In this context, I am using the word “queer” as an umbrella term for gay, bisexual, pansexual, trans*, and gender-variant people. I recognize that it is not ideal, and I am sorry for that.
For those of you who don’t understand the concept of queer-baiting, allow me to explain it. Queer-baiting is what happens when a series wants to attract a queer audience without alienating their homophobic/transphobic audience. They introduce a character that queer people can relate to. They use the details and feelings common to queer people’s lives to make it very obvious to anyone who is queer, that the character is also queer. They know that because there is very little queer representation in media, queer people are going to latch onto this character, and therefore latch onto the series.
However, they never let the character actually come out. When the homophobic/transphobic part of the audience starts to realize that the character is queer, the writers add something to reassure them that no, of course the character is straight. Often, this takes the form of a character who is clearly portrayed as gay suddenly entering a straight relationship, but that is not the only way it can play out.
What this does, is tell queer people that their stories are not decent or important enough to be told. This tells queer people that their stories are only acceptable if they’re changed to be the stories of heteronormative people.
Additionally, when queer people say, “I identified with this character as a queer person,” or “I think this character could have been queer,” the heteronormative parts of the audience are encouraged to tell queer people that they should not be saying that. The heteronormative parts of the audience are encouraged to tell queer people, “stop projecting,” and “stop dragging respectable heteronormative characters into your weird issues.” Queer people are told that they should be ashamed of themselves for thinking that the character was being portrayed as queer.
Queer-baiting is even more painful than erasure, because it dangles fair and equal representation in front of your eyes, and then snatches it away. And then it tells you that the whole thing was in your imagination all along.
I have such mixed feelings about queer baiting, because the above is painfully true, but I still enjoy it because there’s so little actual representation in the media to turn to.
But that’s exactly what makes this so painfully true…
[…] I know that even shows that do give us even strong homoerotic elements are being gutsy. But I want more. […] As long as homosexuality exists only on the periphery of mainstream stories, and is only presented in “acceptable” overt ways, it will continue to reinforce the celluloid closet. It will continue to reinforce among the ignorant the idea that homosexuality isn’t something that applies to them or what/who they love. […]
I want those main characters to fall in love and make out because it means that fans of their characters will have to come to terms with their gayness, exactly like they would have to do in real life. bookshop@LiveJournal: “i know you care for him as much as i do” (via nonisland)
James Baldwin (via funkyfest)
this is why people of color, or any marginalized group of people, raising consciousness scares the shit out of the privileged.
(Source: , via warpfactornope)
(On why he let Willow cut all of her hair off)
Read more: Will Smith On Allowing Willow To Cut Her Hair: ‘She Has Got To Have Command Of Her Body’ | Necole Bitchie.com
- He raises a really great point. What would it mean to believe very early that my body was mine. That it’s not for anyone or for any particular purpose other than to be mine until I decide otherwise.
I was damned near 30 before I could believe my body belonged to me & me alone. Dear people who take an issue with this,
Let the Smiths do right by their babies & shut the fuck up about how you think they should parent.
Lot of love for Will Smith right now.
If you can tell me with a straight face that Islamophobia isn’t directly connected with racism, with White Christians wreaking havoc on entire autonomous continents for the past millennium without so much as a blip of a stain on their faith, I’m just going to assume you live under a rock or on a different planet.
THIS THIS THIS THIS
hot damn yes
“I sure wouldn’t like my life to be entirely in the hands of someone else, no matter how noble or altruistic they appear to be.”
“It’s seen as the more acceptable face of sexism now, in that women are protected rather than victimised”
These are some extracts from Ben’s excellent article on chivalry. I think the latter expresses perfectly my problem with it, that although certainly being protected is nicer than being victimised, ultimately both are things that are done to women by men. I want to be the one with power to choose how to treat people, not always be the passive bland article into which kindness or cruelty is poured by men. I want a say in the whole thing.
I think ultimatly it comes down to the reason for your actions. Buying flowers, holding open doors, there is nothing inherently chivalrous in these things. ‘Chivalry’ is when you think that you will kindly help out someone below you by giving them some kind of cute token gesture. “I will pay for dinner.. because you cant afford it because women dont have money” is chivalrous. “I will pay for dinner because I like you, other human being, and I would like to do something generous,” is not. That’s just kindness. I think men should be careful when they use the word chivalry, a term loaded with the history of powerful men and powerless women. Don’t get it confused with kindness.
Recently I went out for drinks with my flatmates, one bought me a drink. Later the discussion turned to feminism and drink buyer said, like he had a trump card, “well you let me buy you a drink.. feminist, hur, hur.” To which all I could say was, “I though you were buying me a drink because im your flatmate and you liked me.. not because of my gender.”
Kindness =/ Chivalry