#and this straight white cis woman told me 1) that i should consider using a less cliche and overly-used space like the gay bar | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

afro-elf · 4 years

Text

fine, i’ll elaborate on my thoughts about tylor sift but they will be disorganized

disclaimer: i know a few people will read this and be like “op is a hozier fan can she really talk about the cultural obsession with mediocre white art?” and the answer is yes because a) i’m black and i have an english degree so can do whatever i fucking want, b) hozier is a better artist than taylor objectively, like his mediocre tracks would be considered her great ones, and c) the comparison of taylor to hozier is part of the problem Genuinely because i don’t even think white people like half the music they listen to, they just don’t wanna be left behind, we’ll get into this later. i’m sorry to everyone who is tired of hearing about him but hozier will be returning later in this post jsfglsjlgldsjlfd

second note: read this

i don’t just dislike taylor because she’s white. i don’t dislike taylor because she’s a woman. i don’t dislike her because she writes mean and petty lyrics about past relationships and people who wronged her. i don’t dislike taylor because her public circle of friends is almost exclusively blonde white celebrities with their own laundry lists of issues that includes ryan reynolds and blake lively who are poster children for white privilege and pseudo-excellence if i’ve ever seen them. i dislike taylor because the amalgamation of all of those things is so exemplary of a huge problem i have with the music industry in general but also like american society

fuck it, numbered list!

1. taylor swift consistently releases the same mediocre album but in different colors. every album is the same lyrically and tonally. her body of work rarely goes very far above “good for taylor swift”. folklore as both title and musical aesthetic is irrelevant to the actual content of the album, which is just every taylor swift album except set to folk pop and with a bit more cussing, congrats for baby’s first swear. i’ve seen folklore compared to much better bodies of work and even propped up by stans as album of the year, a distinction that rina sawayama and chloe x halle will be battling it out for if there is any justice in the world at all. the fact that she is allowed to do this and still be considered great when this is something that even white male artists are butchered critically for... astounds me. like we all know how well received all of coldplay’s similar sounding albums are.... Come on.

2. i don’t think taylor or her work is particularly feminist and yet for some reason every time she frowns an army of white women brings her kleenex. i’m not saying taylor’s anger has always been unjustified, but her feminism to me has always felt like “i can do whatever a man can do” feminism, which is utterly fucking useless to me as a black woman. it’s only useful to her because as a wealthy, white, straight, cis white woman her ONLY obstacle in life is her gender. and if she just didn’t have that tricky little bitch then maybe people would take her seriously. like, just think about her music video for the man... what was the thesis of that? what was the point of that? with all of her privileges she’d just be gaining a single extra privilege. she’s a blonde blue eyed thin white girl, the world kisses her feet. i have no interest in proving myself any better or any worse than white men, they are not the standard for how a person should be treated, they’re cautionary tales, and white women are too. i think taylor capitalizes off of white woman victimhood, and it’s all over her writing style. even when she’s trying to be empowered, like in mad woman for example, there is this tone to it of victimization, poking the bear, unleashing the beast if you will. she invokes the imagery of salem witches and even more boldly chooses a noose to write about in the song which is..... surely going to be a white tumblr staple for many gifsets to come but holy shit is it hollow. she also tends to come back to teenage memories in her music and she’s thirty. i don’t think about being seventeen unless i’m being held at gunpoint but she seems to think about it All The Time. and part of this is to keep herself young, at least in her music, which only further ingrains this image of fragile teeny bopper taylor into the mind of the listener, fueling her victim image. this imagery and language means nothing because the world always rallies around taylor. even when she was the butt of jokes for not being beyonce (which she is not and never can be) and writing about her exes (which she does), she was largely supported by the industry and by critics. look at how many fucking awards she has!

3. folk and indie and alternative music is in a moment of transition, where musicians of color are getting the chance to really speak about how they’ve been treated in these overwhelmingly white circles and create their own standards and their own voices. and for taylor swift to swoop in with aaron dessner and jack antonoff fantano and almost reassert that mid-2010s indie sound as The Sound of folk pop in the popular consciousness.... it makes me violent! it! makes! me! violent!

4. back to hozier! finally, i wanna talk about white standom, fandom, bandom, and womandom. i often see these very superficial comparisons between hozier and taylor (and hozier and florence and hozier and stevie nicks and hozier and whatever other white woman in fashion) and they frustrate me for more than one reason. i know that hozier has met taylor and said she’s cool, which is nice of him and he’s a nice man, but i’m not a nice man so i’m going to just say it: none of the people who have made those posts have listened to more than four hozier songs and it shows. the reason why this matters is because these posts catch on and create an image and preconception of hozier’s music that is divorced from reality and divorced from his influences and most importantly divorced from the deliberate and reverent blackness of his musical style. hozier has his white male privilege in the industry for sure but he’s not as towering of a giant as taylor and taylor’s music is an unsalted chicken, plain oatmeal, white paint drying on a white wall, a stick of unflavored gum. her music is so white it told me that its dad is a cop. i am, as a black hozier fan, exhausted with having to share space with white women who don’t know why hozier’s music kicks me in my lungs sometimes and think that taylor mentioning a tree ONCE in her 3 minute acoustic guitar slog about whatever suburb is the same when it simply is not. i swear some of you are pretending to love taylor because your friends love her and you don’t wanna be left out of the hot new musical discourse but she’s only the hot new musical discourse CONSTANTLY because she’s a white woman, she’s almost the Perfect white woman. like if someone asked me to describe a white woman, it would be taylor swift. her position at the top of the musical pyramid among people who eclipse her musically, vocally, and lyrically is only allowed because she’s The Perfect White Woman. she’s an ideal. white girls relate to her immediately because of it and now we have this unshakable mob of unbearable white women who think that the world has wronged someone who literally wrote fanfiction about the rich oil heiress white woman who owned her rhode island mansion before her aklghlghdhlgs it drives me fucking NUTS

anyway that’s all. if you made it this far, listen to adia victoria, kaia kater, samantha crain, valerie june, kelsey lu, corinne bailey rae, brittany howard, kimya dawson, japanese breakfast, cold specks, left at london, rhiannon giddens, aisha badru, shea diamond, nadine shah, xenia rubinos, karen o, mirel wagner.... Anyone

#me #taylor swift meanie hour #long post

7K notes · View notes

hellomynameisbisexual · 4 years

Text

I've always been bisexual. Even though like many people I was socialized as a heterosexual and feminine person, my first "sexual awakenings" (those first experiencies of admiration, infatuation and sexual excitation) during my childhood happened with women. As I was at the same time conscious about my attraction to boys, my heterosexual socialization made me give little importance to my fascination with women and the feminine.

After several years—and more unperceived "awakenings"—I noticed that maybe I'd be interested in "being" with a woman. At first I didn't try anything, and when I had non-straight crushes I felt intimidated and very buga* for them. When I had boyfriends, they noticed that I also liked women, but we never talked about it in a straightforward manner. Eventually my first non-buga relationships (sexual, sentimental) happened, with both cisgender women and people outside the binary gender spectrum. Only after I had those experiences I told myself that–finally–I could call myself bisexual.

(*Buga is a jargon used by LGBTQIA communities in Mexico to refer to heterosexual people.)

Nowadays I'm suspicious of talking about my bisexuality with other people, since unfortunately biphobia (the hate and discrimination toward bisexual people) is a real phenomenon (1). Because the bisexual identities are a grayscale in contrast to the "black or white" which implies being straight or homosexual, bisexual people can suffer discrimination, prejudice or invisibility from both of these communities.

Biphobia can be manifested through unintended jokes and lack of credibility, or openly as insults. These type of attitudes negatively affect the mental and emotional well-being of bisexual people, especially among younger bisexuals who report more mental issues (anxiety, depression, stress, higher rates of suicide) than both heterosexuals and homosexuals (gays and lesbians) (2).

In many cases, biphobia is a product of a lack of information. Below you can read more about some of the most common questions, myths, and facts about bisexuality.

What exactly is bisexuality?

Bisexuality is a type of sexual orientation. Sexual orientation refers to those towards whom we feel attraction (affective, sexual, emotional). Some sexual orientations examples include: heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, pansexuality, and more.

The bisexual orientation is defined as having attraction towards more than one gender (3); it is a more fluid and open idea, subject to variations between different people who call themselves bisexual.

Not all people define their bisexuality in an identical way, and not all people attracted towards more than one gender call themselves bisexual.

Is bisexuality only a phase?

No. It's normal that many homosexual people go through a exploration period while they are learning to understand where their attraction lies. However, that doesn't mean bisexuality is always a phase prior to homosexuality (4). For many people, feeling attracted to other people of various genders it is a serious and stable preference (5).

Being bisexual does not always means that an attraction towards more than one gender is divided 50-50 evenly, or even 40-60, in a consistent preference. There are some for whom it is mostly–but not exclusively–attraction to one gender (6). But there are also those for whom attraction changes with time and according to certain contexts (7). This category of fluidity is not expected–at least in the beginning–from monosexual orientations.

These types of false beliefs have been facilitated by scientific research. Many studies on bisexuality have been focused on monosexual perspectives (heterosexual and/or homosexual), skewing the results to misrepresent the experience of bisexual people (8). It has also been wrongly suggested that bisexuality is an incomplete orientation, as if it was only a mere transition to homosexuality (9).

Do bisexual people like it "both ways" because they have an insatiable sexual appetite?

No. Someone’s orientation does not define anyone's sexual appetite. Bisexuality itself doesn't make someone promiscuous, unfaithful or untrustworthy. This myth is a product of monosexism: the belief that people should have only one sole sexual identity and only one type of sexual behaviour towards one gender or defined sex (10).

Monosexism also assumes monogamy is the norm (11). To impose monosexism as a sole social norm applicable to everyone leads (consciously or indirectly) to the belief that another more fluid sexuality can be a threat or an anomaly, and harder to control.

The assumption that bisexuality is an abnormal preference or that bisexual people are without self control can create false narratives that subject this orientation to be hypersexualized; it can make people think that bisexual people "choose" this orientation in order to have more options of where to find potential partners. It is harmful to project sexual fantasies onto bisexual people (or onto any other orientation) without their consent, as if they were only an instrument to satisfy fantasies for others.

In my experience, it’s been very irritating when people assume that being bisexual translates to the equal possibility of being willing to "do it all".

Am I bisexual if I also feel attraction towards transgender or non-binary people?

Generally speaking, yes. Some people think that the prefix "bi" means that bisexuality is the attraction towards only two cis/binary genders ("man" or "woman"). There are indeed those who live their orientation this way, but bisexuality–understood as the attraction to people of more than one gender–can also be extended to people with gender identities way beyond the binary and cis gender spectrum.

With that in mind, it’s also worth noting that not all people who feel attraction to more than one gender call themselves bisexuals for many reasons (stigma, culture, lack of information available, etc.). There are non-monosexual orientations, for example pansexuality (the attraction to people without considering their gender identity), whose definitions can sound very similar to bisexuality (12); in those cases, the decision to call oneself bisexual, pansexual or of any other term is a much more personal question that depends on how we feel and how we define ourselves individually.

Do I stop being bisexual if I start a romantic relationship with someone of the "opposite" gender?

No. This myth is due to the false idea that bisexuality is only an "experimentation" phase before things "get serious" and back to a stable heterosexual relationship (a common case among people socialized as women) (13). It is also possible to be in a monosexual relationship in which each person keeps their distinct sexual orientation.

There are internalized feelings of biphobia common to bisexual people when they decide to start a romantic relationship that can be perceived as monosexual. These feelings often occur similarly to the fear that a partner of monosexual orientation wouldn't understand the bisexuality of the other (14). In other cases, it might be easy for others (family, friends, social circles) to assume that the bisexual people's orientation changes or disappears depending on the current partner (15).

Even though the sexual orientation of anyone can change throughout life, it's much healthier when those decisions are made individually, without biphobic stereotypes and without the pressure of others’ perceptions.

Can I be bisexual if I haven't had sex or a relationship outside the heterosexual spectrum?

Of course! Nobody is obligated to offer "proof" of one's bisexuality. Being conscious that someone's sexual orientation can be bisexual is enough. Our sexual orientation may not be cast in stone for the rest of our lives, so it's completely valid to be going through a phase of exploration or questioning without the need to "make a decision" for the rest of our lives, or to clearly define our orientation within a label.

Non-heterosexual experiences, either sexual, affective or social, often times are facilitated (or repressed) by the context in which we live, by our social or familiar relationships, by the complexity of our tastes and individual necessities, by the access (or lack thereof) to different sexual diversities and cultures, and also by a safe environment, free from harassment, judgment, and marginalization.

It's important to keep in mind that there aren’t always comfortable and safe environments for the open exploration of any non-heterosexual orientation; sometimes there are circumstances in which prioritizing one’s physical and emotional well-being requires keeping oneself in the closet—which is also valid. In any case, whatever the context, not having non-heterosexual experiences with others does not mean that someone’s internal thoughts should be suppressed. I fell into this trap and only called myself bisexual once I had my first non-heterosexual experiences, even though my whole life I have been thinking that.

Clarifying doubts and obtaining sexual information free of bias and stigma can make a critical difference in the quality of life of those marginalized by their sexuality.

26 notes · View notes

brokenlibrarygirl · 4 years

Text

recommendations for EVERYONE...just because I am struggling with everything going on right now...

Just to preface. After a lot of other police killings of black people I harbored a lot of anger and frustration with law enforcement officers. I’m also against most gun ownership. I was raised relatively liberal despite being white, middle class, Catholic/Lutheran.

My brother, two years younger, joined the Marines post 9/11 and let me just say, he fully embraced the right wing state.

About 3 years ago I signed up for a once a week, 10 week citizen’s police academy to learn, gain knowledge, and attempt to understand why things were happening the way they were. It was emotionally draining, scary, and still frustrating. I learned a lot.

So....what are my recommendations for EVERYONE?

1. If your town offers a ‘citizen’s police academy’ course, lecture, visit etc. sign up for it. SHOCKING BUT WHY?!?!

A. You will know at least 3-5 officers by name and sight.

B. You will learn about tactics, use of force, methodology, and evidence collection.

I. The use of force is the one you should take detailed notes on. Listen to every damn word. I learned that I am in no way emotionally able to do an officer’s job.

II. It is scary as fuck.

C. You will learn about other people in your community. You will learn about the gun happy people, the straight out racist people, the ones who are former criminals, the angry ones like myself, and those that are just taking it as community service who don’t give a fuck.

D. You will learn about “non-lethal” weapons. Which you will also learn are not always non-lethal. It will let you know that they are terrible, and you will never want to experience them ever again. [It was so emotionally scarring that I can’t even consider going to a protest march as much as my heart hurts.]

E. You will understand what community policing really is. It sounds good just like in teaching, building relationships but doesn’t always work out and is manipulative.

F. You may or not use the above knowledge to your advantage....

G. Hands on the steering wheel until told to get anything out of your wallet, purse, or glove box. Also, even though it is legal in my state now, don’t smoke or keep weed in your vehicle. It is legitimately one of the most used reasons to search a vehicle. Just protect yourself people.

2. Read a lot of POC and Black literature. Yes, I’ve separated them because they are different.

3. Listen to POC and Black people. If they tell you to sit the fuck down or stand the fuck up, do it.

I’m tired of being sad and stressed and scared of going outside. I acknowledge my privilege as a white cis woman. I understand that I will never understand.

1 note · View note

nandalorian · 5 years

Text

Since I posted my thoughts about how Roswell has adequately represented queer men on the show and completely shit the bed on their representation of most everything else, I need to address the epically fucked-up treatment of female queerness and the queer female gaze in the context of Isobel and Rosa. This has been bugging me for a few weeks, and the reveal of Noah as the fourth alien pretty much cemented my feelings on the matter. I know there are people who feel the way I do about it, but if there’s another post on the subject I just haven’t seen, please link me. And if you disagree completely about this too, that’s cool. Let’s discuss.

While in my last post I applauded the show on its treatment of Michael’s bisexuality, I still don’t feel great about the introduction of a Michael/Alex/Maria love triangle. It’s one thing for Carina to double down on her defense of love triangles and insist they are not an overused and biphobic trope in popular media--news flash, it is, and in this case it’s also potentially damaging to the one black woman on the show, who will almost certainly bear the brunt of fans’ ire for “stealing Michael away” if they go through with a Maria/Michael relationship. I’m sorry if I don’t take a random straight white woman’s insistence to the contrary as gospel. Saying your formative years were shaped by straight love triangles doesn’t change the fact that it’s an insulting trope to women and an outright damaging one to queers, not even taking into consideration how the two intersect, or further when you consider POC characters, etc. You can’t compare straight relationships with queer ones, in the same way you can’t compare white experiences with nonwhite ones. To insist otherwise denies a whole system of privilege that drastically shapes and influences people’s lived experiences.

But that isn’t what I want to address, because it’s another thing altogether to come for female sexuality and queerness. If I was willing to maybe give Malex a pass on the good-intentions-written-badly front, this is a hill I’m ready to die on. Isobel’s arc in season 1 of RNM demonstrates a lack of understanding that these are identities equally vulnerable to attack, exploitation, and misrepresentation--maybe even more so--as male queerness. That the outrage about Malex drowns out this other but no less important conversation kind of reaffirms the point I’m trying to make.

More under the cut.

Female sexuality has always struggled to find positive representation in popular media, no matter the time period or culture. Compared to male sexuality, it is not taken seriously, always played against the male gaze, or disregarded altogether because it excludes men. Queer female desire challenges societal structures around male desire and sexuality because it just… doesn’t require men to function and in fact actively rejects them. This is obviously a problem because the patriarchy loves it when men are shown to be extraneous and irrelevant.

A lot of us know what it is to be invalidated as queer women, socially and sexually. Put your hand up if you’re a woman (in which I include cis and trans women, of course) or nonbinary individual who desires women and has been told, oh, you just haven’t met the right man yet, or oh, you’re just putting on a show for male attention. We have all been there and experienced this kind of erasure to various degrees of aggressiveness. This refrain is especially loud for bisexual women, who suffer erasure and ridicule from queer and straight communities alike, but the fact is, women’s sexuality has always been portrayed as less than or dependent upon that of a man’s. That isn’t to say bisexual men don’t also experience bi erasure. They do, and this is as much a product of homophobia as it is the primacy of the queer male gaze even within queer spaces and contexts. But in this case I’m addressing that of female and nonbinary bi-erasure and biphobia.

Furthermore, the role of queer women in society and popular media has always been underrepresented compared to that of gay men, or seen as more harmless or less significant, groundbreaking, or offensive for a couple of reasons: namely that a lot of people have played down or played off the existence of female sexuality and desire because they doubt its validity to begin with, or it’s “allowed” because it’s desirable to the male gaze. In some ways this has worked in our favour because subversive or queer female behaviour and desire in media have been able to fly beneath the radar, but it’s still a symptom of a greater problem.

I include this preamble because the writers of Roswell New Mexico have stunningly managed to ignore or remain ignorant to this context. The straight women on the show are shown to express their sexuality in upfront or positive ways, even opening up conversations about kink and reversing gender roles, but often in problematic ways too. The show sometimes fails the Bechdel Test or reduces characters, especially WOC like Maria, to having no purpose but to desire male characters and be desired by them, or portrays them as unable to want sex without quickly falling in love the way Maria seemingly has done with Michael. They’ve known each other for over a decade, and yet Maria only catches feelings after they’ve had sex, a night that, supposedly, meant nothing to her but quickly is revealed not to be the case. Interesting.

But beyond even that, my beef is with the whole Isobel-might-be-bisexual-and-in-love-with-Rosa-Ortecho storyline. I was excited about it at first; I couldn’t believe our luck that we had not one, but two bisexual characters on the show, and one of them was a bisexual woman married to a really awesome and seemingly caring South Asian man. But it was not to be, and this to me is ridiculously tone deaf and offensive in light of the fact that she was possessed by a male alien the whole goddamn time.

This tells us two equally disturbing things about the writers’ take on the queer female gaze and queer female sexuality: a) according to them, in this context, it literally doesn’t exist, and b) it is wholly a product of and subject to the male gaze.

From the promo for 1x12 it looks like they are going to delve a little bit into the mindfuck around consent due to Noah effectively brainwashing/tricking Isobel into marrying him, but one aspect of this I’d be surprised if they acknowledge is how he has also robbed Isobel of agency over her own sexuality. Not only has she been in a nonconsensual relationship with Noah this whole time, but he’s stripped her of the ability to discern whether her desires are her own, including the possibility that she is bisexual. As a woman, how can Isobel take her own sexuality seriously/see it as valid when she’s been forced to reconcile with the fact that, until now, it hasn’t been?

And that’s not even scratching the surface of the fact that a man used a woman, against her will and without her knowledge, to kill another woman. All over the simple fact that Rosa didn’t desire him/Isobel by extension. This stupid-as-fuck storyline is literally about weaponizing queer female sexuality in order to do violence against women.

Just think about that for a second.

To make matters worse, Noah is a South Asian man and represents a community that is already marginalized in white media and society. Brown men have, in white culture, been relegated to two-dimensional stereotypes, rejected as love interests, and often portrayed as villains, and instead of positively developing an Indian character in a multiracial relationship and using that representation for good, he’s been made to violate his wife and use her to kill another woman. My girl @insidious-intent has written a really fantastic post to that end and I’d encourage you to read it. According to Carina, hiring Karan Oberoi to play Noah was colourblind casting. But viewers aren’t naive enough to buy that it’s ever that simple, or it shouldn’t be. I don’t see how you can write a nonwhite character the same as you would a white one and not expect it to have deeper or more damaging implications.

So my point, or at least one of them, is this: the failure of Roswell New Mexico to its queer viewers isn’t just that they’ve desecrated a ship as sacred as Malex or, at best, totally failed to do it justice. Roswell has failed us by invalidating and retconning female sexuality, and if this isn’t something we should all be angry about, straight and queer viewers alike, I don’t know what to tell you. While people are justified in expressing their anger to Carina about Malex, I think it’s also important to acknowledge and protest JUST AS LOUDLY the queer female angle. When you are thinking about how to represent, express, and phrase your disappointment to the production team, remember this goes far deeper than Malex. She has let us all down in ways that have nothing to do with our ship potentially not becoming a reality by the end of this season. She’s let POC viewers down just as resoundingly hard, both distinctly and factoring in the intersectionality of their writing choices.

All writers make mistakes. I want to put that out there. And I also want to put it out there that the issues around queer and POC representation are serious and disappointing, but not insurmountable if the writing team shows a willingness to learn, improve, and listen if the show is greenlit for season 2. But that isn’t what they’re doing. Carina has taken a stand, via Twitter, that they’ve done nothing wrong, and that is a big red flag that the writing team isn’t as woke as it likes to pretend and definitely not interested in listening to criticisms about their politics or how they try to convey them. So are her efforts of trying to silence bisexual viewers with legitimate criticism, or POC viewers doing the same thing. She and the writers would rather praise themselves for their token representation than acknowledge, listen to, and learn from real people expressing real concerns and sharing lived experiences.

#roswell new mexico #isobel evans #queer representation #female sexuality #meta

100 notes · View notes

dumdeeedum · 5 years

Text

Some Queliot Queries & Exploration, hah! Shaddap.

So I really want to dive into some shit with this fandom because I really don’t understand, I really and truly don’t. And bear with me because this is going to get long but ideally it would open up a discussion and the dialogue can be a learning opportunity for me if someone comes correct or for others if someone takes something away from all of this: Why shouldn’t the writers have to deal with the fact that season 4′s decision to allude to Eliot and Quentin as a couple is a ret-con? Why shouldn’t they have to deal with the fact that for all intents and purposes Quentin’s bisexuality and Eliot and Quentin’s relationship has never been explicit (there’s allusions to it in season 1- maybe, season 3- barely, and now season 4)? Why shouldn’t they have to deal with the fact that the audience was never told that Eliot and Quentin were explicitly a couple in Fillory until season 4 and even then they can’t erase the fact that Quentin married a woman after having something with Eliot and that they then chose to ignore the entire episode until halfway into season 4? Why shouldn’t the writers have to deal with their poor decisions and poor writing in a meaningful way? Why is fandom trying to erase these things? I’m not being facetious or an asshole here, I’m truly curious.

And I really want to preface all of this with a critique of something I’ve been seeing a lot on here and that’s that fandom and Eliot are somehow erasing Quenin’s bisexuality. They’re not, the writers are.

The thing is, television is a mostly visual medium, you have freedoms that come with that but also limitations. There’s the freedom to show and not have to tell so as to not have to go into long descriptions and “show don’t tell” has really become a fundamental rule in visual media because it’s really hard to pull off the kind of exposition literary media can get away with in visual media. This has been true since visual media was limited to the stage and has only become more true as technology has caught up with the more fantastical things creators want show now. So it becomes imperative, given this show don’t tell rule, to find another way to express certain things you’d simply be able to cover in a book by describing somebody’s thought process or having a character narrate their story.

You can have a narrator in visual media but you really have to be careful with how much you use them and for what otherwise you’ve made bad visual media, especially when you’ve already set things up another way. Case in point, the show Veronica Mars started the show with Veronica narrating and normalized it so that it was never grating, never too much, and was generally never used when it was better to show instead of tell.The Magicians, on the other hand, has used narration very sparingly and it’s never become an aspect of the show that gives us those same glimpses into Quentin’s mind, especially since he no longer seems to be the sole focal point of the show.

So when it comes to representation on visual media it simply isn’t enough to imply or allude and then never bring it up again. Or, in our case, to overtly display certain aspect of someone’s sexuality while explicitly ignoring the other aspects with the expectation that the audience go with it when the creators call the character “bisexual.” This is especially true on a week-to-week television show where not everyone’s been watching from the beginning or has that long a memory that they can remember every aspect of what came before, or hasn’t or can’t rewatch the series several times on Netflix or some other streaming service to refresh. It just doesn’t work that way on television, that’s not how you do visual media representation.

And when we have so little visibility for certain groups and when part of representation means normalizing those groups in the mainstream so that in the future their presence or their expressions of sexuality aren’t taboo, you have to do that by showing those people and by showing those expressions of their sexuality, and not just the “palatable” ones or in a “palatable” way where you can just say it and not offend anyone by showing it. And usually it’s best to show them in a good light so as to off-set the amount of bad that’s out there that was outside of their control because of systemic oppression. It’s best to have a good balance of good and bad from the very beginning and that’s something that White, het-cis people have been able to enjoy for much of the time visual media has been around. We can argue about representations of women in media, especially White cis-het women, but that’s another topic for another day and they’ve still enjoyed more of a balance than anyone else besides White, cis-het men. It’s the same reason why we can’t simply have “queer-coded” villains or the “kill your gays” tropes be so rampant, it isn’t offsetting the tons of negative that already exists for the lgbtqa community in media.

That being said:

Narratively speaking, when Eliot rejected Quentin I strongly believe that at least in this the writers were doing right by them given the ret-con and I’d like to see it explored more. Season 4 episode 5 was a good start but only a start. Now do I think that Eliot should have implied that he wouldn’t choose Quentin? Fuck no, he absolutely should apologize for that and explain where that came from because it’s clearly the result of a defense mechanism, but that’s really it. I still think the decision for Eliot to reject Quentin was the right one if only to give Quentin the chance to think about what he wants within the confines of this shitshow of a “love” story they tried to ret-con and then staple and glue together as though we’d forget everything that ever happened before season 4 episode 5 and rewrite season 3 episode 5 in our heads. If you’re saying it’s OK to erase all of that for the sake of your ship you’re asking for a bad story, which kind of sucks and I kind of feel you, but it kind of sucks. I mean, their straight relationships haven’t been the most amazingly written either but they actually happened in a meaningfully explicit way. We were given a narrative where even after Quentin kisses Eliot for the first time in Fillory (a year after they got there) and presumably has a relationship with him in Fillory after that, which, really, we didn’t know for sure because they’ve never said it, it could just have been a drunken fuck for them up until that point, Quentin marries and goes on to have a life with a woman until she dies or leaves (I was never clear on which it was). The relationship with Eliot after that is only alluded to in season 4 and still hasn’t been explicitly shown, no kisses, nothing, not outside of Eliot’s mind. And for some people that may be enough to call Quentin canonically bisexual and to call Eliot and Quentin a canonical couple that will be together in the future and while I agree he probably is and that they might, I don’t think it’s a good example of queer representation in visual media, especially when season 3′s episode was never meant to be taken that way.

Now we can always assume that it was a consensually poly-amorous relationship between Eliot and Quentin when Arielle came along but then why was Quentin the only one who had someone? Is the assumption here also that Eliot is OK being a sister wife or some shit? Why didn’t Eliot have another boyfriend to split his time with since Quentin had a wife that needed attention? They’ve established that homosexuality isn’t bad in Fillory so why not give him someone if the poly thing was what was meant to be inferred here? I’m not saying it definitively can’t be the case but I’m working with what we have and raising questions because we’ve been given very little information otherwise and I’m not sure I buy that Eliot would be OK with sharing Quentin because up until now (outside of his marriage with Fen) Eliot has not been shown to be poly-amorous and has even shown that he gets jealous if his significant other looks at someone else. And I know that when it’s discussed in a relationship it’s different and jealousy isn’t an issue but we don’t have any information on the subject as it pertains to them. Earlier in the series Eliot said that being with women is not his preference, so no, Eliot is not bisexual even if he’s had to fuck Fen; he fucked Fen because he had to and it’s a problematic as fuck storyline that effectively worked to pad anything Eliot might have had with a man with a woman. So I’m also not sure it’s too realistic an idea to have him in bed fucking Arielle with Quentin if he’s in a consensually poly-amorous relationship with them. Maybe once in a while like, as he said, one would have Thai food, but if anything we’ll give him a 1 or 2 on the Kinsey scale? (for lack of a better way to put it) So why not given him someone for him while Quentin has someone for Quentin? At the very least we’d get a non-toxic homosexual relationship for Eliot too, right?

And no, I don’t consider anything to do with the season 1′s threesome to be rooted in anything but what we’ve been told over and over that it was: the result of a lot of alcohol and emotion magic. Otherwise you have something else to deal with and that’s that Quentin is a fucking untrustworthy asshole for cheating on Alice whom he claims to have loved and that Margo and Eliot are shit friends for going with it. It could be the case but they’ve made it a point to tell us it was a result of all 3 of them being compromised and even Margo refuses to allow people to blame her for it because of that compromise.

That being said, I can understand why a gay man like Eliot would be hesitant at the idea of jumping into a monogamous relationship with a man like Quentin without giving Quentin pause to really think about it. Remember, Quentin wanting to be with Eliot happened right after he got his memories of Fillory back so it was a pretty rash, emotionally-charged decision on his part. And we already know Quentin gravitates toward escapism because of his psychological issues. Why would Eliot jump into a relationship with a man whom, from Eliot’s perspective and, more importantly, from the viewer’s perspective, has been chasing a woman since season 1 and even in Fillory decided to marry a woman when Eliot was explicitly shown to be an option? And literally the first woman he met there. Outside of Eliot, Quentin has sought out and has had relationships with exclusively female partners except for season 1 and except for Fillory which was another time and place and which was never explicitly shown to us and is only alluded to in season 4, that’s bad representation and something that requires further examination within the story!

From Eliot’s perspective it absolutely makes sense that he’d wonder if Quentin would truly be happy with him given other options, especially given the enduring presence of a woman Quentin has been chasing since season 1. We don’t know if Alice would be OK with sharing Quentin either, it’s never been explored because most of anything to do with Eliot and Quentin as a romantic couple has simply been ignored! The writers were the ones who shit the bed by giving Quentin exclusively female partners (even in Fillory) that would make Eliot wonder if he and his penis were enough. If we had some more clear and explicit depictions of Quentin’s bisexuality, especially in Fillory, Eliot wouldn’t have to worry about this shit as much. But even in Fillory Quentin chose Arielle until she was no longer an option and the writers chose to do that, the writers decided to show us one kiss between Eliot and Quentin before giving Quentin a rando wife, making her fuck off to who knows where but subsequently never showing Eliot and Quentin in a romantically intimate setting again. Some bisexual representation!

Eliot and Quentin as a pairing only comes back up literally a season later, 13 episodes later! Something has to be done about this ret-con and pretending it wasn’t a ret-con is never good writing, not the way they’re doing it! Because even after Quentin confesses his feelings during season 3x5, which we only actually find out he did in 4x5, it’s never brought up again even by depression Quentin the very episode after 3x5! The whole situation was ret-conned for season 4!

Moving forward either there has to be some mutually agreed upon, explicitly stated, explicitly shown, poly-amorous relationship set-up where they could both be fulfilled by both having someone else if they so choose to or Eliot has to have Quentin’s assurance that Quentin sees him and that he is now Quentin’s first and only choice. And both of these options have to be a show don’t tell situation! It’s actually what I hope happens in episode 12, especially since they’re once again making Quentin and Alice kiss each other and showing us yet another expression of heterosexual love while stringing us along with the idea of a homosexual one that really hasn’t happened yet.

And perhaps some people might find that to be feeding into stereotypes about bisexual people that leave a bad taste but realistically speaking exclusivity is a conversation every romantic relationship has to have and mistrust will occur if the person you’re with has only had partners of the opposite sex, has only expressed interest in people of the opposite sex, and is still hung up on someone of the opposite sex they used to date and whom is still a romantic possibility for them. That’s just how it is unless you’re one of those miraculous people who don’t experience jealousy or insecurity or have had those conversations with your partner. In this scenario it wouldn’t be that Eliot doesn’t trust bisexual people, it’d be that Eliot doesn’t know who Quentin really wants and he doesn’t think Quentin truly, deep down, would want him if he took the time to think about it. That’s fair given the givens!

And the poly thing is certainly an option but feels like a more radical move, given what we know of these characters, than having Eliot and Quentin in a monogamous relationship and given how little they’ve given us of that prospect I’m not even sure what they’ll decide to do moving forward. Maybe they’ll decide it’s more palatable to include a woman in any capacity seeing as media is still really about padding anything to do with homosexual male love scenes with heterosexual love scenes or naked women, that could also be the case and then we’d have to decide how we feel about that. We know they did that with Fillory because Arielle was pulled out of someone’s ass because it could just have been Eliot with Quentin but it wasn’t. But as of now we don’t even know if the poly thing was ever really a thing with them to begin with, we just don’t, it’s just conjecture and I’m just exploring of the possibility, they could have gotten together after Arielle dipped. I’m not saying any of this to shit on the Eliot and Quentin pairing at all, or to shit on Quentin’s bisexuality, per say, I like the idea of them and I think it should happen and I like the idea of a bisexual Quentin. But I do think these are the consequences of the way the writers have chosen to navigate these things and now they have to deal with those consequences because otherwise this pairing is silly and unrealistic moving forward outside of Fillory, and if they don’t want to pursue it then that could explain why. So why haven’t they been dealing with this by showing us a more explicitly bisexual Quentin or at the very least a more explicitly interested in Eliot Quentin outside of his confession to Eliot in 4x5? And I’m not saying he has to jump on the first dick he sees but even having a conversation with his best childhood friend about his feelings, regardless of what he thinks Eliot’s are, would be a really great jumping off point to show us that Quentin’s feelings for Eliot are trustworthy and real and not just alluded to or the result of an emotional compromise. At this point people are expecting this confession and really want it to happen for a reason.

I’d just really like to see the writers make a decision about this and stick with it because this specific type of will they, won’t they shit is why they can’t be trusted and why it’s so easy to wonder whether they’re queerbaiting. If they can explore Julia and Penny23, Kady and Penny, Margo and Josh, and even Alice and Quentin’s relationships during this monster arc without it taking away from the life or death severity of the situations they’re in then there’s no reason why they shouldn’t be exploring Quentin and Eliot’s even if it’s just Quentin being introspective but showing us that introspection in some way. We’ve gotten Eliot’s but we really haven’t gotten Quentin’s and I think that’s what we’re all waiting for or should be waiting for and it’s imperative that it happens to build the trust in the writers the viewers need to become emotionally attached to the idea that a pairing will actually happen on screen and that the viewers aren’t just being fucked with for views. It isn’t fair to expect the blind faith from viewers towards the writers and show-runners that too many people in this fandom are demanding!

We shouldn’t have to go on a fucking deep-dive, clue-finding mission to break down every single fucking interaction to look for a relationship the writers are supposedly explicitly trying to build because that’s not how they’ve built any other relationship. They’ve jumped right into every straight pairing but somehow this one is the one they have to draw out to an almost unrealistic degree and add 50,000 layers of nuance to? The one with the most history and proof that it worked based on what the writers themselves have told us? Alice and Quentin were fucking within a season, Kady and Penny within a season, Margo and Josh within a season for some godforsaken reason, Julia and Penny23 are macking and seeing each other naked within a season but we can’t even get Quentin to be introspective about being in love with Eliot for one episode? We have to settle for allusions to their pairing and a couple of blink and you miss them kisses, one of which wasn’t even between the two men themselves? I’m not saying that the Eliot and Quentin pairing won’t happen but it absolutely hasn’t yet and I’m not here to pretend it has. Alice and Quentin were “in love” within a season, why can’t we explore Eliot and Quentin’s love in a meaningful way after a canonical 50+ years? Why has it been OK so far that the writers aren’t exploring Quentin’s part of this relationship at all if it’s their intention to pursue it? And why should we trust them and take it as faith that this pairing isn’t something they thought of doing but have long since thrown out?

Is it bad writing? Is it not gonna happen? What is it because I’m confused as fuck and nothing that’s been happening recently has helped because the writers have opted to waste a shitload of time in a 13 episode season rather than explore what they ought to be exploring in that limited amount of time.

I say all that to ask this: Can we just hold the writers and show-runners accountable to their shitty decisions already? That’s really what I want because I don’t think underrepresented communities should have to settle or take the scraps thrown at them in 2019 and that feels like what a lot of people are saying ought to be done. No, they absolutely should not be happy with the bullshit they’ve been given. The community didn’t come together with pitchforks and torches to storm their writer’s room and demand Eliot and Quentin be a couple, the writers and show-runners decided to move in that direction.

If people shipped them then there’s already parts of the fandom for that and people would have made due with fic as they always have done. So why the fuck is jerking the community around like this acceptable?

I sincerely hope that there are consequences from the community if the writers and show-runners go back on this, I really do, because it was the writers’ and show-runners’ fuckup and they don’t deserve to be rewarded for bad behavior. Make them work for the good graces of the communities they’re courting and stop allowing them to do this to these already marginalized communities!

It’s well past time that they show us Quentin’s bisexuality and feelings for Eliot in a meaningful way or drop it altogether and never pick it up again and accept that they’re pieces of shit for doing this and should be cancelled, although as far as I’m concerned the damage has already done and there’s no going back without them admitting they’re garbage.

#the magicians #queliot #eliot waugh #quentin coldwater #otp #queerbaiting #lgbtqa #representation #representation matters #social #media #tl;dr #television

65 notes · View notes

michael-radi-the-glamorous-life · 5 years

Text

There Must Be More

“…than this Provincial life!”

Sorry, I just needed to have my Belle moment. That’s totally not what this post is about. I just adore that score.

Onward!

Over the past week I saw 3 shows - 2 Broadway and 1 Off-Broadway.

These shows were (in the order I saw them):

Scotland, PA

The Inheritance Part 1

Tootsie

Now, regardless of how I felt about each of these shows, or how much I did or did not enjoy them individually, they all had something in common per my experience in watching them.

At one point (at least) in every one of these shows I had the thought: “…But must we? This again? Isn’t there more out there? There must be more.”

Allow me to explain.

Enjoyment vs Analysis

Just a quick side note before I dive in.

I think it’s important here to know that I do not think that enjoyment and criticism are mutually exclusive. In fact, I personally believe they go hand in hand.

When someone asks why you didn’t enjoy something, most people are ready with their criticisms handy to defend their positions. But when someone asks me why I did enjoy something, I feel the same way. I like to know why I enjoyed it and be able to explain that to people.

And nothing is perfect. Nor is it a requirement to explain your likes and dislikes. But for me, enjoying something - or even loving something - does not mean that I find it to be perfect or above criticism.

I adore Back To The Future. One of my favorites growing up. But the movie’s got issues, both artistically and socially issues (ie soooo, we’re saying a white man invented rock’n’roll???).

Anywho. Onward!

Blindingly White

Okay. I know. I’m aware.

Most of the writing spaces and head artistic positions for Broadway and Off-Broadway shows are occupied by men. Generally white men. Generally cis, white men. Often even straight, cis, white men.

But in the world we are living in today, does that fact need to translate directly into the stories being told on the stage? At the very least, does it need to feature as prominently across the shows listed in the back of the Playbill as it currently does?

All three shows I just saw focused on cis, white men. And for two of them it was straight, cis, white men.

Now, is this necessarily a problem? No, not necessaaaaarily. But it says something. Actually, it says a lot of things.

Especially considering that the 2 shows featuring straight men were specifically about under-achieving straight, cis, white men who learned relatively shallow lessons and didn’t really end up changing - a genre that has filled our canons of literature, theatre, film, and TV for a very very long time.

Let’s be more specific.

Scotland, PA

A musical parody adapted from a movie parody of Macbeth.

Main character - Straight, cis, white man.

The guy is an under-achiever according to his wife, even though he’s happy with the life they have and it’s also clear he has aspirations for more, if the opportunity were to present itself.

The wife is played by a black woman and, similar to the Shakespeare play, she exists mostly to prop up the ambitions (or lack thereof) of her husband - even though she is the one who actually wants more and has the stomach to chase after it.

And then she’s scapegoated.

And goes insane. And regrets everything, but isn’t given the capacity to fulfill that character arc. So she must die instead. Of course.

“Classic women, am I right?!”

No. You are not.

So, as this man rises and takes more we are meant to root for him, even though we know he’s doing terrible things. But why? Why this story? Why this story again? Why this story again now without some sizable changes for more relevance? Is it really that interesting today?

It’s not a bad story - it wouldn’t endure otherwise - but there must be more.

The Inheritance Part 1

Full disclaimer: I loved it. I wept. I think it’s doing great work for this generation.

Main characters - All gay, cis, white men. And there are up to 6 main characters in this first part, depending on how you classify the term main character, and all of them fall into this category.

Now, this show is really about interpersonal struggles and relationships, and how that echoes across generations - particularly for the marginalized group that is gay men. It’s also a story about growth, change, hardship, and love. I really do think this play is doing beautiful work.

The remainder of the non-main character cast is mostly non-white, which is really awesome to see. However, so far in this play, the conversation amongst all of these people and characters is about the lives, stories, and struggles of the gay community as seen through white gay male eyes and experiences.

There are black and Latino characters on that stage, but we aren’t even touching their extra layers of struggle and experience. Meanwhile, the play is discussing the future of gay men and where they are potentially headed, as a group with its own vibrant culture. A culture that they even acknowledge to come from appropriations from the drag community, which appropriated from the ballroom community, which consists almost entirely of queer men of color.

This seems like a pretty sizable issue.

The play is focused on worries of continued and intensified marginalization, but it simultaneously has left out a gigantic piece of the conversation about marginalization by leaving out the additional layers of struggle for non-white gay men.

And this is not even to mention that - although other letter of the LGBTQ+ world are mentioned - the focus is entirely on gay men. What about the rest of the community? Isn’t it all the same history? The same inheritance?

Gay men can claim Stonewall all they want (and they do), but transwomen of color threw those bricks.

Gay men can claim the AIDS epidemic, but the affects of that disease were highly striated amongst sub-groups and especially men of color.

I loved this play. I cannot wait for Part 2. But I just kept thinking, “there’s more here.”

There must be more.

Tootsie

Okay, let’s do it. Let’s talk Tootsie.

I’m not going to go too in-depth here, mostly because there is a lot about this show that is well-crafted and plenty of people are enjoying it. And perhaps, for some people in these audiences, this show really does push the envelop in their minds. But we do have to say it…

This show probably should not exist. Not today, anyway.

Main character - Straight, cis, white man who pretends to be a straight, cis, white woman to book a job.

This man is apparently (objectively) talented too, which means he has many a leg-up in the world in comparison to the majority of people around him.

So, what’s keeping him from getting work?

He’s an angry and uncontrolled human who acts out and gets fired, which means he doesn’t retain contacts from his jobs since he burns bridges. And…

He’s getting older. (Like, 40? Is this one really a problem for men in the business? I remain unconvinced.)

Now, here are some merits about this story (stick with me):

A story of a straight, cis, white man who ruins his own chances at a steady and productive life because of his anger…this is relevant. This is extremely relevant. And if the show were about that particular person, their growth, and their personal journey to leave that toxicity behind, well, then we might have a good story here that is relevant to today.

His alter ego - for she does seem to be a character unto herself and completely disassociated from her male counterpart - Dorothy is actually quite a badass woman. She fights against sexism and ageism in a world rampant with it. And if this were a story about an actual woman fighting for these things in this world, this would be an excellent and relevant story.

But alas, this show is ultimately neither of these things.

Here’s what it actually contains:

The man learns lessons - but not enough.

He changes - but does he?

His alter ego is wonderful - but she doesn’t exist.

There’s a fight for and positive messages for women and feminism - but it’s led entirely by a man in a dress.

There’s a fight against ageism - but led by a man, and men don’t seem affected by this in the capacity that women are.

And not to mention the fact that there are some really cringy moments in this show that parade as feminism, ageism, and trans-positive moments, which really aren’t any of those things. Instead, they are part of a plot for this out-of-work man to get - and then retain - his job.

Is this show moving us backward? I don’t think it is. It could have become that, but it didn’t. And for that fact - adapting from a source material “of a different time” - I will tip my hat.

But is it moving us forward? Nope. Not at all. Not in the least.

So, I again ask: “Why this story? Why now? Is there really not more???”

There must be more.

There Is More

Okay, there is. So much more.

But it’s not being put out there into the commercial consciousness. And when it is, it’s not happening fast enough or as prevalently as it needs to.

And I don’t mean to rail against these particular shows - they had the bad luck of being the 3 newer shows that I happened to see within the same 4 days.

There are plenty of positives for them as well:

Scotland, PA had some awesome music.

The Inheritance Part 1 is beautiful and saying some very important things.

Tootsie made me laugh more than most musicals ever do.

But there is still more.

And we need to find it and put it out there. We need to continue moving forward and stop treading water. Let’s celebrate more people - other people.

There are countless good stories to tell, so let’s find them and tell them to the world with the prevalence that has been given to white men. We can, we should, and we will.

#glamorous life blog #glamorous life #theatre #theater #theatre artist #more #Broadway #Off-Broadway #Scotland PA #The Inheritance #Tootsie #cis white men #straight #gay #criticism

1 note · View note

cgcpoems · 7 years

Note

5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 14, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 29, 30

5. writers you love on tumblr? oh no, SO MANY. THIS IS IN NO WAY ALL OF THEM BUT @tristamateer @alonesomes @heartmagician @heavenfay @wildfairy @freethepoets @yvesolade @writtenbysc @watercvlours @natalieweepoetry @exit152 @backshelfpoet @sometimestuesday @gayred5 @stolenwine @allthesinkingships @charlotte–ford @vagabondly @featherumbrellas

6. form poetry or free verse? personally, free verse. but I really admire people that can write well within form-related boundaries.

7. already answered!

10. favorite opening line in a novel? GOD…..I have no idea. I know the Pride & Prejudice opener by heart but I don’t know if it’s my favorite. I’m reading Comfort Woman by Nora Okja Keller right now & that has a killer one: “On the fifth anniversary of my father’s death, my mother confessed to his murder.” I just LOVE GOOD OPENING LINES.

12. what would you like to see more of literature in the future? representation, for everyone except white cis straight men. we have: enough of them.

14. if you could have only three books, what would they be? house of leaves by mark z danielewski, looking for alaska by john green, & the great gatsby by f scott fitzgerald.

17. already answered!

19. what are some pieces you’ve written that you’re most proud of? hm, “the richter scale of emotional intensity” from my chapbook is one that I really like. I’m not sure if I have a favorite piece though, I have a lot of favorite lines but identifying favorite pieces is a lot more difficult for me.

21. what are five pieces of writing advice you’d give to a new/insecure writer? 1) make friends with other writers. 2) be honest, and genuine. 3) don’t get discouraged by a lack of notes/likes or rejections from magazines; literally everybody gets rejected. I know you get told that a lot but really remember it. 4) whenever you get ideas, wherever you are, write them down. you will definitely forget them if you don’t. 5) read as much as possible.

22. what’s your writing process? (do you brainstorm, outline etc.) so, generally when I get an idea for a poem or a short story it starts with one line, or one key metaphor. so basically I write down that line & if I know how I want to arrive at this line or how I want to follow this line or what I want the concept of the poem to be, I start trying to flesh it out. I try not to edit too much as I go, but I’m guilty of doing that (especially when using my laptop). & then when I feel I’ve given a full body to whatever I’m working on, I do some heavy editing, & then it’s all set! I really should put some more space in between editing & posting but: I love validation so that’s that. // if I DON’T know how I want to add to a line, then I just leave it & come back to it later on. I’ve found that there’s no use trying to force a poem (unless it’s napowrimo).

23. what’s the most valuable writing tip you’ve encountered? keep writing, you’ll get better. because you will. & you do.

25. how much effort do you spend on establishing a certain aesthetic in your work? generally, none whatsoever. my chapbook has an “aesthetic” I guess you could say, but that’s because all of the poems are about the same thing. I try not to fit a certain theme with my writing in general, I find that restricting.

27. how do you deal with writer’s block? I just try to use that time to read. unfortunately there’s not much I’ve found that’s been effective in automatically taking away my writer’s block, which I do get.

29. have you ever considered your demographic, and if so, what is it? not really, honestly. I’ve had people of all kinds tell me that they enjoy my writing. I don’t try to specifically appeal to any /one/ audience.

30. do you have any (possibly unpopular/controversial) opinions on writing? uhhhhh lol I don’t want to #fight but the rise of quote on quote “instagram poetry” is really discouraging to me because a lot of it is just, a really simple statement or line with heavy space bar usage. it makes me sad.

adri, queen of questions. thank you angel

#caitlin answers things #undersleptadri

12 notes · View notes

communist-cat-girl · 6 years

Text

Ok So

im on my shit again cause pragerU is still makin fuckin’ videos time to yell about PragerU - The Least Diverse Place In America

(0:08) They had me in the first quarter, im not gonna lie, i thought this would be some interestin social justice piece and that maybe prageru’s obvious racism and ignorance were instantly solved by this Charlie Kirk guy. I was so wrong.

(0:28) Okay because there still totally isnt racism on college campuses or anythin’??? and like a ton of misogyny??? that isnt addressed at all??? ever??? but sure dude okay, lets act like colleges are good and perfect.

(0:46) So this is just ... I mean he sounds like an idiot who did zero research already but here we go. Can’t wait to have a straight white guy tell me about queer acceptance.

(0:59) Umm no not at all, people will still forever be homophobes and transphobes and every other phobe on the block. Also who the fuck signs a consent form for sex? They’re not doing kinky shit they’re caricatures of a man and a woman kissin’. Also seriously dude? Experimenting? This isn’t the fuckin’ 80′s, we know people are gay for sure and that people know full well what the hell they’re doin’. Experimenting is the way straight people have been disenfranchisin’ actual gay feelin’s for ages and this dipshit is perpetuatin’ that while tryna’ claim that these issues are “been there, done that,” as if anythin’ is solved. Fuck you already Charlie you clearly don’t know what the fuck is goin’ on in the world.

(1:04) If I had a dime every time I heard some conservative asshole talk about this in relation to safe spaces alone I think I’d have enough money to pay for my tuition. Barely.

(1:10) Ye, that thing racists, homophobes, and straight up nazis try to say is an issue because of us nasty liberals. I know the phrase and I know you’re boutta’ spew some bullshit about the first amendment, hit me already.

(1:21) ... Have you been to a college campus ever dude? Seriously, this is an honest question. I don’t even think hes been out in the real world if he thinks conservative ideas are radical or that colleges shut down “diversity of thought.” They shutdown bullshit because bullshit questions don’t need to be asked.

If a nazi asks “Why don’t we kill all Jews?” We do not attempt to explain to them the immorality of genocide nor do we explain to them their ignorance for thinkin’ that Jewish people are somehow the issue in their lives instead of their own mediocrity. We ignore them and move on, as we should. Because they’re fuckin’ idiots.

(1:25) You mean society, right? All of society does is indoctrinate you into a specific way of thinkin’. College isn’t special in this, every single region, culture, and subculture, even on accident, will attempt to indoctrinate you to their way of thinkin’, that’s just how it works naturally. We learn and grow from new experiences and interactin’ with different people, it’s an incredibly important part of our growth. College is an incredibly diverse place where we can do that!

(1:36) I don’t know if you know what’s up politically but people on “The Right” like to defund schoolin’ and bash on our teachers for no reason. So yeah ... they’re gonna’ be more left leanin’ considerin’ who their enemy is when it comes to literally makin’ a wage high enough to pay rent and eat food.

(1:46) ‘Cause no conservative signs up ‘cause they know their antiquated ideas will be shutdown in two seconds because colleges are, often, forward thinkin’ institutions that want to include many different people as they possibly can instead of lettin’ some white middle class straight cis asshole tell other people what to do???

I’m not even overeactin’ here, every experience in college i’ve had with a white conservative man who is my superior has been hellish and degradin’, it sucks. You give assholes power and they become bigger assholes, it’s how it works dude.

(1:59) What kind of conspiracy theory bullshit are you talkin’ ‘bout. No one’s paycheck depends on victims ‘xcept ... well no one. Ever. In the history of everthin’.

(2:10) My core being is superficial to you? What the fuck dude? My pride in bein’ an Italian American, Wiccan, liberal, demisexual, polyamorous, transgender woman is important to me, it’s at the very core of who I am, not some superficial mask I put on. What I am is what I fuckin’ am and that shit that makes me a unique individual is important. Fuck you Charlie.

(2:13) What!? What the fuck!?

How is glorfyin’ who someone is at their core superficial and how is it destructive? Who hurt you Charlie? Who told you that positive feedback and kindness and love is harmful?

(2:16) The only thing destroyin’ real learnin’ is a) people bein’ willin’ly ignorant to honest to the gods facts and b) the fact that republicans are defundin’ education like a mother fucker.

(2:25) a) We’ve all learned from Shakespeare dipshit. He was a surprisin’ly forward thinkin’ man for his time period and wrote what is considered to be some of the greatest works of art in the western world. b) Who isn’t readin’ Shakespeare cause he was a white man? I still do, I enjoy his shit. I know plenty of other queer people who enjoy his shit. What are you gettin’ at here?

(2:34) N- ... no it doesn’t dude. I’m literally a queer woman on a college campus. I am accepted into a group despite my transness and ethnic background. Everyone, black, white, asian, and so forth, speak to each other with respect. Genders, while not treated equally by the old, conservative staff, all get to say what they want and are given equal value in conversations. I live in Texas, not a very liberal place, but I still experience more acceptance and confidence than I ever did with even my parents.

This is clearly bullshit right wingers pull to split apart people in the left by claimin’ that our actions somehow divide us even though, if recent protests and counter protests held by the left against the right proves anythin’, its that our differences unify us. Unlike all of you middle class cishet white asshats.

(2:42) No.

Even ignorin’ my experiences, I’ve never heard a single issue with liberals excludin’ other liberals. It’s always conservatives who either exclude or get pissy when their radical ideas get them excluded. Same with radical liberals really.

(3:03) Has it? Also does that matter? The issue is that we have a stupid amount of people in poverty and a stupid small amount of rich people who are stockpilin’ money that is ruinin’ our economy.

Look I actually like capitalism as a concept, I also like communism, and socialism, hell I even like a monarchy or a tribal system where chieftains and elders hold votes. These concepts (both the economic and ideological ones) on paper are all perfect and good and do more harm than good.

The issue is that in practice, here in America, capitalism is ruinin’ lives as we speak and is goin’ to lead to an international crisis sooner than later on both an economic and environmental level. Capitalism, as it stands, is unsustainable, and our stance needs to change.

(3:06) No? When? Can you give me an example because if you mean places like Cuba or China or North Korea or the Soviet Union those were all communist regimes that acted more like dictators than representatives of their people. Real ass communism hasn’t really been done outside of small communes. People are just too power hungry for their own good, the only difference with capitalism is that their avarice is given praise by the masses.

(3:14) Do not act like we alone made some kind’ve ever lastin’ peace. Do not act like we haven’t instigated violence in the Middle East like it’s a fuckin’ game of Hearts of Iron IV. We, as a nation, are warmongers at worst and war profiteers at best.

(3:21) Because as well all know poor people do not commit crimes because they’re poor and aren’t given a way out of their shitty economic situations no no no, they do it because they’re black and play the victim card.

And of course slavery didn’t both ruin the lives of millions of people by makin’ them and their descendants poor and underprivileged, black people are poor because they choose to be violent and lazy. Obviously.

[/Sarcasm]

(3:29) Maybe because they’re wrong when they say this shit and we don’t want old ideas that don’t work or are objectively wrong or based too highly on subjective thought.

(3:37) I think Trae Crowder said it best when talkin’ ‘bout the nazi bullshit in Charolettesville, “They’ve been losin’ battle after battle, fight after fight for 200 years in this country and these are their death rows.”

Your stupid ideas are fallin’ off, the reason you have a voice right now is because you’re gettin’ desperate and so are the old rich assholes who are afraid taxes will empty even 1% of their fuckin’ pockets who give you the money to even exist.

(3:34) And that’s what they do! And we look at what people on the right do and we all cringe because it’s stupid! We’re not all closeted entitled fuckin’ rich kids goin’ to ivy league schools on our parents dime! We know what the real world is and it’s fuckin’ tough and scary and everyone is pitted against us. We know these things. Dumb fuckin’ bitch. I’m seriously tired of this guy right now.

(3:50) ... ... Did this dude not think we know what liberal means?

(4:12) Noble goal, I wish the rest of America would adopt this kind of “Melting Pot” idea, we’d prolly have way less issues honestly.

(4:25) ??? Why are you mad that people are bein’ kind and decent ???

(4:31) Thanks for usin’ actual terms in an attempt to disenfranchise them of any real meanin’. The same shit is happenin’ with the word triggered so y’know, not really a new tactic. Also one that doesn’t work on changin’ minds. This entire channel is an echo chamber I swear.

(4:35) Wow he’s ... stupid huh. The words mean what they mean asshole. Maybe ask one of your queer friends? You’re diverse in thought, right? Oh wait no your diversity of though doesn’t take queerness into account. Because you’re an asshole.

(4:52) ... No.

Like literally no, where do you get this idea from? Other liberals do not think like other liberals, there is infightin’ in EVERY culture, includin’ college campuses you fuckin’ dipshit.

I’m sorry I’m mostly just callin’ him a dumbass cishet white asshole middle class piece of shit but I’m really pissed off with his willful ignorance.

(4:54) No, it’s not. The two things do not compare.

(5:01) You mean what queer, black, and many other disenfranchised people have been doin’ for ages? Okay.

(5:12) No. Shit.

Video over. I want to die. I hate this dude so much.

#q slur #b slur #rose rants about bull shit #again

0 notes