#the HIV metaphor works much better this way

[stainlesssteellocust]

While Alex is obviously besotted with Cassie it is interesting that he, uh,

went on a whole-ass rant about how he’s somehow internalised an extremely conventional, heteronormative idea of what life should be like, wherein he’s expected to find a girl, get married and have kids as part of living ‘properly’, except he’s realised that lifestyle is impossible for him, partly because he’s infected with what he continually calls ‘magical AIDS’

My closeted bisexual alarm bells are ringing, is what I am saying

[twig-tea]

Love in the Big City Part 3: Kylie Recontextualizes Everything

I have waffled all week about what to write about this chapter. There have been some great essays about HIV and the stigma in Korea by @stuffnonsenseandotherthings here, as well as how antiretrovirals and pre-exposure prophylactics work and when they were available from @wen-kexing-apologist here. This context was all critical to understand everything Young doesn’t talk about in this section of the book. 

I’ve been stuck on so many parts of this section of the book. The way stigma holds people back from care, from maintenance, from life-saving treatment and knowledge, from understanding their condition and preventing them unnecessarily from living a full life, which @doyou000me had me thinking about with their comments about Young’s coping mechanisms of minimization and emotional distance that possibly worked in conjunction with the Korean government healthcare policies and social stigma to keep Young from being informed about his own condition. The way Young holds himself back from happiness, and how it’s so heartbreaking to watch him open up to it slowly in this section and then, as @my-rose-tinted-glasses wrote , he let the shame and self-loathing take control again. The way this relationship feels so real; @lurkingshan wrote so eloquently on how this section describes the details of a relationship as it started to settle. The relationship with Hyung was entirely ephemeral, in the liminal period of time between when Young was visiting his mother in hospital and before everything opened again for the day. There is so much that Young and Hyung never talked about–more than was obvious in chapter 2, because he never told Hyung about Kylie. In contrast, as @bengiyo pointed out, his relationship with Gyu-Ho started with honesty and was rooted in the physical presence of their apartment, which as a beautiful metaphor was grounded and improved slowly over time through the work they put into it but was also too small for them. 

I keep thinking about how Part 3 is bookended by Young disappointing Gyu-Ho with his absence. How he leaves him at the airport both times, thinking he’s doing Gyu-Ho a favour actually–he characterizes Gyu-Ho’s trip to Japan without him as much more fun, and he imagines Gyu-Ho’s future in Singapore will be better. In both cases, Gyu-Ho was only going because of Young, because Young wanted to, and Young planned it. But our narrator cannot get past seeing himself as something that brings Gyu-Ho down, and so he sabotages his own future. I feel for Gyu-Ho, being shepherded onto a plane alone when he was envisioning his future with the man he loved. It must have been devastating to be pushed away. 

This is not related to anything but I just love the detail of Young’s split lip and how he tastes blood when he kisses Gyu-Ho while drunk at the club and not yet knowing his name, and then panics, and we as readers don’t yet know why. Brilliant storytelling. 

I can’t stop thinking about how this reveal recontextualizes everything in parts 1 and 2. How the “incident that earned me a medical discharge” means Kylie was already in Young’s life as he took the engineering student he was seeing with him to get an STD check; as he was screamed at by an ex who prophesied that Young would get sick from being promiscuous and called him a ‘dirty rag that could never be cleaned’, which Young took with stoicism. I loved @bengiyo ‘s observation in his post linked above that Kylie’s presence likely coloured his reaction to Jaehee outing him to her fiance. 

Kylie was present as he watched his coffee be stolen by Hyung, when he thought about introducing Hyung to his mother, while he was wrestling with how Hyung (and, I think the narration makes clear, how he) was ashamed at how Young couldn’t ‘pass’ and was ‘obviously gay’, when he choked Hyung in his mother’s kitchen and it was seeing his tears on Hyung’s face that made Young let go. Kylie was part of him when he drank pesticide and tried to die, while he sat by his mother’s sickbed and had her head in his lap in the park, when he said “disease can turn anyone into a completely different person”, when he said he would “hope that she would die without having known.” 

Mostly, my brain keeps getting stuck on how familiar Young is to me. His choices, his self-loathing, his refusal to take anything seriously because at his core he’s terrified of facing what his reality means. And that fear ironically gets in the way of him understanding that his reality is not as scary as he thinks it is. He functions like he has to be alone, and so much of that comes from his internalized homophobia and his HIV diagnosis. He’s been told he’s dirty, something to be cleaned but irreparable, by so many people in different ways through his life. The man he claims as his greatest love barely even liked him as a person, and didn’t fully know him. I think that’s why he was able to feel more fully with Hyung, because in a way that relationship felt safer..Gyu-Ho, the person who knew all of him, and who wanted to build a life together with that complete and full knowledge of him, must have been terrifying, and I’m not surprised it felt easier to push him away than to fight for their future together. But it breaks my heart. 

There’s something rattling in my head about the T-aras that I don’t really know how to get out onto the page. In this chapter it’s revealed that the T-aras have been around the whole time, but they weren’t mentioned in parts 1 and 2. I think the fact that Young’s life feels more rounded, filled in with other people, and rich, than in parts 1 and 2 speaks to his emotional state in this part, as well as to how his time with Gyu-Ho wasn’t obsession but was more grounded in the mundane and the everyday. The T-aras themselves feel like familiar friends. Like with Hyung and JaeHee (at first), Young is drawn to people who he can remain emotionally distant from and who remain emotionally distant from him. People who will buy the story of “ruptured disc” for why he left military service early. People who joke about being poz and won’t ask questions and who hear the news about his new boyfriend as an ‘in’ to their favourite club. People who don’t take things seriously (or in Hyung’s case take things so seriously that Young can’t take him seriously). I was so glad to find out they existed because up to this point Young felt so isolated most of the time, with his world circling around one obsession in each part. But he had the T-aras the whole time; I’m choosing to read this as he just didn’t hold their importance to him in the same way in parts 1 and 2. As was already clear in the narrative but this makes even more obvious, Young’s isolation is not only self-inflicted but it’s in some ways a lie he tells himself to feel safer. He has friends, he just refuses to acknowledge their presence or importance, or to let them in to be more important, because he is so braced for being rejected for core parts of him that cannot be excised.

[smalleststories]

hi! would you like to tell us about your research?

thank you anon, this means a lot to me.

The lab I'm working in this summer studies a type of virus called reovirus. It's an RNA virus like HIV or Covid, but unlike those viruses reovirus doesn't cause disease in humans. This brings us to the first and second uses of reovirus in virology: it's a good first virus for undergrads like me because it isn't dangerous, and it's a way to study the basics of more dangerous viruses without putting people at risk. Reovirus is a common model for rotavirus, which also has a double-stranded RNA genome but does cause disease in humans (it's a common cause of diarrhea in kids).

The third reason we study reovirus is because of how it interacts with our immune system. Much of what we think of as being sick is actually our immune system trying to kill off a pathogen- inflammation, runny noses, and other fun reasons to skip work are all signs of the immune system functioning as intended. Reovirus triggers immune responses that don't cause physical symptoms, however.

Which leads us to cancer.

Fundamentally, cancer is a failure of the immune system. Cells and the organisms they are a part of have a lot of failsafes to stop cancer from happening, and tumors need to avoid getting caught in them. This typically looks like accumulating mutations to cause unrestricted growth and then suppressing the immune system to allow that growth to continue (more on this). This has led to the idea that we could treat cancer by reactivating the immune system when cancer shuts it off. There are a wide range of therapies in this vein that are currently being developed, with intentional infection with reovirus being one that's currently in human clinical trials. The idea, metaphorically, is to have reovirus move into a tumor and have a housewarming party so wild that the cops get called, even though this is a neighborhood that the cops usually turn a blind eye to.

What makes reovirus particularly promising is that it prefers to infect cancer cells over healthy cells! To quote the American Cancer Society on why this is important:

Cancer cells tend to form new cells more quickly than normal cells and this makes them a better target for chemotherapy drugs. However, chemo drugs can’t tell the difference between healthy cells and cancer cells. This means normal cells are damaged along with the cancer cells, and this causes side effects. Each time chemo is given, it means trying to find a balance between killing the cancer cells (in order to cure or control the disease) and sparing the normal cells (to lessen side effects).

This means that one of the main issues of treatments like chemo, that they target quick-dividing cells rather than tumor cells only, could possibly be a nonissue with reovirus treatment.

What my labmates and I are looking at this summer (besides getting the lab back up and running, but that's a whole different story) is how reovirus specifically pulls in a part of the immune system called the interferon response, which is basically an SOS signal that causes cells to turn a bunch of genes on or off. We're also looking at whether cells with different metabolism profiles react to infection differently, and whether this can be used to specifically target certain cancers. My lab is just getting started right now (see: above parenthetical), but the work that's already been done is so exciting and I love talking about it!

Here's a chapter on reovirus from an ancient textbook, and here's a review of work on interferons, if you want to know more!

[wolfstar-in-color]

July Colorful Column: Remus is a Crip, and We Can Write Him Better.

There is one thing that can get me to close a fic so voraciously I don’t even make sure I’m not closing other essential tabs in the process. It doesn’t matter how much I’m loving the fic, how well written I think it is, or how desperately I want to know how it ends. Once I read this sentence, I am done.

It’s written in a variety of different ways, but it always goes something like this: “You don’t want me,” Remus said, “I am too sick/broken/poor/old/[insert chosen self-demeaning adjective here].”

You’re familiar with the trope. The trope is canonical. And if you’ve been around the wolfstar fandom for longer than a few minutes, you’ve read the trope. Maybe you love the trope! Maybe you’ve written the trope! Maybe you’re about to stop reading this column, because the trope rings true to you and you feel a little attacked!

Now, let’s get one thing out of the way right now: I am not saying the trope is wrong. I am not saying it’s bad. I am not saying we should stop writing it. We all have things we don’t like to see in our chosen fics. Maybe you can’t stand Leather Jacket Motorbike Sirius? Maybe you think Elbow Patch Remus is overdone? Or maybe your pet peeves are based in something a little deeper - maybe you think Poor Latino Remus is an irresponsible depiction, or that PWPs are too reductive? Whatever it is, we all have our things.

Let me tell you about my thing. When I first became very ill several years ago, there were various low points in which I felt I had become inherently unlovable. This is, more or less, a normal reaction. When your body stops doing things it used to be able to do - or starts doing things you were quite alright without, thank you very much - it changes the way you relate to your body. You don’t want to hear my whole disability history, so yada yada yada, most people eventually come to accept their limitations. It’s a very painful existence, one in which you constantly tell yourself your disability has transformed you into a burdensome, unworthy member of society, and if nothing else, it’s not terribly sustainable. Being disabled takes grit! It takes power! It takes a truly absurd amount of medical self-advocacy! Hating yourself? Thinking yourself unworthy of love? No one has time for that. 

Of course, I’m being hyperbolic. Plenty of disabled people struggle with these feelings many years into their disabilities, and never really get over them. But here’s the thing. We experience those stories ALL THE TIME. Remember Rain Man? Or Million Dollar Baby? Or that one with the actress from Game of Thrones and that British actor who seemed like he was going to have a promising career but then didn't? Those are all stories about sad, bitter disabled people and their sad, bitter lives, two out of three of which end in the character completing suicide because they simply couldn’t imagine having to live as a disabled person. (I mean, come on media, I get that we're less likely to enjoy a leisurely Saturday hike, but our parking is SUBLIME.) When was the last time you engaged with media that depicted a happy disabled person? A complex disabled person? A disabled person who has sex? No really, these aren’t hypothetical questions, can you please drop a rec in the notes?? Because I am desperate.

There are lots of problems with this trope, and they’ve been discussed ad nauseam by people with PhDs. I’m not actually interested in talking about how this trope leads to a more prevalent societal idea that disabled people are unworthy of love, or contributes to the kind of political thought processes that keep disabled people purposefully disenfranchised. I’m just a bitch on Tumblr, and I have a bone to pick: the thing I really hate about the trope? It’s boring. I’m bored. You know how, like, halfway through Grey’s Anatomy you realized they were just recycling the same plot points over and over again and there was just no WAY anyone working at a hospital prone to THAT MANY disasters would stay on staff? It's like that. I love a recycled trope as much as the next person (There Was Only One Bed, anyone?). But I need. Something. Else.

Remus is disabled. BOLD claim. WILD speculation. Except, not really. You simply - no matter how you flip it, slice it, puree it, or deconstruct it - cannot tell me Remus Lupin is not disabled. Most of us, by this point, are probably familiar with the way that One Canonical Author intended One Dashing Werewolf to be “a metaphor for those illnesses that carry stigma, like HIV and AIDS” [I’m sorry to link you to an outside source quoting She Who Must Not Be Named, but we’re professionals here]. Which is... a thing. It’s been discussed. And, listen, there’s no denying that this parallel is a problematic interpretation of people who have HIV/AIDS and all such similar “those illnesses” (though I’ll admit that I, too, am perennially apt to turn into a raging beast liable to harm anything that crosses my path, but that’s more linked to the at-least-once-monthly recollection that One Day At A Time got cancelled). Critiques aside, Remus Lupin is a character who - due to a condition that affects him physically, mentally, emotionally, and intellectually - is repeatedly marginalized, oppressed, denied political and social power, and ostracized due to unfounded fear that he is infectious to others. Does that sound familiar?

We’re not going to argue about whether or not “Remus is canonically disabled as fuck” is a fair reading. And the reason we’re not going to argue about whether or not it’s a fair reading is because I haven’t read canon in 10-plus years and you will win the argument. Canon is only marginally relevant here. The icon of this blog is brown, curly haired Remus Lupin kissing his trans boyfriend, Sirius Black. We are obviously not too terribly invested in canon. The wolfstar fandom is now a community with over 25,000 AO3 fics, entire careers launched from drawing or writing or cosplaying this non-canonical pairing. We love to play around here with storylines and universes and races and genders and sexualities and all kinds of things, but most of the time? Remus is still disabled. He’s disabled as a werewolf in canon-compliant works, he’s disabled in the AUs where he was injured or abused or kidnapped or harmed as a child, he’s disabled in the stories that read him as chronically ill or bipolar or traumatized or blind or Deaf. I’d go so far as to say that he is one of very few characters in the Wide Wonderful World of media who is, in as close to his essence as one can be, always disabled. And that means? Don’t shoot the messenger... but we could stand to be a tiny bit more responsible with how we portray him. 

Disabled people are complicated. As much as I’d like to pretend we are always level-headed, confident, and ready to assert our inherent worth, we are still just humans. We have bad days. We doubt our worth. We sometimes go out with guys who complain about our steroid-induced weight gain (it was a long time ago, Tumblr, okay??). But, we also have joy and fun and good days and sex and happiness and families and so many other things. 

Remus is a disabled character, and as such, it’s only fair that he’d have those unworthy moments. But - I propose - Remus is also a crip. What is a crip? A crip - like a queer - is someone who eschews the limited boundaries placed on their bodies, who rejects a hierarchy of oppression in favor of an intersectional analysis of lived experience, who isn’t interested in being the tragic figure responsible for helping people with dominant identities realize how good they have it. Crips interpret their disabilities however they want, rethinking bodies and medicine and pleasure and pain and even time itself. Crips are political, community-minded, and in search of liberation. 

Remus is a character who struggles with his disability, sure. But he’s also a character who leverages his physical condition to attempt to shift communities towards his political leanings, advocates for the rights of those who share his physical condition, and has super hot sex with his wrongfully convicted boyfriend ultimately goes on to build community and family. Having a condition that quite literally cripples you, over which you have no control, and through which you are often read as a social pariah? That’s disability. But using said condition as a means through which to build advocacy and community? Now that’s some crip shit. 

Personally, I love disabled!Remus Lupin. But I love crip!Remus Lupin even more. I’d love to see more of a Remus who owns his disability, who covets what makes him unique, and who never ever again tells a potential romantic partner they are too good for him because of his disability. This trope - unlike There Was Only One Bed! - sometimes actually hurts to read. Where’s Remus who thinks a potential romantic partner isn’t good enough for him? Where’s Remus who insists his partners learn more about his condition in order to treat him properly? Where’s sexy wheelchair user Remus? Where’s Remus who uses his werewolf transformations as an excuse to travel the world? Where’s crip Remus??

We don’t have to put “you don’t want me” Remus entirely to bed. It is but one of many repeated tropes that are - in the words of The Hot Priest from Fleabag - morally a bit dubious. And let’s face it - we don’t always come to fandom for its moral superiority (as much as we sometimes like to think we do). 

This is not a condemnation - it is an invitation. Able-bodied folks are all but an injury, illness, or couple decades away from being disabled. And when you get here, I sincerely hope you don’t waste your time on “you don’t want me”ing back and forth with the people you love. I’m inviting you to come to the crip side now. We have snacks, and without all the “you don’t want me” talk, we get to the juicy parts much faster. 

Colorfully,

Mod Theo

[deanwasalwaysbi]

Thinking About How This Wasn't Actually a Denial

But was it self preservation?

The year was 2013 and rather than a denial, Jensen said "Don't ruin it for everybody now."

What was the fan 'ruining' for everybody? The Con? or something else? So if I was a tinhatter - and sometimes I am - I might think about other tv shows from the past that were covertly queer and how they handled the question, were TV shows 'out'?

Mainstream shows like Bewitched, you know, shows that are so clearly straight, you can tell because... well. ... they never technically used the word 'gay'. ... witches honor

SPN Film Studies is Back in Session! Join Under the Cut for more on supernatural & the story about how Bewitched! came out of the Broom Closet

Bewitched aired from 1964-72, it's so old the first season was in B&W. The show starred Elizabeth Montgomery as Samantha, the strange housewife with a stranger secret. Her husband, Darrin, unwittingly married into the whole witchy family, from the now drag icon Agnes Moorehead's Endora with her open marriage, to the unmarried and batty Aunt Clara (Marion Lorne who played the mother in Hitchcock's heavily gay coded 'Strangers on a Train'), to the extremely coded Uncle Arthur (gay actor Paul Lynde). (We can't know for sure, but it seems at least 4 members of the cast were gay themselves.) The core premise of the show involves Samantha balancing who she really is with repressing that self for the safety and comfort of her family.

Samantha and her husband keep her [ahem] 'queer' nature a secret which gets harder on Samantha when she has to tell her daughter to live the same way, “I know what fun it is to be a part of the magical life ... to have so much at your fingertips. But we’re living in a world that’s just not ready for people like us, and I’m afraid they may never be. So you’re going to have to learn when you can use your witchcraft and when you can’t.”

There are plenty of generic 60s wacky hijinks but there are also whole episodes metaphorically about repression being harmful, episodes where characters asked if another was a 'thespian', episodes where Darrin was queercoded while under a spell, episodes about representation & bad stereotyping in media, and even two episodes where witches discussed whether it was time for witches to come out to the mortals, (whether mortals could accept that they were just nice normal people trying to live their lives like everybody else - or not - and would just freak out and kill them again).

When it came time to recast Dick York's Darrin with a new 2nd lead, Elizabeth and her husband, William Asher, knowingly cast the gay Dick Sergeant. (Although he wasn't out publicly at the time.) Then, when Sergeant came out in '91, Montgomery supported him and the two served together as the grand marshals of the Hollywood pride parade.

Dick Sargent expressed in the 90s what he would want in a Bewitched reunion episode: for Darrin to meet another like couple, a witch and a mortal who are married, and another, and another, and end up forming a whole community and support group, finding out that it was never so uncommon after all, that it was actually "about 10% of the population." The two would march in the first mortals and witches pride parade, saying they should have come out years ago.

In '94, Montgomery had this to say about the queer themes of the show, “Don't think that didn't enter our minds at the time. We talked about it on the set, that this was about people not being allowed to be what they really are. If you think about it, Bewitched is about repression in general and all the frustration and trouble it can cause. It was a neat message to get across to people at that time in a subtle way.” (x)

Interviewer: Are you concerned that your involvement in the gay-pride parade will lead people to believe you're a lesbian?

"[Laughing] I'm really not worried about that. There are bigger things to worry about. Like the presidential election and finding a cure for AIDS. I did the parade in support of Dick. I mean, in the end, didn't we all?" (x) (Montgomery was also one of the first celebrity allies to fight for LGBTQ rights and support HIV/AIDS-related fundraisers.)

So did they talk about it at the time? No. You can bet they didn't speak about it publicly. What would have happened if a fan, publicly, had asked Elizabeth, William, or Dick about the show's queer allegory content? This was a time when being gay was a literal felony. They would have had to have lied or risked losing the show, their careers, and possibly subjecting themselves to violence.

Now. back to Jensen and the Schrodinger's long con:

This was in 2013 - The same year that the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a federal ban on gay marriage. You certainly couldn't call homosexuality illegal in the US at that time. It's the same year that Dabb and Sgriccia spoke about the Aaron moment on the DVD and whether there's 'this potential for love in all places' for Dean. Of course Jensen said this about the very same scene: "But it was - you know - it was comedy. It was a comedic moment in the show and fortunately Dean gets a lot of the comedic moments in the show and it was just, you know, Ben was poking fun at the fact that - you know, how can we make this very kind of manly, heterosexual guy uncomfortable - uh -you know, or  or have him back on his heels and throw him off his game a little bit.”

I'm reminded of 2012 when Ben Edlund stepped in about a Destiel question at comic con, pretending it was some freaky thing that fans had made up even though he'd already written and directed TMWWBK, which had already aired.

Jensen: “What’s Destiel?” Ben Edlund: That’s some weird shit. Jensen: Is this something that you created, Ben? Ben: You don’t want any part of that.

Or the next year for season 9 when Jensen said “I think the whole Cas and Dean thing has gotten out of hand”  “I don’t think there’s anything secret to their relationship even though a lot of people wish there was” EVEN THOUGH- that season we got the nightstands acknowledgement and Misha (or both of them?) was told to “play him like a jilted lover”

Or Jensen's knowing bromance smile in 2015

I think recent events (cough spn gate) have made clear that the network and many viewers were still uncomfortable with CAS being gay in 2020, deleting even familial mentions of Cas from the finale episodes once he was revealed to be not only gay but also in love with Dean. (x) (x) (x) Can you imagine then what Warner Brothers would have said to an acknowledge bisexual Dean Winchester in 2013? Granted, there was no Trump election, but legitimate, could that have been the end of the show? Or the Russian and Conservative US viewership? Is it possible that Jensen would have feared so?

Is it possible that Jensen had a more personal reason for a knee jerk defensive response?

So was Jensen covering in 2013? Well. This happened 5 years later in 2018:

That hostile "? No." came even though Misha confirmed that he and Jensen had discussed Destiel by that point. Granted, discussing Destiel as a concept and accepting Dean being inherently bisexual are two very different things - Cas is GN after all - still, less than encouraging.

I may never get over the jumps back and forth that Jensen did. At this point I think there's no denying that a lot of SPN's queer content was on purpose, even as writers and actors were telling fans and network execs otherwise. Yet when each person involved was brought in? that question haunts me at night. I have gone off before about the timeline in my pursuit of whether Jensen was Ben Hur'd (x) and, if so, for how long. I'm sure many in this fandom have so much to add.

In the meantime we'll just have to cherish this moment from 2019:

Interviewer: 'So, tell us just a little bit about what you’re most excited to tackle with your character this final season.’ Jensen: “Cas. Just like a full football form tackle.”

Bewitched references in SPN:

2.05 - Dean: Well, it looks like he can't work his mojo just by twitching his nose, he's gotta use verbal commands.

2.20 - Dean says Barbara Eden was hotter than Elizabeth Montgomery - sigh - Dean.

7.05 - Dean thinks a husband has no idea his wife is a witch, and refers to him as Darrin. Dean also indicates he likes the first Darrin better. - (I guess I can't make a comment about how much TV Dean watched as a kid if I get all of his references and also haven't saved the world.)

14.03 - Jules refers to the witch as 'Brunhilde' - this is a minor character in bewitched but more so from mythology and likely referred to the cartoon witch from WB cartoons - the stereotypical witch that faced bugs bunny with the green skin and straw hair.

let me know if you have any to add. Stay Witchy ✌

[raptured-night]

Hello, I have two questions this time. Why do you think we can’t really compare Death Eaters to Nazis? Why can’t we really compare purism with racism? Oh and do you think Death Eaters are more like nowadays’ terrorists or not?

So, it's no secret that I have drawn attention to the issue of Death Eaters being treated as literal stand-ins for Nazis or blood purism as a literal example of racism. Importantly, there is a difference between acknowledging the ways that Death Eaters or blood purity might work as semi-functional allegories for the Nazis and their ideology, white supremacy, racism, etc., and treating fictional representations of invented prejudices as if they were comparable or on par with non-fictional Nazi ideology, white supremacy, or systemic racism.

An article for Medium makes this point very well:

Silent resisters and ‘I don’t really care about politics’ people deserve our contempt. But what makes those who filter life through fiction and historical revisionism worse is that they are performing a soggy simulacrum of political engagement.

As a woman of colour watching, all I can do here is amplify the call to step away from your bookshelf. Let go of The Ring. My humanity exists independently of whether I am good or bad, and regardless of where the invented-fictional-not-real Sorting Hat puts me.

Realise that people are in danger right now, with real world actions needed in response, and not just because you want to live out your dreams of being Katniss Everdeen.

The problem with discussing Harry Potter’s fictional examples of prejudice as if they were literal or completely comparable with real-life prejudices is that it does lead to an oversimplification of the reality of prejudice (whether white supremacy, racism, homophobia, transphobia --looking at you Jo-- or otherwise) and the very real people who experience these prejudices every day. The fantasy of being Harry Potter up against Umbridge or Voldemort in a YA series where the line between the good and bad guys is almost clearly denoted by the narrator is a far cry from the reality of what activism is or what living under oppression is like for many marginalized people. 

I would argue that this is also a leading reason why the “social justice” (yes, in many cases I believe that deserves to be enclosed in dubious quotations) discourse in Harry Potter fandom trends more towards performative than it does sincere (one need only look at the defense posts for Rowling in response to real marginalized groups criticizing her for things ranging from her offensive representation of Asian people, Indigenous and Native peoples, or her failures in representing the lgbtq+ community particularly in light of her coming out as an open TERF and they can get an idea of how those “I’m an intersectional feminist/social justice ally and that’s why I read HP!” fans quickly shift gears to throw the bulk of their allyship behind Rowling instead) because when you spend all of your time debating fictional prejudices it’s much easier to detach oneself from the reality of non-fictional prejudice and its impact on real people.

Fiction has no stakes. There is a beginning, middle, and end. In Rowling’s fictional world, Harry Potter ends with Harry and “the side of light” the victor over her allegorical representation of evil and he gets his happily-ever-after in a world we are led to believe is at peace and made a better place. In the real world, decades after the fall of Hitler, there are still Nazis and white supremacists who believe in the glory of an Aryan/pure-white race and are responsible for acts of violence towards marginalized groups; even after the fall of the Confederacy in the U.S. we are still debating the removal of monuments erected in their honor (and the honor of former slave owners and colonialists like Christopher Columbus) while the nation continues mass protests over the systemic police brutality Black people and other people of color have long faced (not to mention the fact the KKK are still allowed to gather while the FBI conspired to destroy the Black Panther Party and discredit them as a dangerous extremist organization).

As a professor in literature, I’ve often argued that fiction can be a reflection of reality and vice versa. Indeed, it can be a subversive tool for social change and resistance (e.g. Harlem Renaissance) or be abused for the purposes of propaganda and misrepresentation (e.g. Jim Crow era racism in cartoons). So, I am not underscoring the influencing power of fiction but I do believe it is important that when attempting to apply fictional representations to real-world issues we do so with a certain awareness of the limitations of fiction. As I have already observed, there is an absence of real-world stakes for fiction. Fictional stories operate under a narrative structure that clearly delineates the course they will take, which is not the case for real life. In addition, the author’s own limitations can greatly affect the way their fiction may reflect certain non-fictional issues. Notably, a close reading of Harry Potter does reveal the way Rowling’s own transphobic prejudices influenced her writing, not least in the character of Rita Skeeter (but arguably even in her failed allegory for werewolves, which are supposed to reflect HIV prejudices, but she essentially presented us with two examples of werewolves that are either openly predatory towards children or accidentally predatory because they canonically can’t control themselves when their bodies undergo “transformations” that make them more dangerous and no surprise her most predatory example, Fenrir Greyback, seems to have embraced his transformation entirely versus Lupin who could be said to suffer more from body dysmorphia/shame). 

Ultimately, fiction is often a reflection of our non-fictional reality but it is not always an exact reflection. It can be a simplification of a more complex reality; a funhouse mirror that distorts that reality entirely, or the mirror might be a bit cracked or smudged and only reflecting a partial image. Because fiction does have its limits (as do authors of fiction), writers have certain story-telling conventions on hand through which they can examine certain aspects of reality through a more vague fictional lens, such as metaphor, symbolism, and allegory. Thus, the Death Eaters can function on an allegorical level without being problematic where they cannot when we treat them as literal comparisons to Nazis or white supremacist groups (particularly when we show a greater capacity for empathy and outrage over Rowling’s fictional prejudice, to the extent we’ll willingly censor fictional slurs like Mudblood, than we do real-world examples of racism and racial microaggressions). As an allegory, Voldemort and his Death Eaters can stand in for quite a few examples of extremism and prejudice that provoke readers to reflect more on the issue of how prejudice is developed and how extremist hate-groups and organizations may be able to rise and gain traction. Likewise, blood prejudice looked at as a fictional allegory goes a lot further than when we treat it as a literal comparison to racism, wherein it becomes a lot more problematic. 

I’ve discussed this before at length, along with others, and I will share some of those posts to give a better idea of some of the issues that arise when we try to argue that Voldemort was a literal comparison to Hitler, the Death Eaters were literal comparisons to Nazi, or that blood purity is a literal comparison to racism.

On the issue of blood prejudice as racism and Death Eaters as Nazis, per @idealistic-realism00.

On the issue of blood prejudice as racism, my own thoughts.

On the issue of Death Eaters and literal Nazi comparisons, per @deathdaydungeon and myself. 

Finally, as I have already argued, the extent to which fiction can function as a reflection of non-fictional realities can be limited by the author’s own perceptions. In the above links, you will note that I and others have critiqued Rowling’s portrayal of prejudice quite thoroughly and identified many of the flaws inherent in her representations of what prejudice looks like in a real-world context. The very binary (i.e. good/bad, right/wrong, dark/light) way that she presents prejudice and the fact that her villains are always clearly delineated and more broadly rejected by the larger society undermines any idea of a realistic representation of prejudice as systemic (we could make a case for an effort being made but as her narrative fails to ever properly address prejudice as systemic in any sort of conclusive way when taken along with her epilogue one can argue her representation of systemic prejudice and its impact fell far short of the mark, intended or otherwise). In addition to that, the two most notable protagonists that are part of her marginalized class (i.e. Muggle-born) are two comfortably middle-class girls, one of whom is clearly meant to be white (i.e. Lily) and the other who is most widely associated with the white actress (Emma Watson) who played her for over a decade before Rowling even hinted to the possibility Hermione could also be read as Black due to the casting of Noma Dumezweni for Cursed Child.

Overall, Rowling is clearly heavily influenced by second-wave feminist thought (although I would personally characterize her as anti-feminist having read her recent “essay,” and I use the term loosely as it was primarily a polemic of TERF propaganda, defending her transphobia, and reexamined the Harry Potter series and her gender dichotomy in light of her thoughts on “womanhood”) and as far as we are willing to call her a feminist, she is a white feminist. As a result, the representation of prejudice in Harry Potter is a distorted reflection of reality through the lens of a white feminist whose own understanding of prejudice is limited. Others, such as @somuchanxietysolittletime and @ankkaneito have done well to point out inconsistencies with Rowling’s intended allegories and the way the Harry Potter series overall can be read as a colonialist fantasy. So, for all of these reasons, I don’t think we should attempt to make literal comparisons between Rowling’s fictional examples of prejudice to non-fictional prejudice or hate groups. The Death Eaters and Voldemort are better examined as more of a catch-all allegory for prejudice when taken to it’s most extreme. Aicha Marhfour makes an important point in her article when she observes:

Trump isn’t himself, or even Hitler. He is Lord Voldemort. He is Darth Vader, or Dolores Umbridge — a role sometimes shared by Betsy DeVos or Tomi Lahren, depending on who you’re talking to. Obama is Dumbledore, and Bernie Sanders is Dobby the goddamn house elf. Republicans are Slytherins, Democrats are Gryffindors.

The cost of making these literal comparisons between Voldemort or the Death Eaters to other forms of extremism, perceived evil, or hate is that we impose a fictional concept over a non-fictional reality and unintentionally strip the individual or individuals perpetrating real acts of prejudice or oppression of some of their accountability. I can appreciate how such associations may help some people cope and for the readers of the intended age category of Harry Potter (i.e. YA readers) it might even be a decent primer to understanding real-world issues. However, there comes a point where we must resist the impulse to draw these comparisons and go deeper. Let Voldemort and the Death Eaters exist as allegories but I think it is important we all listen to what many fans of color, Jewish fans, lgbtq+ fans, etc. are saying and stop trying to fit a square peg into a round hole by treating these fictional characters and their fictional prejudices as if they were just as real, just as impactful, and just as deserving of our empathy and outrage as the very real people who are living daily with very real prejudices --because they’re not equal and they shouldn’t be. 

[aidanchaser]

Character Profile: Remus John Lupin Canon: friends with James, Sirius, and Peter; Gryffindor prefect; excellent in Defense Against the Dark Arts; a patient professor; loved Tonks; a werewolf AU: Remus' character arc has always been the most clear to me. I knew what I would do with Remus before I knew what I would do with Harry or Regulus or anyone else. You can see the beginnings of his arc as early as Chapter 4 of Philosopher's Stone when he and Lily see Hagrid out.

Lily and Remus walked Hagrid to the door, and Harry went to wait for everyone in the parlor. He heard a quiet conversation between Lily and Uncle Remus, but only the tail end of it, "I understand, Lily —" and her response of, "But you shouldn't. That's what we want you to understand."

I didn't talk about the criticism I've received for how I write Lily (some of it very valid), but I do want to touch one piece of criticism I have gotten about Remus, which is often something along the lines of, "If James and Lily and Sirius all survived, and stayed with him through adulthood, Remus wouldn't hate himself so much."

I did take that thought into account when I began the series. I thought heavily about who Remus is when he is not alone, when he is established in a community, when he has people who can look out for him. I thought about my own mental health, and how that doesn't go away just because I have good friends. I thought about how injustice doesn't go away, even if your closest friends stand with you. I thought about how we internalize oppression, and since I'm writing this post fresh out of a conference on combating systemic injustice and teaching students to recognize and fight oppression, those ideas are all very present in my mind. I kept Remus' self-loathing because it made sense to me that it would persist, despite his friends.

All of Remus' conversations with Sirius and Tonks echo this deeply rooted self-loathing, and I think understanding the depth of those roots is key to understanding Remus. I had never planned on bringing Lyall Lupin into Deathly Hallows, and I don't know when exactly it occurred to me that I should, but I am so glad that I did because that truly is how deep these roots go. We pass on our fears and hate to our children so easily, no matter how much we might try not to, might try to hide them, children know. If we truly want to change the future, we have to change ourselves.

This is an everyone lives AU, so, spoiler, Remus lives. But what is so key to Remus living is that he gets to grow and work through both his understanding of himself and his relationship with the Wizarding World. And if he can't heal himself, he will pass on the same faults to his children, just as his father passed that internalized fear and hatred onto him.

Which brings us to Teddy and Tonks. I always knew that Teddy would exist. He had to. So I knew that Remus would end up with Tonks. I waffled for a while on what I would do with Sirius, and, honestly, Sirius' conclusion has changed several times just in the few months I have been writing Deathly Hallows. I won't say more on it, but I hope people trust me to be as delicate and kind with Sirius' character as I have been with Remus' development.

There were originally notes for Teddy to be a werewolf, or for Remus and Tonks to have a second child who was a werewolf. It always pained me to watch Remus agonize over his unborn child being like him, and for that fear to be unrealized in such a complete way... But, as terrible as werewolfism as a metaphor for HIV is, I want to honor at the bare minimum Remus' realness as an outcast with a very specific curse that has such limited treatment. With that in mind, I could find no known case of someone with HIV fathering (for lack of an ungendered word) a child with HIV. So I will find another way for Remus' growth beyond his father's mistakes to be realized in the end of Deathly Hallows.

I don't want to say much more on Remus' growth and development, because a lot of that will be coming on June 5, when I release Chapter 11, and I want to let that chapter speak for itself.

The last note I do want to make is, as I did for all the Marauders (and Lily), I gave Remus pieces of myself. My own self-loathing and depression is so present in Remus, my absolute worst days go to him (and to Sirius, but in a different way). The thoughts where I feel utterly hopeless and overwhelmed and unworthy are the thoughts I have given to Remus. The coping mechanisms, the friendships that have uplifted me through that, and the conversations I have with my dear friends are the foundation of Remus' relationship with the Marauders. I only hope that bit of myself and my world that I give to them brings them to life in your mind.

Character Notes: friends with Firenze; once had a conversation about death with Sir Nick Remadora: First he was amused, then impressed, then smitten

Addendum: I forgot how meager Remus' notes were. I don't know that I will ever get to touch on the relationship I imagined for Remus and Firenze, nor Remus and Nearly Headless Nick. I had always imagined that both had lengthy conversations with Remus following the death of his mother and helped him grieve during a time when he did not feel able to turn to any of his friends. I always wanted to do more with Firenze, who would have an entirely different relationship with Remus' furry little problem, and probably would have been even better at helping Remus understand himself and trust himself than James and Sirius. But I am not sure it will come up.

Trust me, it is not lost on me that I am writing this fic to expand on a universe I felt was so unexplored, and here I am, failing to explore all that I want to explore.

[bubbebruja]

On the Death of Sirius Black and Literary Gay Bashing in Harry Potter

In 2003, I was ten, straight, and positively obsessed with Hermione Granger.

If those last two things sound a little contradictory, it’s because they were. I do not mean I was “obsessed” in the sense that I wanted to dress up like her for Halloween, I mean “obsessed” in the sense that I literally blushed anytime my mom read her name aloud to my sister and I.

Queer. I was queer. I just didn’t know it yet.

Thus, I didn’t notice the Sirius/Remus romantic subtext as a child, drinking hot chocolate propped against my sister’s knees and listening enraptured as my mom read to us from the most recently released Harry Potter book. When Order of the Phoenix came out, I was far more interested in Angsty Harry™ and the evils of Delores Umbridge, and when Sirius died, I was not even all that upset. I didn’t really like him all that much, knew even at that age that he embodied too many of the stereotypically “masculine” traits I had already grown to hate with his pride and brooding and emotional immaturity. I didn’t much care, much less recognize that JK Rowling had done something rather unforgiveable.

But others did.

Seventeen years later, I get it.

By 2003, many older, wiser readers had long since clocked the queer subtext between Sirius and Remus. And, when I picked up the books earlier this year to re-read them for the first time since they were read to me as a child, I saw it too. (Notably, this was prior to JKR’s most recent round of blazing transphobia, after which I stopped reading.) And, okay, yes, I am the type of queer who reads queerness into many things. But y’all, I really didn’t have to try all that hard this time. If I were reading these books for the first time in the context of 2020, I would assume Remus and Sirius were canonically a couple, and JKR just wasn’t bashing us over the head with clear evidence of it. She doesn’t do that most of the time anyway. By Order of the Phoenix, in my opinion, the evidence (as movie Dumbledore says so awkwardly) is incontrovertible. The living together? The joint Christmas present? The “Sirius, sit down” scene early in the book? The confirmed HIV/AIDS metaphor, IN THE 90S?? THEY’RE FUCKING GAY TOGETHER.

And here’s the thing, (and I have no proof of this, so you’re just going to have to roll with it): I think it’s pretty clear that JKR became more conservative as time progressed. Money tends to do that to people, conveniently. What started as a series about the power young people hold to defeat evil and fight injustice eventually devolved into a flaccid epilogue where heterosexual nuclear families abounded and there were (still) no visibly queer characters in sight.

By the time the final book came out, I was a full-fledged teenager, and I, too, had abandoned fantasies of fighting evil and injustice for fantasies of settling down with “my perfect man” (L. O. L.) So, I get it. I get that priorities change for young people. But for adults, especially those recently drunk on the power of infinite amounts of money and fame? Nah. JKR knew what she was doing. JKR laid all the groundwork for a possible relationship between Remus and Sirius and then changed her mind. Or was told to change her mind. Or was forced to change her mind.

I have A Lot Of Feelings™ about Tonks and Remus’s relationship (most of which are about the way their canonical relationship plays into a lot of really awful tropes about disabled people which, no matter how you read him, Remus is). And I have a lot of feelings about Sirius Black as a character. I have a lot of feelings about Dumbledore, some related to his posthumous outing and some not. And, like most of us now, I have a lot of feelings about the entire franchise as a whole. But here’s what I know: It doesn’t actually matter, because JKR didn’t just change the explicit relationship dynamics between Sirius and Remus, she quite literally killed any chances of queer romance.

And she didn’t just kill Sirius. She killed Remus, too. And Tonks (who is a genderqueer butch and I will die on that hill). And Dumbledore. And the cute, squeaky house elf with a love for clothes and an obsession with Harry. And the young Gryffindor boy who followed Harry around, constantly asking for photos and autographs. And – you know what? Fuck it. – the person who lived INSIDE ANOTHER MAN’S BODY before returning to his bodily form, during which time he relied heavily on his male servant who cut off a literal body part to restore his master.

Am I reading too much queer subtext into each of these characters? Maybe. But, as this lovely article states, “close reading is queer culture, always has been.” And I can’t help but notice that the vast majority of the characters JKR didn’t kill off are, well, pretty fucking straight. (Drarry shippers, feel free to come at me. I’m sure there’s plenty of queer subtext there, too). They’re, for the most part, characters with a clear canonical history of heterosexual romance, as if only those with a possible future of a heterosexual, nuclear family are worthy of survival.

And I just don’t think this was an accident. I think it was the intentional plan of someone who started to feel like the world of inclusion she’d created was being read as far too inclusive.

To call this “literary gay bashing” is a pretty serious accusation with a pretty serious use of a very loaded term. But the thing is, I think we too often let people like JKR off the hook without recognizing what her words – both literary and non-literary – have done and can do. We too often dismiss it with statements like, “she’s entitled to her opinion”. Gay bashing is the intentional abuse or assault of someone perceived to be a member of the LGBTQIA2+ community, physically or verbally, that often results in lasting harm or death. And I use this term to describe JKR’s work particularly because it is sensationalizing, because it calls violence what it is: violence. Because, sure, she’s as entitled to her opinion as anyone else. But the second you create a world where anyone, especially children, are going to see themselves, going to feel safe, your “opinion” better do as little violence as possible.

When I saw the first Harry Potter movie, back in 2001, I refused to discuss it for months. I was furious. At the time, I couldn’t quite pinpoint why, but I now realize that I was heartbroken that Hermione Granger didn’t look like me. When JKR described a girl with wild, brown curly hair, I saw me. I saw my hair. And so, as children tend to do, I saw the rest of me, too. I saw tanned skin and dark brown eyes and full lips and high cheekbones (the ones people always told me made me look “Indian”, which I only partially am). I saw the quiet confidence that develops when you’re the brownest kid in your school, ready to strike but only when provoked. The pale, arrogant, racially unambiguous Hermione Granger I saw on the screen made me feel dirty, cast off, unworthy of representation. The self-hatred I felt when White Hermione Granger entered the film alongside White Harry Potter and White Ron Weasley and White Everyone Else was a kind of violence.

And when JKR killed off all of her queer-read characters, she took that violence to another level. Because they were there, we saw them, we did not imagine the romantic undertones between Remus and Sirius, or the way that a shape-shifting young woman with short, spiky hair reads an awful lot like a person uninterested in traditional gender. We saw ourselves in the most beloved franchise of all time. And then, she took away those possibilities, and she took away those characters.

And you know what? People die because they can’t see themselves in media. People die because that’s what they’ve watched everyone like them do on screen and in books. It’s not harmless, and it’s not victimless, and it’s violent.

There’s only one solution to literary gay bashing: To Bash Back. We can and do write ourselves into the stories, into the world, and refuse to settle for explanations that gaslight us into thinking we imagined things that were never there, or ask us to settle for tiny crumbs of useless representation.

I intended to finish my most recent story, “Come Healing”, with an ambiguous ending that left the possibility of Sirius’s death open to reader interpretation. But then, JKR kept going, and talking, and kept creating violence, and I got mad. And so, like so many queers before me, I rewrote the story and changed the ending, and created love and security and peace and life where the canonical author had created hopelessness and death. And in the world we live in right now, that is radical. It is bashing back.

It’s tiny, but it’s something. Every time we write a happy ending for a queer character, we create the possibilities of happy endings for queer people everywhere. And no one – no matter how hard she may try – can take that away.

[chsamuseum]

The Sick Men of the World: Assessing Yan Fu’s Metaphor

1895 was not a good year for China. China had just lost the first Sino-Japanese War, the latest in a century of humiliation at the hands of foreigners. Amidst this chaos, Chinese scholar and later reformist Yan Fu described China as “the sick man of Asia.” In his article “On Strength,” he compared the country to a sick man in dire need of help. Traditional government, opium, and foot-binding were the maladies which were killing China. Overtime, Westerners would adopt his phrase as a metric to measure Chinese progress. The current COVID-19 pandemic has shed light on several maladies which plague both Western and Chinese societies. Rather than work together, both sides have elected to pursue tit-for-tat spats which have placed millions of lives in harm’s way and make both sides the sick men of the world. Understanding this history is the first step to combating the stereotypes that are being spouted by leaders in both the U.S. and China.

The “sick man of Asia” phrase was first applied by the West during a century-long outbreak of bubonic plague in China. Between 1894 and 1950, 15 million people died in the pandemic, decimating China’s dense population. Efforts to stop the virus were limited to local charities with minimal oversight from the imperial government. Western commentators believed that the reason why China suffered so dramatically at the hands of the plague was due to the country’s poor sanitation practices. Who was to blame for the poor sanitation? Who else but the Qing government, they argued. The government’s inability to provide for adequate sanitation was proof of China’s deteriorating health. Westerners therefore built off Yan Fu’s idea in order to develop an interesting metric which would be used throughout history to gauge China’s progress in modernization: China’s ability to respond to pandemics. 

To be fair, the West’s assessment was pretty accurate. Ironically, during the Black Death in the 14th century, China could say the same thing of medieval Europe, whose utter lack of clean drinking water and sanitation poisoned the country. While the plague was a global event, Europe was its epicenter, losing an estimated one third of its population.  While China was damaged by the plague, it did not suffer losses nearly as catastrophic. This has been largely attributed to the much more organized government and public sanitation practices of the much richer and much more powerful China. 

But late 19th century China was not as clean or as powerful. It was at the bottom of the international food chain. With the new view of China as unsanitized and inadequate, propaganda began to be spread within Western countries portraying Chinese immigrants as unclean and unfit for citizenship. Posters depicting Chinese living in decrepit conditions popularized the media. New Chinese arrivals at Angel Island were given rigorous health screenings; even a common cold could send one back to China. American society began doing everything it could to keep the Chinese out, and in 1882, passed the infamous Chinese Exclusion Act. Chinese in America? No! No! No!

In the 20th century, China awakened and recognized its dire need to modernize. With the fall of the Qing dynasty, the period between 1911 and 1949 was marked by economic, press, and social freedoms.  In the spirit of Yan Fu’s metaphor, the country was beginning to self-medicate. This change was distinctly felt in the health sector, which saw Chinese participation at international health meetings, expansion of medical schools, and new opportunities for women to enter the health profession. It also saw the creation of the Ministry of Health in 1928. China’s modernization efforts captured the attention of the Western countries. On a trip to China during the 1910s, one Western diplomat remarked that he had never seen a nation so promising and full of potential.

Then Mao came along. 

In 1949, Mao’s Chinese Communist Party (CCP) took control of China. While the CCP did care about public health, it came second to political considerations. This mindset was put on display during the period immediately preceding the Cultural Revolution and during the Cultural Revolution. In 1964, Mao began an attack on the Ministry of Health, arguing that it represented elitism and bourgeois thought. During the Cultural Revolution, doctors and scientists were targeted; as a result, hospitals dried up. The Revolution itself also spread infectious diseases. In 1966, at the very start of the Cultural Revolution, there was an outbreak of meningitis in Beijing. Students who championed Mao’s revolutionary cause spread it across the country. No one stopped them either, because political considerations came first. Stop the students, and you’d stop the revolution. The death toll was 160,000. 

Mao’s death in 1976 began a period of reform. China’s new relatively liberalized economy was put to the test with an outbreak of HIV/AIDS in the 1990s. Unfortunately, the outbreak exposed the awkward relationship between the country’s underregulated markets and overregulated government. The 1990 HIV/AIDS pandemic established the response to future pandemics: rumors of a public health crisis, government attempts to cover up, whistleblower, reluctant admittance, and draconian remedies. This pattern would appear again in the early 2000s with the outbreak of the SARS virus, COVID-19’s predecessor. When SARS (2002) was first discovered in Guangdong, the government initially downplayed the problem, trying to make sure that no foreign country would discover the true extent of the outbreak. However, Jiang Yanyong, a Beijing physician, leaked the full extent of the pandemic to the West. The international panic triggered a highly-publicized effort to fight the virus by Beijing. SARS 2002 greatly jeopardized China’s newly found status on the world stage, having just joined the WTO the previous year and scheduled to host the 2008 Olympics. The entire world watched in suspense to see whether the modernizing nation could handle a pandemic, as well as handle its new status as a world power.

This brings us to COVID-19. Not surprisingly, many comparisons have been made between COVID-19 and SARS 2002. For starters, China’s initial reaction to COVID-19 was very similar to 2002. Local officials in Wuhan attempted to keep a lid on the outbreak, but were exposed by doctor Li Wenliang, who later died of the disease, which triggered a reversal of Beijing’s policies. However, China has matured greatly since 2002. While China’s initial reaction was not the greatest, it was still very fast at sharing the genetic information of the novel virus to health centers around the globe, a much-needed headstart for the world to get working on a cure/vaccine. Chinese officials also shared as much information as was available for best practices to handle the spread of the virus, including quarantine, mask-wearing, and social-distancing, practices we are all more than familiar with. 

Moreover, it is not only China who has a reputation for covering up the effects of the virus. United States officials, since the outbreak started, have elected to use racially-charged language and a wide array of diversion tactics to draw attention away from the ballooning COVID situation in the United States. Racially-charged language has resurfaced Sino-phobia and xenophobia among many Americans, which has led to a drastic increase in the number of hate crimes being committed against Asian, specifically Chinese Americans. Meanwhile, the United States leads the world in new infections (assuming China’s numbers are actually true). Many American politicians have placed politics over lives, placing a much larger emphasis on economic recovery rather than the need to prevent new infections. Despite these theories being largely rebuked by Sweden’s situation (a country which elected to keep everything open as an experiment and is now suffering huge infection rates without any noticeable benefit to the economy), many in Washington continue to downplay COVID. Both Washington and Beijing have elected to instead lock out each others’ news organizations in an endless tit-for-tat political spat that has placed millions of lives in harm's way. Both countries exhibit a high degree of immaturity, choosing to fight each other rather than work together as the world’s dominant superpowers. They are both sick, and need to seIf-medicate. 

COVID-19 has left the world in strange, and dare I say it, unprecedented times. Unfortunately, the pandemic is far from over. Not only will COVID-19 never truly be eradicated (it will continue to exist just as Ebola and smallpox do), the problems it has exposed in our world will remain as blueprints for future generations to solve. Many of those problems lie in how governments respond to global disasters in an increasingly globalized world. In addition to keeping each other safe, we must also be informed by learning the history and misinterpretations of the past in order to strive for a better future and not be dictated by the politics of sick men.

Submitted by CHSA’s Summer Education and Research Chris Ying. Chris is a sophomore at UC Berkeley where he is majoring in History and Mathematics. His writing is based on his research and lectures from his history class.

[tumblingdoe]

FULL INTERVIEW WITH DR. KIT STUBBS the founder of the Effing Foundation. 

1. How did the Effing Foundation start? Why? Why you?

I started getting the idea for what would eventually become the Effing Foundation back around 2012. I had started making some very nerdy sex toys -- my first dildo, the Tardis Tickler, is a copy of my favorite toy with a small Tardis suspended inside it; I also made The Hammer, a rainbow light-up dildo controlled by an Arduino microcontroller. People really enjoyed those toys! They made people laugh, and they encouraged people to talk about sex and sexuality in a way that wasn't sexualizing or objectifying. So I started giving talks about DIY sex toys and sex/tech, which meant I started meeting all kinds of cool artists, educators, and other sex-positive folk. And I realized that there was a growing community of creators who were trying to start these conversations, but that it's incredibly difficult to get financial support to do so. I realized that changing the world requires money. It takes a lot of other things, too, but if you don't have money, it's hard to get very far. So the Foundation grew out of the desire to move money from, say, my friends in tech who are sex-positive, and get it to sex-positive artists and educators who really need the support to do their work.

Why me? Well, after I got my Ph.D. in robotics and had been working in that field for a couple of years, I realized that there were already a lot of people doing great work in robotics. But there weren't very many people doing sex-positive activism, and I have a lot of privileges that make it easier for me -- I'm white, I'm well-educated, I have financial support, and I can use my wallet name with the fancy letters after it. I felt that I could make better use of those advantages, and make a bigger impact on the world, if I moved from robotics to sex-positive activism.

2. Why do you keep it going? How long would you like it to live on for?

I work so hard to keep the Foundation alive not only because I love doing this work -- I have met so many amazing people, and I have had the honor of helping to bring some absolutely fabulous projects into the world -- but also because it's so desperately needed. We've made a lot of progress, but we are still a ways away from a world where every person has access to pleasure-focused, scientifically accurate, age-appropriate, queer, trans, and disability-inclusive sexual education; a world where we can have open conversations about sex, sexuality and asexuality, about consent and relationships, without fear, shame, or stigma.

I want the Effing Foundation to live on until it's no longer needed, to be honest! But I think we have a lot of work to get there.

3. What's your big dream with it?

I want us to be able to give away hundreds of thousands of dollars every year, to be able to offer ongoing funding to projects we support, and to have a small staff of folks who are doing this full time and getting paid for their work. Right now we can only make grants in the US, but eventually I'd love for us to gain the skills and people we need in order to make grants internationally, too.

4. Is there a way for the public to have a say on who is granted funding?

No, not really, and that's an intentional choice. The folks who have the most say right now are our Board and our Advisory Council, which is made up of sex-positive artists, educators and activists -- as much as possible, we want funding decisions to be made by people who represent the communities we are trying to support.

If you're a member of the public, you can get involved by donating and by telling your favorite sex-positive educators, artists, or organizations about our grant program so they can apply!

5. When is the application for funding deadline?

We haven't announced next year's calendar yet, but generally submissions open in late spring and close in the summer. If you want to get emails about the grant program, you can go to

https://www.effing.org/join

and sign up for grant updates there.

6. How do you decide who to give the money to?

Our submission process starts with an online survey, where someone tells us a bit about who they are and what they would like to do. We first rule out submissions that aren't really about sex or that aren't #ownvoices (meaning the person doing the work doesn't share the same life experiences as the people the work is focused on). We also rule out projects where there are other funding agencies available, like projects that are about public health. We look at how well the work supports our mission and our values, and we have a number of demographic goals to make sure we are getting funding to people with (multiple) marginalized identities. We also have a set of special topics that we're particularly interested in -- this year, those topics included supporting intersex people and supporting neurodiverse people.  Based on all of those goals, our staff and Advisory Council narrow those initial surveys down to the top dozen or so, and then those projects move to the next round where they give us more details and things like a budget. The Advisory Council reviews that information more closely and provides feedback to the applicants, who have an opportunity to edit their applications before the Advisory Council reviews them and make recommendations to the Board, who make the final funding decisions.

We try to balance supporting projects and organizations that are well-established with supporting people who may be relatively new to the sexuality space; and we try to make sure we are funding projects from a lot of different parts of the US.

7. Is sexuality underfunded!?!

The sexuality field is extremely underfunded! If you start looking at an area like public health -- HIV and STI prevention and treatment -- those  have some funding, but they're still really underfunded. If you look at things like queer- and trans-inclusive, pleasure-focused sex education, or support for art that celebrates sexuality, or for resources supporting fat folks or disabled folks with respect to sex, there's basically nothing. Sadface!

We're extremely proud that the Effing Foundation funds the kinds of work that almost no one else will. Award-winning, ethically produced queer feminist porn? An anthology of erotic live-action games? Phenomenal fat-positive nude photography shoots? Yep, we fund that.

8. How much of an impact do you think it makes? Do you have statistics?

In our first two years, we've awarded over $100,000 in grants. That has helped us reach over 2,400 people directly as audience members, workshop participants, and performers, and we've reached over 240,000 people via the web (including social media, web visits, and podcast downloads). That doesn't include the impacts that are harder to measure -- the work that couldn't have been done with out our support, and the difference that we've made in the lives of individual artists and educators, where we've helped fund new equipment that will help them keep doing their awesome work for years to come.

9. Why did you choose to partner with Sexplanations?

Choosing to partner with Sexplanations was a really exciting opportunity for us. Sexplanations works to provide inclusive, scientifically accurate, pleasure-focused sex education, which is exactly the kind of work that our organization wants to support! We're a relatively young and small organization, so this partnership also gives us the opportunity to tell the Sexplanations audience about our mission and our awesome grantees.

10. What do you want my audience to know about the Effing Foundation?

The Effing Foundation is a new non-profit whose entire purpose is to help bring more sex-positive art and education into the world. If you like Sexplanations, you might also like some of the other projects we're supporting! And if you want to support awesome sexuality educators and artists, your donations will help us make even more grants.

11. What other names did you come up with for it before choosing the Effing Foundation?

Oh, geez! I am so horrible at naming things. So originally my idea had been to build a crowdfunding site for sexuality projects (this was back before you could put much of anything relating to sex on Kickstarter or IndieGoGo), and the best name I could come up with for that site was "Passionate Produce." It was a very weird garden metaphor. Once I realized that it made more sense to build a not-for-profit, The Effing Foundation was actually almost the first name that I came up with, but I was like, "lol, that would never actually work." So I spent another six or eight months trying to come up with a name, but I never found anything that was as good or memorable as The Effing Foundation. So here we are!

12. What is your fundraising goal?

We are trying to raise $150,000 this year, which will let us make more grants and help build our organization's capacity for the future. Our stretch goal is closer to $250,000. (More specific time frame: $75,000 by the end of November and $150,000 by the end of May.)

13. What is the best way for people to donate?

Go to

www.effing.org/donate

! We accept PayPal, checks, credit or debit cards directly on our site, and more.

14. Can they donate in someone else's honor? Like a gift for the holidays?

That's a great idea! Unfortunately we don't have a way to do that on the website yet.

15. How do you feel when you inform people they are grant recipients?

Telling people that they've been awarded a grant is The. Best. It's absolutely the highlight of my year. I'm so excited, and they're so excited! And what's great is, it's really just the beginning of a new collaboration -- now we get to provide support and watch as grantees start doing fabulous things.

16. How can people get in ways?

My guess is this question is, how can people get involved?

- Sign up for our newsletter (www.effing.org/join) and follow us on social media (@Twitter, facebook.com/EffingFoundation)- Donate if you can.- Please help us spread the word! If you have friends who are into sex-positivity, please tell them about us. If you are doing sex-positive activism, or you know someone else who is, please check out our grant program (www.effing.org/grants).- If you're interested in running a fundraiser for us, or you have other skills to volunteer, drop us a line (info@effing.org).

17. What gap is the Effing Foundation filling? Is there anything else helping to fill this gap?

There are some awesome groups out there doing sex-positive education and activism, and activism in support of sex workers, and we hope you'll consider supporting them as well. Here are just a few to get started:

- Scarleteen (https://www.scarleteen.com/)

- The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom (https://ncsfreedom.org/)- The Center for Sexual Pleasure and Health (http://www.thecsph.org/)- Sex Workers Outreach Project USA (https://swopusa.org/)

Honestly, I don't know any other organization with a grant program that's supporting sex-positive art and education. And unlike a lot of grant givers, we don't require our applicants to have 501(c)(3) status or a fiscal sponsor -- literally anyone in the US doing sex-positive work can apply for a grant from us, and we absolutely fund folks who have never applied for a grant before.

[doubledoublezero]

Oh boy, the exciting conclusion of my last break up with my ex!

I didn’t write the conclusion to this story because honestly it has been a lot to process. Where we last left off on this gay episode of Shameless, my ex blocked me on facebook because he thought I was trying to be spiteful and get close to his coworker and I was pissed at him for thinking I would even do that.

Days went by and I was still going through a cycle of emotions from our last conversation. Well mostly just 2: anger and sadness. It’s funny, not many people in my life have ever gotten me to the point of actual frustration even after working retail for a few years. But even then, all I kept thinking about was what brought us to this point? Where did things go wrong? And why after everything that has happened I want him to be happy? Should I not want that for him? I wish we could talk about it. I just want this to be resolved.

I remembered the letter I wrote for him on our shared drive folder that I wrote the day after he came over and broke my heart again. It said a bunch of things I was holding back. Like that he never experienced love before because he dated guys who treat him like shit and that his family will never except him for his sexuality. And because of everything that’s happened to him, he hates himself and denies himself of being happy. I felt sad for him for so long. He has such a big heart, a unique personality, a warm smile, he’s still one of the best people I have ever met on this planet, he deserved better than what he was given. He used to be the type of person who would do anything for the people he loved and the guys he wanted to see a future with, but they all took advantage of him and hurt him. His last relationship before me was with a guy he really started to care about and was happy with. Nothing seemed to be a problem really. Then one day he found out that his boyfriend was actually an escort the whole time they were together and contracted HIV. My ex freaked out since they have been having sex unprotected for months and was scared. Not only was his boyfriend having sex with various other people behind his back, but might have given him HIV because of it. This lie traumatized him. Luckily, he tested and retested negative, but he still couldn’t believe the person he might have even been falling for lied to him about this the whole time. It was after that, something started changing in him. He remained celibate up until he met me.

Our relationship was honestly some of the happiest times of my life even now still. I never felt a deeper connection with anyone in humor, lifestyles, long term goals, and even random stupid stuff. It’s the first time in my life I have ever felt 100% sure about anything. And even though he ended up becoming distant, both literally and metaphorically, it was always obvious he cared about me. He always used to put me first even when trying to balance everything. So when he moved and we broke up, I knew he didn’t want to completely let go. I loved him, he took advantage of that, but I know it was more than just sex. He didn’t want me to be completely gone either. Which is why every time I would end things, he would apologize weeks later and we went back to doing the usual.

Looking back at it, even when I didn’t completely have him, I was happier with that than when I was with anyone else. Love really does make you stupid sometimes.

But days after our last text conversation, my phone rings. It’s my ex. The only thing I felt was surprise and anticipation. For some reason, just seeing his name on my phone always gives me such comfort. He called just to talk about everything. He wanted to apologize legitimately for everything. For the way he treated me, for taking advantage of me, for staying with me even though we wanted different things. He didn’t want forgiveness, he just wanted to say how he felt and that he was wrong. It was the first time in so long he felt like the same guy who picked me up from work for our first date. The only man I have ever fell completely in love with at first sight and maybe just completely in love with. I thanked him and said we can be friends again someday. We know it would take some time.

A few days passed and all I felt was thankful. I finally got to speak to the guy I feel for after so long. I just felt like it wasn’t over yet. I kept thinking about all his words all day and night and couldn’t leave it at just that. I sent him a voice message telling him that I forgave him since I never said those words when we spoke. And I told him that he wasn’t the only toxic factor between the two of us. I wasn’t the best either. I was codependent, had bad Cognitive Dissonance towards the absence of his presence, and overall expected too much of us. To be honest, I am afraid of losing the people I love. The last time I tried to distance myself from someone I cared about, he died. That stuck with me for years and just never shook it. So I always have to let a person know how much they mean to me so that they know in case it ever becomes too late. And I had to let him know that what happened with him and his ex boyfriend was not his fault. He didn’t deserve that and doesn’t deserve anything like that again. He sent me back a simple text: Thank You Andrew.

That’s the last time we spoke.

That was a bit over a month ago. In that time I’ve dated and currently talking to someone. Of course, we both agreed for the time being that we would just remain with no commitment or label but just casually date when we can. There’s no long term goal or anything, just letting the present happen. I’ve also been picking up a lot of work and have been pretty busy with everything. Things have been going pretty well really and honestly I can’t complain about a lot. But it’s only when I get a moment to relax, I get some time to myself, I finally get to unwind, I notice his absence. He’s not here anymore. I can’t just send him a random meme because I was thinking of him, I can’t see anything he posts on social media, I can’t find him on WoW since I unfriended him. He’s just gone...and I hate that.

Not because he was my boyfriend. Not because of our back and forth for years. Because he really was my best friend. Even when I say or do something with a group of people that’s completely outlandish or obscene, I can’t help but think about how he would have done the same. Our personalities were so similar that I would remind myself constantly of us. 

There’s been a lot of times in the past where I can feel the end of a relationship. It’s like you feel the catharsis coursing through you and you just know that it’s over. There was a guy I talked to on here who was pretty much a fame-whore but we talked for a long time. I finally met him, kissed him goodbye, and just knew it was over from that day forward. My first relationship, once it was over and even though it hurt sometimes, it felt like our ending. I told a friend that I had a crush on for a whole year that I had some feelings for him knowing he didn’t feel the same way and once I left I knew that it was probably for the lat time. There is always a part of you when a relationship ends where you feel it. You know it’s the end, even when you don’t want it to be. Even if you’re in denial about it, you know it’s actually over as much as you try to fight against it. But with my ex...I just never felt that way. Maybe it hasn’t hit yet. It’s never felt over even though I know it is. I got a good ending, this is where the credits role. The actual catharsis is met...but it doesn't feel like it. And I don’t think it ever will with him. From this whole adventure, this whole journey we had, after everything, I don’t think I can imagine a day where I haven’t thought about him at least once. I don’t even know how to end this post. The conclusion is there, but it feels absent.

So I guess I’ll leave things here. Let the story finish itself.

[drsilverfish]

Old Timey SPN - A Fresh (Queer) Look at 4x06 Yellow Fever

Dean in Yellow Fever (comedic terror overlays heart-stopping anxiety).

Whilst we’re on S14 mid-season hiatus, I wanted to write this meta, because sometimes, when writing or reading about the queer subtext in 2018/19 SPN it’s perhaps too easy to forget why queer subtext came into being in the first place, not just as codes in literature, film and television, but as codes in the everyday lives of LGBTQ people. Such codes were (and still are in many places) built around being able to safely signal to, and identify, one another, without being outed more generally, therefore being at risk of often life-threatening violence, backlash, repression etc. 

The world Sam and Dean grew up in, on the road in dive motels and truck-stops, working cases in the “boondocks”, on the fringes of a seriously macho hunter culture, with an ex-marine and Vietnam Vet for a father? A father who sometimes drank too much, and who (in subtext) was, most likely, sometimes physically violent towards his eldest son? A world where Dean got him and Sam fed by stealing food when their Dad forgot to leave them enough? A world where, when they were a bit older, they got by on hustling pool and credit card fraud and (Jensen’s headcanon, but also see below) Dean probably turned tricks on occasion too? That was not a world where you could be “out” safely, by any stretch of the imagination. Of course that doesn’t mean it was a world where sex between men didn’t exist. But it was far, far more likely to be a world populated by MSM (men who have sex with men, but who do not identify as gay or bisexual) than by anyone sporting an “out” LGBTQ identity of any kind. 

It’s not until ten years later, in 2016, in 11x19 The Chitters, that we meet any clearly identified LGBTQ male hunters, and when we do (Jesse and Cesar) we learn that Jesse’s childhood, in small-town Colorado, was full of fear and the need (which his older brother warned him about) to stay in the closet for his own safety.

SPN really hints at all that, early on, in the scene from 1x08 Bugs when Dean comes out of a pool hall with a wad of cash in his hand, and Sam ribs him about hustling pool and Dean says it’s “fun and easy” and there’s a “Billiards” sign flashing behind him which is partially broken, so instead it reads “Billiar” (Bi-liar = bisexual liar) hinting (in subtext) that maybe, what Dean was hustling wasn’t just pool, but dudes:

Original gif-set here: http://canonspngifs.tumblr.com/post/182845022861 

So, content warning for this piece of meta - under the cut I discuss “queer-bashing” and link to an upsetting (but important) real-world piece of reporting in Vanity Fair from the 1990s on a series of brutal homophobic and often ultimately murderous incidents in Texas, as an example of the kind of climate Dean and Sam would have been aware of, growing up.

If you’re feeling OK to follow this thread through, the first thing you should do, is read this earlier, great piece of collaborative meta on Yellow Fever and its Dean/ Ash subtext by @f-ckyeahfutbol and @sandraugiga  and @aslightsgoflashing (the last blog now deleted):

https://f-ckyeahfutbol.tumblr.com/post/147912926731/aslightsgoflashing-f-ckyeahfutbol 

I want to write something adjacent to that meta, by talking about how both Dean’s heightened anxiety (brought on, ostensibly, by the “ghost sickness” in the episode) and the form of violence meted out to Luther/ the ghost in Yellow Fever, can be read as, subtextually, signalling towards Dean’s “gay panic” and (the extremely understandable cause of said panic) - homophobic violence. 

More under the cut...

Firstly, let’s understand something of the history of violence towards gay/ bisexual men, particularly in the small town and rural United States where SPN is set. SPN began screening in 2005. Just a decade earlier, Vanity Fair ran this important piece of investigative journalism on a series of deadly and violent “queer-bashing” incidents in Texas carried out mostly by teenage boys, who felt supported by their churches and communities in carrying out these attacks (many of them resulting in murder):

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/1995/02/texas-murder-199502 

Sam and Dean are aware, in the SPN story-world, of this kind of community-supported homophobic violence. Remember the out gay teacher who was murdered by a homophobic preacher’s wife controlling a Reaper in 1x12 Faith? Meta on that here: 

http://drsilverfish.tumblr.com/post/115161057824/bisexual-in-the-subtext-since-s1 

The SPN story-world also established, early on (see below 2x11 Playthings) that Dean is anxious about being perceived as queer, in a way that Sam is not: 

SAM: “They probably think you’re over-compensating”

DEAN: .................................

Original gif here: http://nimbus2ooo.tumblr.com/post/5585782984 

Dean has been queer-coded as bisexual since S1, and, as this Dean/ Ash meta master-post makes clear, specifically, in the early seasons, in relation to Jo Harvelle and Ash, whom he meets at the same time:

https://sandraugiga.tumblr.com/post/124850209617/a-detailed-look-into-dean-and-ash-masterpost 

Ash, of course, dies in 2x21 All Hell Breaks Loose, which is why the Yellow Fever @f-ckyeahfutbol  and @sandraugiga meta linked to, above the cut, discusses mourning and the Dean/Ash subtext as one of the threads running through the episode. As “ghost-sickness” in some Native American cultures, is a form of mourning, that reading is definitely relevant:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_sickness . 

Bearing that in mind, I’m going to leave Dean/ Ash to one side, and talk specifically about reading the “ghost-sickness” in Yellow Fever as closted “gay panic”.

The episode opens with Dean, terrified, running down a dark street at night. 

On one level, we later understand, his terror is all about what he experienced in Hell and his fear of returning there. He is being chased by a little dog, which, it is eventually revealed, he is hallucinating is a Hell-hound.  

However, on another level, we can also read this as Dean being chased by his “Gay Thoughts TM”. The little dog is wearing a pink bow. Pink is often used in symbolic visual TV/ cinema code for “gay” a) because it is understood as a “feminine” colour (and there is that old stereotypical association of gayness with femininity) and b) because the colour was reclaimed and used with pride by the LGBT community itself, particularly in the 1970s and ‘80s, from the pink triangle that homosexuals were forced to wear as an identifying mark in the Nazi concentration camps. 

After this opener (also strongly played for comedic effect, so the queer reading is definitely in the closet) we flash to 43 hours earlier, and the first vic, Frank O’Brien, on the autopsy table. Posing as FBI agents, the Winchesters show up to investigate. They have taken the aliases Joe Perry and Steve Tyler (from Aerosmith). Tyler has been quite open about having had sex with men as well as women. 

Dean notices (and we should note it’s Dean, not Sam) that there is a mark on Frank’s ring finger where a wedding ring should be, but it’s missing. Then the coroner hands Dean Frank’s heart. 

A dude with a wedding ring missing and then his heart is passed to Dean? That looks like symbolism for queer-on-the-side infidelity to me.

We learn all the other vics were also men, and they all died of heart failure (aka, in subtext, we are talking about queer closeted men). 

We also learn that Frank’s wife Jessie committed suicide many years ago, and that Frank was a bully in school, but he “got better” after his wife died. Both of these factoids can be read as subtextual signals pointing towards Frank’s queerness (possibly his self-loathing turned outwards and his unhappiness in his marriage). 

Then we meet the germaphobe (a mirror for Dean) Sheriff in town.  The Sheriff is really cut up about Frank’s death, and seems to be hiding something.

SHERIFF BRITTON: "Me and Frank, we were friends. Hell, we were Game-cocks.” 

(Dean snickers) 

SHERIFF BRITTON: “That's our softball team's name. They're majestic animals.”

In other words, Dean heard the word “Game-cocks” and his mind immediately went to “fuck buddies,” which says a lot about Dean, but also Dean’s gaydar may have been on-point. 

Were the Sheriff and Frank, in fact, (closeted) lovers? 

Textually, we find out the Sheriff knew Frank had murdered someone, and covered for him. Subtextually....?

The Sheriff, we realise later, like Dean, has also been “infected” and is beginning to suffer from the ghost sickness. This “infection” as a metaphor for queerness might seem as if it is alluding to HIV/AIDS, but, if we read the queer subtext of the ghost sickness in Yellow Fever as about closeted “gay panic” in the kind of environment where it’s not safe to be out, then this isn’t a “gay/ bi men are infectious” homophobic metaphor, it’s more about closeted men’s fear, in a homophobic environment, that they are somehow “infected” by queerness and will not be able to keep it secret. 

And how are the men who have died, “infected”? It seems to be (metaphorically) “through the heart”, as Dean was shown literally holding Frank’s heart, and the Sheriff was suffering from grief-of-the-heart at Frank’s death.  

As soon as Dean is drunk, and therefore disinhibited, the element he is is repressing emerges, and Dean flirts with the Sheriff’s cute young assistant. And let’s side-eye the Dean-mirror Sheriff’s choice of deputy eye-candy here. The deputy is framed by a painting of stallions in the Sheriff’s office. Stallions, like game-cocks, being a symbol of hyper-masculine virility - the Sheriff’s choices being both a cover for, and a coded signal of, homoeroticism.  

 And here’s that much giffed flirting scene:

(Couldn’t find the gif credit for this one)

At Frank’s neighbour’s house, Dean (not Sam) gets crawled over by a huge yellow-white python (read - penis metaphor) and Dean (infected by the ghost-sickness, aka “gay panic”) freaks out. As frequently throughout the episode, this subtextual meaning is covered by comedic effect. 

(Couldn’t find the gif credit for this one either - sorry - older gifs tend to appear on platforms like “giphy” that strips out the OP)

Finally, the boys find out that a dude named Luther is the ghostly source of the “ghost-sickness”. Luther, who had learning disabilities, was murdered by Frank, who ostensibly (and wrongly) believed Luther murdered Frank’s wife, Jessie (who had been kind to Luther, and who, Luther’s brother tells the Winchesters, he had a “crush” on).

Is that the actual story, however? That’s the heterosexual, surface-available textual story. 

But subtextually? The Winchesters find Frank’s wedding ring in the lumber yard which the ghost of Luther is haunting. What if that disused “lumber yard” was a known cruising ground, and Frank had had sex with men there (symbolised by the loss of his wedding ring) perhaps with Luther himself, or with the Sheriff (and Luther witnessed it) then he felt guilty about it (maybe because Jessie found out about his habit of having closeted sex with men on the side and that contributed to her suicide)? And so, Frank went after Luther.

Why this subtextual reading? 

Let’s look at the way Frank killed Luther. He wrapped a chain around his neck and “road-hauled” him to death behind his truck.

Have you heard of a “fag-drag”? Unfortunately, I don’t mean drag performance, but the “queer-bashing” version. You may have heard of a “fag-drag” used in this sense because of this Southpark clip (typically faux-ironic in tone) in which Mr. Garrison yells, “Come on everybody, let’s get us some queers, and some trucks, and have us a good old fashioned fag drag.” Mr. Garrison was depicted as a closted gay man who hid his homosexuality by making homophobic statements in the first three seasons of Southpark (he eventually came out as trans).

Or, you may have heard of the “fag-drag” (a particular form of homophobic violence) thanks to Brokeback Mountain. It was such a (murderous) “queer bashing” that young Ennis was forced to witness (the aftermath of) by his father -  in which an old gay rancher had been roped to the back of a truck and dragged, “...until his dick came off,” and he died.  

Sorry for the graphic imagery - none of this is OK and I am using “fag-drag” in quote marks throughout, because it’s obviously a violently homophobic term in and of itself. 

So, in subtext, we can read Luther as having been “fag-dragged” to death by a, self-hating, closeted Frank. 

As Dean gets pulled further and further into the hallucinations that accompany the ghost sickness, Sam calls Bobby for help. 

Bobby realises that the ghost responsible for the “ghost-sickness” is a Buruburu, a ghost born of a person’s fear after dying in a terrifying way. Bobby tells Sam a salt-and-burn won’t work - they have to scare the ghost to death. I mean, logically, that makes no sense, right? A ghost born of terror would surely feed on terror?

But, subtextually, it does make sense, because Sam and Bobby love Dean dearly, but they both, at this stage in the SPN narrative, do not fully understand just how much Dean’s surface macho bravado is a performance, covering much that he hides from them (including his queerness).  

So, although they both express distress about it, Bobby and Sam recreate Luther’s original death (in subtext, his homophobic “fag drag”) by wrapping an iron chain round ghost-Luther’s neck and hauling him over the ground, attached to Baby.

Shots of ghost-Luther’s death - Sam calls it a “truck haul” (in subtext, a ”fag-drag”):

are intercut with shots of Dean, in the motel room hallucinating the creepy little girl version of Lilith. He asks her, “Why me? Why’d I get infected?” She tells him, “Silly goose, you know why - listen to your heart.” In subtext - that’s Dean’s queer heart (and see my meta linked above on Dean’s queer heart in 1x12 Faith). 

As Luther’s ghost gets “fag-dragged” by Dean’s soul (Baby) Dean’s heart starts to give out (again, the shots of the two events are intercut). In our queer subtext reading, we can understand this as a metaphor for the trauma Dean’s own closeted self (his “gay panic”) is inflicting on his queer heart: 

Once Luther’s ghost has been destroyed, the ghost sickness leaves Dean.

Or (metaphorically speaking) does it?

The final scene between Dean, Sam and Bobby is really heartbreaking, in a subtextual sense. Because Bobby and Sam tease Dean about how anxious he was under the spell of the ghost sickness, and he pushes back, full once again of his performance bravado:

BOBBY: “You sure, Dean? 'Cause this line of work can get awful scary.”

DEAN: “I'm fine. You want to go hunting? I'll hunt. I'll kill anything.”

BOBBY: “Awwww, he's adorable. I got to get out of here. You boys drive safe.”

So, yes, the more textual layers of the narrative tell us that Dean got infected by the ghost sickness not because, as Sam says in the episode, Dean is a “dick” but because Dean’s terror of being dragged back to Hell (and to the things we eventually find out he did there) made him susceptible to fear-infection. 

The more textual layers tell us, that the things Dean keeps from Sam in their talk at the hood of the Impala at the end of the episode, are his hallucinations of Hell-hounds, of Lilith, and of Sam himself with yellow eyes.

But in the queer subtext (should we choose to adopt this reading)? 

Dean’s “gay panic”, Dean’s fear of homophobic, or homophobic but homo-erotically charged, violence (like that which was visited on Luther by Frank) was what attracted the ghost-sickness to him (and not to Sam) just as it was attracted to the town’s other (closeted) men, like the Sheriff, who, guiltily (and in fear) nevertheless cruised for sex in the abandoned lumber yard, or took part in nights away with their fellow “Game-cocks”. 

And so, in this subtextual reading, one of the things Dean is choosing to hide from Sam, is his queerness.

This particular reading of Yellow Fever makes additional sense once we get to 4x16 On the Head of a Pin and discover that Dean’s time in Hell included a, hideous and twisted, but nevertheless homoerotic, charge between himself and his torturer and “mentor” in Hell, the demon Alastair. That’s an additional trauma, an additional psychic wound, for Dean’s queer heart to bear.

Finally, we should also note, that an element that significantly supports this queer reading is the fact that Yellow Fever is set in the fictional town of Rock Ridge, Colorado. That is also the setting for the spoof Western Blazing Saddles  (1974). That movie contains the famous “French mistake” sequence (which later gave Edlund the title and concept for 6x15 The French Mistake).

This sequence is where the movie finally breaks the fourth wall (revealing itself to be artifice) and the Western set of Blazing Saddles breaks through into a cabaret chorus show, where an all male troupe are performing a top and tails number called “The French Mistake” (an allusion to men having sex with men). They are called “faggots” and “sissy marys” by the cowboys, but they also “queer” themselves by using feminine pronouns; “Come on girls!” The cowboys and the chorus dancers get involved in a free-for-all punch-up, but we also see some of them making friends with one another, emerging from the melee with their arms around each other. 

This is, of course, a meta-commentary on the queer subtext of the Western genre (and the closeted queerness of classic Hollywood itself). So, it’s a pretty interesting setting to have chosen for Yellow Fever (as it points, by allusion, to the queer subtext of Supernatural i.e. it’s a big sign, for those chosing to follow the trail, that looking out for queer subtext in Yellow Fever might bear narrative fruit). Here is the “French Mistake” clip from Blazing Saddles:

The book Intersecting Film, Music and Queerness by Jack Curtis Dubowsky (Palgrave, 2016) contains a chapter specifically devoted to reading the queerness in Blazing Saddles.

My own reading of Yellow Fever has been brought to you by me, courtesy of Andrew Dabb and Daniel Loflin, who wrote the episode, inspired by some of the questions left hanging in @f-ckyeahfutbol. and @sandraugiga ‘s meta on the episode.

As ever, here is my usual disclaimer -  Dean’s bisexuality and his attraction to men continue to be told in the SPN subtext (14 years and counting now). My queer readings of Supernatural do not “promise” that this element of the narrative will emerge into undeniable main-text for the general audience.

However, subtext IS a part of narrative. 

[golden-van-fleet]

I’ll Cover You

Summary: You and Joe met during a revival of Rent on Broadway.

Word Count: 2833

A/N: This was entirely based on a conversation I had with @starfleet-wannabe last night. We really love Joe, it’s almost unhealthy. This is easily readable if you haven’t seen Rent! Enjoy! 

Warnings: Swearing

You’d seen him before, tucked away into corners or in the middle of a crowd of people dancing in unison. You knew his name, and that he was no stranger to the stage. You didn’t know how you’d managed to find yourself on stage with him, sharing the spotlight in a revival of Rent on Broadway.

Joe Mazzello was Mark, the nerdy and shy filmmaker, engrossed in documenting the life of his fellow broke New Yorkers during the HIV/AIDS crisis. Joe fit right in with the East Village cast, his own passion for filmmaking playing a heavy role in his interest in his character. It was what made his character so like him, but Mark’s timidness was what made Joe so lovable, on and off stage.

You were Maureen Johnson. Loud. Passionate. Mark’s ex, current lover of Joanne. It was so unlike you, you couldn’t help but think during the casting process. Maureen was hellbent on getting her production to a stage, so dramatic and yet, not as unlike you as you’d once thought. She had ambition, a drive about her that mirrored your own. You’d fought hard to get to where you were, a feat you were inexplicably proud of.

For someone who claimed they couldn’t dance very well, Joe couldn’t help but watch you during rehearsals for “Tango: Maureen”. The song highlighted the tension in Maureen’s relationships as she flirted shamelessly with men and women alike. Mark and Joanne were furious, but Joe was captivated. Maureen was sexy, confident, and fierce, and it all but oozed from you as you sauntered across the stage, commanding the attention of all men and women- on stage and off.

In between rehearsals, Joe made a point to talk to you about whatever he could. You were fascinating to him, so like him and yet so different. You appreciated his efforts, his warm and inviting nature drawing you closer to him. Every day you woke up excited to work with him, and every night you went home and couldn’t wait to do it all over again.

As opening night drew nearer, you noticed that your relationship with Joe got more and more personal. Strictly professional, of course, but friendly nonetheless. He’d complimented you after a grueling dress rehearsal, leaving out the part about how long he’d wanted to say something about your performance. The director had been particularly harsh that day, which was expected, but so unnecessarily frustrating it made you wonder if the show was worth it. Joe was always there to cheer you up after a difficult day and was the one person you were most thankful for during the run of the show.

“You were absolutely phenomenal in that last run. I mean, you always are,” he corrected himself quickly, his nerves overcoming him. He was talking to you, not Maureen. He didn’t need to be nervous, but you looked so good in your costume, he wasn’t sure he could contain himself. It wasn’t anything spectacular by your standards, but to him, it was everything.

“Really? Thank you,” you said, smiling warmly at the man who was sweating bullets. “I was a bit nervous about the changes they made yesterday. Totally thought I was going to blow straight through them,” you admitted, leading the two of you off the stage and into the wings.

“If you did, I couldn’t tell,” Joe whispered, forced to lean closer to you to be heard. You weren’t supposed to talk in the wings, but with someone as captivating as Joe, you were willing to make a few exceptions. “That whole cow bit is fantastic. It’s my favorite part of the show.” Ah, yes, the bit where you mime drinking Diet Coke straight from the… cow.

You rolled your eyes, nudging him playfully. The director called for the main cast to come out on stage, halting your conversation momentarily. You had every intention of continuing it the second you were given the opportunity.

“Seasons of Love, everybody! Places!”

Joe was stuck on the end, and you were almost dead center. Despite the row of people between you, lined up in a straight line across the front of the stage, Joe still managed to catch you out of the corner of his eye.

Your emotion was raw. “Seasons of Love” was the most emotionally moving song you’d ever performed, and it took almost too much out of you each performance. A year felt so long and so short at the same time, and the past year had been so difficult for you. You’d lost a lot, loved a lot, and learned a lot in the process. Tears welled in your eyes and streamed down your face from the second the song started until the lights faded at the end of the song.

“Y/N! That was incredible!” The director cheered, the entire cast facing you, sheepishly wiping tears off your cheeks. You hadn’t had a solo, those were for Joanne and Collins, so your best guess pointed to your reaction to the song. It moved the director to tears, something you hadn’t noticed until you met his eyes. “I think we can call that a wrap for today. Rest up tomorrow, and I’ll see you back on Monday!”

Joe was the first person you saw when you turned back towards the dressing rooms.

“How do you do it?”

“Do what?”

“Make it all seem so effortless,” he said, almost exasperated.

“I channel as much pain into it as I can manage for the day and cry the rest into a glass of wine when I get home,” you deadpanned, picking up your bag. You couldn’t help but laugh when you saw Joe’s expression, concerned and helpless. “I’m kidding. This past year was so difficult for me, and I use that for this song. The rest of the show is just stepping out of my comfort zone and hoping I’ll make Idina Menzel proud.”

“I’m sure you already make her proud. I heard she’s coming opening night,” Joe shrugged, packing up his own things.

“Really?” You tried to curb your enthusiasm. Honestly. And to anyone else, knowing that the original actress both in the original cast on Broadway and in the film adaption of your current role would be in attendance would probably scare them shitless. But you were so excited, you knew that each Maureen would bring something different to the role, and you tried to avoid comparing yourself to her and the other actresses that came before you.

“Yeah, I think so, anyway. Hey, are you doing anything after this?” Joe asked, holding the door open for you as you left the theatre. His heart pounded in his chest as he awaited your answer.

“I was planning on going home and running through “Over the Moon” one more time, but that can hold off until later. What’d you have in mind?”

It was dark out, but both of you were illuminated by the lights so characteristically New York City that you couldn’t tell if his cheeks were pink because you were interested in his offer or because of the lights surrounding you.

“I was going to order takeout, but would you want to go get dinner with me? Not as a date,” he added quickly. Too quickly. It stung a little bit, hearing him shoot it down almost immediately. Your heart sank a little, but you put on a brave face before agreeing.

“Sure, I don’t see why not. Where did you have in mind?”

A couple blocks and about ten minutes later, you found yourself sat in front of Joe in an obnoxiously red leather booth in a tiny diner. It was so endearing it was sickening. It was like you dove headfirst into the setting of Grease. Which, by the way, Joe quickly found out was one of your favorite movies.

Joe sat with his chin in his hand, watching you speak with unwavering attention. Everything you said had such a passion behind it, your hands unconsciously gesticulating as you got more and more excited when you spoke. It was adorable.

It was then you realized that you really, really liked Joe. It was akin to a schoolgirl crush, the way his smile made your heart rate increase and when he spoke your name it was like only the two of you existed at that moment. You were crossing into the danger zone, and you knew it. Relationships between actors in the same show felt wrong, what with the cast being such a family, and they were advised against to avoid animosity when it came to breakups. But what would it hurt if you were just testing the waters?

Unbeknownst to you, Joe had already fallen into said waters headfirst. Hell, he’d drowned at this point. He knew it was a bad idea, he knew better, he knew to keep it professional. And he did the best he could, given the circumstances.

He tried to attribute the softness in your eyes to you being friendly. You tried to attribute his attentiveness to you to the way he was raised. You both tried your hardest to ignore the ache in your chest when you saw the other with someone else, sitting just slightly too close or smiling just a little too wide. It was a dirty little secret, sneaking glances when the other person wasn’t looking and returning them because, in reality, the other person was looking right back at them. It was flushed cheeks hidden under stage makeup, an appropriate metaphor for your relationship if you could call it that.

Opening night came and went off without a hitch. The cast met up for dinner following the show, a celebration to kick off the eight-month run with this same cast. Joe was glued to your hip the entire night, and you to his. Eight months felt like such a long time with the rest of the cast but didn’t feel like nearly enough time with Joe.

Mark and Maureen had the strained relationship of ex-lovers, while behind the scenes you and Joe had the strained relationship of something that was meant to come to fruition. Joe wished you good luck with a sincere “break a leg,” and a kiss to your cheek every night. You returned it, and you were the first person to congratulate him on a show well done in the wings with a tight hug, your arms thrown around his neck.

One night, one random Thursday night, the whole dynamic changed. Instead of his kiss landing on your cheek, you’d turned your head in surprise and his lips landed on the corner of your mouth. Instead of recoiling, as a best friend should have, you took his face in your hands and placed the gentlest of kisses to his lips.

“If you’re going to kiss someone good luck, you have to do it properly,” you mused, before making your way to the wings to start the show.

The entirety of the show that night was a blur, and although his performance was spectacular to everyone else in attendance, you knew why he was in the headspace he was in. You cursed yourself for it, retreating to your dressing room as quickly as you could before he could find you. Of course, he found you.

Three soft knocks on your dressing room door had your palms sweating and your heart rate rising. God, you’d outdone yourself this time. You’d really had to go and screw it all up, huh?

“Joe.”

“Y/N, what the fuck was that?” He was fuming. He’d fought so hard to keep himself from holding onto you too long, to keep himself from kissing you, to keep himself from daydreaming about you being his for too long to allow you to ruin his progress. He dreamt of waking up next to you and calling you his, it was all he wanted, but he knew he couldn’t have it. And that infuriated him.

“I’m sorry, I shouldn’t have kissed you, it was stupid and I wasn’t thinking, and I know it bothered you because I know you and I know how you act and you weren’t you tonight, you were just Mark, and, I’m sorry,” you rambled, tears starting to form. “I was selfish and didn’t take your feelings into consideration.”

“This is our job, Y/N.” He closed the door behind himself, closing off the world from your conversation. It reminded you of that night in the diner, now ages ago, and the stark contrast to it made you sick. “I had to tell myself that our relationship is strictly professional every night for the better half of a year now. I’ve wanted you since I saw you at the first rehearsals, and I want nothing more for you to be mine, but we can’t sacrifice our professionalism for it.”

“And you don’t think I’ve been telling myself the same thing? I know how you look at me because I look at you the same way. Every time you think I can’t see you staring? I feel you looking at me. So forgive me for compromising our professionalism when you’ve been right in front of me this whole time, sending me signals like a fifteen-year-old.” You seethed, angrily scrubbing what was left of your makeup off with a makeup wipe before turning back to face him.

He was stuck. Here you were, laying your heart on the line for something so taboo that you’d worked so hard to earn. You wanted him just as desperately as he wanted you.

“Fuck it,” he whispered, grabbing your face and pulling your lips to his. It wasn’t pretty. The first couple of seconds were all teeth and tongue before both of you relaxed into each other, finding a rhythm between you. You were the first to pull away, your forehead resting against his. “I’m sorry.”

“I’m sorry, too,” you mumbled, your thumb brushing against his bottom lip. “Looks like the rest of the world is just gonna have to get over it, huh?” You teased, as Joe cracked a small smile.

“Yeah, I guess they are.”

The cast saw it coming from the first day. You and Joe were inseparable from the start of dance rehearsals, as you’d had a number of scenes together and had to tango together in “Tango: Maureen”.

“Are they ever gonna admit to each other that they’re hopelessly in love with the other?” Claire, who played Joanne, whispered to Adam, who played Angel.

“Not until they admit it to themselves,” he snickered back, the two of them watching the two of you watch each other with the human equivalent of heart eyes. So when you finally came clean and admitted to being a couple, the rest of the cast told you it was about time.

You ended up being nominated for a Tony for your role in Rent. Joe assured you that you deserved the award, that you would walk away with it that night. He was right, of course.

“I found a lot of myself in Maureen,” you started, feeling like a fish out of water. You found Joe in the audience, his eyes shining with admiration. In him, you found your composure. “And I did everything I could to channel myself into her. To understand her. Everything I’ve done up until now has led me to this. This is beyond my wildest dreams, and I want to thank my wonderful director and co-stars for creating such a nurturing and loving environment from which we could all grow. And to Joe, this award is just as much mine as it is yours. I have you to thank for the motivation to continue on. I love you.”

You walked off stage before realizing what you said. It was your first “I love you” that just so happened to be broadcast around the world. Joe welcomed you back to your seat with open arms.

“I love you, too, congratulations,” he whispered into your ear before letting you go to sit back down.

While you waited and prayed to every god you could think of to bring Joe into your life, you never imagined it would end up like this. All of the heartaches were worth it as you looked at the man who brought you nothing but joy. He meant the world to you, and despite playing bitter exes during the show, something deep down told you your relationship wouldn’t end like theirs.

I think they meant it when they said you can’t buy love,

Now I know you can rent it, a new lease you are my love.

“I’ll cover you,” he whispered, a smile playing at his lips at his song reference, pulling you into a sweet kiss. You smiled against his lips, relaxing back into your seat when you parted. Rent taught you to make the best out of your situation, and judging by the look on Joe’s face, you did just that.

[nonbinary-nature-lover-jeri]

Tommy Holland - November 3, 1945 - March 9, 1989

An artistic rendering by Jeri Cheney from an obituary photo

Remembering Tommy

Tommy Holland, (no relation to the young actor of the same name), was college organist and assistant minister of music at Assumption College as well as the associate organist at St. Paul's Cathedral, where he served as organist for most of the principal Worcester diocesan services, including the installation of the Bishop and the Auxiliary Bishop.

In 1983, he was organist at solemn vespers during the convention of the American Guild of Organists and the Organ Historical Society in Worcester.

Tommy was also organist for two recordings, "A Babe Is Born," issued in 1984 by St. Paul's Cathedral, and "Amid the Winter's Snow," issued last year by Mechanics Hall.

I met Tommy early in 1988 when he came to the newly opened offices of AIDS Project Worcester, in Worcester, Massachusetts. The office was in the front portions of an abandoned warehouse that had been donated for the agency’s use. He and I met to discuss how I could help him.  As we discussed his situation it became evident that I had to be very careful to not reveal his status or the fact that he was a gay man. In 1988 being gay, living with AIDS, being a Roman Catholic and being employed at a Catholic College made his situation very delicate. This made helping Tom very difficult. He was not out as either gay or as a person with AIDS to his employers whom he depended on for health insurance coverage, yet I had to work with his insurance company to ensure he had access to medication to treat his infection. At this time in 1988, there was only one medication approved for treating infection with HIV and that was AZT. The insurance company was hesitant to approve this treatment but with some encouragement they finally agreed to cover him. His case was important as someone willing to let me advocate for insurance coverage for AZT and later for aerosolized pentamidine as a prophylaxis against pneumocystis pneumonia. This gave me the experience that would help me work on behalf of subsequent clients.

Tommy became my friend and was a wonderful sweet person. I knew he did have the support of a select group of friends and I felt privileged to be included. His closest friends were a group of gay priests and music professionals affiliated with various churches. I met some of these very sincere, kind men through my friendship with Tommy. The group often gathered at location that was known, amongst this group of friends, as the 700 club, so named because of the street address of the place they got together. It was also a chance for them to poke fun at the 700 club, the tv show run by a Protestant televangelist. Unfortunately I was not destined to spend as much time as I would have liked getting to know Tom even better. 

In early 1989 Tommy took a turn for the worst. He was dealing with some serious complications related to his infection with HIV and having an AIDS diagnosis. The most severe complication was Toxoplasmosis Encephalitis a parasitic infection that had migrated to the brain. He was also suffering some effects from HIV-related dementia so he was suffering but a bit confused about what was happening. He had a couple close friends who visited him at the hospital but not that many beyond that. There was an Episcopal priest that was particularly kind and helpful. This wonderful human being helped Tom reconcile his Faith with who he was.

Sadly Tommy died on March 9, 1989. His funeral mass was held at St. Paul’s Cathedral in downtown Worcester. There was wonderful music as befitting his vocation. The service was conducted by the Bishop Harrington and no mention of Tom’s identity or what he died of was made. After the service I attended a reception where I felt very uncomfortable. I had been in the paper by then as both gay and an AIDS activist and there were a few people who I sensed were beginning to understand how I had come to know Tom so I left after a short while. A bit later I got together with some of his friends at the “700 Club.” This group of mostly gay men who were closeted in their church  jobs were able to metaphorically “let their hair down” and talk freely with each other. It was clear they all loved Tom dearly and felt his loss deeply. They helped me process Tom’s passing and for that I will be forever grateful.

Through my friendship with Tommy I met a celibate gay priest who was a Chaplin at Assumption College. A couple year later, I accepted an invitation to talk with a group of LGBTQ+ students and share information both on HIV/AIDS and being gay. My chat did not cause any trouble but, I believe, a subsequent visit from activists from ACT-UP did cause a serious problem. Later, in the nineties, an Assumption College graduate became well known as an AIDS activist. His name was Michael Quercio and he became loved and respected by some at the college. When Michael died in 1995 his funeral was held at Assumption College and was one of the most respectful masses/funerals at a Catholic Church I had been to. Michael was respected for who he was. I left the funeral very sad for the loss of my friend Michael but also grateful for the way he was remembered at his Alma Mater. I’d like to think some of the change there was a result of Tommy’s influence a little over 5 years earlier. For that and for the memories of a wonderful man gone way too soon, I am thankful.

[firstumcschenectady]

“Find Hope” based on 2 Kings 5:1-14

Leprosy is understood by the Bible to be highly contagious, dangerous, and even deadly.

The ancient Israelites had laws about how to identify leprosy, how to know if it had been healed, and how to prevent it from spreading. Leviticus chapter 13 deals with nothing else. After an extensive 44 verses about how to examine sores to determine if they are leprosy, the chapter concludes, “Now the leper on whom the sore is, his clothes shall be torn and his head bare; and he shall cover his mustache, and cry, ‘Unclean! Unclean!’ He shall be unclean. All the days he has the sore he shall be unclean. He is unclean, and he shall dwell alone; his dwelling shall be outside the camp.” (Lev 13:45-46, NRSV)

Now that doesn't sound awesome at ALL, but the New Interpreter's Bible informs me that it is far worse than it sounds. They say, “All three of these actions – tearing the clothes, messing up the hair, and covering the lower part of the face – are signs of mourning for the dead. So serious is the state of uncleanness that it is similar to the state of death.”1 Leprosy in Ancient Israel, referred to a wide variety of skin diseases, some of which likely were highly contagious and potentially deadly, but most of which were not. Yet, it because it was poorly understood, and dangerous to the community, a person with leprosy was exiled from the community, which is itself a form of death.

The Bible is primarily a communal document, a reflection of the way that society was supposed to act. As such, it was worried about the spread of dangerous disease within society, and took the well-being of the whole more seriously than the well-being of the individual. That is, the stigma of being removed from society, and having to go around yelling “unclean” so no one would touch you, was clearly TERRIBLE for the individual, but kept the community safe. Leprosy was the ultimate stigma: something entirely beyond the individual's control that isolated them from their entire community. (Hmm, what else is like that?)

The irony of course is that germ theory hadn't come into being yet, and there wasn't much differentiation of skin diseases. In fact, the Bible spends a lot of time differentiating between a SCAR and a SCAB, indicating that people thought that was important – that people not become lepers because of SCARS. Medical science still had some development to do, but people had noticed the contagion idea, and they did what they could to care for the whole.

If there is any good news in this, it is that there was a way to be UN-DECLARED a leper, it was not a permanent stigma. Or at least, it didn't have to be if one's skin cleared up. Heaven help those with eczema though. And, of course, we want to be aware in any conversation about leprosy that this not an ancient problem that is now simply a good metaphor. Today, about 180,000 people a year contract leprosy, although it is now treatable. Also, it isn't really THAT contagious. You have to have repeated contact with “nose or mouth droplets” from someone who is infected. It isn't, say, the measles. (Perhaps the measles were also considered part of leprosy in Biblical times??? That would actually explain A LOT.)

I've gone deep into explaining leprosy in Ancient Israel, because the story indicates that leprosy was understood differently in the neighboring country of Aram (modern Syria). While the Israelites expelled lepers from society, in Aram the general of the King's army had leprosy, and was regularly talking to the king. I'm not sure what to make of this. Perhaps this is a bit of a Biblical dig at Aram, indicating they didn't know how to care for society. Perhaps, though, it reflects some historical memory. What if Aram didn't expel its lepers? What if something that created a stigma in Israel, didn't in Aram? The two countries were neighbors, and were eternally in skirmishes with each other, so were likely pretty equally matched, which would indicate that perhaps excluding lepers didn't really help.

What if there didn't have to be a stigma, and people could still survive as a society without kicking others out?

What if, instead of observations about contagions, Ancient Israel was really allowing the natural human tendency of “ick, get away from me!” to have its way? What if people just didn't want to see the ways that skin diseases can disfigure? What if fear simply got the best of them?

The human response “ick, get away from me” is real. It has applied to many individuals and groups over the eons, perhaps it is a defining factor of society about who is called “icky” and who has the power to decide who is “icky” and who isn't. This is the power to define stigma.

People who are transgender are most likely to be violently assaulted and murdered in our society, and the greatest danger is for tranwomen of color. There isn't any logical reason for this. It has basically come down to a response from individuals of “But gender is supposed to work the way I thought it did when I was a kid, and if it doesn't, ick.” The power of stigma is the power of murder.

In the past few years there have been culture wars over bathrooms, and who gets to use them. (eyeroll) Somewhere along the line, I read a piece2 that clarified that bathroom wars were an old trick being revived. In our shared past of segregation, bathrooms were segregated. White women sought to maintain segregation by indicating they were afraid of getting diseases from sharing toilets with women of color. That is, they said they were afraid of contracting sexually transmitted infections from toilet seats. That was another way, among a myriad of ways, that white society indicated that bodies of people who weren't white were “icky.” This is how marginalization works. :( This is also how we get concentration camps on our Southern border filled with people with dark skin, because stigma dehumanizes and allows inhumane treatment of God's beloved people.

As a child I was taught not to sit on the toilet seat in public bathrooms by my Grandmother, but was told I could by my mother, and it took a loooong time to figure out why they disagreed about that. Today the fear of bathrooms has been transformed to create fear of sexual assault in bathrooms, when the truth is that what we've done is make going to the bathroom a terrifying experience for transgender people – who are themselves especially vulnerable.

Yet, there are Arams. Many societies in the past, and many in the present, recognize more than 2 genders, and a lot of countries have better protections for trans people than we do. The United States has created racism in its own image, and we have managed to export it along the way, but societies and countries in the past and the present are able to show us other ways to understand race, identity, and ethnicity.

Years ago now, Sylvester stood in this pulpit and preached about what it was like when he was first diagnosed with HIV. He talked about visiting his sister and knowing that his cup would be thrown away and his sheets burned when he left. A United Methodist retreat for people living with HIV and AIDS that I once got to volunteer at offered massages for the retreat participants – because of reality that people with HIV and AIDS don't get enough human touch. I'm not sure I know of places in the world where this has been solved, although basic education and the passing of years has decreased the stigma some, and intentionality to include and TOUCH has mattered.

I also think there is a stigma in our society around poverty. “Don't get too close, or it will get you” seems to be an unspoken fear. I suspect the danger really is, “don't get too close, or you'll be motivated to change things, and that will change your life forever.” Yet, we live in a society that is comfortable with obscene wealth for a very few at the expense of the lives of nearly half. Yet, by associating a stigma with people living in poverty, it becomes “their problem” instead of the reality that poverty is the natural outcome of our societal laws and priorities.

Stigma is POWERFUL. It is dangerous. It is contagious, and it is deadly.

It is a far bigger problem than the people who get forced to hold it. One of the worse parts of stigmas is when they get internalized by the people who have been stigmatized.

In 2 Kings, God has the power to free Naaman from the stigma of leprosy. Elisha is God's prophet in this story, and he is able to offer a means of healing in God's name. Of course, Naaman doesn't have all the stigma of leprosy in Ancient Israel, but he does have leprosy, and then he comes into Ancient Israel with it at which point he was a foreigner, who had bested them in war, who had the stigma of leprosy too. (They must have been terrified.)

The story says God healed him, and he was clean, and free of stigma, and very, very grateful. Just because was healed doesn't meant that others were, and that also draws some big questions about who gets access to let go of stigma and why. However, I'm firmly in the camp that God is anti-stigma. Or, perhaps I should say, God doesn't DO stigma. God is against stigma, and the ways that it gets used to dehumanize, violate, dismiss, and separate people. God is about shared humanity, peace, acknowledgment, and connection. Stigmas work against God.

We know and love a God who welcomes and delights in a lovely diversity of human beings and human bodies. God is the one who who says, “Blest are people who are transgender; they shall know my complexities. Blessed are people who are marginalized because of their race; they are able to build the kindom. Blessed are the people who live with HIV and AIDS; they are holding my hand already. Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kindom. Blessed are the lepers, for they shall be healed.” Stigma just doesn't hold up under the weight and power of God's love.

And it isn't supposed to hold up for us either. May God heal us, that the stigma society places on God's beloveds might lose their power for us. May we, like Namaan and Elisha, trust in God's power to eliminate the power of the things that keep us from a full and abundant life. May we build a society more like Aram – able to welcome people into our midst as full partners in our shared work, regardless of the stigmas others would want to put on anyone. May we follow our God who is against stigma and for connection. Amen

1Walter C. Kaiser Jr. “The Book of Leviticus: Introduction, Comment and Reflections” in The New Interpreter's Bible Vol 1., ed. Leander E. Keck, convener (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994), 1097.

2Maybe this one? https://psmag.com/magazine/how-social-bias-is-segregating-americas-bathrooms

--

Rev. Sara E. Baron First United Methodist Church of Schenectady 603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305 Pronouns: she/her/hers

http://fumcschenectady.org/

https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady

July 7, 2019

[2whatcom-blog]

Humility Is the First Step towards a More healthy World

This month, the world noticed the first-ever picture of a black gap. The image was captured by the Occasion Horizon Telescope, a community of radio telescopes operated by a worldwide crew of scientists. The black gap is 53.49 million light-years away, on the heart of the Messier 87 galaxy. Taking an image of such a distant object was an immense feat of science and engineering. The roots of this achievement stretch from Einstein's first theorizing concerning the existence of black holes, all the way in which to the creation of cutting-edge expertise that allowed us to lastly see one. Such tales are reminders of why it generally seems like science can do something, from exploring the cosmos, to peering into the distant previous, to blurring the boundary between life and demise. And that feeling typically extends to the science that informs our well being. On that entrance, the 20th century introduced a number of main discoveries, from penicillin to the double helix. Because the Digital Age ushers in new advances, it's as straightforward because it has ever been to think about that science actually can clear up all our well being issues at some point. Our habits suggests we could even hope that, by the facility of science, we will at some point innovate our means out of the human condition--the inevitability of age and demise. Think about: the US spends much more on well being care than every other nation on this planet. The overwhelming majority of this spending goes to the medicine and coverings which might be the fruits of scientific discovery. With this sky-high spending have come sky-high expectations. We eagerly await the medicine that may treatment dreaded illnesses like most cancers and AIDS. We're fascinated by the evolution of precision medication, with its risk of tailoring remedy to a person's particular life-style and genetic code. And we thrill on the notion that expertise may prolong life indefinitely, that we will sometime "hack" mortality, if we will solely get the science proper. These hopes inform a spirit of exploration, one which we should always nurture. But unbounded confidence in science also can distract us from the core forces that underlie our lives and health--forces far bigger than any theorem, expertise or treatment. Every day, we're deeply influenced by the social, financial and environmental situations that encompass us. These situations are on the coronary heart of how our lives unfold, deciding whether or not we're sick or effectively. We will need to have the humility to acknowledge the affect of those forces. When we don't, we open the door to hubris, and threat undermining the very objectives we accumulate data to pursue. There are ample examples of how we've uncared for the foundational forces that form well being, whilst we've poured sources into growing new remedies. Take bronchial asthma. If a baby has bronchial asthma, science can certainly present her with medication for her sickness. However why does she have bronchial asthma to start with? May or not it's as a result of she is a baby of coloration, a demographic with the next bronchial asthma threat? Or as a result of she grew up in an economically deprived neighborhood, situated close to a air pollution heart like a significant roadway, as such neighborhoods typically are? Or may it even be due to political choices to construct the neighborhood in such an inopportune location? We're much less more likely to ask these questions after we assume that the one motion we'd like take to handle an sickness like bronchial asthma is to design ever-better remedies for it. Whereas we regularly don't consider well being on this means, we're successfully letting six million youngsters reside with a preventable illness like bronchial asthma as a result of we're distracted by the flashy potential of high-tech science, on the expense of options which might be at hand. What concerning the continued existence of HIV, a illness for which we've glorious remedies, however which nonetheless persists in some nations because of the forces of poverty, stigma and political negligence? In such circumstances, our medical advances are merely not sufficient. We want the humility to acknowledge that we can not finish these illnesses with out tackling forces that exist exterior the realm of scientific innovation, whose affect can solely be checked by collective effort and the applying of political will. There may be nothing incorrect with making higher medicines. A treatment for bronchial asthma or HIV would certainly be welcome. However wouldn't it not be higher to reside in a world the place these illnesses now not exist? To get this world, we will need to have the humility to see that there's extra to well being than our capability to treatment illness and prolong life. Well being emerges from our shared context--from the air we breathe, the water we drink, our financial system, politics, colleges, office security legal guidelines, company practices and different large-scale influences. I talk about these influences in my new ebook, Nicely: What We Must Speak About When We Speak About Well being. Participating with them, to enhance well being, means first recognizing their scope, how they're greater than anyone particular person, and that they'll solely be correctly addressed after we work collectively, with humility. Take one other take a look at the black gap picture. It's a ring of sunshine in opposition to huge darkness. This sliver of sunshine, framed by the darkish of house, is a helpful metaphor for the relative smallness of what we all know in comparison with the super scope of what we don't. Our well being, like our universe, is formed by forces that dwarf even our most good advances and discoveries. It is just by having the humility to acknowledge this that we will start to maneuver, collectively, in direction of a more healthy future. Read the full article