by way of infidelity needs to be discussed. These are already being discussed. In fact, the idea that ethical and consensual non-monogamy are just the product of unhappy marriages is already the predominant narrative. We've heard these stories before. They get pushed out to mainstream media every few months and frankly it's gotten boring.

It’s clear that Susan Dominus has a specific story that she is trying to tell. But I question who that really serves. The non-monogamous newcomers, who don’t fit this couple-centric view, won’t find any love here. In this article, they are either outsiders or at the whim of a shaky marriage that views them as a crutch. Even those who do fit in the coupled model, on display here, don’t have much to look forward to. The stable and happy couples featured are virtually voiceless in this article. What little speech we’re given is limited to seemingly reluctant acceptance of the situation we’ve found ourselves in.

The name of the article challenges the traditional views on marriage with the idea of a happier alternative. So, where was that? I know you’re not supposed to read the comments section, but I did. What I found was dozens of people remarking about how unhappy people are in open marriages… how easy it is to spot which partner is into it and which is just going along with it… how it’s all just about finding excuses to cheat. That’s the story these readers came into this article believing. With all of it’s sad photos and stories of even sadder partnerships, those readers are left with a pretty solid confirmation of their pre-established attitudes. For those with lived experience inside of ethical non-monogamy, we are left with yet another narrowed view on a life we know to be both varied and vibrant.

As someone who provides a platform for dozens of true accounts of ethical non-monogamy, I’ve learned that each one resonates with those who need to find themselves and their experiences validated. Obviously, you can’t tell every story in a single article but then why gather a wealth of resources that serve to expand the perspective? Authors like Eve Rickert, Franklin Veaux, Patricia Johnson, and Mark Michaels were all consulted and left out. Twelve thousand words are a lot of space to flesh out an idea. Especially with tons of time and energy spent on taking photos of the whole shebang. With the bulk of the content focused on unphotographed people using aliases, why were our names and faces used... only to ignore our observations?

Now, I’m not flat out saying that my wife and I are only included as token people of color. I am challenging anyone to show me what the difference would be if we were. Our voices are mostly unused, but our faces are pretty prominent in a photo that shocked the people in our lives. One friend said it is the saddest they’ve ever seen either of us look. Another said that, without context, they would’ve believed all of the photos to be from a story about divorce. A visual storyline to match the narrative of non-exclusive but unsatisfying marriages.

In the case of sexuality, the article is almost devoid of mentions… except in regard to the single gay couple, Logan and Robert. Though there was valuable insight in the bit of text dedicated to their perspective, their voices were mostly left out as well. In an article that read as extremely heteronormative, there were no occurrences of the words “lesbian”, “bisexual”, “pansexual”, “queer”, or “trans”. There were six mentions of the word “gay”. Five in a single paragraph containing a reference to gay advice columnist Dan Savage and the two sentences from one of that couple’s husbands. The sixth “gay” is some dude’s name. Again, maybe Logan and Robert are not included as token LGBT representation. But how would it have looked differently otherwise?

What we’re missing is proper representation. Better representation. At least better than having our identities used as a prop to tell a story that doesn’t see us or accurately reflect us. At least better than an edgy title that doesn’t even bother to get out of it’s own way. By which I mean, letting a story write itself with the pieces you put together. A great example of which would be Daniel Krieger’s Polyamorous People feature for Narratively’s People of Interest series. In which, Krieger trusted his subjects to be both interesting and honest without trying to force either. The results are a much wider set of experiences, along a broader range of personal identities, done in roughly a quarter of the word count.

The ideal solution to any of our image problems is simply to tell our own stories. Non-monogamy already bucks convention by its very nature. We come from all walks of life and practice our lifestyles in countlessly diverse ways. We don’t need to be made into a compelling story. We already are. The story isn’t how we exist, it’s that we exist. All we need to do is open our mouths to speak our own truths. When someone on the outside of us attempts to speak for us, regardless of the platform, they carry in their preconceived notions...and worse they carry their desire to shoehorn us into those notions. While I thank and appreciate the New York Times for trying, what they gave us was not nearly what was promised or expected or needed.

But, hey… I guess it could be worse. At least there weren’t any stock photos of three pairs of white feet sticking out from under a white duvet.

#polyamory #whitewashing #people of color

186 notes · View notes