Joan Rivers literally said several times that she hated feminists and feminism what the fuck is Times magazine doing calling her a feminist icon.
I am a Janeite, a Cuban, an American, a Student, a Procrastinator, and a Feminist. Also, I'm pretty freaking awesome.
I don't have to be all of these things.. I don't have to be anything. It is optional. I chose what I believe in, this is my identity, and this is my blog. That you are reading it is coincidental. That you choose to follow me is optional. But some options are better than others ;)
cerberuswaltz said: I can't say that I saw the jock being gay a punch line? And if so, not in a bad way? Kinda like "he's gay! But not a stereotype". Idk it's a hard subject, and might not matter to us who are out and fighting for rights... But to those who are struggling or hiding this can make a big deal. Representation may not be as we want it but it's bigger steps then most make. Normalizing any sexuality
A single line at the end of a a film just isn’t representation to me. It’s not enough. It was there as a shock reveal at best, a “ha! Didn’t see that coming, did ya!” moment.
No, it wasn’t mean spirited. But it wasn’t some masterful heart warming thing either. It was just…there. And to see it lauded when it is so little….It’s just not impressive to me.
I thought it was clever. It forced watchers to judge him based on his actual performance as a character.
By making viewers think he was straight for 99% of his lines? Maybe that’s helpful to STRAIGHT viewers who are burdened with homophobic stereotypes.
But it isn’t helpful to LGBTQIAP+ viewers looking for representation and visibility.
How is it not, though? He’s an openly gay/bi character, who is not a stereotype of his orientation, nor is him being gay/bi treated like a joke/evil/tragedy/etc. He is quite literally the definition of positive gay/bi representation, wherein the punchline was a jab at viewer assumption/expectation, delivered by proxy of the straight girl who was hitting on him. It wasn’t a “didn’t see that coming” point, it was a “don’t judge a book by it’s cover” point.
Which is kind of the over-arching narrative for Paranorman, really. Right up there with the “Getting revenge doesn’t make you pious, it makes you an asshole” or ie “You’re a bully”.
Dude fits all the criteria of positive representation, so it just kind of baffles me that you’re still pulling the “it’s not good ENOUGH” argument, without really defining what you would consider good enough. Yeah, it’s little, as far as representation goes, but it’s still representation nonetheless. It’s lauded the way it is b/c it’s mainstream representation, not niche fandom headcanon representation. The kind that got through all the hurdles that stops it.
Yeah, it’s only a little. But the way things currently are, that little bit MEANS a lot.
Otherwise, what you’re expecting, is for a character to be introduced with something like:
"This is the gay homosexual Mitch, who is the gayest gay of all the homosexual gays. Did we mention he’s gay? Because he’s going to remind you that he is, every time he opens his mouth, since there is literally nothing else to this character beyond him being gay."
Which is the honest to god opposite of positive representation, FYI.
You know that there is a middle road between “deliberately frame this character as a heterosexual love interest until his final line” and :over the top flamboyant stereotype” right?
Like, have him be openly gay and a fully fleshed out, interesting character? Have his boyfriend be in the film and interact with him? Have the “reveal” that he’s gay EARLY in the movie, so that it isn’t a “gotcha!” punchline right at that end.
Part of representation is VISIBILITY. And deliberately framing a character as a heterosexual love interest until the last possible moment so you can make a joke out of it isn’t good visibility, and it isn’t good representation.
So how about instead of INSISTING that I MUST want some fucked up terrible stereotype, you actually listen to what I DO want.
So basically what you’re saying is that the makers of Paranorman should have put it right out there in the front, so that movie execs could immediately shoot it down, and thus we’d have no visibility? What a terrific plan. Don’t play the game until it either works in your favor or isn’t played anymore, just pretend like the game doesn’t exist, and surely everyone else will just conform to your rules.
I reiterate: Yes, his representation and visibility is only little, but the way things are right now, that little bit means a whole lot. It’s pretty shit to downplay or twist that into something bad, just to feed a victim complex.
What I’m saying is to ACCEPT it it for what it is: Crumbs, and shitty crumbs at that.
We don’t need to do backflips of applause and gratitude over shitty bullshit just because it is as much as we are “alowed” to get right now. We need to make it clear that this STILL isn’t enough, that we aren not happy with so little, or else how are we to expect getting more?
white americans: ummmmmm slavery was so long ago don’t you think we should put it behind us?????? lmao (:
white americans: 9/11!!!!!!!!!!!! PEarL HARBOR!!!!!1!!!!!!! nEVER FORGET!!!!!!!?!
but we shouldnt throw 9/11 under the bus either bc its…….a horrific event that is still having repercussions today……
Yes hi, hello. I would like to tell you about this thing called slavery