winnie-bumble - Tumblr blog

[winnie-bumble]

(To set the tone of this - my attitude right now is laughing, screaming, crying. Like this is NOT me being stone cold serious and sitting anyone down for a lecture. I’m just truly losing my mind 😂.)

For someone who uses their very limited free time to create fan video edits for TV shows, I’m not really a fandom person when it comes to discourse. Mostly because shit is WILD out here man, and I am just a Black lesbian who is here for the vibes lol ✌🏾.

To make it clear off the bat (if it’s not obviously from the fact I’ve made Bucktommy fan video edits), I’m very intrigued by the relationship between Buck and Tommy, mostly with regards to Buck’s journey. I’m excited to see where it goes and get a better picture of who Tommy is and how he’s grown.

I just find it so funny that I pop back in to the 9-1-1 tag to check in on things for the new season because I’m super excited, and I come in and all of a sudden I see “masc4masc” being used like casually? Y’all are making me SCREAM out here 😭.

[CRITICAL DISCLAIMER: I am a lesbian, NOT a gay man. Like many queer people, my inner circle is just a bunch of other queer people, and we spend a lot of time talking about the different attitudes in the queer community, both positive and negative.

All of that to say, I’m not a complete random just throwing in an unsolicited and completely uneducated take out of nowhere (though this take is, in fact, unsolicited), but I am also NOT THE AUTHORITY here. When it comes to stuff like this, you should ALWAYS defer to queer men and other nonbinary/queer folks who are directly affected by this for their input, because they are the ones that can truly speak on it and understand it.]

But I’m just like. I don’t think you know what that phrase MEANS friends.

My siblings in christ, masc4masc is just not really a term used to describe a relationship itself. It’s a term used by some men to describe their dating/hook up preferences…and like, not in a particularly fun way?

Like, it’s a term some men use to say that they are only interested in other men who conform to a specific notion of masculinity [which reminder, is a social construct] while also making the statement that they themselves fit that notion as well.

It literally refers to a “masculine” individual looking FOR another “masculine” individual. It’s something you put in your dating profile bio.

And like sure, it would be false and overly idealistic to say that there is no such thing as having a “type” [keep me away from brunettes with glasses]. Having certain traits that you are attracted to does NOT make you a bad person or necessarily say anything about you, BUT sometimes there is also REAL internalized homophobia in things like this. [Same way certain people’s dating “types” are actually just masks for racism…]

We have zero, and I mean ZERO, information on what “type” of men Buck or Tommy could possibly be into. Like absolutely none besides the fact that they are into each other. We have never seen any of Tommy’s previous love interests and Tommy is the FIRST man Buck has been with.

I truly just need to be freed of that term. Like every time I see it I like have a full spit take moment, and I’m transported to the days my friends would show me the most unholy Grindr profiles. Like a full war flashback.

I LOVE the representation that Buck and Tommy bring in terms of showing a larger audience that being gay or bi or queer doesn’t look like one thing. It’s a net good to society to show the world as many different colors and shades of what queer love looks like as possible.

But do we have to like champion the phrase masc4masc? It’s like. Toxic? And can provoke some pretty alienating feelings for some people in the queer community.

There are so many other ways to express this relationship without using that VERY specific and charged term. And some of you do that beautifully!

But that’s just my take. Take it or leave it, and if any queer men disagree or have more nuanced views, I’m going to listen to you!

[winnie-bumble]

Want some pining, pathetic (said lovingly) in love Colin? Well here you go.

[winnie-bumble]

The title here is a bit of a misnomer, because this video is more about women in the world of Bridgerton than it is SPECIFICALLY about Pen and Eloise (though the whole thing is certainly framed through them). This is really just a video about some of the women of Bridgerton speaking about what it feels like to be a woman in their society. I hope you enjoy ❤️

[winnie-bumble]

Oh hey, that’s me!

Okay so this is truly the silliest thing ever to post on my ANCIENT blog from like middle school that I have not touched in at LEAST a decade, but you know what. Why not.

[winnie-bumble]

I know someone has said this before, but when 9-1-1 does one day meet its conclusion, I will only accept two possible options for its final moments.

In the last line of the entire series, I either want to find out why Chimney is called Chimney, OR I want Chimney to open his mouth, be ABOUT to say it, and then have an instant cut to black.

Nothing else would do it for me.

[winnie-bumble]

Okay, I know episode 7x09 was CRAZY packed and couldn’t possibly fit in a second more of anything, so I’m not saying I needed it addressed on screen. But like. Can we all stop to think for a moment that we might have actually witnessed the first moment Buck directly experienced homophobia (yes, Buck is Bi, homophobia is just the relevant term in this situation).

Gerrard may have been looking at Tommy, and targeting Tommy directly, but… Buck was right there and not removed from the reality of that moment.

If you are a queer person standing right next to another queer person being targeted with hate for their identity, you are not wrapped in a magical shield of emotional protection because the comment wasn’t about you. You feel that.

And Buck’s not just a queer bystander. He’s Tommy’s boyfriend. Now does Gerrard know that? I mean anyone can make their own headcanon about that. The point is, Tommy was targeted with homophobic remarks while standing with his boyfriend. Buck, regardless of Gerrard’s context for him, had to have experienced that moment too. We obviously got a pretty great facial reaction of disgust and loathing, but I do wonder about his internal processing of that moment.

And that internal processing is so fascinating because it’s like. Evan “I’m an ally” Buckley was obviously fully AWARE of homophobia, but this is probably the first time he’s experienced it personally.

And like wow - because I’m torn. Because I absolutely don’t want us to have to go through a storyline of Buck grappling or dealing with homophobia or biphobia. Like let the boy live and let us as an audience just be allowed to witness queer joy. But also - this WOULD be a big and hard moment for him. Having all his loved ones accept him so instantly and fully, and then boom. A bigot walks up to you on your big day.

Like I said, I don’t need this played out on screen. But I also just don’t want us as an audience to overlook the significance.

I also think that added context can enrich the Bobby and Buck scene even further. Buck just experienced the anti-Bobby, the man who is in ever way not the Captain that Buck has always had. And when Buck meets with Bobby, HIS “Cap,” Buck gets to be met with instant affirmation and approval.

Just another thing to be included in the bracket of “for everything” when Buck says thank you to Bobby at the end of the scene.

[winnie-bumble]

“We always had each other”

[winnie-bumble]

I appreciate the filming timeline of Buck barely appearing in 7X07, because you know Oliver was out there doing his bisexual media tour. No wonder he was able to do all those interviews lol.

[winnie-bumble]

I never make text posts, but I’ve been doing a lot of thinking around one of the writing critiques for the finale that I’ve seen a couple times now:

That another sign the RNM writers are bad is the fact that they had Isobel point out Michael’s past “screw ups” after the Sanders scene.

But the thing is... she didn’t?

There are 1000 reasons you can be critical of the Roswell writers, but I just don’t think this is one of them.

Because Isobel doesn’t refer to Michael’s “screw ups,” she says “antics,” and there is an enormous difference there. "Screw ups" is something that is exclusively negative in its connotations. “Antics” isn’t.

You might say, “well, that’s just semantics” and yeah… it is. But word choice matters.

I think that what Isobel said was incredibly valid and serves the important point of really highlighting the importance of Sanders in Michael’s life.

The actions of the Pilot of RNM is a turning point in the lives of all the characters. The return of Liz, the return of Alex, Liz’s resurrection — this all acts as the catalyst for everything that is to come. Critically, it sets Michael on the path for the immense character growth that occurs for him throughout the seasons. But he had a lifetime of experiences that the other characters were witness to before we first meet him.

I think the description of Michael in the Pilot script does the perfect job of explaining who he is in season one: “A bad boy but a good man.”

Michael has always been a good man and before that, a good kid, but that reality doesn’t erase the fact that in season 1 and the years prior, he IS a “bad boy.”

We as the audience have the privilege of being slowly clued in on Michael’s story and his internal experience. We learn why he behaves the way he behaves. We see the causes for his anger — for his feelings of resentment and isolation. We understand WHY he does what he does. But that doesn’t mean he doesn’t still… do them?

The moment we first meet Michael he’s sitting in the drunk tank after getting into a bar fight. One of many. In his cell, he jokes about speeding and making scenes. We see him sell stolen copper wire two episodes later. We learn that when he was 17 he was arrested for stealing the hubcaps off Kyle’s car. We also learn that he started getting into so many bar fights after graduating that the violence became triggering for Alex to be around.

We learn that Michael did this as a way of pushing Alex away and of fitting himself into this persona he needed to have to convince Isobel that he was the one who killed those girls— but that’s a realization that comes 10 years too late. Because regardless of how they are viewed retrospectively, they still had real time consequences.

Michael’s actions, though rooted in very real trauma, valid anger, and the perceived need to prove to Isobel he could have actually killed those girls, still matter. They still affect people. Especially when those people don’t have the access to his interiority in the way we do as the audience.

We never get to see the 10 years of Michael’s behavior that may have colored the way some people view him. We only get to see the growth. We get to see him learn to let people in and be honest about his feelings. And by the end of the show, we no longer see the “bad boy,” we just see the “good man.”

I know this is a lot of words to discuss one simple line and annoyance a handful of people have, but I think the criticism of this line minimizes the real growth Michael has in the series and the power of his relationship with Sanders.

Because the reality is: Sanders DID see all of that. He did see Michael spend 10 years expressing anger, drinking, and getting arrested, and he spent 13 years watching the boy he hired, kept an eye on, and occasionally fed, steal from him.

But Sanders stuck around. He KNEW there was more to Michael. He trusted that Michael was a good man and overlooked his bad boy.. well… antics.

That’s the beauty of their relationship and that’s what Isobel is pointing out.

I’ll leave you with Michael’s own admittance: “every time someone threatens to care about me, I test their love until they have to leave.”

Michael DID test Sanders' love. And Sanders didn’t leave.