#From The Margins: The Trans Film Image

[thequeereview]

From The Margins: The Trans Film Image film series at MOMI, New York

In their new book, Corpses, Fools, and Monsters: The History and Future of Transness in Cinema, critics Caden Mark Gardner and Willow Catelyn Maclay examine how trans themes and trans people have evolved on screen over the past 60-plus years. In an upcoming screening series running at New York’s Museum of the Moving Image (MoMI) on July 13th and 20th, Gardner and Maclay have curated a selection…

[the-woman-upstairs]

Honestly, all my schadenfreude over the public evisceration of James Somerton by Hbomberguy and Todd in the Shadows is tempered by the anger I feel at how much damage, pain, misinformation, and marginalizing one man was capable of accomplishing through the platform he built through plagiarism, blatant lies, and outright bigotry.

And frankly it sucks that it took the efforts of two other popular YouTube creators to bring him down when Somerton was clearly never good at hiding any of his horrific behavior. There were clearly women and trans/non-binary people who knew something was up with him and his “work” but were either harassed/doxxed by the fans he set on them or knew they didn’t have the same kind of clout/support to be believed over him.

It just boggles my mind how EASY it would have been for him to cite these sources and work with other queer creators on the platform to help create a wealth of accessible, comprehensive knowledge of queer media and history available to a younger generation. Because clearly, there’s a hunger in the younger generations of queer kids/people for that knowledge, the understanding of the past, how it informs the present and creates the future. But all Somerton did was steal from other creators, ones who either didn’t know their work was stolen or were given the run-around by Somerton instead of proper accreditation.

Instead of uplifting other people and their research, he selfishly stole and hoarded it, before regurgitating it and claiming it was all his own while also infecting some excellent analysis with awful, bigoted opinions, particularly geared towards women, trans people, or any type of queer he didn’t believe was the “right kind.” You know, like all the “boring gays” that “survived” the AIDS crisis.

I want to believe that this time we’ll learn to not take people at face value, just because they give the appearance of professionalism and sound authoritative on whatever subject is covered. Because that’s how dangerous misinformation is spread and taken for fact. Todd was absolutely on the money when he pointed out how it is important to document all the lies and plagiarism with Somerton because how many young people believed what he was saying? How many people watched his videos on the adult film industry or “bad gays” or Nazis influence on body image and walked away thinking they were learning something about their history? Far too many, I’m sure.

Though at least having these two videos to refer to can help people learn when to spot someone who’s being disingenuous in “teaching people something.” And that any person who claims to be the “only person” talking about an issue is mostly likely lying and trying to sell you something. Usually, their own brand. It’s far better to diversify the people you follow and the voices you listen to, and the playlist Hbomberguy made available is a great place to start.

But I also recommend seeking out some of the original sources yourself. There’s typically queer history books/memoirs in the nonfiction section of your local library. You can find the original Celluloid Closet documentary on Tubi, along with another interesting one, Do I Sound Gay? Disclosure, the documentary on depictions of trans people in Hollywood, is available on Netflix. And that’s just a couple of the top of my head. If you’re looking for queer films in general, Wolfe Video has so many available for purchase or even just to peruse and rent the titles later.

I do hope some good comes out of all this, even if the damage done by Somerton still lingers in online queer spaces (fingers crossed this means the end of Illuminaughtii and Internet Historian as well). It helps to be wary of people seeking to take advantage of the online spaces we now inhabit, but there’s still people and places across the internet that are doing good work and want to help educate people. They may not always be easy to find and may even require some effort on the part of the audience, but the end result of really learning something, discovering interesting research/work, or being part of open minded discussions is a worthwhile reward. And always something to be proud of.

[daggerzine]

Film Review: “It’s only life after all” an Indigo Girls documentary (2023)- review by Dina Hornreich

And here is another revolting rockumentary review to help us further consider whether punk is “more queer” than mainstream gay culture, but first let’s get our lingo worked out:

• Punk is best described as an attitude, according to Don Letts’ 2005 film (Punk: Attitude).

• Punk Rockers are then considered the n*ggers of Rock ‘n Roll, according Patti Smith’s song from her 1978 Easter album; and it features Iggy Pop & The Stooges, Lou Reed & The Velvet Underground, The Ramones, and (of course) Sex Pistols’ mastermind Malcolm McLaren.

• Glam Rock challenged the boundaries of masculinity and femininity via David Bowie, The New York dolls, and other (mostly) “dudes in drag” styled outfits.

• No Wave is a different extrapolation of punk efforts affecting Sonic Youth, Lydia Lunch, and other offshoots that deconstructed and reassembled sound to further challenge conventional structures.

• Riot Grrrl & Queercore/Homocore were another sub-counterculture which uniquely adopts a loud (often campy) Punk idea that is overtly informed by more academic feminist and queer approaches as a deliberate artistic movement involving the work of Bikini Kill, Babes in Toyland, Mecca Normal, Team Dresch, Pansy Division, and Tribe 8.

In other words: Losers, freaks, deviants, etc. and other people whom society just wanted to GO AWAY.

So where do the Indigo Girls fit into this motif – LGBT communities also certainly know that stigma intimately?

Much like Sinead O’Connor (or even Suzanne Vega) in the late 80s & early 90s, this pop & rock  folk/country duo should more readily be able to fit into this sex & gender revolution. However, in this documentary, they really don’t seem to think

 Indigo_personal archive_81.tif

that they do. But the press kit photo of Amy Ray wearing a Husker Du t-shirt suggests fairer comparisons could include gay punks like Bob Mould and Grant Hart. And the film footage with The Butchies, Jean Smith, and Thalia Zedek further reinforces that impression.

I can’t truly speak for their fans from the Michigan Womyn’s Music festival (whose dominant voice often screamed “trans-exclusionary radical feminist” or TERF which are ideas from an era that has itself become stigmatized as we approach the next era of inclusivity challenges beyond “me too” sentiments); but they were clearly aware of crucial considerations for building community in ways that promote authenticity, safety, consistency, acceptance, comfort, and impartiality in our communicative exchanges.

What makes the Indigo Girls’ approach different is the level of self-sacrifice they are willing to make in order to accommodate their fans’ needs, wants, and desires. They have a very nuanced and humanistic sensitivity that makes them reluctant to challenge conventions or contradictions in the ways that turn weirdos into outlaws; an idea that frequently dominates punk ideologies and expressions as it overtly challenges societal power dynamics.

Instead, they prefer to go more grassroots in their activism as they continue to self-consciously challenge oppression without giving into that tendency for oppressing others which happens throughout most marginalized groups; but, they still seem to have internalized their oppression (which is something that women clearly seem quite willing to do) as the heartfelt explanations about dealing with depression, addiction, and other self-sacrificing responses to trauma portray.

Additional footage involving their activist work with Winona Laduke (or even Joan Baez) further exhibits an impressive willingness to move toward a more “crowd pleasing” aesthetic and clearly maintains a more unifying image given their “GLAAD approved” identity (which is something that artists like Stephin Merritt never seem able to accomplish despite sincere attempts to assert his status as “gay and loud.”). And this pressure certainly isn’t easy to navigate; especially when you consider the unhappy ending we recently witnessed to Sinead O’Connor’s story.

However, it is clear that they were very often distracted by a nagging pain from the concomitant rejection that accompanies just being “out” lesbians in an apparently still sexually repressed society. Their struggles and story are quite consistent with many women musicians who challenge societal conventions including gender essentialist structures as they tend to become grouped together into one large mass of “masculine” (or even “butch”) women.

For me, their ongoing dedication to a successful musical partnership is a testament to their commitment to building relationships on numerous levels. They clearly have their “niche” where they inhabit which keeps them a bit “insular” for its more narrow range – often making them appear a bit “contained.” However, they demonstrate an impressive commitment to beautiful lyrical prose alongside enjoyable melodic harmonies (using voice and acoustic guitar) which allows their work to remain generally consistent and reliable to their audience; and (in doing so) the film clearly supports their overall thesis that “It’s only life after all.”

www.indigogirls.com

[silvr-skreen]

GIVE US THE SHIRLEY LOREE

OH BOY THIS IS GONNAE BE A DOOZY!!!

Shirley 🎶 (LORE AND HC ABOUND SORRY)

Lore:

Originally intended to be a duo with Lenard (he sings/makes the music and she dances) except that never really happened.

On her first ever day of existing she got lost and ended up at Ray's stage and just did a bit with him until they ran out of film. As it turns out the juxtaposition between her and Ray was hilarious and THOSE two became a duo.

Lenard legit doesnt care, especially since she makes sure to brief all the others on what happens down in the Stage 2 set (and vicea versa to Ray)

ultimately the CNBG started to try and push a "beauty and the beast" romance thing except Al (who originally despite his good intentions was kind of spineless and bent to their will) said no. He wasn't gonna make them do that, and he didn't. But the CNBG then told him to get her off the air then.

As it turns out, part of her appeal was people thinking her and Ray were more than friends, and a hard no would upset some viewers (as opposed to lying and agreeing, or doing a "will-they-wont-they")

She walked in on the destruction of some of her clones and was then chased out by the staff tasked with the job, and she fled to the basement (this was after Richie left and Ray got banished) and begged him to hide her because "they tore up my copies and they want to tear me up too!" and he agreed. He hid her and played dumb until the staff left.

She's kind of just... been in his lair since, until of course, the staff stopped showing up, at which point she got free reign of the basement, but she is too scared to leave his side. (she also doesnt make clones because shes afraid they'll get torn up too)

Headcanons:

something is very wrong with her. Her mechanic doesn't really have the "cute-Agression" but instead if gordon shoots her, or another puppet she runs at him to chastise him about it. Aka. pacifism is really important (or you attack when she's not active or looking)

there was a scrapped script from when Al was considering agreeing with the network and forcing it, but then he tossed it. It's. it's very bad and al's written in the margins a bunch about that.

she's around george height! very tall, also very wiggly. Ray is the one person she wont attempt to wiggle away from

also the one person ray confided in when it came to raymond (which. i have a headcanon about him too)

she learned a lot of stuff from ray, however, it was before gordon came around so... yeah she likes to hit stuff with small blunt objects.

in addition to that one. she needs to either be taped up, or lead to ray to deactivate her. (the second one deactivates them both, and they always are in the same room at the same time)

side quest is really just... listening. offering support.

oh, also fun fact im the person writing that fic on Ao3 "The Neighborhood" w/ trans gordon an' yeah ye shouldnae be stabbing a pregnant person w/ a screwdriver shirley-girly (ray calls her that)

Funny image tax thank you for reading :3

[sleeping-satan]

I want to start off by saying that I loved the Barbie movie. The messages around how women are treated and directly discussing the double standards they're forced to deal with are in your face and addressed well. All while not being too depressing to the point where it brings down joy and comedy of the film. When talking about social issues, it's extremely difficult to do that, but when done correctly it gets so many people to actually listen.

And God it's so campy while giving actual Barbie history.

And with so many women of color in the movie, its sad to say that I have one critique: It lacks intersectionality.

I'm a White dude, so what I'm saying is what I've learned from women of color and throughout college. If it seems shallow it's because it is, I do not have as much of an understanding as I would like.

Spoilers below the cut:

Barbie does not address that in a matriarchal society other marginalizations do exist. A Black woman is president, great, where do we talk about misogynoir? When do we address that Black women have to constantly prove that they're woman enough? Address that Black women are not allowed to be weak or fragile, that they're stereotyped as aggressive.

There were no cultures outside of western, there was no Latina Barbie or Muslim Barbie (from what I remember, I saw it at 9:30 at night).

What I picked out early on in the film that irked me personally was that there was one fat Barbie and one wheelchair Barbie. Fat Barbie did appear as a main side character multiple times, wheelchair Barbie for a few seconds.

If the Barbie message is that women can be whatever they want to be, then the fat Barbie and wheelchair user Barbie are both seen as occupations in a way. Both have the other privileged societal traits other than the ones shown on film (White, skinny, able bodied, western, etc.) Showing in some way that fat Barbie can only be fat, wheelchair user Barbie only a wheelchair user.

Besides the campiness and extremely queer undertones, there is no character that is outright queer. It's all undertoned but never outright. Stereotypical Barbie does give extremely aro/ace vibes, but that goes with the fact that Barbie as a franchise focuses on almost anything but romance. Plus the feminist message of how women do not need men to base their entire lives around, which is from heterosexism as well as misogyny.

Don't get me wrong, Alan seemed like a heavy third gender in the movie. "We do not have genitals" made me think of how trans and intersex bodies are different and that's okay. Homophobia and masculinity do not exist when Ken gets kissed on the cheeks. It's never outright though, because queerness is still seen as a mature topic. "Sexuality is mature" Ken is referred to as Barbies boyfriend guys come on.

Again, this isn't to say that I think the movie is bad. It tries to criticize itself in many aspects ("White Savior Barbie") and brings up that Barbie has negative consequences on body image as well. It's an incredibly fun movie on top of all of that. A perfect feminist movie would be a five hour movie at least because of how many different aspects it'd need to address. Its still okay to point out the flaws though so that way feminism can improve.

[thatchainsguy]

We’re comin up on two years on testosterone and top surgery number two (a revision) here this month, so of course, I have some reflection. The thing is, my reflection typically comes out in art form, so I wanted to say something about the glitched self portraits I’ve been taking over the past couple of years.

It’s become some sort of weirdly cathartic practice in dealing with the weird process of Puberty 2.0 when you’re in your 30s. Instead of taking “progress” or “before and after” photos, I’ve been more into these warped reality images. That’s not to say I don’t have the photos that everyone says to take so that you can reflect back during those especially dysphoric days and see how much change has actually occurred. And I also have the doctor-mandated top surgery virtual follow-up photos that I loathe. Seriously hated having to take those every time a visit was scheduled. They’re in the hidden folder on my phone.

I just don’t feel like those things capture the experience well. That’s not to claim that my glitchy edits do, but they feel closer to the reality/unreality of moving into an existence that is highly controversial and polarizing. I don’t want my gender to be political, but it is. It’s both personal and public. It’s a very bizarre experience, and all my work over the past year has revolved around turning over this prism of experience and asking how I can convey it to others. The glitch photos are a small view of the bigger work.

I’ve done so much research. Academic, physical, emotional research into this subject. I do have a Patreon that houses the more formal archiving of this work. It’s there so that I can apply for grants and report my findings and get support from other artists and patrons. If you feel led and able to, I very much welcome the support over there. The money from Patreon pays for things like hiring a composer so that I have the rights to my own music, renting filming and training space, hiring costumers, choreographers, filmographers, all sorts of other artists! Art isn’t created in a vacuum or on an island, but damn if it don’t also cost money. The US is, well…y’all know. “Hostile to queer artists” is an understatement.

If you’ll indulge me, here’s an excerpt from my big project proposal that is slowly chugging along. (We have a composer on board and can pay him!) This hasn’t even been shared on Patreon yet! I don’t like the idea of Patreon being a pay-wall gate that queer people can’t access, so I will always make an effort within my ability to share things as publicly as possible.

Put simply, QUIET is two parts photography and one part performance, using my own trans body and chains to reflect on my queer lived experience and construction of identity.

The work that I propose here is a three-pronged project revolving around the multitudes I find to be true within my own body: “the conditioned body, the spiritual body, and the body I am destined to be.” (Jose Richard Aviles) I’m ultimately seeking to capture the essence of being all of these things at once, in one body, while also showcasing the nuance of the perceived body imposed upon mine. In this investigation, I hope to achieve the comparison of a fractured experience in its distinct parts with the wholeness of being greater than the sum of my parts.

I want to highlight the importance of noticing this juxtaposition for marginalized bodies and how the pieces that were not selected by us still inform the position we take in places in society, while also being present in a stream of collective pieces coming and going and becoming greater than our, or anyone else’s, present understanding. I want to create imagery that not only acknowledges the powerful self-analysis challenges that multiply-marginalized folks are faced with when those positional identities are held against the spirituality of our whole selves, but also imagery that is rich with a sense of wholeness and love for ourselves.

This piece is informed by my ongoing examination of the concept of the fallacy of stability: that change is the only constant in our lives, despite the capitalistic prescription for being frozen in time at the height of our efficiency. I hope to present viewers a more nuanced sense of understanding of where queer marginalized bodies exist in both a larger context of Western late-stage capitalism and heteronormative patriarchy, and also for my viewers who share my intersections of marginalization: some sense of hope and joy in seeing themselves and their lived experience represented.

Overall, viewers from any background should be held by a sense of yearning and longing, and most of all, quiet.

[queermediastudies]

Behind the Umbrellas: Marginality as Joyful Resistance

Final Queer Video

When we first talked about the video project, I thought of Parasol Patrol, a non-profit founded by Eli Bazan and Pasha Ripley in 2019. I wanted to show how Parasol Patrol creates a queer space in the midst of a visual culture filled with hate and violence aimed at LGBTQ children. The Barker and Scheele (2016) graphic novel informed my goals.

1. I wanted to show one type of queer activism (p. 51). As queer people of color, Eli and Pasha are uniquely able to address the threats facing queer children, including queer children of color.

2. Barker and Scheele describe “how queer theory has engaged with popular culture…” (p. 6) and given the increasingly violent actions directed at trans people and at drag events, I wanted to show how a local organization could resist the hate targeting LGBTQ folx.

3. Barker and Scheele say, “Queer activism is a form of sexuality/gender activism that opposes assimilationist agendas of trying to show how ‘normal’ LG(BT) people are. Instead it celebrates difference and diversity…” (p. 15). Pasha often says, “We’re here because of the hate groups. We’re not here for them.” Parasol Patrol carves out a space in the midst of violent hate that doesn’t try to change LGBTQIA children—it celebrates them. I wanted to show this joy.

4. Most importantly, I wanted to make queer media about queer people. So I focused on how Parasol Patrol creates space for youth to grow into powerful adults. Parasol is really about queer elders modeling community care for queer youth. This is our genealogy and I want to document it.

5. As a secondary goal, I wanted to create something Parasol Patrol can potentially use in its marketing because yay capitalism and the Nonprofit Industrial Complex.

I had good access to Eli, Pasha, and the rest of the Parasol Patrol regulars. I’ve been a Patroller since their 3rd month, so I knew getting footage and photos wouldn’t be a problem. I also felt pretty sure I could show the change in atmosphere when participants move from the hate group side of the venue to the protected queer-friendly side behind the umbrellas. I questioned how much of the hate I should show, and I’m still not sure I balanced that right.

I had some other problems. I’ve never made a movie, so in terms of technology, I started at zero. Mia provided some helpful guidance, and the links on the module helped with editing. I also tend to be pretty wordy (ha!) so my first proposal was enormous. I needed to cut the scope down.

I had some tech issues, all user error, but I finally got a first rough draft posted. Moss watched it before I submitted it to Canvas. Their feedback basically boiled down to “what does Parasol Patrol even do?” but said in a very nice way. I reworked the intro, but after submitting the 2nd version, I still needed to clarify some things, rethink some quotes, and work on my ever-lagging tech skills (note to self: film in landscape next time). This is when I added voice over, bullying my husband into being the narrator. He agreed because he’s scared of me I think.

Unique helped me figure out how to script something that made sense without having to redo the whole video. She answered tech questions. She also gave me snacks and tea, both of which gave me enough energy to work on the video when the cold hit.

I sent the 3rd draft to Mia, she gave more feedback, and I changed roughly 1/3 of the video. I also added some different images about recent events.

While the assignment was for a 5 minute video, mine goes over that. The credits begin at 5 minutes 25 seconds, so that’s where the for-a-grade project ends. But. Because I wanted Parasol to be able to use the video, and because I adore the owner of Second Star to the Right Bookstore (she always gives us food when we patrol there), I added a Marvel-Studios style post credit clip. Honestly, in my eyes, Eli and Pasha and the rest of the patrollers are superheroes, and Dea has been a long-time knowledge-keeper and child-protector, so it seems very apropos.

Bryn

[samchristian23]

Analytical Application 5: Gender and Sexuality

Male Gaze

The male gaze is a term that appears in the texts of many theorists that consider the subjects of gender and sexuality. It is a key concept to understanding how the media we consume interacts with these ideas. The concept of the “male gaze” was first introduced by Laura Mulvey in her essay “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema”1. The main idea of the “male gaze” is that the media we consume depicts the world, and women, from the perspective of men. This leads to women being objectified as objects of male pleasure. 

Neil Gaiman’s graphic novel Sandman doesn’t engage in the “male gaze” in the way it has historically been engaged with. This is surprising especially when we consider the fact that Gaiman is a straight, cis, white man, a usual description of someone perpetuating the “male gaze”. Gaiman, for whatever reason, decides to push against the male gaze. He does so in a few ways. “A Game of You”2, the section of Sandman that will be analyzed here, is populated by a diverse cast of characters. Perhaps because this graphic novel delves into the world of fantasy, Gaiman finds it easy to subvert expectations and create a more radical narrative. This is not uncommon. In Jack Halberstam’s “Looking Butch: A Rough Guide to Butches on Film”3, they present the idea of a “fantasy butch”, stating that “The fantasy butch, unlike the prison butch, actively destroys femininity within her own body and remakes it as a stunning and defiant female masculinity”4. However, this is not the way that the central character of “A Game of You”, Barbie, is portrayed. Barbie is shown as a stereotypically feminine character, especially at the beginning of the story. In many stories, she would just be a side character, relegated to the view of a man. But Gaiman allows Barbie to continue her journey, and through this journey she finds self-empowerment and discovery. This is the way that Gaiman challenges the “male gaze”.

Positive Images

In Jack Halberstram’s “Looking Butch: A Rough Guide to Butches on Film”3, they present the idea of “positive images” as they pertain to stories of queer individuals. To Halberstram, positive images come from a place of wanting to de-stigmatize and humanize people who may be underrepresented in society. “Positive images” usually refer to portrayals that are meant to go against stereotypes by portraying marginalized people in a favorable or empowering manner. Halberstram also says that “positive images also deal in stereotypes and with far more disastrous effects”5, meaning that “positive images” can actually have the opposite effect of what they intend, reinforcing harmful stereotypes and societal standards.

Again we see that Gaiman fights against the pitfalls of “positive images”, deciding not to engage in stereotypes but rather to deliver nuanced depictions of female and queer characters. As was already mentioned, Barbie is a good example of this. She is a three-dimensional character that is portrayed honestly. But where Gaiman fights further against stereotypes is with the character of Wanda. Wanda is, for a lack of better words, a trans woman not just for the sake of being a trans woman. If Wanda were a positive image, she would be portrayed and someone who is completely comfortable with her gender identity and faces little meaningful hardship. According to Halberstram, “The opposite of the stereotype has long been thought of as "the positive image," and yet it may well be that positive images also deal in stereotypes and with far more disastrous effects”5. She is able to avoid being pushed into a “positive image” by not being idealized or sanitized in any way. Her arc as a character contains great struggle, even after her death, as shown with her family in the final chapter of the story6.

Gender Performativity

In her essay “Gender Is Burning: Questions Of Appropriation And Subversion”7, Judith Butler introduces the concept of gender performativity. The key points of gender performativity are as follows: gender is not something one is, rather it is something one does, and this doing, or performance, is dictated by societal norms and expectations. 

As with the previous word, Wanda is the best character to look at when it comes to gender performativity, mostly because of her experience being both genders. As was previously stated, Butler believes that gender is a repeated performance of something that the society we exist in considers the standard or the norm. Wanda is someone who actively fights against this standard, deciding to rather perform the opposite of what society expects and deems appropriate. She does this despite deep pressure from society to conform to its standard, seen clearly with her funeral at the end of the story, where she is dead-named on her gravestone and by her family. It’s interesting to compare Wanda’s fate to that of Venus Xtravaganza, a character in the film Paris is Burning, which Butler is using as a framework for her essay. Butler states of Venus that “She 'passes' as a light-skinned woman, but is-by virtue of a certain failure to pass completely-clearly vulnerable to homophobic violence; ultimately, her life is taken presumably by a client who, upon the discovery of what she calls her 'little secret,' mutilates her for having seduced him. On the other hand, Willi Ninja can pass as straight; his voguing becomes foregrounded in het video productions with Madonna et al., and he achieves post-legendary status on an international scale. There is passing and then there is passing, and it is-as we used to say-'no accident' that Willi Ninja ascends and Venus Xtravaganza dies”8. In a way, we can see a parallel drawn from Venus to Wanda and from Willi to Barbie. The latter two are able to live, and they both pass for or identify as straight, whereas the former two are not able to do so.

Queer Gaze

In their essay “Looking Butch: A Rough Guide to Butches on Film”3, Jack Halberstram introduces to their audience the concept fo the queer gaze. In short, the queer gaze is a lens by which to view the world, and the media we consume in particular, which centers the identities and experiences of queer people.

Once again, we return to Wanda, a character that exemplifies what a focal point for the queer gaze should be. In this story, the magical elements often fall under binary terms of gender, as seen in Wanda’s conversation with George9. George is not exactly taking a stance himself. Rather, he conveys the message and ideals of the gods: that it doesn’t matter how you feel, you are what you’re born as. Wanda takes issue with this, stating that she knows what she is. In the words of Halberstram “‘I'm permanently troubled by identity categories, consider them to be invariable stumbling-blocks, and understand them, even promote them, as sites of necessary trouble.’ Identity, it seems, as a representational strategy produces both power and danger; it provides both an obstacle to identification and a site ‘of necessary trouble’”10. This is Wanda’s situation at this moment. For her, identity produces an internal power, and an external danger. In the eyes of the gods, the way she identifies herself provides an obstacle to identification. But for Wanda, her chosen (perhaps not chosen but rather felt) identity is unquestionable. 

Subversion

Subversion, specifically subversion of expectations is not a concept that is unique to theories of gender and sexuality. However, subversion is a key concept when put under the lens of the works of theorists who operate in that space. Butler speaks about how gender performance can lead to a subversion of one’s identity and societal standards. Halberstram speaks about how the queer gaze subverts stereotypical depictions and looks deeper.

 One character in particular comes to mind when speaking about subversion of expectations. Hazel, a lesbian character who is in a relationship with Foxglove. In the beginning of “A Game of You”, Hazel comes to Barbie to ask for advice11. It’s important to note that we have met Hazel once before, and it was clear that she was in a relationship with Foxglove. Hazel reveals to Barbie that once, when Foxglove was away, Hazel had sex with a man, and now believes herself to be pregnant. This already is a subversion of our expectations. We have clearly seen that Hazel is a lesbian. She embodies the stereotypical butch lesbian look that one might envision for that character. But Gaiman opts to steer away from that stereotype, at least in her actions. The next subversion comes in Barbie’s reaction. She doesn’t react with judgment, at least not any that would seem outwardly negative. Rather, she decides to show Hazel compassion. With every “dumb” question Hazel throws her way, Barbie responds without criticism, simply providing a response. This way of writing the scene exemplifies the manner in which Gaiman went about writing this story. He attempted not to reinforce societal standards, but to subvert them, thus advancing how we think.

Works Cited

1Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Essay. In Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings, Seventhed. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2009. 

2Gaiman, Neil. “A Game of You.” Essay. In The Sandman. Burbank, CA: DC Comics, 1993. https://www.hoopladigital.com/comic/the-sandman-book-two-neil-gaiman/15013535. 

3Halbestram, Jack. “Looking Butch: A Rough Guide to Butches on Film.” Essay. In Female Masculinity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1998. 

4Halberstram, “Looking Butch: A Rough Guide to Butches on Film.” 203.

5Halberstram, “Looking Butch: A Rough Guide to Butches on Film.” 184.

6Gaiman, “A Game of You.” 437-453.

7Butler, Judith. “Gender Is Burning: Questions Of Appropriation And Subversion.” Essay. In Feminist Film Theory: A Reader. New York, NY: New York University Press, 1999. 

8Butler, “Gender Is Burning: Questions Of Appropriation And Subversion.” 342.

9Gaiman, “A Game of You.” 383-384.

10Halberstram, “Looking Butch: A Rough Guide to Butches on Film.” 177.

11Gaiman, “A Game of You.” 316-320.

[lexluth0r]

Analytcal Application #5

Male gaze:

The concept of the "male gaze" was coined by feminist film theorist Laura Mulvey. It refers to the perspective in which visual media, particularly film, is often constructed from a heterosexual male point of view. This male gaze objectifies and sexualizes women, positioning them as passive objects for the pleasure and consumption of the male viewer. Rather than being depicted as fully realized human beings, women in media under the male gaze are reduced to their physical attributes and presented solely for the visual gratification of the presumed male spectator. In the case of this panel in Sandman (page 408), one of the female characters, Rose, appears mostly nude, falling from the sky, being covered by nothing but a cloth. Upon reading the panels and the surrounding storyline, there is no clear reason for this depiction of Rose and her fall from grace. This panel contributes to the male gaze through the objectification of Rose, and the sexualization of her body for aesthetic pleasure. In addition, there are many stills captured of her as she falls with no clear reason other than to emphasize her nudity in this scene. In the eyes of Mulvey, this depiction means “their traditional exhibitionist role women are simultaneously looked at and displayed, with their appearance coded for strong visual and erotic impact so that they can be said to connote to-be-looked-at-ness,” (715) (1). Rose’s role in this panel is purely exhibitionary, and neither adds to her character development in the story nor gives her depth beyond a display captured in her multiple nude illustrations.

Scopophilia:

The concept of scopophilia refers to the pleasure and power dynamics inherent in the act of looking and being looked at, often associated with voyeurism in visual media.

This term encompasses both the desire to view others, as well as the desire to be seen and visually consumed. It reflects the power dynamics at play, where the viewer holds a position of authority and control over the object of their gaze. This concept is shaped by cultural norms and expectations surrounding visibility, surveillance, and the objectification of the human body. In this particular panel, a woman is seen splayed out naked on a bed, seemingly in a sexual context. The text elaborates on this panel, with a man describing fetishization of trans women. This connects back to Mulvey’s explanation of scopophilia, explaining that it “exists as drive quite independently of the erotogenic zones.' It is about 'taking people as objects, [and] subjecting them to a controlling and curious gaze," (713) (2). Using Mulvey’s theory, this panel reduces the woman as a commodity to be looked at, fetishized, and to derive pleasure from. Examining the dialogue as well, the woman lacks her own agency, being talked about entirely in the third person, in reference to how she can be used for the pleasure of the man. In addition, the man capturing the woman as the center of his focus emphasizes the box he places the woman into as something exotic, quoting “There's something about preoperative transsexuals that makes the connoisseur uncomfortable. Something brittle and bright in the back of their eyes. He loves them”. This description of the woman emphasizes the voyeuristic view of both the man’s words and actions, but the objectification of the drawing of the woman as well. Her sole purpose is to be looked at, observed and to create pleasure.

Mythical Norm:

The term mythical norm was widely developed by Audre Lorde, describing the dominant societal standards that are often based on a narrow, idealized image of a "normal" individual or group, typically white, heterosexual, and male. This norm marginalizes and excludes those who do not conform to it. The mythical norm in the context of Sandman manifests into the portrayal of mythical beings who hold significant power. In particular, the Sandman himself is a representation of a mythical idea with its physical form taking the appearance of a heterosexual white male. On page 195 of the comic, the Sandman’s physical power is exhibited in scale. All in all, the character Sandman upholds the common trope that mythical manifestations of power in the mortal world, those having to do with dreams, deception, prosperity a majority of the time appear in the human form of male. Lord comments that mythical norms are “the trappings of power reside within this society. Those of us who stand outside that power often identify one way in which we are different, and we assume that to be the primary cause of all oppression forgetting other distortions around difference…” (116) (3). Mythical norms affect viewership in the sense that when people in positions of power in media are depicted solely as white heterosexual males, this lack of diversity manifests into insecurity in real life. People don’t see themselves in high positions of power because artificial recreations of power structure uphold the power structure in real life. The Sandman upholds the repeated idea that white heterosexual men are the pinnacle of power in society.

Oppositional Gaze:

The oppositional gaze refers to a type of viewership described by bell hooks as the phenomenon where “Black female spectators actively chose not to identify with the film's imaginary subject because such identification was disenabling,” (313) (4). This essentially describes the rebellion of the viewership of black women from choosing not to identify with the film's imaginary subject because such identification was so at odds with their lived experience. Applying this viewership to an analysis of Sandman, the mini story within the comic titled “Tales in the Sand,” where Nada, the queen of a land falls in love with the god of dreams, and kills herself to avoid being his queen. She initially refuses to marry a man and rules her kingdom solely. However, she encounters a stranger and goes to great lengths to find him. When she discovers he is an immortal god, she refuses to be with him and runs away while Kai'Ckul pursues her. She kills herself after her kingdom is destroyed by the sun. She is chased in the afterlife while still refusing to join Kai’Ckul’s kingdom. This story refers to the oppositional gaze from multiple angles of the story. Nada, a woman of color, maintains her agency throughout the story from refusing to marry a man for the sake of validity, and choosing her own destiny without needing a man. Nada subverts classic tropes of femininity and is the protagonist of her own story. She is also depicted as a woman in power, despite her facing oppression from a man in power above her. This is significant, however, because she refuses to concede to the whims of a man, and sacrifices herself as an act of rebellion, maintaining her ideals in the end.

Gender Norms:

Gender norms are arbitrary societal expectations and standards regarding behaviors, roles, and attributes considered appropriate for individuals based on their perceived gender. These norms often reinforce traditional binary understandings of gender and may condemn alternate expressions that deviate from these norms. In another miniature story in the comic titled “Playing House”, Litya grapples with feeling unfulfilled by the traditional life she leads. She feels a loss of control over her life because she lacks freedom to pursue the dreams she left behind for her husband. Eventually, Sandman kills her husband for pretending to be him, and tells Lidya she should be grateful because she now has the freedom to pursue her own life. It is at this point where she realizes two things: she was living in a dream for years of the “perfect life”, and she was done letting men control her life and make decisions for her. This story subverts gender norms by showing that the idea of “playing house” doesn’t lead to satisfaction, it leads into a constant haze of unfulfilled desires and superficial happiness. Although Litya thought the perfect life was quote “mommy, daddy and a kid,” she actually leads a life of constant sadness and feeling like she is taking the backseat to her own livelihood. She plays a character, and in turn leads a pretend life, like a “dream”, in Lidya’s words. Judith Butler emphasizes that gender norms are essentially a “drag performance”, quoting “'imitation' is at the heart of the heterosexual project and its gender binarisms, that drag is not a secondary imitation that presupposes a prior and original gender, but that hegemonic heterosexuality is itself a constant and repeated effort to imitate its own idealizations,” (338) (5). Gender as a performance is a repeated act to uphold previous reproductions of norms implemented in society. Lidya feels unfulfilled in her seemingly perfect life because she is living a life of fantastical acts of what she thinks is appropriate for her gender.

Bibliography

(1) Laura Mulvey, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” in Film Theory and Criticism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), pg. 715.

(2) Mulvey, pg. 713

(3) Lorde, Audre. "The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House." Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches, Crossing Press, 2007, pg. 116.

(4) bell hooks, “The Oppositional gaze: Black Female Spectators” in Feminist Film Theory (New York: New York University Press, 1999), pg. 313.

(5) Butler, Judith. "Gender Is Burning: Questions of Appropriation and Subversion." Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of "Sex", Routledge, 1993, pg. 338.

@theuncannyprofessoro

[jaded-of-mara]

[ID: Two images with tiny text. The first image reads:

"DEAR TEAM YOUTUBE

Last week, actor Amandla Stenberg (she/they) posted candid comments to Instagram about the "rampage of... bigotry and vitriol" that she has received since leading the cast of The Acolyte, the latest addition to the Star Wars universe. Stenberg's experience is not new. In fact, this known tactic was initially provoked by former Breitbart News editor, Milo Yiannopoulos, who aggressively targeted Ghostbusters actor, Leslie Jones, under the guise of "film criticism." After prolonged insults against her Ghostbusters character resulted in harassment against Jones on Twitter, Yiannopoulos claimed Jones was "[playing] the victim when she called for action against the harassment. The aggressive gaslighting of Jones' experience resulted in Yiannopoulos being banned from Twitter.

8 years later, Yiannopoulos' playbook against marginalized actors has burgeoned into a multi-million dollar business on YouTube, which has been permitted to develop unchecked with the help of YouTube's Partner Program-this playbook's biggest target: Star Wars.

As fans of the Star Wars franchise, we have tirelessly witnessed a handful of YouTube creators continuously drive prolonged insults and harassment against marginalized actors and members of our community." Enough is enough. The Star Wars fandom demands that YouTube enforce its community guidelines against "prolonged insults" and incitement of targeted harassment towards women of color by demonetizing YouTube channels "Geeks + Gamers," "Ryan Kinel - RK Outpost," and "Nerdrotic."

THE FACTS

In 2018, Geeks + Gamers (396k subscribers) encouraged harassment against Vietnamese-American actor, Kelly Marie Tran. Leading up to Tran's departure from Instagram due to prolonged harassment, Geeks + Gamers published nearly 15 videos relevant to Tran's Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi character, Rose Tico. The channel claimed that Tran's character is "one of the most hideous characters of all time," "the most unlikeable character ever, and exists for "forced diversity." Many of the comments found in Geeks + Gamers' videos can be seen in hateful comments under Tran's now-deleted Instagram posts.

Geeks + Gamers championed RK Outpost (319k subscribers), a channel that frequently targets marginalized actors including Moses Ingram, a Black American cast member in the TV series, Kenobi. Days before Ingram called out racist backlash against her on Instagram, RK Outpost called Ingram a "lunatic" who "can do nothing other than play the victim." RK Outpost has recently referred to Ingram's Kenobi character, Reva, as "dumb and retarded."

Geeks + Gamers and RK Outpost frequently co-host the livestream "Friday Night Tights" on Nerdrotic's YouTube channel (1.1M subscribers) where the three channels have made a profitable business reusing prolonged insults against marginalized actors featured in Star Wars, Captain Marvel, and The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power - to name a few.

Amandla is the current target of this YouTube-based operation. Together, Geeks + Gamers, RK Outpost, and Nerdrotic have led the charge against Amandla even before the release of The Acolyte, producing nearly 40 videos relevant to Amandla and The Acolyte since May. These channels have asserted that Amandla is "vapid and narcissistic," "the adult pretender," "dumb," and "a half-Black bitch" for defending herself against racism. These channels have gaslit Amandla by claiming she's "playing the victim card," with RK Outpost proclaiming, "you've never been oppressed in your goddamn life, you bitch." These YouTubers also use racist dog whistles including the "angry Black woman" stereotype.

The hate campaign against Amandla has been so profitable that other major YouTubers have joined the attacks on Amandla including "Star Wars Theory" (3.3M subscribers). How many more good-faith content creators will turn to profitable hate campaigns if this behavior is permitted to continue with no repercussions?"

The second image reads:

"ACTION REQUIRED

The Star Wars fandom refuses to watch another marginalized actor or fan be singled out by prolonged, racist harassment from a handful of YouTubers as a result of YouTube's inaction, which has transformed hate into a lucrative career path. It is concerning to us that targeting marginalized actors on other social media platforms has historically resulted in platform bans, whereas the same behavior has made provocateurs millionaires on YouTube. This should be highly concerning to advertisers, as well.

We understand that YouTube has an important role to play in promoting free speech, however, content uploaded by Geeks + Gamers, RK Outpost, and Nerdrotic is not "opinion" or "criticism." It is prolonged, targeted harassment against women of color. We urge YouTube to enforce its community guidelines and demonetize these channels immediately and permanently.

Thank you. May The Force Be With You."

A drawing of the Millennium Falcon acts as a placeholder in the middle of the image.

"RESOURCES

1 Patton, Tess. "The Acolyte Star Amandia Stenberg Says Cancelation Wasn't Shocking after 'Rampage of Online "Hyper-Conservative Bigotry The Wrap. 20 Aug. 2024

2 Yiannopoulos, Milo. "Here's Why the Left is so Desperate to Defend the New Feminist Ghostbusters. Breitbart 5 May 2016.

3 Romano, Aja. "Milo Yiannopoules's Twitter Ban, Explained" Vox, 20 July 2010.

4 "Star Wars Theory Must Be Stopped: My Truth. YouTube, Geeks Gamers. 31 Aug. 2024.

5 "Star Wars actress Kelly Marie Tran deletes Instagram posts after abuse." BBC, 06 June 2018.

6 YouTube Data API, Limit 50 per query. Search term (q) "Kelly Mane Tran" AND "Rose Tico." Publish date range 12-20-17-09-01-18

7 "Kelly Marie Tran Returns to Disney Keep Rian Johnson Away YouTube, Geeks Gamers, 27 Aug. 2020.

8. "The Last Jedi Rose ve Holdo: Which Character is the Worst? YouTube, Geeks Gamers, 18 April, 2018*

9. 《球大战》Kelly Marie Tran在受到后删除所有Instagram帖子、Schu, 06 June 2018.

10 Di Placido Dani "Ob-Wan Star Moses Ingtam Stands Up To Racist Backlash Forbes, 31 May 2022.

11 "Disney Star Wars Attacks Fans AGAIN | Lucasfiim Told Obi-Wan Actress Moses Ingram Fans Are RACIST YouTube, Ryan Kinel-RK Outpost, 26 May 2022

12 "Woke Media BLAMES FANS After The Acolyte Disney Star Wars FAILURE! | They HATE That No One Watched" YouTube, Ryan Kinel- RK Outpost 24 Aug. 2024.

13 "Everyone HATES The Acolyte, and That's A Good Thing-RIP Star Wars." YouTube, Nerdrotic, 22 Mar, 2024

14 YouTube Data API Limit 50 per query. Search term (q "Acolyte" AND "Amandla Stenberg" Publish date range 05-21-24-08-30-24.

15 "CONSERVATIVE BIGOTS II Amandla Stenberg SPERGS OUT and BLAMES Fans for The Acolyte FAILURE!" YouTube, Nerdross Daily, 31 Aug. 2024

16 "Everyone Hales The Acolyte as Much as Disney Hates Star Wars." YouTube, Nerdrolic, 21 June, 2004.

17 "AMANDLA STENBERG IS DUMB Star Wars Actress GASLIGHTS Fans With CRINGE VIDEO" YouTube, Nerdratic Daily, 22 June, 2024

18 "Amandla Stenberg Releases CRINGE Song Calling Star Wars Fans RACIST." YouTube, Geeks Gamers Clips 20 June, 2024

19 "Acolyte Actor Joins The View To SLAM Star Wars Fans" You Tube, Geeks Gamers, 09 July, 2024.

20 "AMANDLA STENBERG MELTDOWN OVER THE ACOLYTE CANCELED-RESPONSE" YouTube, Star Wars Theory, 30 Aug, 2024."

end ID]

Saw this on Twitter and it is so so SO important! I implore you if you have Twitter to share this and tag YouTube!

[olreid]

hi! haven't been on tumblr for a couple days so i might have missed this, but what is your #against representation tag about?=

lol to me that is one of the few tags that means exactly what it says ! but here are some associated thoughts that may help clarify . #against representation comes from:

feeling like i have recently become someone whose life is almost completely unrepresentable and incommunicable to those around me - thinking about what human experiences and parts of life are not able to be translated into language or image

not a new or revolutionary idea but the idea that pushing for representation in popular culture sucks as a political goal - what is the point of having the perfect trans life represented on screen if what it purports to be reflecting doesn't even exist e.g. if the material conditions for real-life trans people are not improving...

also not new or revolutionary but the fact that for marginalized people, increased visibility = increased violence . from the intro to trap door: "this is the trap of the visual […] it is frequently offered to us as the primary path through which trans people might have access to livable lives. representation is said to remedy broader acute social crises ranging from poverty to murder to police violence." etc.

thinking not only against but also beyond representation as in what do we lose when the only conversation about e.g. trans art is about the number and nuance of trans characters? can we talk about trans forms, trans narratives, trans sensibilities ? do we lose out on something when we narrow our focus to how many trans people are in a thing? thinking here about jay prosser's writing on trans narratology and caél m. keegan's writing on the wachowskis' trans cinema as well as framing agnes as a transgender film not just because the cast is all transgender but also because it tells a story in a way that felt to me uniquely transgender... anyway

i would say as a tag it shares some dna with #made for cutting in that it attends to the violence of mechanics that function to incorporate the marginalized more firmly into the social body, of things we are supposed to think of as a net social good -- after all, shouldn't we want to see more and more of us on bigger and bigger screens ? shouldn't we submit docilely to having our collective gaze directed away from political economy by bright lights and loud sounds ? shouldn't our utopias cease to exist anywhere but on page and screen ?

[wirewitchviolet]

A Little Horrifying Primer on Transphobes

Some time ago, I put together a Little Fact Checking Primer on Trans People, as a basic resource for disabusing people of some of the many completely ridiculous yet absurdly widespread beliefs about trans people that simply have no basis whatsoever in reality. And wouldn’t you know it, every single lie exposed in that primer is not only still widely believed, but is presently being used as a basis to sign some absolutely horrific human rights abuses into law. So it’s high time I follow that up, in this case focused more on who keeps actively spreading these lies and why. I’m going to try and keep things as light as I can here, but we’re going to be looking at the most monstrous side of human nature, so apologies in advance if this is a dark read.

First, let me just note that there are two things I don’t plan to do in this piece. I’m not going to waste time debunking the arguments of the people I’m highlighting (much of this is already covered in my earlier primer, others have done the work in cases where I haven’t, and frankly these people’s claims should be self-evidently utter nonsense to begin with). I am also going to be very selective in what I link to, or even share related images of, as I would frankly not like to fill a post on a blog I generally try to keep safe for all audiences with media directly dealing with, for instance, child sexual assault, and much of the relevant information also involves stochastic terrorism against innocent people, and I would prefer not to throw more fuel onto such fires.

Transphobes lie constantly, about everything.

To some degree this is obvious. We’re talking about people who scaremonger about the possibilities of trans women dominating competitive sports and assaulting people in restrooms, despite the status quo already reflecting the conditions they insist would make these inevitibilities for decades and centuries respectively, and their grim visions never once having come to pass, and also constantly insisting that the woman in the photo below is actually a man, going further to say this is evident to anyone giving her the merest glance.

It goes beyond that though. There’s at least a little plausible deniablity in claims like this, or that “science is on their side” if they were simply uninformed about the world they live in, never actually looking into what laws exist, what science actually says, and never actually meeting a trans person or even seeing a picture of one of us. I’m talking really bold lies here. Like wholecloth fabricating a story that a convicted murder was trans, including anecdotes about wigs dresses and a planned name change, in a major newspaper. Or to cite an old favorite of mine, the time a pack of bigots walked up to a crowd of people peacefully picketing a transphobic legal proposal, started roughing them up and taking closeup photos of members of the crowd to stalk online when they got home, got sufficiently riled up for one to straight up assault an innocent person half her size, filmed the whole thing, uploaded it to youtube, and used stills of that assault as acomanying photos when they went home to write articles about the assailant being a “grandmother” attacked by rowdy trans women. And yes, they did monkey’s paw my wish to see that specific image on newspapers. Interesting side note, when it came to real public light that J.K. Rowling endorsed this sort of hatred, it was because she accidentally pasted some profanity laden rambling about how the imagined moral character of the other party in that incident, years after the fact, into a post praising a child’s fan art of her work.

To be a little less niche, transphobes can’t get enough of spreading the lie that the young fellow in this photo is a girl. Specifically a trans girl, providing proof that all their scaremongering about the dastardly threat of trans girls in competitive sports has finally come to pass.

To be fully clear, that’s a man (or a boy if you want to split hairs about him being 17 in that photo). Mack Beggs. A rather insidious choice for this sort of story, considering the actual context for that photo. See, Beggs attended high school in Texas, during a (still ongoing as I write this) period wherein that particular state had caved to this exact sort of propaganda, and in order to head off a wholly imagined wave of trans girls competing on girls’ sports teams, and enacted a law mandating that in all such competitions must compete under whatever gender is stated on their birth certificates. And as it happens, the first, and to my knowledge ONLY time this has come up was with Beggs here, who again, is a man, as no one with a grip on reality could argue against, has “female” on his birth certificate. Which is another way of saying he is a trans man. The guys in the same boat as trans women who we talk about a whole hell of a lot less because their existence is extremely inconvenient to the majority of transphobic propaganda. Case in point. And this is all information it is really impossible to come across if you’re coming across this photo in any sort of respectable source. Take this story, which is as unambiguous about this as you can get. And yet, in the very comments section of that story, there they are. Carrying on like this story about a trans guy, forced by a transphobic law to compete as a girl, which he absolutely did not want, and received horrific threats over, using phrases like “female to male” and bringing up that he was assigned female at birth and is on testosterone-based HRT, is about a trans woman cheating the system. Or to quote word for word, “Now also transgender female want to be male also compete in female sport. biological born“ That’s not “being confused,” that’s standing next to you in a white desert and complaining about being adrift in a black ocean, bald-faced, not even trying to be convincing just make a power play, lying through one’s teeth.

I could spend this whole article on just this point. Lying about who they are, various people’s falsified credentials, whole websites full of “anonymous parents of children who think they’re trans” turning out to be one single woman documenting the abuse of her very much trans son, or of course the people behind the whole “bathroom bill” panic candidly admitting it was all based on utter fiction. I do have other points to cover though.

Transphobes are firmly entrenched in the media.

It is extremely difficult to find oneself in a position of having to explain to people that a particular group of people is effectively in control of press outlets, as that is rather classically a claim conspiracy theorists absolutely love to toss around at various marginalized groups (including trans people hilariously enough, but of course the most common and lingering version of this is the antisemitic variant). I really can’t get around it here though. Specifically in the U.K., you honestly can say that transphobes control the media. I already touched on this with the assault case I mentioned above and the fabricated story about the murderer, but this is a pretty well-documented situation. I mean, even The Guardian calls out The Guardian on this, and that’s the outlet that gets the most attention because it’s the one with the most otherwise respected name, but every paper in the country has been running transphobic propaganda pieces on a weekly if not daily basis for years now, and while they do get reprimanded by watchdog groups and have mass walk-outs over the worst of it, it’s not like there’s some governing body with the authority to step in about it. Meanwhile the BBC is constantly inviting diehard zealots like Graham Linehan to news programs where he compares being trans to being a nazi, and hosting debates where someone just sits down and repeatedly chants the word “penis” at a trans woman.

Things are better in the rest of the world, but we still have right-wing creeps like Jesse Singal both writing horrific propaganda pieces (we’ll get back to that one) and blackballing trans writers out of covering trans issues ourselves (and personally stalking the hell out of those of us who try). We’ve got our Joe Rogans and Tucker Carlsons out there (no way in hell I’m linking videos here, have a real information link and a still).

The line between diehard transphobes and straight-up nazis basically does not exist.

What even is there to say here? You can easily poke around havens for nazi activity for yourself and compare the particular unique vocabulary used there to the primary bastion of anti-trans hate speech on the internet (the “feminism” section of what was originally a site for parenting tips before violent fascists took the forums over) or just peruse the follows of the thousands of people I’ve blocked on social media and see if you can sort out a clear division in the networks of channers with frog avatars and the accounts with names like GoodieXXrealwoman, or you can read up on Gab and Spinster, the two twitter alternatives that are just different portals to the same server, set up by the same guy. Maybe do some research into “the LGB Alliance,” or WoLF but any way you slice it the only real difference to be found is the general purpose nazis take a little time off now and then to watch borderline pedophilic anime and the really dedicated transphobes think to use language that sounds vaguely well-educated and left-leaning. I mean, this came from the “feminist” side of the fence:

And not to belabor the point here, but the ones claiming to be a bunch of “feminist mums” sure do let the mask slip any time they’re confronted with the fact that “women” includes black women, and oh just have a whole thread about all the weird conspiratory theories these people have about how trans people’s whole existence is some sort of Jewish plot for world domination. I swear a few months ago they were all passing around a story about some bank having an above average number of trans employees and they were all just “and we all know who controls the banks, right?” about it.

Transphobes endorse an awful lot of people who are openly pro-pedophila.

This is the part where I am really loath to link the many many specific examples I have on hand. Or to talk about this at all for reasons of good taste. Or, for that matter, to talk about this in a tumblr post when there’s an ongoing problem of people with backgrounds strongly tied to this site making baseless accusations of pedophilia against every queer person they can find, so let me be very clear just what I’m talking about while avoiding anything too graphic.

That’s James Cantor. Transphobes love him for being one of the closest things they have to a scientist on their side. And I am featuring him in a screenshot here showing that he is followed by current queen of the transphobes J.K. Rowling, while speaking to both another big name in transphobic circles, Debra Soh, and based on their names, what I’m guessing is at least one straight-up nazi. And in case you think “the P” he’s talking about adding to LGBT (or “GLBT” as weird anti-queer bigots who also have issues with women often write it) might stand for “poly” or “pan” he’s all too happy to clarify that.

This is the entire thrust of Cantor’s work and life. He is the world’s biggest pedophile rights advocate. He wants it declassified as a mental disorder, all stigma on it removed, and tirelessly pushes forward the idea that the majority of.. people who feel compelled to sexually assault children are good people who present no potential harm to anyone and should in fact be lauded.

I am not generally one to claim that someone with a PhD is spewing out questionable garbage with regard to their field, but the reason I am aware of Cantor at all is that other transphobes keep trying to hold up a particular post on his blog as "a study” (which it is not) that offers “proof” (in the form of a blurry jpeg of basically some random numbers) of some ridiculous quackery about how trans kids will “grow out of it” if exposed to conversion therapy (another way of saying torture), which Cantor himself seems to be pushing, so I am somewhat skeptical of his academic chops. And I am, of course, REALLY suspicious that all these other bigots gravitate to him purely because they’re that desperate to find anyone with a PhD in anything that backs them up against literally every scientist in a relative field, to the point that they merely forgive his particular advocacy they are plainly all aware of, particularly when such a common fig leaf used by transphobes is “keeping children safe from sexual deviants.”

And of course, Cantor is most often invoked when coming to the defense of Kenneth Zucker. This Kenneth Zucker.

Those are separate papers. Zucker isn’t controversial though for organizing panels to discuss how attractive people agree small children are (at least not exclusively). Mostly, he’s known for running a conversion therapy center which subjected gay and trans children to various sorts of torture in an effort to “fix” them, which at least for those trans "patients” I have spoken with involved a fair amount of having them strip completely naked and talking a lot about their genitals.

Zucker is something of a controversial figure with the transphobic scene, as they are extremely on board with his sexual torture of queer children, but he does actual work (for some value of the term) involving trans people and thus is not able to commit as fully as they would prefer to making life horrible for trans people, due to a professional obligation to acknowledge reality now and then. As an aside, the similarly positioned Ray Blanchard, while not to my knowledge particularly interested in the attractiveness of children, lives in a similar purgatory of trying to reconcile his career, bigotry, and sexual hangups, yielding compromises like this:

Of course, that’s just looking at the straws transphobes grasp at when looking for scientific credibility. Real leaders of the movement include Germaine Greer, author of The Beautiful Boy, which is about what you are afraid it might be, and features a very young child in a cover feature he did not consent to posing for. Or Julie Bindel, who among other things is rather infamous for writing whole articles on subjects like whether a teenage girl she came across maybe has a huge penis you can totally see if you really squint at her skirt. Again, I will not share a link to go along with that one.

Transphobes terrorize and attempt to defund charities and other unambiguously good organizations.

Graham Linehan, previously best known for cowriting some sitcoms and possibly spending a year angling to get into my pants so awkwardly I didn’t pick up on it is now best known for trying to pull the plug on a children’s charity, in a story that somehow also involves Donkey Kong. Well, and the interview about nazis. And possibly the other interview about “defending me from nazis” until it got into his head that I might not be as young and hot as he imagined. Rather not link to a far right extremist youtube channel though.

There’s also a current effort to replace Stonewall (an organization named after the location where a pair of trans women kicked off a riot which is generally agreed to be the start of the LGBT+ rights movement) as the UK’s primary LGBT+ rights organization with the “LGB Alliance.” The hate group mentioned above, with the skull face and the rifle. Closest I can find to an article on that effort on short notice that isn’t propaganda.

Transphobes paper areas in truly disgusting propaganda.

I don’t want to directly link to grown adults skulking around children’s playgrounds and bathrooms plastering surfaces with mass printed stickers of crudely drawn penises, but would encourage you to read this very long post, being sure to load all the images, to really understand how deeply strange this behavior gets.

Finally, I cannot stress this enough, this really extreme behavior I’m citing, and the specific people involved in the examples I’m giving, these aren’t random cranks on the fringe of things. The people going on televised panel discussions, writing up news stories, and testifying before lawmakers in efforts to pass horrifically discriminatory if not literally life-endangering laws (there is a major ongoing effort to legally end all medical care for trans people, and I don’t just mean care directly relating to being trans) are literally the same people involved in the sexualization of children, nazi collaborations, and roving gangs assaulting people in the street. At a bare minimum I urge people, when booking guests and handing out writing contracts, to do background checks and see if they’re platforming actual terrorists. If we could actually bring legal consequences to bear against the worst of this, that would be great too. As things stand though, the whole world is just consistently citing a bunch of racist, woman-hating, serial liars with no real credentials, and questionable attitudes towards the sexual abuse of children, as “trusted experts” and refusing to seat actual trans people or people who have legitimately committed lifetimes to academic and practical work with trans people any seats at the table.

[trans-artivism]

Rae Spoon

I first heard of Rae Spoon (they/them) in an introductory Gender Studies class, where I was instantly drawn to their work. Spoon’s documentary-musical, My Prairie Home, [link] resonated with me in a way that even I did not even fully understand at the time. Spoon and I both come from the Alberta prairies; born in an extractive-capitalist culture where homophobia and transphobia run rampant and to be “out” as queer and/or trans is equivalent to pasting a giant, uninvited target on your back. In these toxic environments, it is exceedingly difficult to understand or come to terms with non-normative identity, much less to live it freely and comfortably.

My Prairie Home follows Spoon on a cross-country Greyhound bus tour and is described as a “playful, meditative and at times melancholic journey” that reflects on gender, queerness, and a “musical coming of age." [1] The images of the infinite, sprawling skyscapes reminded me of home, and the beautiful, yet dark and dull ambiance Spoon evokes through their music and imagery conjures a feeling reminiscent to those of us who grew up living life on the prairies.

I was inspired to dive deeper and highlight Spoon’s various work and accomplishments as a trans and non-binary performer, composer, music producer, visual content producer/director and author for this project. According to their website, Spoon began producing music in 2001, has toured internationally, and has been nominated for two Polaris Prizes and a Western Canada Music award in the time since. They currently reside on the territory of the Lekwungen speaking peoples in Victoria, BC. [2]

In addition to their career as an accomplished musician, Spoon also founded Coax Records in 2015 with the goal of amplifying marginalized and underrepresented artists and building a community of mutual support. They have written multiple acclaimed books including Gender Failure, a book co-written with Ivan Coyote that won an Honour of Distinction and was listed on the 2015 Over the Rainbow Reading List. [2] More recently, Spoon’s activism turned to the medical realm after they were diagnosed with cervical cancer in March 2020.

After receiving this diagnosis on the brink of COVID-19 pandemic chaos, Rae Spoon began writing on Medium about their experiences as a trans and non-binary person receiving medical treatment in a system that “is designed to get marginalized people to harm themselves and each other." [3] The day after receiving this diagnosis, Spoon rushed to change the sex on their provincial driver’s license/health card to an X, writing, “I would do anything to get that X before I was treated for a cancer I knew was so often associated with a gender I am not." [4] From the initial intake at the BC Cancer Centre, where Spoon was informed their legal X designation could not be entered (thus would not be recognized anywhere within the Centre), they write about their experiences being consistently misgendered and discriminated against, ultimately rendering their identity invisible and denying them of full humanity while seeking life-saving medical care.

Spoon’s work is the epitome of “artivism” — it is through their various artistic mediums that Spoon makes space for marginalized voices and stories, builds community, and supports other artists through industry workshops, sound recording, mentorship, grant writing and music production. [2]

Click any of the provided links to read more about Rae Spoon and their work. You can find the information regarding the fundraiser for Rae's medical treatment in this post! [link]

SOURCES

[1] “My Prairie Home,” National Film Board of Canada, accessed April 11, 2021, https://www.nfb.ca/film/my_prairie_home/.

[2] “Biography,” Rae Spoon, accessed April 11, 2021, http://www.raespoon.com/.

[3] Rae Spoon, “I Can’t Separate My Non-Binary Gender from My Body That Has Cancer,” Medium, April 10, 2020, https://medium.com/@raespoon/i-cant-separate-my-non-binary-gender-from-my-body-that-has-cancer-769ebe7807a9.

[4] Rae Spoon, “Equal Cancer Care For Gender Variant People,” Medium, April 1, 2020, https://medium.com/@raespoon/equal-care-for-gender-variant-people-with-cancer-6a772e890460.

[thecaffeinebookwarrior]

More Female Characters to Avoid in Your Writing

A long while back, I typed up some posts ranting about characters and tropes I disliked.  These were Male and Female Characters to Avoid in Your Writing, and they’ve become my most popular posts yet.  Recently, I was struck by some topical inspiration, and decided it was time for a sequel!  

One again, these are my personal, subjective opinions!  No one dictates your writing or portrayals but you, and no one can or should decide how you consume fiction.  Also, as you may notice, I actually like most of the ladies below;  I just don’t like certain aspects of their portrayal.

Enjoy, and happy writing everybody! 

1.  The Daenerys (i.e. the spontaneous war criminal)

Image source

Who she is:

The formerly heroic Mother of Dragons, who randomly charbroiled a city full of innocent people.

Why it sucks:

I’m not even talking about this from a feminist standpoint, or how one of the most consistently heroic and powerful female characters took an abrupt and undignified backflip into the Dark Side.  I’m speaking from a writer’s standpoint.  

Regardless of whether you liked Daenerys, she was rivaled only by Jon and Brienne as the show’s most consistently heroic character  From locking away her dragon children to ensure the safety of her subjects, to freeing countless enslaved citizens, she’s spent a decade proving herself to be an altruistic and noble figure.  And then, in the final two episodes of the entire show, the writers dracarys-ed that shit.

For some comparison, just imagine how ridiculous it would be if Jon Snow suddenly went batshit and started hacking up citizens because he was feeling stressed.  That’s about as plausible as Dany’s sudden passion for genocide.

And for the record, I’m not opposed to Daenerys becoming Mad Queen.  If it was done properly. This would mean informing the actress far in advance so she could modify her portrayal accordingly (which they didn’t), and building up to it through foreshadowing and established attributes.  Not at the last fucking minute.

Honestly, the only characters who remained narratively consistent to the very end are Drogon and Ghost, who are both precious babies who did nothing wrong.  

How to avoid her:

Decide as early as possible where a character arc is going.  Contrary to what Game of Thrones seems to believe, the character arc is important.  It should have a beginning, challenges that incite development, and a satisfying conclusion that showcases how a character has changed and evolved.  

And if you didn’t decide early?  You still have to come up with a conclusion that makes sense for your character, and not slap on the most unexpected ending possible in the name of Subverting Expectations.

On that note?  Subverting expectations isn’t always a good thing, and a reader predicting your ending isn’t the worst possible outcome.  Focus on telling a good story.  

2.  The Rayon (i.e. the transgender stereotype)

Who she is:

A transgender woman (portrayed by the male, cisgender Jared Leto) dying slowly of AIDS in Dallas Buyer’s Club.  Her role in the narrative is to teach the supposedly heterosexual (more on that later) main character that queer people are human beings.  

Why it sucks:

Rayon is many things in Buyer’s Club, and most are firmly rooted in stereotypes.  She’s a sassy, flirtatious, clothing-obsessed, self-loathing, drug-addicted prostitute.   She’s hypersexual, but never treated as romantically desirable.  She’s tragic, but also one of the few consistently comedic characters in an otherwise bleak film. 

It’s her job to gently goad the main character into treating her with basic respect, but he never quite gets there.  He refers to her with male pronouns throughout the entire film, and never acknowledges her as a woman.  At one point, he aims a gun at her genitals and offers her a “sex change operation.”  Which, is supposed to be comedic.

This isn’t to say that there are no sassy, flirtatious, clothing-obsessed, self-loathing, drug-addicted transgender sex workers, nor is there anything wrong with “stereotypical” trans people.  It isn’t the job of the marginalized to dispel stereotypes.  And if real trans people had created and portrayed Rayon, she could have been a realistic, dynamic, and compelling character.

And I say “created” because Rayon is strictly fictional.  Outside of this film, she didn’t exist.  

“Well, at least they tried to offer representation!”  you protest.  “What else was it supposed to be about?  A straight dude in the AIDS epidemic?”

Well, no.  Though the main character, Ron Woodroof, is presented to us as a violently homophobic, transphobic, womanizing asshole, the real Woodroof was, by all accounts, kind-hearted, open-minded, and bisexual.  

What could have been a powerful story of a queer man defying his diagnosis, living joyfully and meaningfully, and helping to prolong the lives of countless AIDS-sufferers, was instead watered down to a story of a straight, pugnacious asshole and his stereotypical, long-suffering, transgender sidekick who dies to Teach Him Compassion.  

How to avoid her:

Read books by trans people.  Consume media they create or endorse.  

List of youtube channels created by trans people here, and 21 books for trans awareness month here.

Put out a special call for transgender beta readers to point out mistakes, misconceptions, and offer tips on an authentic portrayal.

Garner insight into their perspective and experiences, and give them personalities outside of being trans.  

3.  The Piper Chapman (i.e. the unflavored oatmeal)

GIF source

Who she is:

The “protagonist” of Orange is the New Black, and its least compelling character.  She and Larry are the sort of people who would ask me for a threesome on Tinder.  

Why it sucks:

Piper’s hook is that she’s a privileged, affluent white woman who unjustly finds herself in prison for -- well, for crimes she committed.  But expected to get away with, because, Privilege.

This isn’t to say Piper is boring.  She’s far from likable, but being likable and being boring aren’t the same thing.  In another series, watching a relatively cushioned, naive, bourgeoisie woman string along various significant others, thoughtlessly incite violence, and navigate an unfamiliar prison setting would make for thought-provoking and hilarious satire.  

But when compared to her charismatic supporting cast, with richly developed backstories, motivations, and relationships, she’s painfully bland.  I would much rather watch a series centered around Suzanne, Nikki, Taystee, Poussey, or even Pennsatucky.  They’re just more developed, opulent, enjoyable characters. 

It could be argued that Piper is the viewpoint character, whom the audience is supposed to relate to.  But I can assert that I don’t relate to Piper.  At all.  Her lack of empathy towards others -- such as leaving Alex after the death of her mother, cheating on her fiance, and inadvertently starting a *ahem* white power gang -- alienated me to her.  

Which might not be such a bad thing, but Piper is (supposedly) the protagonist.  We don’t need to like her, but we should probably be able to relate to her.

Or maybe I’m just jealous that hot women aren’t inexplicably fighting over me.

How to avoid her:

Your protagonist doesn’t have to be the most likable character in your story.  They don’t even necessarily have to be the most interesting character in your story.  And certainly not the most morally good, powerful, or knowledgeable.  But the viewpoint character is the character who we spend the most time with, and from whose eyes we perceive the story.  It’s important that we understand and relate to them emotionally.

Look at examples like BoJack Horseman, Holden Caulfield, Tony Soprano, Beatrix from Kill Bill, Mavis from Young Adult, Nadia from Russian Doll.  All are complex characters, with varying degrees of moral ambiguity.  Yet we can empathize with them emotionally and identify with them.  Even if we’ve never been in their situation, we see where they’re coming from.

4.  The Charlie (i.e. the dead lesbian)

Who she is:

One of the few recurring openly queer characters in the incredibly long-running Supernatural.  A lesbian who’s journey was (sort of) brought to an end when she was killed and dumped in a bathtub to incite drama.

Why it sucks:

I love Supernatural  but it can be remarkably tone deaf towards queer people, women, and marginalized groups.  Which, probably merits fixing, considering its following is largely comprised of queer people, women, and marginalized groups.  

I probably shouldn’t have to explain why killing off women and queer people for drama is Bad, but I’ll delve into its history a little:  from what I’ve read, censorship laws of the twentieth century forbade the portrayal of queer people unless they were ultimately killed or “reformed.”  This is why so much LGBTQ+ fiction is essentially gay tragedy porn, and why gays are so frequently buried to aid in the emotional narrative of their straight counterparts.  

That’s not to say queer people can never be killed off.  I might not have an issue with Charlie’s death (especially in a show as violent as Supernatural), if she weren’t the only openly queer character at the time.  

And there’s plenty of room for representation!  If Dean was openly bisexual, if angels were vocally confirmed to be nonbinary, and if there were more recurring, respectfully portrayed female and sapphic characters, Charlie’s death might not feel like such as slap in the face.  But as it is, it feels like a contribution to an ugly pattern.

In fairness, Supernatural has since improved in its portrayal of queer people:  two gay male hunters were introduced and given a happy ending, an alternate universe version of Charlie was introduced to the cast, and God is portrayed as a bisexual man.  

Yes.  All of that happened.  You have to see it to understand.

How to avoid her:

Educate yourself on the history of censorship in the LGBTQ+ community, as well as hate crimes and decreased life expectancy.  Make sure you aren’t contributing to the suffering of queer people.

If you have only one confirmed queer character in the midst of a very large cast, I’m inclined to think you need more.  You could say I’m BI-ased on the matter, though.

Look up “fridging,” and think about how many stories use the death of female characters to incite drama for men.

5.  The Allison (i.e. the reformed feminine)

GIF source

Who she is:

She’s one of the most interesting members of the Breakfast Club, and that’s saying something.  A self-proclaimed compulsive liar who will “do anything sexual” with or without the promise of a million dollars (as well as one of the most quotable characters in the film) she demonstrates the emotional pain and complexity that’s often ignored or shrugged off as teen angst.  

And then she gets a makeover and a hot boyfriend, and suddenly everything’s better.  

Why it sucks:

It would be one thing if Allison’s problem was that she didn’t feel pretty or desirable.  But she never (to my recollection) offers any indication of that, and that’s part of what makes her such a refreshing portrayal of insecurity.  She’s emotionally neglected by her parents, and that is appropriately treated as devastating.  

It’s a complex and beautifully-portrayed problem that deserved far more than such a superficial, slapped-on solution.

Similarly, there’s no reason why Allison is paired up with the jock at the end of the film.  Neither showed any romantic interest in one another until her unnecessary makeover.  

A much better ending to her arc would be her finding acceptance among her newfound friends, and finally garner the recognition and acknowledgement she never got from her parents. 

I was torn between using Allison for this example, or Sandy’s makeover from Grease.  In both, girls are encouraged to alter their appearances to solve plot-related problems.  And both were “fixed” to conform to some standard of femininity or feminine sexuality that they didn’t meet before.

How to avoid her:

If a character feels the need to change their appearance to accommodate others or be respected, that should probably be treated as a negative thing.

Your character’s appearance can be a good tool to represent emotional changes.  If they alter their appearance, there should be a meaningful reason behind it -- outside of fitting into societal norms or garnering the approval of others. 

A girl putting on makeup isn’t a groundbreaking plot point, and girls who don’t perform to standards of femininity aren’t broken or deficient.  They don’t need “correcting.”

[flo-ggs]

Who We Don’t See On TV

In 2018 and 2019, there were a total of twenty-six recurring transgender characters who appeared on television, including streaming services. About one in six Americans report that they personally know at least one transgender person ("Where We Are On TV"). More than ninety percent of American households watch television on a regular basis (Leavitt 41). What this means is that for five out of six Americans, the only trans people they ever see—and this is assuming there are any—are a handful of characters on TV. If you live in America, and pay any attention, you know that vitriol directed the way of the trans community is pervasive—and it's not so hard to imagine feeling the same way if your only experience of trans people comes from Fox News and Ace fucking Ventura. That's just one example—but media in general presents a skewed perspective of just about every minority group, with one obvious exception.

Cultivation theory provides a psychological model for how media alters our perception of the world around us. The information we take in and the stories we're told change the way we contextualize what we see, reshaping or reinforcing the framework on which we hang our experiences ("Cultivation Theory"). If you see a Muslim committing an act of terror on television—and then see the same thing happen again and again—you'll begin to draw a connection between the two ideas. That's an obvious and simplified example, but there are innumerable subtler ways in which media builds connections between concepts that gradually become part of our own perception of the world. It's worth examining what connections exactly are being drawn, who's drawing them, and how exactly they're changing the world we live in.

Essentially every demographic—with, of course, the exception of one very special minority group—is drastically underrepresented in entertainment media. There are many subtle issues with the state of diversity in entertainment, but this isn't one of them—it's a simple fact that our math is just off. The selection of people who are represented in media differs significantly from the actual population—the world of entertainment is not like ours. A study of 900 films released from 2007-2016 found that 31% of speaking roles were female—a demographic which famously constitutes almost exactly half of the population (Smith 6). This is as clear-cut as it gets—I fail to imagine what a reasonable explanation for this inequity could sound like. Other statistics featured in the report are the total 1.1% of movie characters who were LGBT (far fewer than exist in reality) and the 2.7% who were depicted as disabled (the real-life statistic is closer to 1 in 4), among others (Smith 8, CDC). The simple fact of underrepresentation is far from the extent of the problem; there's also the issue of the quality of that representation, which is overwhelmingly inadequate. 

While a great diversity of characterization exists among ingroup characters—just about every white man that can be written, has—minority characters tend to be constructed from a limited bank of stereotypes. Characters from the least-represented demographics suffer the most from this oversimplification. Indigenous Americans, for instance, are very seldom seen on-screen, and when they are, they're depicted most often not as modern people but as 18th and 19th century stereotypes (Leavitt 40). The less we see of a group of people, the flatter and less realized those few glimpses are. It's clear that the majority-white population of writers who rely on other media for cues on how to represent marginalized groups, in the absence of diverse characterizations, are falling back on decades- or centuries-old stereotypes to tell their stories, and in that way, ill representation begets ill representation. That brings us to the problem of artists. A hefty majority of the people producing mainstream art are, not surprisingly, the same kind of people we see in front of the camera—white fellas. In the timespan covered by the Annenberg study, women made up 4% of film directors, while 6% were Black—and directors of other ethnicities were sequestered to an even more vanishingly small niche. The common factor is that every aspect of the entertainment industry is full to bursting with white guys, despite them being a comparatively small portion of the population.

The big question is: why is this an issue? And the answer is obvious and intuitive but nonetheless it's going to take a few pages to answer here.

In 2017, the most popular dream career among children in the US was to be a doctor. In 2019, two years later, more children aspired to be internet personalities than any other profession (Taylor). Children now feel that they are living in a world where "Youtuber" is a viable and fulfilling career. Which is to say that the landscape of media children were consuming palpably altered their worldview—they're identifying themselves with the people that entertain them, wishing to model their own lives after theirs. Media doesn't just entertain us—it is, in part, a substance with which we construct our self-image and our expectations of the world around us. This is especially true of young people, and when young people are presented with entertainment that belittles, stereotypes, or simply omits them, it can inflict real damage. It's been demonstrated that exposure to television is associated with lower self-esteem in all children with the exception of white boys—striking evidence of both the reality and real negative outcomes of  inadequate representation. The messaging may not always be clear to us, but it gets through to children: you are not the type of person that we value. 

One group that is constantly and severely devalued in this way is indigenous Americans. Contemporary depictions are so infrequent and negative as to subject them to what is known as "relative invisibility"—an almost total absence of any realistic or aspirational representations in culture (Leavitt 41). The effect of this pattern of representation is far from negligible. A study of indigenous American students found that greater exposure to media with indigenous American characters actually led to increased negative feelings about themselves, their place in the community, and their future aspirations (Leavitt 44). It's apparent from this result that a greater quantity of representation is not, on its own, an inherent positive. Exposure to a narrow and largely negative range of portrayals of oneself can narrow and negativize one's worldview and self-image. It's easy to imagine how one's dreams for the future could begin to feel futile if the only professions media seems to think you're suited for are mystical wise man and noble savage. Quantity of representation is not enough—in fact, if the quality of representation is lacking, greater saturation can actually do more harm than good, causing real harm to marginalized people whose self-identity and mental health may be damaged by poor portrayals.

When films and shows with stereotypical representations of indigenous Americans are released, indigenous Americans aren't the only ones watching. The same is true of Black people, Muslims, queer people, and every other heavily stereotyped community. While self-esteem is a real issue, we must also be concerned with the esteem in which others hold us. Prejudice presents a serious threat to many—prejudice informed in part by the media that we constantly consume. 

There are real-life political consequences of entertainment. Evidence indicates a relationship between audiences viewing negative portrayals of Black people and negative opinions about policies related to affirmative action, policing, and other race-related legal issues, as well as a general tendency to hold unfavorable beliefs regarding Black intelligence, work ethic, and criminality (Mastro). This is deeply relevant as policy regarding the legal treatment of Black people is one of the most significant issues in the public consciousness, especially in the last few years. The concept of Black people as innately criminal, reinforced by stereotypical media portrayals, has been and continues to inform the debate around issues such as police violence and reform. Voters watch movies and television—so do congresspeople—and the way certain communities look in movies and television contributes to policy decisions that will save or end lives.

The Latin American community deals with similar portrayals in media—they are most often shown as inarticulate, unintelligent, unskilled laborers or criminals (Mastro). These portrayals, too, are highly relevant to American politics. The 2016 presidential campaign of Donald Trump relied heavily on leveraging negative stereotypes about Latin American and specifically Mexican immigrants—they were characterized as violent, predatory, and a threat to the American way of life. Those stereotypes, however, were not invented for the purpose of promoting Donald Trump as a presidential candidate—their utility as a political tool came from the fact that this was already a popular way of viewing Mexican immigrants. The widespread stereotypes about Latin American people are reinforced and reiterated by our entertainment, and in this case, formed the foundation of a winning presidential campaign.

There are good examples, too—in the 1990s and 2000s, American support for gay marriage rocketed from around 20% to nearly 60%, an incredibly rapid change in public opinion caused largely by advocacy in the media (Baume). Gay marriage was then nationally legalized in 2015. The way people are portrayed in our entertainment has serious real-world consequences, good and bad; human lives depend on how the most vulnerable people in our society are shown to the rest of us.

The solution isn't just more. That's part of it, but as we know, increasing the quantity of representation can be harmful rather than helpful if that representation isn't also high-quality. There is some correlation between the two—a greater number of portrayals of a group generally means more divergence from stereotypes—but there's a more fundamental issue at play. There are an abundance of stories that involve characters from marginalized groups, and yet the overwhelming majority of people producing stories in the mainstream are the same white men. As a culture, we enjoy stories about different types of people, but seem to be very comfortable allowing those stories to be told to us by an extremely homogenous group of writers and directors. The entertainment industry often even seems uncomfortable allowing minority actors to play minority roles; although casting white actors to play people of color has mostly fallen out of fashion, it's still commonplace to cast non-disabled and non-queer actors to play disabled and queer characters. This isn't necessarily an unacceptable practice in itself, but it's common enough to create a sense that queer and disabled actors are being actively excluded from entertainment. Of the limited number of disabled characters who appear on-screen, only 5% are played by disabled actors (Pearson). Actors such as Adam Pearson, who was never considered for the leading role in a film about Joseph Merrick (whose condition Pearson shares), are routinely passed up in favor of non-disabled actors (Pearson). Queer actors are similarly underrepresented. As one would expect, minority representation is vastly increased by the presence of minority directors and writers—movies by Black directors have six times as many Black speaking roles on average (Smith 3). The possibility of high-quality, equal representation is clearly tied to increasing diversity behind the camera.

But—what if straight white men just make better entertainment? Maybe they make up such a huge majority of the media industry because their work is simply more valuable. From a certain angle, this is sort of true. The value assigned to entertainment is, in part, determined by the critical response it receives, and media critics are mostly white men. In 2017, 78% of the top film critics were men, and 82% were white (Choueiti 2). It's not strange to enjoy media you see yourself represented in, and it's not surprising that the media we consume the most is mostly comprised of people who look like the people who we allow to determine its quality.

The entertainment industry as it stands today is a self-congratulatory stew of white men. Most representation of anyone outside that group is done on their terms, and as such, lacks both quantity and quality. The only way to break out of the narrow range of representations of marginalized people is to inundate the entertainment business with those people. We need women, queer people, people of color, and disabled people in the media, behind cameras and in front of them. The way these people are portrayed has real and severe consequences—for their mental health, physical safety, and place within our culture. Diversity in entertainment is not a frivolous issue. It matters, a lot, and it won't solve itself. 

Works Cited

Baume, Matt. "Why Opinion Changed So Fast On Gay Marriage." Youtube, uploaded by Matt Baume, 25 June 2015.

"CDC: 1 in 4 US adults live with a disability." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 16 August 2018.

Choueiti, Marc et al. "Critic's Choice?: Gender and Race/Ethnicity of Film Reviewers Across 100 Top Films of 2017." Annenberg Foundation, USC Annenberg, June 2018.

"Cultivation Theory." Communication Theory, 2012.

Indiana University. "TV viewing can decrease self-esteem in children, except white boys." ScienceDaily, 30 May 2012.

Leavitt, Peter et al. "'Frozen in Time': The Impact of Native American Media Representations on Identity and Self-Understanding." Journal of Social Issues, 2015.

Mastro, Dana. "Race and Ethnicity in US Media Content and Effects." Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication, Oxford University Press. 26 September 2017.

Pearson, Adam et al. "'Actors don't black up, so why do they still crip up?' – video." The Guardian, 10 September 2018.

Smith, Stacy L., Choueiti, Marc. "Black Characters in Popular Film: Is the Key to Diversifying Cinematic Content held in the Hand of the Black Director?" USC Annenberg, 2011.

Smith, Stacy L. et al. "Inequality in 900 Popular Films: Examining Portrayals of Gender, Race/Ethnicity, LGBT, and Disability from 2007-2016." Annenberg Foundation, USC Annenberg, July 2017.

Taylor, Chloe. "Kids now dream of being professional YouTubers rather than astronauts, study finds." Make It, CNBC, 19 July 2019.

[abolitionistbibliography]

In my search for resources for teaching abolition, I found this incredible resource from Abolition Journal, a 6-week study guide for understanding different facets of abolition titled “If You’re New to Abolition.” It begins with an overview of different definitions of abolition and a helpful 30-minute video called “Abolition 101″ led by Orisanmi Burton. Each week covers a central component of abolition, including the debate over reform versus abolition; an overview of the prison industrial complex; abolitionist alternatives (”presence not absence”); and study of queer, trans, feminist, and other historically marginalized perspectives on abolition. The study guide includes a list of organizations doing abolitionist work and offers up a variety of ways to become involved.

Finding this study guide was like striking gold, as it provides me with crucial framework ideas for my own teaching of abolition to high school English students. Structuring an introduction to abolition has felt overwhelming because it is such a broad and complex topic of study. With Abolition Journal’s study guide, I can find valuable resources to share with students, especially as the study has highlighted a range of media for each week whether Youtube videos, podcasts, films, articles, or traditional texts. Each week of study begins with a short discussion of the scope and purpose of that week’s focus. I’d like to use this study guide as a starting point, but infuse it with my own discoveries and project ideas. 

I see a study of abolition as being a year-long focus, with different units that speak to elements of its theory, history, thinking, and personal stories coinciding with literary texts such as Assata or The Best We Could Do by Thi Bui. Projects would include writing an autoethnography (Camangian, 2010), creating an “I Search” research project on some topic related to abolition; and finally a creative project that is involved with or connected to tangible action in local or national abolitionist or transformative justice projects (Picower, 2012). Considering the breadth of abolitionist theory, I feel this gives students a lot of freedom to focus on what they are most passionate about within abolition, in addition to bringing their own perspectives and strengths to the table (Moll et al, 1992; Yosso, 2005).

References

Image Description: The logo for Abolition Journal shows a geometric motif in a floral print on a deep red background. In front of this geometric motif are bold, white block letters of A and J. Draped over these is a painted black banner that reads abolition.