#stop feeling entitled to tell other people they are not queer if they conform to your expectations of what is queerness to you

[ladychlo]

:D

[nightswithkookmin]

A quick lesson on ships

Because why not??😌

No but seriously, bare with me, I'm trying to answer your questions. Sit if you have to. Hehe

Uban Dictionary defines shipping as this:

A term used to describe fan fictions that take previously created characters and put them as a pair. It usually refers to romantic relationships, but it can refer platonic [sic] ones as well. (Just think of “shipping” as short for “relationSHIP”.) 9 Apr 2015

Ships can be platonic or romantic or both.

There's fictional ships and non fictional ships too. You ship two people you want to be in a relationship or who already are in a relationship or who you suspect to be in a relationship- perhaps due to queer baiting, ship baiting, romance baiting etc.

In the shipping fandom, there are two sects of people. Those who are Proships those who are Antiships- antis are ironically considered part of the shipping community because for some reason they are always in shippers business💀

Antishippers are those who oppose a particular ship or shipping in general (more on that later.)

Proshippers are well- Pro ships.

Pro-Ship

A term mostly used in fandoms, but can stretch outside of this to include original characters. The core belief is that shipping two fictional characters, no matter if they are family, share ages gaps, considered to be unhealthy, or show blatant signs of being abusive or other generally unsavory behaviours, are valid in a fictional setting.

Pro-Shippers or "anti-antis" are also known as "rainbow meaties" and will use 🌈 + 🍖 emojis together often in their bio on twitter or other social media platforms- usually within fictional settings.

These shippers reinforce the idea fiction is separate from reality and shouldn't be confused with the other.

‘Anti’ is short for ‘anti-shipper’ or ‘anti-[ship]’.

Kindly read through this thread to get the gist of it.

III

IV

Shipping non-fictional individuals is a subset of Proshipping, in my opinion, known also as alternative shipping- as far as my knowledge on it goes.

As with fictional shipping, alt ships have their antis too. People who disagree with shipping real couples in a romantic way for whatever arbitrary moral reasons they have and who feel entitled to go out of their way to correct, stop, police and punish such shippers.

Then there are those who although may be pro real people shipping think they have the right to tell others how they should ship and to what extent they can ship.

Others too prefer to ship real people platonically because they view romantic shipping of real people as problematic.

So to answer your question on Anon's post- there is no such thing as a Proshipper who is also Anti shipping. Thats oxymoronic. Perhaps they might be platonic shippers who are anti romantic ships but not necessarily romantic shippers themselves.

I don't think there's anything wrong with preferring to ship platonically. It is when they assume by virtue of their false sense of moderacy that they are better than others that shit starts to get funny.

Those shippers are delusionally confused beings with a supremacist imperialist complex rooted in ignorance and absurdities.

I usually walk by those quietly. keep it pushing. Gotta mind my business somehow even though most times I just want to pull their hair and bite them and shit😭

I try to keep it classy.

Lord knows I try.

You are either pro ship or anti ship. There's no in between. Those shippers who are shippers but claim they are not are nothing but fraudulent, fake us, simps trying to bamboozle their way through life- pardon my Swahili.

There are a lot of anti shippers moonlighting as shippers in this fandom. It's fascinating.

Personally I think those people are either confused or their desires to appeal to other Anti shippers must have morphed their brains into ass dick hybrids.

Anti shippers in general are notorious gatekeepers, gaslighters, bigots, high key sanctimonious and often have a cis white westernized sense of morality and ethics through which they fliter others and expect everyone and everything to conform to.

They impose their values on others, their ethics on others, resort to manipulation, policing, intimidation and bullying to impose their will etc.

Within shipping, there are those who are Proshipping yet anti certain ships. Most Tuktukkers are anti Jikook. And assume anyone who isn't a tuktukker is equally anti Tae Kook and so go ahead and exhibit anti behaviours towards them.

Think of such groups of shippers as Proshippers with a preference for particular ships if you will.

There are Pro shippers who also feel some kind of way about Shipping real life people or alt shipping.

Here's further resource to help you understand what proshipping is

If you are intolerant with other shippers choice of ships or style of shipping and you traumatize them for it that's Anti shipping. Especially if you feel entitled and justified to traumatize others because you take a higher moral status over them.

You can be proship and not like how certain people, how they go about

Simply walk away, click off, mind your business. You are not the only adult in these streets and leave people to do what interests them.

I think for as long as I can remember, I've always been a proshipper and I ship both platonically and romantically, fictionally and alternatively💀

Some themes in fiction are a hard limit for me such as the R word, pedophilia, incest, child abuse- I just can never find the entertainment in those topics and will struggle through such themes.

But others believe it's just FICTION and those fictional characters aren't really dealing with the imaginary struggles we read about.

Yall do you sis.

I don't really know why people make a big deal of it or try to demonize the concept of shipping as if it were something strange or mysterious- just keep your moral values to yourself. I am not your mother's daughter. we were not raised in the same households.

Then again I think it all depends on the different cultures and social backgrounds we all come from and how entitled, supremacist or imperialist they are.

For Yoonmin, I shipped them romantically but didn't think they were a real couple at all. I just romanticized their interactions and found humor in it. At the back of my head I was expecting them each to one day find husbands or wives and go their merry ways and even harbored the thought they each could very much be in serious romantic relationships with others.

In similar ways, I shipped Minimoni and Vmin.

You can ship a pair romantically and not think at all that they are actually REAL.

A lot of jokers ship Jikook romantically and don't assume they are real. Just as a lot of people shipped say Elena and Stefan romantically even though Paul was married.

Some shipped Elena and Damon too due to their unscreen chemistry and even felt they could be a thing- that was before later it was revealed they had started dating in real life. Even that I was holding on to my Bonnie x Damon fantasies because Bonnie was my bias and I shipped her with everyone romantically- of course I didn't expect any of those ships to manifest into something because it was the character I was shipping not Kat herself. To this day I still love her onscreen chemistry and friendship with Damon and don't see how people could wish for it to be more than that😭

It was beautiful as is. Not everything should climax into sexual intercourse.

But if I felt at some point any of her ships had crossed into alternative ships I would have jumped on those and supported it whole heartedly.

If you assume a pair are a real couple and dating in real life that's alt shipping- a lot of alt shippers suspect a ship is real and that's why they ship them.

There is no such thing as platonic alt shipping.

And for me personally, because I believe Jikook are a real couple and have made that cross over I don't ship any of that pair romantically with other members anymore.

It's bizzare to me to ship someone I know has a partner romantically with anybody else- I make exceptions for Vmin of course💀

I know JK is side eyeing me but I don't care.

I want Tae to be happy too😭😭😭

Tae just wants his bestfriend and soulmate😭

It's too much😭😭😭😭😭😭

He stays shooting his shots🤣

Jimin Harem is real🤭

I must admit, I catch myself slipping on Vmin and Minimoni every now and then- old habits die hard and they don't make it easy 😫

But that don't mean I think Vmin is dating. THAT WOULD BE WILD.

Summary

Proshippers can be Platonic or Romantic shippers and you can ship a pair romantically and not assume they are real at all.

Anti shippers are just assholes trying to beat their values down people's throats.

Alt shippers don't ship their OTP with other players romantically.

I don't know what you mean by Jinkooker...

Do you ship Jinkook romantically or think they are real?? Sis...

Maybe you just ship them platonically or casually.

I ship all the ships platonically.

Especially all Jimin"s Tae's ships. I'd let my self flirt with the idea of romance every now and then.

JK's ships don't make sense to me as ships.

As nonplatonic ships I mean.

I'm fascinated each time I see a hardcore JK x any member ship besides Jikook swearing up and down JK is screwing Namjoon🤣🤣

I hope this helps??

GOLDY

[rethesun]

Harry Styles does not queer bait

If you hate long posts and don’t want to read click this for the shortest and only version you'll ever need.  

https://i-d.vice.com/en_uk/article/wx57ex/harry-styles-queerbaiting

I'm glad I've been on the right side of things the entire time. I never accused Harry Styles of queer baiting ever, and I often defend him in the same way I would any individual. I partially disagree with the article because they say only fantasy/art can queer bait. Maybe I misunderstood them, but I don't see it that way alone. Do you know who queer baits? Large corporations that go all out for pride month & films that have obnoxiously stereotyped queer characters. We need to retire the idea of individuals queer baiting unless they have 100% said they are hetero. If you don't know for sure, then you can't claim queer baiting because then you're assuming that someone has to come forth as straight in some way and that straight/cis is the default. Queer people are under no obligation to announce themselves.

More: In Harry's last Guardian interview, he repeats his sentiment that his personal identity is not something he is currently putting up for discussion in the press. He questions the press' desire to know about pop stars' sexuality: 

Interviewer: You mean, why ask the question? 

Harry: Yeah, I think I do mean that. It's not like I'm sitting on an answer, and protecting it, and holding it back. It's not a case of: I'm not telling you cos I don't want to tell you. It's not: ooh this is mine and it's not yours. 

I do not speak for everyone in the LGBTQ+ community: The above extract from the guardian interview is why I'm not pressuring myself to label my sexuality for now/maybe forever or decide to come out as unlabeled. Whether with any intention or not, Harry has softened barriers for some things to feel less taboo/daunting. Most of us do not want to subject ourselves to different treatment, especially if it's negative. Not all of us have the privilege to do so either. 

I agree, it is not justifiable, and he's right to question them. Being open to everyone isn't easy. Now imagine yourself no less human than right now, but add millions of eyes on you. It's insensitive to assume about someone when they could be doing their best/what is comfortable—please let's stop invalidating what we don't understand.

Even More: When you are straight/cis, you have it simple. You don’t have any pressure or fear and nor do you have to conform or ask yourself if you need to come out. If you do want to share for any reason, you just say you're straight/cis because there is no backlash and everyone moves on. Harry has never said such a thing. Straight people flaunt their sexuality everywhere every day and then said straight people dare to question and complain about queer people's self-expression. Queer people do not demand or feel entitled to personal information about straight/cis people. Note: Heteronormativity is not the default; it's just the conditioned and performative norm. Harry has always indicated queerness and exploration of that. Gender is fluid, and so is sexuality, but many people are not ready for that either. To explore is 100% valid, and anyone who says no to that is trying to control something very personal. After all these years of being a fan, if you are still confused, maybe you weren't paying attention to H, or perhaps we are meant to be confused, or perhaps we all see what we want to see, and maybe I am wrong. Whatever it is, it doesn't matter because it's no one's business. Remember that last line. I'll come back to it. 

I would never want to be one of the people who pressure someone to conform or share their personal journey in the way I see fit. I would never be angry until someone made things official as if things need to be official for something and someone to be valid. Note again: They don't. To go from annoyance and harsh judgment to suddenly sweet praises such as, 'I'm so proud of so and so' that makes my heart sink and my stomach turn.

Further: On the whole, people should not have to feel pressure to share their sexuality/gender or whole life story (btw not to say we don't care, we are more than open to listening and care about it) for "fans" to have empathy for them in the first place. Then here they are sharing some things and getting invalidated by people again. Sigh, not everyone is meant to like or understand you and that’s okay, but there is no need to be disrespectful. I digress. Recap: Sexuality and gender is a personal thing no one else can have power over. For those that expect a definitive statement from queer people, here's a news flash, sometimes people change their minds before and after sharing such personal things. If someone's sexuality, gender identity, or choice to be open and transparent about it is vital to your judgment of them and whether you will stick around, I'm sorry, but that is conditional, and therefore you prefer the idea of someone. Further, people are allowed to not share until they are ready or never share at all. Anyone who doesnt relinquish the fantasy that they have a say or don’t show grace and instead act entitled for others in this simple sense worries me more than a little bit. 

Final thoughts: What Harry does do is remain vague and leave things up for interpretation. Not only does that keep prejudice or conservative/religious fans from removing their loyalty cards, his image remaining malleable. Allowing Harry to make changes as he sees fit and feels like doing without adding pressure or explaining himself to anyone who doesn't have access to his privacy. That is valid. If that is queer baiting to you, you are missing the point entirely, and you don't know the definition of queer baiting. However, it’s understandable and valid if people get confused and/or feel some ways. I resonate with this entirely.

Now, what kind of person would want to be vague for the sake of prejudiced friends? In my mind, vagueness won't make real friends. However, fans ≠ friends, that is the catch. To make it far in this business as someone big and serious, sometimes you have to appeal to a broader demographic, so vagueness is advised as necessary. Hypothetically, if you were in that position as an artist, you could go the Zayn route by telling people off (mad respect) or going the standard way by being inclined to vagueness, which sometimes turns into a slow transition to transparency as the artist feels more carefree/gains more respect over the years. (understandable)

[angrycowboys]

you know what, i don’t care anymore. deancas being canon apparently means i don’t give a single fuck about dumb people’s bullshit anymore.

i don’t wanna be like “it’s different because it’s spn/deancas” but like...it is. this show started 15 years ago, in 2005. back then, no one’s queer ships were canon. we made do with fanfic and believing there was something more because that’s what shipping is. we didn’t need it to be canon. i didn’t need deancas to be canon last night. or ever. the fact that it actually sort of counts as canon queer rep. is mind-blowing to me. because as lots of people point out, spn was a very straight show in a time when there wasn’t a lot of queer characters on tv much less lead characters. it’s a show about two straight white dudes. there was nothing wrong with that and that’s the reality. but obviously times have changed and spn’s changed and maybe it’s not become ‘perfect’ at representation but perfect rep. doesn’t exist. i really never imagined we’d get anything close to this, and i was fine with that, because spn’s from a different time and it’s not a show about that but i knew there was a real love story there all along. and maybe it was accidental or maybe it was deliberately written, but either way it meant something to lots of people and still does. even without the confession, it still would.

i’ve said a million times that spn’s from a different time. so don’t expect too much. it’s not gonna be explicitly canon. i honestly kinda wished the writers would’ve just come out years ago and plainly said it’s not the way they view the relationship but it’s fine for fans to interpret it however they want, just to stop entitled people harassing them constantly. but they didn’t. obviously for a reason. and i’ve never been more happy to be wrong. and it’s not ‘fanservice’; anyone who’s watched the show can tell you how important their relationship is and has been. even when it was purely platonic.

the confession was fine, it made a lot of sense for cas, and dean’s reaction was in-character. if you don’t think he was absolutely fucking devasted, then you’re just being deliberately obtuse. i like the way it happened personally. it would be great if cas came back but if not, that’s what fix-it fic is for. i’m not gonna abuse the writers and actors because i’m a decent human being and being an asshole to people about fictional shit is immature and dumb.

most of the people ‘criticising’ it i.e. making unoriginal, unfunny memes are not doing it in good faith and they don’t watch or care about the show at all. so their opinions are worthless. most of the people who are mad now are never going to be satisfied and don’t actually care about ‘representation’; they just like being loud to get attention and they want woke points by shitting on spn because it’s cool and they have nothing better to do with their lives. if they really cared about representation, they would move on with their lives and talk about shows they actually like that have what they consider ‘good’ representation, but that’s not gonna get them likes so. it’s become a cool thing to tear down things that other people love, that are totally harmless, just because it doesn’t conform to their ‘ideals.’ but they don’t speak for everyone. ignore them.

also, calling the writers/actors ‘homophobic’ for no reason other than you don’t personally like how a tv show went is disgusting. is claiming that people are homophobic when you don’t actually know them a joke now? because that’s fucked-up and the internet is a literal cesspool. block all those people, seriously. their ‘opinions’ have zero worth.

people can keep making their shitty ‘jokes.’ no one’s gonna remember them soon enough. they’ll move on to being assholes about something else soon because that’s that they do. but we’ll remember. because it means something to us, whether or not it was ‘perfect.’ it’s not about just being satisfied with crumbs the way some people might say. we’ve watched this story unfold. we know what it is. and we don’t need other people to tell us we ‘deserve better’ or how to feel. feel whatever you want. because it’s canon and they can’t take this away from us.

[golbatgender]

How not to be a pox on fandom, incomplete list

Fanfic doesn't have to conform to canon. Canon ships are not better or worse than non-canon ones.

Someone shipping a character you ship in a different ship than you do is not an attack on you. It is not a claim that your ship is wrong. Fan creators each have their own internal canon that is separate from all others, unless they're collaborating. If you try to ban people from shipping something or try to find reasons why it's "bad" just because you ship something else, you're an asshole.

Shipping means that you think 2 or more characters look hot together or have an interesting relationship dynamic, or sometimes that you think the canon is implying they might be together. If the latter, that does not mean you have to like it or can't ship anything else, nor that it isn't a false flag or a temporary relationship or you just reading into things that much.

Shipping is a creative state. It should inspire you to make things. If you only want to destroy everything else, you're an asshole and only hurting fandom.

If you seriously intend to hurt or harass people because a ship got sunk or they ship something you don't like, you're an asshole.

If you're planning a literal protest because a ship got sunk, you're an entitled, selfish, toxic asshole. There are actual problems in the world, and you're picketing a TV show because you didn't like a ship. Go be ashamed of yourself.

Writing about something doesn't mean doing it in real life. The point of fiction is to mentally explore things you can't or shouldn't do in real life. You should try it sometime.

Don't do pedophilia libel. It's homophobic and destructive. (The average fan creator is queer.) If there isn't a direct victim, it's not predatory and the accusation is fake. The target can, under some circumstances, sue you. It's not worth it. Don't do it.

Don't shame people's kinks. If you don't like it, they didn't write it for you. There is a 99% chance you have some weird horrifying fetish, too.

(And this is not a claim that pedophilia is a kink, ffs. Assaulting people is bad. You'd better have some evidence that an assault actually happened before you accuse anyone though, you ghouls. Also, if you literally think there are pedophiles everywhere, your reality is distorted and you need to get help.)

Disgust ≠ moral turpitude. That's projection. Look it up.

"Fujoshi" doesn't mean what you think it means. Just stop using that word.

Fetishization requires dehumanization and reduction of a character to a single trait. Attraction is not automatically fetishization. Arousal is not fetishization.

Sex isn't bad. Stop being scared of sex. Especially stop being scared of fictional sex. You can't even get pregnant or catch an STI from it.

Stop judging people for having sex, for wanting to have sex, or for doing either in ways that you wouldn't.

Stop being scared of your own desires. Stop hating yourself for them. If you can't do that, at least don't project that onto your opinions of other people and their work.

A ship having abuse or conflict doesn't mean it's bad to ship. Just don't emulate it in real life. This is simple. If you don't get it, you need help. If you just pretend not to get it so you have an excuse to hate people who ship a thing you don't like, you're an asshole. Stop being an asshole.

Shipping doesn't matter in real life. People shipping ships you don't like doesn't matter in real life. Just ignore other people's ships.

If you get so obsessed with a ship that sinking it would make you have a real breakdown, you need to disengage. If that level of obsession happens regularly, you need to stop shipping at all until you're more stable, because it's not healthy for you, the same way you wouldn't run a marathon on a sprained ankle.

If you'd break up a friendship or relationship because they started shipping something you didn't like, you have a problem and you're being an asshole. Get help.

Don't insist things are canon when they've only been implied. Especially don't do that to attack other people or ships. Canon does not define validity. Stop being an asshole.

If you feel like you need external validation such as canon to ship or headcanon something—you don't. If canon directly contradicts the thing, it's simply AU. That means alternate universe, which means you can change as many rules and conditions as you want, for whatever reason. If you still feel like you need external validation, get help.

Wanting your own work to be canon compliant is fine. Bashing someone else because theirs is or isn't makes you an asshole. Don't be an asshole.

Before you reblog things that make claims about anything fannish or shippy, especially if it has buzzwords, apply critical thinking to make sure it and its underlying premises (assumptions about how things work) make sense. If you're allergic to thinking, take Benadryl. If it doesn't actually make sense but it gives you a plausible sounding excuse to be a hater, you're an asshole. Stop being an asshole.

If you like hating on people and get a rush out of it and take any excuse to yell at Bad People and tell them to choke, die, suck your toes, or pee themselves, you are an asshole and are probably not being honest with yourself about your motivations. Also, please look up the definitions of humiliation kink, breathplay, foot fetish, or omorashi, and try to find consenting partners for any of those that appeal to you and stop doing them verbally to strangers on the internet who didn't ask for it and probably aren't interested. (Because that's creepy and predatory. Notice it also involves actively doing something to real people instead of writing about it happening to fictional characters.)

If you think fictional characters are traumatized for real when people write about bad things happening to them and that such writers are real abusers, but that you're not hurting anyone by yelling at them and accusing them of terrible things and hurling outre sexual invective at them, you're an asshole and your reality is distorted. Get help.

Fictional characters aren't real people. Writers and other shippers are real people. Treat the real people only how you'd want to be treated, and get consent before you do anything else. Take out your antisocial impulses on the fictional characters, because they're not real and can't be hurt by it.

Being kind is ultimately more rewarding than trying to seek out and identify Bad People. "Everything is bad and I must punish it" can feel powerful but leaves you exhausted and terrified. Kindness is two-thirds leaving people alone and one-third encouraging what you do like, but you'll make real friends you don't have to be afraid of and walk on eggshells around, and the kindness comes back to you.

Creative, not destructive; transformative, not curatorial; kindness, not vengeance. Less ship wars, more free sailing.

Don't be an asshole.

[justasmallbloginabigklainefandom]

From Grey, chapter 6

Temperance_V: So this is a special blog post featuring a guest blogger, which I've never done before but it seemed like a pretty fun idea since *basically* we talk more than enough to do this without going out of our way anyway. So, this week the blog is in the form of this chat log between me and Paleanghostly, who's mostly active over in the 'ghostlanx' fandom.

Paleandghostly: You have to put the scare quotes around it to remind people that I basically devote my days to looking at pictures of superheroes like a fourteen year old, of course. TV: I think most of your gang spend more time staring at their butts than most fourteen year olds do, P&G. P&G: You might be surprised. I remember being fourteen. TV: Anyway, we met a while ago now when P&G commented on my blog to insult my taste in whiskey and was somehow sort of charming about how stupid I am, and we ended up chatting. Now we play chess over the mail. P&G: Actually over the mail, on actual paper. It's a thing. TV: I genuinely look forward to the letter sneering at my last move once a week. So we're here to discuss something we've already been talking about anyway but it's been a *particularly* interesting chat, so we thought we'd share some thoughts with the wider internet. So this discussion got kicked off by the fandom reaction to this photograph of the Ghost and Phalanx from I think three weeks ago now? P&G: They'll remember the fandom reaction. It's the kind of wank that's so much bigger than the incident that caused it ever could be. TV: I'm not actually in the 'ghostlanx' fandom, btw, I should put that disclaimer out for anyone who's reading this *from* that fandom. If I seem like a n00b, forgive me. P&G: Please god stop putting it in scare quotes. Temperance usually blogs about anything interesting in the media and reactions to the media, for those who have followed *me* from phandom, and it was during one of her posts on Mad Men that I found it necessary to educate her in what we drink and what we use to clean toilets with. And it's *whisky*, please tell me you are actually drinking the stuff that is worth drinking and is not overpriced rebottled mouthwash by now. TV: Moving on. The photograph is a candid caught behind a police van, and shows the Ghost and Phalanx in conversation with a police officer - in suit and tie, so I'm guessing a detective but he looks a little young for it. No-one appears to be trying to arrest anyone. You'd think that would be have been the main point of discussion, P&G? P&G: *snort* Have you *met* fandom? Get to the interesting substance of the issue? No! We want exactly what we want and we want it exactly when we want it, anything deviating from this is a cause of deep personal offence to me and the *entire internet must stop and feel my pain!!* TV: So, it wasn't the crime scene they *weren't* arrested at that most people were talking about (though presumably, the 'enemy' you actually face on the streets you have more in common with than you do your own boss in their high rise office; if I was police I think I'd think we had bigger problems than superheroes too). P&G brought the discussion to my attention via the medium of much swearing, because she has a lot of feelings about these things. P&G: Oh please do make me sound like one of them. The reason I drew Temperance's attention to the response was - well, threefold. One is that in terms of gender politics and misogyny and homophobia amongst those who claim to not be bigots it was *fascinating*. Slash depressing. Two is that it was an eyebrow-straining example of the fandom entitlement complex. Three is that it gives us a very interesting insight into their identity and how very un-black-and-white that is - because people are more complicated than their labels, always. TV: Let's deal with gender first, though these issues do run through each other. This all came about because of the Ghost's posture in the photograph. He's standing quite close to Phalanx, who's facing and speaking to the police officer - I'm sorry, is that police officer really tall or is he actually that short? It's kind of adorable. P&G: He's like the Swiss army knife of superheroes. Flexible crime fighter, folds into your pocket afterwards. TV: Phalanx is speaking, standing with his feet apart, hands apart, gesturing - something, to what he's saying. Possibly just emphasizing a word. No-one even mentioned how Phalanx was standing? P&G: No. Because the Ghost was innocently standing next to him. TV: The Ghost is standing with his left arm crossed over his chest - his cloak makes it a little hard to see, but he's probably supporting the opposite elbow with his hand, because his right hand is held up loosely at shoulder height, as if propped off a desk. And he's got his hip cocked, and his head tilted the other way, it's a great photograph actually, his posture's like a da Vinci composition. P&G: I knew I liked you for a reason. It is a great picture. It's just enormously aesthetically pleasing, Phalanx standing sort of open and easy, the Ghost a longer but narrower zig-zag of angles, eyes on him. Both the Ghost and the cop are looking at Phalanx; the Ghost's expression, as much as you can make it out under the hood and mask, looks attentive and relaxed. Like you would look at your lover, mid-sentence. What fandom chose to cry and cause wank over is, Jesus fucking Christ, the way he's standing. TV: It's not the most masculine posture in the world. P&G: Why the *fucking* hell should it be? TV: Let's go through this in bite-size chunks so it's not just a string of expletives again. Why, as succinctly as possible, did fandom start a flamewar over the Ghost standing like that? P&G: Because they, the idiot ignorant children, fetishize homosexuality in the most contorted and disturbing way possible. Because they're fine with him being gay - happy that he's gay, since they can use his name and form for all their little m/m fantasies on a whole different level of appropriation now. But how dare he, human being in his own life, how *dare* he not conform to strict gender stereotypes at the same time. He's perfectly well allowed to be gay, as long as he does it the 'right way'. God forbid he be any kind of queer that disturbs them, though. TV: There was a lot of negativity. P&G: They don't want to see a male hero stand in a 'feminine' pose. It demeans him. It makes him less heroic. TV: Because to be female is to be less, and to be a male imitating a female is possibly the worst thing it's possible to be. Some of the responses were genuinely unsettling, I read some of your replies to them. P&G: I might have been angry, but I do not disown a single word of what I said. Disgusting self-absorbed ignorant little shits deserved it. TV: But not everyone was so negative about it. P&G: No. Some of fandom is actually populated by feminists and not by people who think that they know what that word means but have never actually thought it through. And then some of fandom is populated by people who further fetishize his femininity in again the most contorted way possible. We kind of had perfect storm conditions for the wank after that. TV: You posted a short piece of meta about it at the time. P&G: I posted a rant, please don't dignify anything that happened during that shitstorm with a respectful title. I hammered out at my keyboard my undying rage that these people were treating him like a doll to dress up how they pleased, and then throwing tantrums when he failed to live up to what they'd dressed him up as in their heads, or subsuming him under the further homophobic, misogynist, *the opposite of accurate* image of him as a swooning 'heroine' in need of big strong Phalanx to 'rescue' him. TV: Little strong Phalanx. P&G: I sense some favoritism developing. TV: He's really cute now I've *looked* at him. Look, I'm not in this fandom, this is not my war to step into. But it *is* interesting. Because, obviously, there's a lot of misogyny involved in campophobia - even in the queer community, the feminine man is despised. P&G: Yes. A loud part of the queer community, weirdly, strives for heteronormativity. We focus on gay men and women as being 'normal', the way straight men and women are 'normal'. Possibly just because it makes us less threatening to straight people, or helps us deal with internalized homophobia, I don't know. But that 'normality' is a lie whether the person in question is gay or straight, these categories are weird, and troublesome, and some of them are actively steeped in hatred and lies. The only thing to do is let it go. 'Normal' has only ever been an illusion. It is all so much more complicated than that you would not *believe*. Let gender be whatever it will be, and stop trying to shame people into going about it the way you're comfortable with. People are who they are and they love who they love. No-one should ever have to sit in a labelled box that someone else nailed the lid down on. TV: Fandom's largely female and yet we still perpetuate the weird misogyny wrapped up in all of this. P&G: Fuck the patriarchy that lives in our own heads most of all. TV: And the weirdest part of it is, everyone knows who he is - he's a hero. There is so much photographic evidence of his extremebamfery that it was a struggle to narrow down which gifs to illustrate the point with. P&G: He haunted New York on his own for five years before Phalanx showed up. Criminals are terrified of him, there's enough documented evidence of that. He can take down a dozen guys all bigger than him and then stroll away when the cops arrive, the last man standing and still unarrested. He kicks so much ass and we've always admired that. He also just copes with what must be a frequently distressing and draining occupation - most of what he deals with on any individual night could be completely traumatic to many people. I admire his strength and bravery utterly. And somehow people cannot square that strength, bravery, and bamfery with the image of him standing with his hip cocked *like a girl*. TV: Because, really, the two just aren't connected. They literally have nothing to do with each other. It's not that either should make the other difficult, there is no logical inconsistency in his not being traditionally masculine and his simultaneously kicking lots of ass. P&G: No. It was never his testosterone-fuelled uber-manliness that kicked ass. It was him. Exactly as he is. He's the same person kicking ass as he is standing next to Phalanx, in what is to him an unconsciously comfortable position - it's only since Phalanx came along that he's started relaxing like that, btw, *that* is clearly what's comfortable to him, not that wary cloak-covered hunch he always wore before. And it says so much more about fandom, about *people*, than it does about *him* that people somehow cannot make the image of the butt-kicking man who stands 'like a woman' sit right. TV: Because - what, heroism is manly? Girls don't kick ass *like that*? Because like you said, there are those who emphasize and fetishize his femininity, and in so doing they often fail to capture the bamfy aspect of him. P&G: What this links in to is the fandom entitlement complex. TV: Go ahead, I can feel your need to preach. P&G: I have a rant brewing, if that's what you mean. The fandom entitlement complex links into fandom sexism in a really strange and powerful way. Because fandom feels like it *owns* its figures of fetishization; they are what they are because we made them that. There is an enormous sense of ownership, like they're just the scaffolding, *we* construct who they are. And of course, they can't live up to that. They're real people, not our dolls. And when they fail to live up to our particular construction we either ignore the facts and go on as before or else we get *really fucking angry*. How *dare* they be actual human beings. They're supposed to be *my doll*, not any real person. Especially not any complicated real person! They should be as simple as possible because I can't conceptualize more than three personality traits in my head at any one time, I am *actually* that dumb! TV: Ahem. Plus we live in a patriarchal society and we construct our dolls along the strict and misogynist gender lines given to us, which oversimplifies them in very dangerous ways. P&G: That's what worries me about many of the people who make the Ghost out to be 'girly' - they're often people who obviously really *identify* with the Ghost, and they still make him out to be weak. So what does that say about the psychology of some women in this world, that society taught us to hate ourselves so *effectively* that we even want our *heroes* to just be rescued, that when we use him as a stand-in for ourselves in *fiction* we still *make him weak*? Because the fic and meta where the Ghost is effeminate *and* is the still the strong, life-saving hero - well, I've rarely found it under the sheer mass of 'basically all the Ghost really wants is for Phalanx to *save* him' fic. TV: I mean, ouch, but yeah. It explains the bizarre popularity of misogynist romance fiction written for women by women, after all. P&G: Mm. So we construct our dolls as manly male heroes, and then throw a shitfit when the queer man actually turns out to be *too* queer. Or we construct them as weak and flimsy *caricatured* women with dicks, who angst and cry and need a more masculine partner to 'rescue' them. The entitlement complex is so strong that we either write over them with our own images - rewrite the Ghost entirely, forget that he kicks ass, forget his *strength*, because a 'girly' man could never be strong because *girls aren't strong* - or we rage and scream about all our butthurt that the hero turned out to not be a cardboard cut out MAN. The part where he's a hero - do I actually need to remind people that he stopped New York being blown up? (with Phalanx; they are partners, after all) - who is both 'feminine' and 'masculine', because we all are, because those labels fix to characteristics and not to people, *that* part gets forgotten. We want them to be what *we want them to be*. We forget that they're not obliged to be a damn thing for anyone except themselves. And often people in writing their definitions of other people do want to wipe queerness out. They want us to go back to that gender dichotomy. They either want him to be a 'man' (caricatured) or to be basically a 'woman' (caricatured) in male form, but they can't *stand* that he's actually just a human being, and human beings are difficult. TV: No middle ground? P&G: Are you shitting me? This is fandom. TV: So tell us how to fix this, great wise Ghostly. P&G: I appreciate your sarcasm so, so dearly. There is middle ground, I was being facetious. There was a small, feminist, pro-queer faction fighting this corner as loudly and rationally as they could. And Blackbindings - one of the fanficcers in the ghostlanx fandom - wrote a piece after that photograph was published called Graduation, which tried to actually ignore the wank and deal with what the photograph *did* teach us about the relationship between the Ghost and Phalanx. Because all that wank is nothing like the most interesting part of that photograph. In this fandom, *everyone* should have responded to that photograph how Blackbindings did, but unfortunately she's the only one with the brains to see what's actually important. TV: I haven't read the fic. P&G: It's a meditation - all of her fics are strolls around a subject, giving you new angles and a wider perspective to actually *see* something from, I swear she makes me realize I have my eyes *closed* half the time. It's a meditation on the balance of 'power' in their relationship. What power means, and doesn't mean, and how it doesn't have to dominate, those who have power can *share* it. We think of it like it's a limited resource but why can't everyone be powerful, if it's the right kind of power? It's about their teacher/student relationship. TV: You're going to have to explain that for those of us who aren't in the fandom. P&G: Tell me what you think it might mean from looking at that photograph. TV: I don't know. The Ghost is standing slightly behind Phalanx's shoulder, relative to that cop. It could just be that the way Phalanx is gesturing has knocked their shoulders out of alignment. It could be that Phalanx has *put* himself between them. It could be that the *Ghost* put Phalanx between them. It could be that Phalanx is taking the lead and the Ghost is happy with that. It could be that the Ghost is watching over him . . . P&G: Yes. It could be all of those things. And not one of us mentioned it because we were just too fucking busy screaming about the Ghost standing like a girl. The Ghost was there first, and it's pretty long been assumed by many that they had a teacher/apprentice role - the classic superhero/sidekick relationship. But it becomes obvious in that photograph - and when you look back, there's a lot of other pictorial evidence for it - that it's really not that simple, and maybe it never has been. TV: You know I love it when you elaborate. P&G: I'm sexy when I'm verbal. When you look back through gifs and photosets, whenever they're dealing with crime victims, the Ghost tends to be in front. His attention is all on the victim and Phalanx is looking at *him*. When they're dealing with criminals they're usually side by side and their attention is focused on the threat. But whenever they're dealing with anybody else - cops, reporters, fans, bystanders - usually Phalanx is the one in front and talking, and usually, the Ghost isn't looking at who they're dealing with, his gaze and his posture are orientated towards *Phalanx*. The Ghost often isn't even fully visible in those situations. Look at that photograph again; Phalanx is standing very at ease and in control of the situation, very relaxed being the one talking, and the Ghost is looking at *him*. This is not a hero/sidekick relationship. They have strengths and weaknesses and they complement each other. They actually are, in every sense of the word, partners. TV: That's quite sweet actually. P&G: If you're contemplating joining the fandom I advise you not to, it's populated mostly by cretins and children. Blackbindings is special. Very special, actually. She does cryptic crosswords for *shiggles*, I don't know if you've ever looked at one but they are torture for the mind. But it affects her brain in interesting ways. She called it 'Graduation', because partly the fic is about how they educate each other, empower each other (of course education is empowering: in her fic, knowledge elevates). But the fic is also very steeped in color terms. It gives it a really physical, sensual, *there* atmosphere, almost close enough to touch, and it was only when I remembered her twisty-turny cryptic little brain that I realised that 'graduation' is only a letter away from 'gradation'. It's the sort of thing she'd notice and play on, cunning little creature that she is. The way hues run into each other. There is no dividing line. The labels are a lie. Strictly, once you realize how difficult drawing a line between colors is, there aren't any *colors*; there's just *color*, and we fumble through labelling instances of it as best we can, pretending that the labels create real categories. They, the Ghost and Phalanx, are so much more complicated than anything we can paint them. Their identities are human identities and the labels are a *lie*. It's not that the labels aren't labelling something real but that they're only labelling *parts* of people when they are *wholes*. They are complex. They live in a world of gradations. They're not superhero/sidekick except for when they are, but who is which is a very blurry thing. Isn't it for all of us? TV: I can't tell if you're a fan of ghostlanx or of Blackbindings right now. P&G: Probably both. Sometimes I just contemplate that her mind exists and give a satisfied sigh that the world *must* be a reasonable place after all . . . TV: We should probably get back to the wank we were discussing. Did you have any closing thoughts on the subject? P&G: Just that being a fan is a very peculiar thing. We never know the person that we 'love' so much, though I do think that that love is often very sincere and fierce-felt, but we only actually know the doll we made of them in our own heads - with masked heroes the problem intensifies. And what we should do is be relaxed, and accept that people are always more complicated than we think they are - this has wider implications than fandom alone - and discuss these things in a way such that we can *learn* from it. Because learning, and the openness to strange new things that learning requires, empowers. The close-mindedness that treats people as characters to be owned by us, that demands simplicity where simplicity is an act of psychological aggression, that sense that we're entitled to special access to their identities almost more than they themselves are - all those things harm both them and *us* in thinking like that. And if people could not be dicks about gender norms that would also be really cool. TV: Indeed. The sheer scale of the meltdown is something to be appreciated, I dabbled in to take a look and - whoa, basically. P&G: It's a big fandom, when we make wank we make a *masterpiece* of wank. Still, most people did stay out of it. The sensible majority who just duck their heads and reblog gifs whenever the shit starts flying. TV: And do you have this week's move ready yet? P&G: It's in the mail, and you really should have seen it coming. TV: We'll see. So next week I'll probably be discussing US remakes of other countries' movies and TV shows, unless something more interesting happens in the meantime. P&G: Oh god, don't even get me started on that bullshit. TV: And it looks like you'll probably see Paleandghostly in the comments section next week too, ahem. Thank you for your contribution this week, P&G, couldn't have done it without you. P&G: You're more than welcome. I hope it was educational, at least insofar as discouraging people from irritating me quite so much. TV: See you guys next week, signing off!

[kalesandfails]

Pride!

There’s a lot of things I want to write about Pride, but I can’t find the words, because honestly, while I think everyone should feel celebrated during Pride — even cisgendered white bisexuals with husbands and children, who never managed to fully hate ourselves for how we were (though high fives to the brave Seventh Adventists and homecoming courts for trying!) — really what we all need to pay attention to this month is trans women of color, and how we just can’t seem to stop murdering them.

Muhlaysia Booker was alive a month ago. Muhlaysia Booker was twenty three years old. She had all the things you and I have — a history, a family, friends — all things that the fetuses for whose sake we are collectively stripping women of their autonomy don’t have, not to belabor the point. 

She had a story, probably a difficult one, and she had courage, or she wouldn’t have survived and fought to live life on her own terms, and the struggle to do so, to live on one’s own terms, is supposedly something we admire.

And yet she died facedown in a street somewhere far from the people who loved her.

And yet her last moments were ones in which she was subjected to violent assault because (1) who she was triggered enough hate that someone felt entitled to murder her and (2) we’ve decided, collectively, that while we will literally redefine half the population of Alabama as something less than citizens with rights to their own bodies, we can’t summon up an unambivalent rejection of straight-up murder.

I want to rock Pride, because I’ll be honest, self-love is a goddamn uphill slog for me right now. All of it — my sexuality, my personality, my appearance, my clothes — none of them were ever right, growing up, and Pride, for me, is a month all about talking back to the eye-rolling Beckies who dominated my adolescence and never seem to step wholly off.

But I think we need to be celebrating Pride, at least in part, by recognizing that we can’t start and stop by loving ourselves -- especially those of us who enjoy significant amounts of privilege because of all the ways our bodies and identifies do conform to the expectations of others. 

Bisexual erasure is real, and I don’t think anyone has the right to write off your sexuality because it seems somehow closer to straightness than their own. But we also need to love queer and trans people who are getting killed in the streets by the same country (and we are all part of this country; it’s not just Trump’s problem) that just can’t seem to decide under which circumstances abortion is murder.

Hint: none. But also, you know what definitely is murder?

This

and this

and this.

And even “our” guys — our Bob Caseys and Chrissy Houlihans, or whoever your Democratic representatives are — need to hear from us about the importance of keeping this issue as visible as the antiabortion wack jobs keep their Lacanian baby signifiers.

Look, inexplicably, of all the things Ben Carson could be doing, he roused from his nap long enough to propose taking protections away from transgendered and nonbinary homeless human beings. Why? I don’t know, and I’m certainly not going to connect it to the very same religion that had no time for the repeated sexualized intrusions onto the bodies of its Sabbath School attendees, but plenty of time to predict that their “same sex attractions” were a sign of the End Times. (Christians, have you thought that your religion might be more warmly embraced if you toned down that recurring leitmotif of fucking things up for everyone?)

The point is, friends, write to Bob and Chrissy and Horrible Pat and everyone else who represents you, and tell them that you do not want the government rolling back protections against one of the most vulnerable populations in your country. You know, the population that is being killed in the goddamn streets.

Be proud of who you are because being LGBTQ+ is great and you are fabulous, and also because speaking out when your government is collectively not addressing actual murder, as in the intentional killing of living human beings, is even better.

Addendum:

(When you write to Chrissy and Bob and Horrible Pat, you can specifically make them aware of Virginia Representative Jennifer Wexton’s Ensuring Equal Access to Shelter Act, which is designed to prevent this ruling from putting trans women at increased risk of sexual assault and murder by forcing them to be housed with men (which is what this bill does and which is tenable only if you imagine an endgame in which the threat of violent sexual and physical assault will magically make someone cisgender, because apparently violence is the answer, sometimes?)

Here’s another article that details the underlying reasoning, such as it is, underlying this move by Carson (apparently, the idea is that by restricting the right of a given rando to determine for herself the gender of another human being, the federal government is taking away the rando’s right (to override the self-determination of others) And here’s an account that clarifies exactly how this specific proposal increases the risk that trans women -- who, say it with me, are already facing an epidemic of violence -- face when they attempt to secure safe housing. 

Here’s the Transequity Action Center, which gives some context to this as part of an ongoing movement against trans people and also a place where you can send money to support ongoing efforts to fight these efforts. 

Finally, you can comment on the HUD proposal by filing a discrimination complaint (although this is clearly not the intent of the complaint form, it is one way to reach them, and to make the point that this is their agency openly endorsing the discrimination they are supposedly charged with preventing, or you can directly comment on this ruling here (not to bury the lead, but DO IT)!

The you can up you joy factor by checking out Cyndi Lauper’s True Colors initiative, which is working to help get safe housing for LGBTQ+youth, and the Trans Women of Color Collective , which lays out specific and meaningful ways that those seeking to center trans women of color and support a  more just world can do that. 

[pumpumdemsugah]

no reblogs LONG lol

speaking to a long time friend that now understands herself as a lesbian, essentially the issue isn’t that we wouldn’t date bi pan etc women (if you’re great you’re great) but most don’t seem to even mentally want to put in the work that comes with dealing with being attracted to women.  i get when people say they don’t want to deal with all the shit that comes with dating women but i can’t opt up. if i wanna have casual sex it will be with a woman, if i want a relationship it will be with a woman, if i want to start a family it will be with a woman  so telling me about those issues surrounding dating and women fucking but never making an effort to  do that and then freely telling everyone that you’re bi and don’t forget that, doesn’t make any sense to me and it makes me wonder what do you want me to do that because no one can make you date a woman but your self 

finally being honest with myself completely freaked me out and it took a lot to stop framing my sexuality as not being attracted to men to then being attracted to women and then being only attracted to women and that caused lots of heart palpitations because i internalised ALOT!  A LOT A LOT A LOT 

it just kinda feels whenever we see or we’re around stuff about bi women its mainly about how they’re partnered with men and it doesn’t stop you being bi or “queer enough” and its like yes of course but there is little “”positivity ” for bi women that only date women or are trying to come to terms with it, even if its only mentally. Being someone that continued having sex with men & trying to find a nugget of attraction (i didnt) and was dragged into lesbians when i actually listened to my body about how it felt about being sexual with men--i forced myself to be with men because i was scared to be with women, even in my own head, not even mentally could i freely admit this so the idea lesbians do not understand the pressure to be with men and how easy society makes it to be with men is honestly so silly and insulting but also living that it makes it hard not to judge bi women that don’t mentally even seem to want to unpack about being into women then only ever seem talk about nothing but support for bi women with men and are only ever with men.

i think some see lesbianism as the crux of radicalism and as soon as you realise you are one you teleport to a lesbian commune and everything just clicks and its not. idk if people want validation or comfort but its honestly unfair to put that on randoms to assure you that you are “bi enough” or whatever. unless someone is being a dickhead, i just don’t think they are responsible for making you feel assured in your identity, like maybe if they’re your friend the standard is course higher 

I’m not responsible for feelings of inadequacy someone has about being mistaken for a boring ass straight girl with a boring ass straight boy and a lot of divisive “queer” topic that get brought up are about not feeling radical enough which begs the question why is my Black lesbian ass even a little bit responsible for that?  me thinking too many bi women don’t want to mentally unpack much when it comes with being attracted to women isn’t erasing your sexuality but more protecting mine because of how hard this has been for me & not feeling like i need to be a project manager for other peoples personal growth. i don’t want to feel im being pegged or expected to constantly assure someone about their sexuality and how the choose to be with. I’m not gonna lead anyone to WLW promise land because im a Black lesbian that ticks a lot oppressed boxes and i resent my sexuality being implied to be radical or “queer enough” because its very othering, why can’t it just be normal? Keep talk about gay enough and queer enough away from me because i just want lesbianism seen as another form human sexuality takes and not the crux of female radicalism  

so you’re gender conforming and you only fuck men and you have feelings about that. you’re entitled to how you feel  and i hope you have space for that but that is on you hun, don’t delegate onto me because thats what it comes off as and coming to terms with being a lesbian is actually very hard lads. 

you lot can feel how you want about this but i think a lot of unfair pressure is being put onto lesbians without lots of people wanting to be self reflective. sometimes its the things people say that makes them off putting, not who you are 

[revenjolras]

Okay I’m putting it out there. I’m going to try and frame this as politely as possible, this is not an attack on anyone it’s just… an observation and a request (in long form I guess), and it may be a little disjointed. Firstly, I am not here to say what characters people are “allowed” to like or ship or whatever... but recently this fandom has been making me feel a little afraid(?) to say anything negative about Mont.parnasse and the Patron Min.ette. As if, to do so, fundamentally puts me at odds with the WHOLE point of Les Miserables... this story that I have loved for almost 20 years now, which I have read fully twice (halfway through a third go) seen on stage many times and listened to more times than I can count, written for for several years and read so much discussion on... I could probably do a PhD if I put my mind to it.  I don’t tend to BE a negative person but actually this Marvel fandom - Loki style... woobifying... attitude that I see more and more often is making me feel more negative about these characters than I used to... and I used to find them quite interesting.

Please please can we stop telling people off for treating villainous characters (who do villainous things unapologetically) like villains.

It is absolutely fine with me if you like a character, and find them interesting and want to explore them deeper... and you may write them however you want. I can’t stop you. I don’t want to stop you. I have no wish to prevent people from enjoying characters and shipping them with others... And I understand it can be hard to find that people don’t always see a character the way you do (BELIEVE ME I KNOW) but…

What I would like to stop is all of the “Stop making my murderous baby boy a villain” posts because people are just as entitled to not want to fluffy bunny a character that can be legitimately read as a bad person as others are to do so.

 And I’m sorry but Patron Min.ette are bad people. Yes. Society has failed them. Yes they have understandable reasons for becoming criminals... But having understandable reasons does not make murder okay??? Or, at least, it doesn’t mean that readers have to forgive or accept it. Bad people exist in real life, and they often have plenty of reasons for doing bad things... that does not mean we accept those bad things. And also, I mean... Mont.parnasse with his fashionable clothes... is very clearly not just doing these things just to stay alive. Honestly the following conversation is not something I think very far fetched:

Random person #1: Why did you kill that man???? Mont.parnasse: Oh well he had this awesome coat and I wanted it.

And like... if you like that? If you find that interesting or fun to write about. That’s great. Do that. But also maybe accept that some people DON’T find that a particularly likable character feature, or find it funny, and instead may possibly view it negatively and that’s... also... fine? I don’t even usually include Mont.parnasse and co. in my stories because they never really interested me… And I write mostly fluff… But even though these posts that have been going around lately are not in anyway targeting my writing it still feels like there’s this idea that if you don’t think a difficult life means a character should never be classed as a villain you’re somehow not reading the brick right or you’re writing is inferior in some way. It’s starting to take on a ‘your way of being a fan is wrong’ vibe that I have seen in fandom so many times and which is never pleasant.  Are there people who write Patron Min.ette as 2D comic book villains? Yes. And 2D characters of any moral compass need work… And then there are also people on the opposite end of the line writing these characters more like school bullies or petty thieves rather than the actual genuinely feared criminals with a body count that they are in the book. Which is neither better nor worse. 

However, both of these things are more issues with writing, and it’s not really what I’ve seen people criticizing. There has been an upsurge in this general idea that people just aren’t ALLOWED to write Mont.parnasse etc in a way that is unsympathetic. At that point you’re moving away from constructive criticism regarding writing style and into policing the way people interpret and reconstruct characters to suit the particular story they’re telling. I’ve been trying to keep this to myself and just get on with it, but it’s become something I am seeing virtually every single day now and I don’t think it’s being done maliciously in most people’s cases... I love this fandom and everyone in it... but even the more friendly posts about this are still making things uncomfortable for me and others who just don’t see these characters in the light that a lot of people do, and who don’t feel like we can express that without worrying someone is going to take issue. People who write these characters as villains are not harming anyone, sometimes (depending on the type of story) they may over-dramatise certain traits or embellish them to suit the setting (i.e. fairy tale au might see a more fairy tale over-the-top beard twirly type of villainy whereas a modern au might make them and their crimes more realistic) however they are not assigning bad traits to random characters who are not at all bad in the novel, they are not usually even fundamentally changing them and they’re usually not assigning harmful tropes that affect or erase people. We are not in the realms of things like ‘Enjolras shows zero interest in women in the novel and can absolutely be read as queer but I don’t care imma make him straight and a womanizer’ here. People have plenty of fair reasons to write these characters as bad people just as others have fair reasons for writing them more sympathetically.

What I’m saying is there isn’t a right answer here so can people please get off their high horses and just let people make up their own minds and write things the way they find works best for them? Can we not insinuate that those who choose to portray bad people as bad people are somehow doing a dis-service to something they love.  Ultimately if you disagree with characterisation you can always stop reading something, but imposing your personal judgement of a character on everyone else and looking down on them for not conforming to how you think they should be reacting to something never ever works.than

[katherinekayi-blog]

6 Ways Well-Intentioned People Whitesplain Racism (And Why They Need to Stop)

February 7, 2016 by Maisha Z. Johnson

If you’re a woman, queer, trans, and/or gender non-conforming, it’s probably not hard to imagine. Just think of one of those days when you’ve gotten too many unsolicited comments on your appearance, too many requests to “smile,” too many strangers who feel entitled to your space, time, and image.

So you’re venting to a friend, when along comes a man to explain that these strangers were just trying to be nice, and you “need to learn to take a compliment.”

How would you feel? Insulted? Pissed off? Like you wish this guy would stop assuming he knows your own experience better than you do?  

You’re probably saying yes. There’s a good chance that you’re saying, “This shit happens to me all the time, and I wish it would stop!” And you might find comfort in knowing that there’s a word, mansplaining, to describe the common and frustrating occurrence of men interrupting and explaining things to women and people of other genders.

I’ve been there, too.

And unfortunately, just as frequently, I’ve had white people try to explain racism to me, a woman of color. There’s a word for this phenomenon, too – whitesplaining. It’s incredibly frustrating to share my experiences with racism, only to have a white person try to speak over me about it – and often by belittling how racism hurts me.

If you’re white, you may have whitesplained without realizing it. To understand whitesplaining, now picture yourself in the following situation.

I’m venting about my day, and I tell you I’m angry that a white neighbor told me, “I don’t even see you as Black.”

Would you reassure me that my neighbor meant well? If you do, don’t be surprised if I’m just as annoyed as you would be if a man tried to explain your experience with street harassment to you.

Usually, signs of whitesplaining include a condescending tone and a paternalistic assumption that a person of color doesn’t know enough to accurately articulate their own experience.

The term doesn’t apply to every instance when a white person talks about racism, just like mansplaining doesn’t apply to every instance when a man talks about gender oppression. But whitesplaining is a result of the power white people hold as part of the dominant culture in the US. So recognizing when it’s happening is one of the everyday ways you can help dismantle the oppressive system of white supremacy.

Like with other forms of privileged explaining, including mansplaining, people who whitesplain have been conditioned to believe that they’re somehow more qualified to speak about a marginalized group than a person who belongs to that group.

That’s why there’s no equivalent like “blacksplaining.” When a Black person talks about race with a white person, they don’t have the same institutional power as a white person who belongs to the dominant culture.

And that’s the problem with whitesplaining. It’s not just harmlessly discussing racism, but implicitly acting on racist ideas that say that people of color are ignorant and wrong, even about their own experiences.

You probably don’t think you’re motivated by racist ideas when you whitesplain – just like men don’t have to hate women in order to participate in everyday sexism like mansplaining.

For instance, you might think you have a perfectly good reason for telling me my neighbor didn’t mean to be racist. You’ve spent time with her, and you’ve never known her to be racist, or you can tell she meant to compliment me by saying she doesn’t see me as Black.

But while these well-meaning reasons for correcting me feel true, it’s also true that you can act on subconscious, implicit biases leading you to dismiss what I have to say because I’m Black.

If you don’t believe whitesplaining is wrong, then you’re missing how the motivation behind whitesplaining is influenced by white supremacy. So let’s unpack the most common reasons why whitesplaining happens, to examine why it’s so misguided.

1. You Think I’ve Got a Fact Wrong (‘Actually…’)

For many people, it’s tempting to speak up when you encounter a fact you believe is wrong. Correcting someone seems pretty straight forward – so does it really relate to racism?

In certain cases, it does. And if you’re a white person talking with a person of color about racism, it’s best to keep this possibility in mind.

Because of white supremacy, many white people – especially white men, who are also influenced by patriarchy – have been conditioned to speak over other people and dominate spaces.

This begins as early as elementary school, when white and male students get more positive encouragement like being called on more often, even when they’re not raising their hands.

If you’re used to being affirmed for sharing your thoughts, you might feel entitled to share them even when – no offense – you have no idea what you’re talking about.

And then you might do one of the most irritating forms of whitesplaining – assuming a person of color just doesn’t understand what’s going on.

I’ve experienced this too many times when white folks believe they know more about what I’ve been through than I do – through secondhand information or just their own wild guesses.

For instance, when I tell someone that saying, “I don’t see color” erases my identity, they often dismiss my complaint with any of number of reasons they didn’t mean to hurt me.

Believe me, I’ve heard them all: “Actually, I didn’t mean it that way. I’m just trying to say we’re all human. I’m trying to say I don’t see you as different. I’m trying to treat everyone equally.”

Try as they might, they’re not going to achieve equality by taking a “colorblind” approach. Explaining that you have good intentions doesn’t erase the impact of invalidating my racial identity and implying that seeing my Blackness is a bad thing.

Talking with me about issues that affect my community means you have limits – you don’t have a lifetime of firsthand experience.

So it’s simply a sign of respect to give me the benefit of the doubt and trust that I can find the words for my own experience.

There’s nothing wrong with clearing up information if you come across something you believe is incorrect. But approach the situation with some humility. Ask questions to figure out why there’s a difference between what I’m saying and what you believe is true.

You might find that your information is wrong, that I interpret it differently, or that we’re on the same page, but I use different language rooted in my experience. And you’ll probably learn something new.

2. You Think My Feelings Are Wrong (‘Be Objective, It’s Not That Bad…’)

Have you ever felt like a person of color was being “oversensitive” when they got upset about racism?

If you try to tell me I shouldn’t be emotional about a racial justice issue, then I already know you don’t understand that issue. Because emotion is a natural response to oppression – and having someone judge how I feel about it just makes me feel worse.

For example, take microaggressions – small, subtle incidents of racism often done by people who don’t know they’re being racist. An example is someone telling me, “You’re pretty for a Black girl.”

It’s not the most egregious expression of racism, so you may wonder, “What’s the big deal?”

I’m upset, you’re confused, and the difference between our reactions isn’t just a matter of my being “oversensitive.” It’s a matter of privilege: You can learn about racism through secondhand sources, while I’ve directly experienced racism my entire life.

So it’s not up to you to decide what I should be offended by. Save your whitesplanation if you want to explain why I’m overreacting to a well-meaning compliment (which isn’t a compliment at all) by cringing at “you’re pretty for a Black girl.”

After I’ve dealt with microaggressions on a daily basis for so long, it’s just cruel to expect me to minimize my feelings about racism.

But wait – do my feelings make me biased? Maybe you want to have an “objective conversation,” a “rational debate,” without emotions getting in the way.

Like so many whitesplainers, you believe what you say is important because you have logic on your side. Objectivity is an understandable goal, but think about what it means to believe you’re the only one who can bring “reason” into the conversation.

The truth is that you’re just as biased as anyone else – your perspective is influenced by your own experiences and position of privilege. That also gives you a biased point of view on what “objectivity” means.

You’re approaching the conversation like a high school debate, as if this is just a harmless exercise in flexing our reasoning skills.

But when we’re talking about racial injustice, we’re actually addressing real issues with a negative impact on real people’s lives.

This isn’t the time to show off your debate skills just for the hell of it, or to play “devil’s advocate” when all you’re really doing is upholding the status quo. The phrase “the devil doesn’t need an advocate” comes to mind – since you’re siding with the dominant norm of white supremacy.

It’s tempting to wave around your “rational thought” that you think invalidates my feelings – but you’re not an authority on how I should feel about the issues that affect me.

3. You’re Concerned About My Approach (‘I Think What You Mean Is…’)

Whitesplainers are supposedly full of concern when they say I’d be better off, or a better advocate for racial justice, if I just said or did things differently.

For instance, have you ever felt the need to point out that a person of color was “generalizing” white people when they talked about racism?

If I say, “White people talk over me,” you might jump in with: “Not all white people. More people would listen to you if you didn’t generalize.”

And sure, I could amend my statement to: “Some white people talk over me. But not all of them. I know white people who don’t talk over me at all. And I’m sure the ones who do it don’t realize what they’re doing, and they don’t mean to be racist.”

Except there’s actually a problem with rushing to say that “not all white people” are part of the problem of white supremacy.

If I focused on reassuring every white person that they’re not personally responsible, then nobody would get the chance to examine how they might contribute – whether it’s by interrupting people of color, paying more attention to white folks who speak, or internalizing and benefiting from society’s messages that white people have more important things to say.

Your attempt to make sure I get the right message across may come from a good place. But the thing is – and do forgive me if this comes across as “generalizing” – people who whitesplain so often get things wrong, or at the very least, they miss the point.

It’s true that not every white person speaks over people of color – but blaming all white people for this phenomenon isn’t even the purpose of what I’m saying. If you don’t derail me to focus on protecting white people’s feelings, we could get to the real point of the problem – and what to do about it.

4. You Think You or Someone Else Is Being Falsely Accused (‘But I’m Not a Racist!’)

Speaking of derailments – when I’m talking about a racist act, I don’t have much interest in whether or not the person responsible is “a racist.”

If that sounds counterintuitive, then you could really use this clarification about addressing white supremacy: It’s not about identifying people as racists.

It’s also not about “bashing” white people – but you may interpret it that way if you’re feeling uncomfortable. And then you might whitesplain that people of color are “attacking” you for no reason.

When it comes to things like holding implicit biases and benefiting from white privilege, the question of whether or not someone is intentionally bigoted is completely irrelevant.

So you’re not under attack if a person of color is talking to you about race – not even if they’re calling you out for racism.

I remember one call-out in which writers of color let a white editor know how he’d contributed to racism in the publishing industry, and how he could do better.

Because it’s such a sensitive topic, many people interpret any mention of racism as a conflict – and this discussion was no different.

The editor’s friends immediately rallied to his defense, saying, “He doesn’t have a racist bone in his body!”

But nobody had even said this man was “a racist.” We simply pointed out that his actions had a harmful impact – and his being a good person wouldn’t make that impact vanish.

If you’re called out for racism and you take it as a personal attack on your character, you’re making the situation all about you – not the bigger picture of how all of us can take responsibility for our own role in white supremacy.

Your belief that someone “doesn’t have a racist bone in their body” can lead you to overlook the impact of what they’ve done and focus instead on their intentions.

In other words, you’re oversimplifying the issue, separating yourself from “the bad guys” and saying good people can’t possibly do something wrong.

Unfortunately, good people contribute to white supremacy every day – and if you can’t face the ways white supremacy influences your life, you’ll never be able to change it. That means you’ve got to stop focusing on your good nature and intentions, which has you prioritizing your feelings over people of color’s pain.

You’d have a much more positive impact if instead, you focused on addressing our very real, very valid concerns about how you’re contributing to our oppression.

So rather than whitesplaining the why of insensitive actions, try stepping back and listening to what only a person of color could tell you – how the actual impact of racist actions affect them.

If that makes you uncomfortable, it’s time to practice sitting with and learning from your discomfort instead of assuming that it means you’re under attack.

5. You Heard Another Person of Color Say Something Different (‘That’s Not What I Heard…’)

Listening to people of color is a great way to learn about racism. But please don’t just carry our quotes around like weapons to use against other marginalized folks.

Too many white people use this tactic to tell us that we’re wrong about racism – citing the Native friend who doesn’t mind cultural appropriation, or the Black celebrity who disagrees with Black Lives Matter protesters.

For instance, during Baltimore protests of the death of Freddie Gray, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer told activist DeRay McKesson, “I just want to hear you say there should be peaceful protests, not violent protests, in the tradition of Martin Luther King.”

Blitzer’s not the only one to take King’s words out of context to criticize police brutality protesters. This common trend shows exactly what’s wrong with using people of color’s words this way.

For one thing, Black people are not a monolith. We’re allowed to disagree. And your whiteness doesn’t grant you the authority to determine which one of us is right.

Because he advocated non-violent action, many people point to church-going, suit-wearing Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as a symbol of how Black folks “should” behave – conveniently forgetting that King was assassinated for his beliefs and leadership.

Using King in this way also oversimplifies his life and his message – his words on riots actually show that he doesn’t condemn them as “misbehavior.”

He actually says: “As long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention.”

To understand violent riots, you have to understand the unjust conditions that create them.

And if you actually listen to people of color instead of exploiting our words to confirm your own biases, you can learn a lot more about our diverse experiences.

6. You Want Me to Stop Talking About Racism (‘You’re Being So Divisive’)

Let’s face it – there are several excuses for whitesplaining, from hurt feelings to so-called “concern,” but many people who whitesplain do it simply because they don’t want me to talk about race.

“You’re being divisive.” “We should be uniting.” “There’s no such thing as race – we’re all human!”

Whitesplaining is particularly dangerous when it’s used to shut down conversation and action against racism.

For instance, you might explain that you don’t disagree with the message of Black Lives Matter, but you think the phrase should be “all lives matter,” because that captures the fact that everyone deserves to be safe from violence.

This isn’t just a matter of harmlessly sharing your opinion about an issue of race. You’re spreading a perspective that comes from the privilege of being silent in the face of injustice.

There is an urgent need to protect Black people from a criminal justice system that doesn’t value our lives, and you’re dismissing a whole movement aimed at doing just that.

Right now, we don’t need your interrupting to remind us that white people matter, too. There are white people who have also been mistreated by police, and that’s not okay – but it doesn’t invalidate the fact that we need to address the racial bias that has people of color targeted by police violence at much higher rates.

It doesn’t change that people believe racist stereotypes about Black people as “thugs,” exonerate police officers who attack people of color, and find any number of reasons to blame the victim. It doesn’t erase this horrific example of institutional racism that treats Black lives like they don’t matter at all.

If you understood my life experience, you’d know why recognizing race and directly addressing racial injustice matters to me.

Here’s the Key to Avoiding Whitesplaining

Reading this all at once might give you the impression that avoiding whitesplaining is a complicated matter.

Holding back from correcting someone when you think they’re wrong, sitting with uncomfortable emotions when you feel like you’re under attack, stepping back when you think you could explain something better – all of this takes some self-control.

There’s one strategy that will help you figure it all out: Approach racial justice conversations with humility.

In all of these examples I’ve shared, white people think they’re telling me something that’s never occurred to me before.

But the thing is, I’ve heard these whitesplanations over and over again. None of them are original, and it’s a waste of my time (and yours) to do this dance again and again and treat them like they are.

It’s also arrogant and condescending to assume that you and I see things differently simply because you’ve got all the answers and I lack the capacity to understand my own experience.

It’s all a perfect example of what you’re missing when you think I need you to explain things to me.

Whether you want me to “calm down” so I get my message across, to clarify what I mean so I don’t hurt white people’s feelings, or to stop talking about race so you feel more comfortable, whitesplaining is not the answer.

Because regardless of your intentions, whitesplaining has a damaging impact – silencing people of color, shutting down vital racial justice conversations, and often spreading misinformation.

So rather than upholding an oppressive lie that says people of color need white saviors in order to have reasonable conversations, have some humility. Recognize that you don’t have all the answers, and people of color deserve space to be heard without white people talking over us.

Maisha Z. Johnson is the Digital Content Associate and Staff Writer of Everyday Feminism. You can find her writing at the intersections and shamelessly indulging in her obsession with pop culture around the web. Maisha’s past work includes Community United Against Violence (CUAV), the nation’s oldest LGBTQ anti-violence organization, and Fired Up!, a program of California Coalition for Women Prisoners. Through her own project, Inkblot Arts, Maisha taps into the creative arts and digital media to amplify the voices of those often silenced. Like her on Facebook or follow her on Twitter @mzjwords.

http://everydayfeminism.com/2016/02/how-people-whitesplain-racism/?utm_content=buffer7b525&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer