#I think this also applies to other marginalized identities. And also other poc people can also do these things. No one is perfect

[nillisaie]

Sometimes I think people should think twice, or even three times honestly, about how they're depicting poc characters

Because, for example, I've seen about maybe three au's? Involving a poc character. And they were all pretty cute and or cool ideas. Very creative and interesting. But unfortunately, the role they gave the poc character in each of them have all been... kind of yikes? I'm trying to be vague here because I don't think any of them did this on purpose, but in each of these au's, the poc character was in a very subservient role each time (at least at some point) and unfortunately history is a thing that exists. I'm not saying that poc characters can never be in a subservient role, but maybe just think about it for a second at least?

And just recently I saw a fan design of a character that hasn't been revealed yet, and the design is very cute! It's nice! It's just they unfortunately made the character a poc. When this character, from what I understand, is supposed to be "evil" or "the bad one". And their "good" counterpart is white. I don't think I need to explain why that's bad

I just think that some people should probably think a bit on why they're depicting certain characters certain ways

[flightfoot]

I wrote and deleted this several times and then decided that no, I actually want to comment on this and I think it's worth doing so.

NNo representation of a marginalized group is going to be perfect and even the apparent stereotypes came from somewhere and are representing someone, the problem is when the writers (and the audience) are unable to see the nuances when the writing is nuanced or bring them in the way they bring them to cis heterosexual male characters when they are also flat.

Marinette was never going to be a good representation and it's always a little awkward when people talk about her dual heritage because it applies to any child of a mixed couple.

I'm not going to completely kick the hornet's nest that is the belief that if you have a POC parent the traits of that parent must be the most prominent and how that relates to an inherent racism on both sides that white people think you shouldn't be "fooled" by passing as white And on the POC side, you are often denied access or resented for not experiencing the same kind of marginalization and mistreatment. But that is something that underlies every discussion on this topic.

Marinette's design was criticized for being too white and more consumable for a Western audience (whitewashing). I imagine that with the design change the creators heard that criticism and that's why they changed it a little. The thing is, that criticism always shut up anyone who said "it's entirely possible that Marinette looks like that, a lot of people with the same kind of heritage as her do." I had to read how one of them was harassed and called racist (there is always something bitter when it happens to someone from the same group they are supposedly "defending").

So I can understand and sympathize with other anon because in moving towards purer representations of POC with characters that are mixed there is a certain erasure that happens. And that's always reinforced when the show refuses to dig deeper and deal with the implications they themselves set.

It was a nearly unanimous opinion that while Sabine's episode showed racism and bullying, having her and Marinette be the ones to apologize and bow their heads left a bitter taste. Many were furious because Adrien talks and knows more about a culture that belongs to Marinette and the only interest she showed was for her love interest, not for herself.And that's without getting into the subtextual implications that while they expected Marinette to take an interest on her own, her parents didn't teach her (even if Sabine retained some things) because it was more convenient for Marinette to have and use a white pass.

All this to say that Marinette's phenotypic representation was never going to be perfect. There was always going to be someone unhappy and erased by the design decisions. I don't think her design is stereotypical or racist, however, ironically, those elements are present in the episodes that seek to talk about Marinette's Chinese heritage or racism.

Anonymous asked:

Hi, anon who disliked Marinette���s new design here. I wasn’t clear in my original ask, sorry. The Asian features aren’t the problem—it’s the change. Mixed race characters do not become better representation by looking less white. It’s definitely a complicated issue, but someone like me, who doesn’t read as Chinese, isn’t any less mixed or less of a poc than someone who does. Equating how nonwhite someone looks to how well they represent their nonwhite culture is not how it goes.

Marinette could definitely be better representation for a mixed Chinese-French kid. But that would come through her environment and personal identity. The wok on the stove and rice cooker on the counter are part of her mixed heritage, for example. If they wanted to better represent Marinette’s unique cultural background, they should have had her learn more about it and become more comfortable with it, like I did at her age. I am confident calling myself Chinese now, but not because I became more identifiable as Chinese—rather I identified the experiences I had in common with other Chinese third-generation immigrant kids. Marinette could eat more Chinese food, learn her Chinese name, incorporate her culture into her clothing in the way a fifteen year old would. She could talk about how she feels about being mixed, and how the different influences affect her. She could have random Chinese trinkets hanging around her room that she got as gifts. She could celebrate Chinese New Year or Moon Festival. That’s a lot of examples, but my point is I would vastly prefer to see Marinette explore her culture as a form of representation rather than appear closer to the Chinese beauty standard most clockable to white people.

Thank you for being so gracious. I see how my original ask may have come off as rude, and I really don’t mean to be. Might have been a bit too blunt in this one too, I don’t know, haha.

Ack, anon who didn’t like Marinette’s new design back again. I really should have specified that I don’t have anything against designs of Marinette that make her look more Chinese (in fact I like them a lot) it’s specifically the implication that she can’t be good representation for the ethnicity she is if she doesn’t look Chinese. I should have also explained that the thin, upward angled eyes given to Fei, Kagami, and now Marinette are not actually accurate to East Asian eyes—I may be wrong, because I’ve only studied the features of the many East Asian people I’ve met, but I’m pretty sure that it’s much more common for East Asian eyes to not be angled or almond shaped. The slitted eye style came from fearful racist caricatures made by white people who saw monolids and didn’t understand them, then that interpretation became the pop culture standard. At least I think that’s it. Sorry, I should have added this to the last ask 😅 I’ll stop spamming you now

---

Thanks for the nuanced explanation of your stance! I would like it if Marinette showed more interest in her Chinese heritage (outside of using it as a tool to spend time with Adrien), and that would be a good angle to explore, I agree on that. I like her design change, since with the way she just has a hint of a monolid, it can cause the viewer to feel like she might have some Asian heritage without being sure, and then finding out that she's half Chinese and half French makes that make sense.

[nerves-nebula]

"the actors don't like the ship it makes them uncomfortable!" yeah that does not and never has mattered. they're actors. they act as characters. they are not the characters themselves, they do not have a say in how you think of or portray the characters they act as. this is not real person fanfiction. Alex is just a homophobic creep.

anyway after talking to my friend i've decided to just tell you guys. the series i hate is The Mandela Catalogue. it's so shit. absolute garbage. Plays into every ableist trope in the book.

If you try to analyze the way characters are coded to be scary or creepy or "inhuman" it's 99% of the time just them being disabled or neurodivergent or some other marginalized identity.

the fascist undertones of the series are incredibly evident, from the stranger-danger propaganda being given at face value with no commentary on how fucked up it is to just say it's reasonable for you to shoot someone you think is an alternate/looks weird (are white people not aware of all the poc and disabled people who get shot and attacked cuz their existence is seen as threatening?)

the public announcement shit is literally fear mongering except it's in universe proven to be correct because the universe alex has created is an inherently fascist one where innocent white Christians and their innocent white children are under attack from Real Demons (where have i heard that one before)

the THINK principles are akin to a cults guideline. how is the scary thing here that there are weird looking people out there that will Say Scary Shit to you (the idea of an Unknowable Truth as it's alluded to in tmc is bullshit and one of the dumbest Monster powers I've ever heard of) instead of the fact that society is gonna collapse because this shit will make people paranoid as hell, and start shooting their neighbors. But no, that would make it a GOOD series with something INTERESTING to say.

OH and the fact that the enemies in the series are somehow supposed to Look Just Like You (they could be anyone!!) but also look biologically impossible (so many of the alternates + The intruder just look like disabled or disfigured people put through a scary filter)

and hey, while we're here, can we think of any other examples of tropes in media in which all of these apply to The Enemy?

looks very similar to REAL humans, so much so that they could fool you into thinking they ARE one! and yet are also somehow inherently biologically different in a way you are capable of figuring out just by looking at them.

has dark beady eyes and a hooked/big/prominent nose (thinking of the intruder specifically here)

Kidnaps your children for their own nefarious means (blood libel)

Kidnaps/corrupts your children by controlling the media/technology/TV screens.

Desire world domination/is part of some big conspiracy stretching far into the past

Guilty for the death (or in this instance possibly the replacement of) Jesus Christ

depicted as literal demons

Hint! it's antisemitism! it's always fucking antisemitism!!! Coming from a man who's main source of inspiration is his Christianity & mental health issues (though he doesn't seem to mind demonizing the symptoms of mental illnesses he hasn't had personal experience with) i'm not surprised! Though I am disappointed, because he supposedly wants to be a writer, and he doesn't seem very aware of any of the tropes he's propagating. like c'mon man, i thought you liked literature.

I could make another list exactly like that one but for ableism, but if i committed that hard then we'd be here all day.

Alex has even started using words like Degenerate/Degeneration in promotional material too (which if you know anything about fascist rhetoric is a bad sign) not to mention his weird behavior around queer headcanons/shipping and his tendency to mock people who read queer subtext into his work.

The only good things that come from the mandela catalogue are from the fandom but even the fandom can't stop talking about how SUBVERSIVE and UNIQUE it is when it's literally just regurgitated reactionary talking points. The fandom also loves reinforcing Alex's weird ass "no gay shipping" mandate.

like, he clearly doesn't mind the inclusion of romances. Adam had a girlfriend. what he says he minds is "sexualization" which just so happens to include every instance of two male characters looking at each other or holding hands (because being gay is inherently sexual to him, which is homophobic btw. not a "boundary")

i could write essays about how every little single aspect of this series is, thematically speaking, dogshit garbage which appeals to the majority and barely admits the rest of us exist (which i wouldnt even care about so much if people didn't act like this series was at all unique or subversive)

I've talked for fucking hours about how every time i think it can't get any worse it somehow does. i've barely touched on the ableism here, haven't even mentioned the racism OR how all the female characters are defined by their relations to the male characters.

ALL THIS. ALL THIS!!! And all you see about it is praise praise PRAISE. but guys. it's just BAD.

side note: if this post makes you feel the need to tell me why it's actually good: don't! i really dont care if you like it, good for you i guess. as far as i'm concerned the fans of it are the best part of the whole damn series (to be clear the fandom has its own problem but even then. it's generally fine) but it is NOT good source material.

[bookwyrminspiration]

ohhh boy the culture thing is real… it’s different for me bc im white but i also get the wanting to know more about my heritage but not feeling “enough” of it because I wasn’t born there and not all of my ancestry is in that culture… like im of cajun descent and I love learning about the culture of my family members and ancestors and I love learning little tidbits of my heritage from my dad and mon-mon and cousins but it’s not the same.

And the what-ifs are real too. What if my family never moved away from Louisiana? What if the government never discouraged learning Cajun French and therefore my dad was able to keep in touch with that vital part of his heritage? What if the Acadians were never expelled in the first place?? it’s weird.

And to be perfectly clear I’m not trying to compare my situation with yours, I’m white and there’s some things I will simply never understand, it’s just… I felt like you might understand.

You're okay, being white doesn't make this experience any less valid or lesser than what we were talking about--you lost culture, language, connections to your heritage, too. Your thoughts, opinions, feelings, and heritage are just as much a part of the broader conversation

And yeah! It's never quite the same, learning it for yourself vs feeling like you are it, if that makes sense. It's like there's this distance between you and it, no matter what you do. No matter how hard I study Spanish, it'll never have accompanied me through my childhood, that's something I'll never have.

There's also, at least for me, this guilt sometimes? Or frustration? With how I have to learn things. My mother, non-hispanic, will talk about family in Mexico I've never met but who she has when she visited with my dad and I just. Get so jealous that she can tell stories about staying in the family home there, about visiting the family shop, about being there and I can't when I'm the one with the Mexican heritage. I feel sometimes like it should be the other way around; I should be the one who knows and can tell others. I'm being taught what should be as natural as breathing, and it sucks sometimes! I don't want to hold it against my mom, because she has absolutely no ill will and she didn't do anything, but it's an irrational feeling of loss and grief and pain and frustration

I love learning my heritage! The history, the culture, the food, ancestry, etc. But you're right, it's never the same, and because you can feel how its off you just wonder. What if it didn't come with this ache. What if I wasn't in-between and what if I was content with it all. What if I didn't have to wonder and just was. But then would you even be you?

It's so complicated, and then there's another part for some people that I think might apply to you and me. Which is being white and having these experiences and wondering whether you even have the right to think about it and hurt when you're also so privileged. For me, being Mexican/hispanic/latine, those are words that people use and understand as non-white. But they can also be white--though Mexicans being thought of us as white was a specific campaign made by Mexicans in the past to be treated better, so it used to be thought of as non-white in its own right. Which is a whole other layer of complicated. So where on earth does that leave us, white and a poc at the same time? When someone says white people need to listen to voices of color, are you including me as a white person who needs to listen or as a Mexican American to be listened to (though of course I do need to listen to other groups and voices as a hispanic person too, not trying to say I'm exempt from reflection and learning by being marginalized). For the time being I consider myself mixed and consider being hispanic/latine as part of my racial identity, even though it's officially considered an ethnicity--which is not something I'm alone in. There's several studies on how hispanic/latino people are frustrated by race questions because we don't have a good fit.

Now of course you're not Mexican (that I know of), but I thought you might understand the being white and having lost culture/heritage and the confusing balance that comes with that. Trying to figure out how to properly acknowledge your pain and experience while not overstepping.

It's especially harrowing because race and ethnicity have such a weighted, important role in our world and society. So it's both confusing, painful, and has significant ramifications. But! We are trying our best and have good intentions, which I think counts for something. I'm rambling at this point, but hopefully some of this resonated and you don't feel alone in it :)

[lowkeyorloki]

Many of you who have followed me for the majority of this year will have seen me beg the Loki fandom to take a look at both their implicit and explicit biases. I have done this because every time my friends and I log onto a site that we go to for fun and recreation, we see things that are horribly harmful to our various identities. This screenshot is an example of that harmful, and disgustingly normalized, content.

I am going to address this racist interaction bit by bit, and I hope the original creators and anyone reading this can learn - and better yet, understand the hurt they cause and the stereotypes and violence they contribute to, because interactions like this are not rare in the Loki fandom. The reasons I have chosen to speak on this specific one is because 1) the prejudice is so blatant, and 2) one of these creators is very popular in the fandom, and I worry about the reach that the casualness of this encounter has.

The first issue is with the ask itself. The anonymous says “its a country like ‘Afghanistan’ or something and totally accepted it without reading it twice”

The implication here is that it would be strange to have a url that is or references Afghanistan. This shows us the skewed view this anon has of the country - because to them, why on Earth would someone have that? This is problematic. I have a hard time believing there would have been a similar reaction to a url that referenced a country like England or France.

There is also the response, which confirms that is a funny occurrence, and in turn reinforcing the othering of Afghanistan in this post chain. To the asker and the responder, it is humorous and even outlandish to think that someone’s url would reference this country.

But the worst of all is the comment made by nikkoliferous, which asks, “can we all apply for refugee status?”

I do not quite know how to express just how disturbing it is to make jokes about refugee situations, and how blinded you must be as someone living in America or Canada to even joke about that being something that you are, or something that applies to you.

…

Tumblr, and the Loki fandom, are supposed to be something that allows us to all come together and celebrate our love for our favorite character. Every single person should feel safe, and they are all entitled to an experience that does not alienate and other them. It is devastating to be sent screenshot by my friends on the daily of people hurting them encouraging stereotypes, spreading misinformation, and contributing (even in ways that, to a white and western audience, seem as “small” as this) to the violence and trauma of POC. I cannot even imagine how damaging and brutal it is to consistently see posts like this that attack and rip apart one’s identity - and what’s more, to never be taken seriously when trying to address and educate people. A fandom should not thrive, and especially not thrive proudly and humorously, at the expense of those who are marginalized.

The Loki fandom must wake up. This type of content in being normalized.

That is very, very, wrong.

[nostalgicatsea]

Common questions about and excuses for racism in fandom

I noticed that the same excuses, justifications, and questions that have come up in response to racism in fandom over the years appear in the notes for my post, so here’s a FAQ of sorts to address them. Hopefully, this will help people understand why these arguments don’t stand up to scrutiny and have something to refer to in lieu of writing a new reply every time someone says these things. 

Due to the length of this post, I made a Google doc for easier reading. Please note that several points are specific to the Marvel fandom and to the post linked above and are often M/M-focused (I explain why in that post), but generally speaking, the following can be applied to any fandom and various relationships. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I can ship whatever I want. Stop being the fandom police!

Shipping isn’t activism. 

Fandom is supposed to be fun. Being told what to do or not to do isn’t fun.

I put a lot of different people in my works, and I do research about the groups they’re in. For example, I have a *marginalized group here* character (e.g., disabled), and I did research to represent them accurately. It’s not fair to say that I don’t care about diversity.

I don’t think people should write about POC if they’re white, just like I wouldn’t want anyone to talk about *insert topic you’re passionate about or interest group you’re in here* (e.g., the BDSM community) if they didn’t know anything about it.

I really don’t have any knowledge about what it’s like to be a POC, though, so maybe I’m not the best person for this. If POC want to see themselves represented, they should make their own works.

I’m not comfortable with writing POC as I’m unfamiliar with the struggles they experience. I don’t want my writing to come off as inauthentic, inaccurate, or offensive. Why are you saying it’s harmful to use this as a reason for abstaining from writing POC?

It doesn’t make sense to include every single POC in my work.

What you said and the data you have don’t necessarily point to racism. It might just be individual preference. I prefer certain ships over others, and it has nothing to do with race/I don’t see color.

A big part of what informs my shipping is physical attraction or interest in the characters.

I don’t ship _____ because I see them as brothers/sisters/siblings.

Some white characters and ships are popular in the MCU fandom because people bring in canon characterization or material from the comics to the character(s)/ship. Your MCU-only examination fails to account for ships with one character from the MCU and one from comics (e.g., MCU Bucky/616 Clint or Spideypool).

Some subfandoms just have fewer POC which means there will naturally be fewer ships featuring POC. To say that the Marvel fandom is racist as a whole is disingenuous; you can see how more diversity in the cast leads to more diverse ships in fanworks.

Some of the characters and ships are popular because white characters get the lion’s share of screen time and development or they appeared in canon earlier.

Is it racist to racebend a character?

Racist language in fics is more important than fandom representation.

My fanworks tend to focus on one ship and don’t really include other characters in general. When they do, the others mostly talk about that relationship. Am I falling into the trap you mentioned? 

I feel guilty about not including or writing about *character of color’s name here*.

How do I ensure that I don’t offend anyone if I include POC in my work?

What should I do to examine myself for any implicit biases?

The rest of the post is under the cut.

I can ship whatever I want. Stop being the fandom police!

As explicitly stated several times in my post, I agree that you can ship whatever you want. I’m not targeting a specific ship. I’m not telling you to stop shipping what you ship. All I’m asking is for everyone, including myself and other POC, to regularly examine ourselves for any implicit biases. If you’re a multishipper, are all of your ships in the fandom white? If you only have one ship and it’s white, are most or all of your ships in your other/previous fandoms white? Is the only media you consume predominantly or all white? 

Shipping isn’t activism. 

No, it isn’t and in many cases, shouldn’t be seen or treated as the same thing. However, by responding this way to POC who want to see themselves represented in fanworks more and not be ignored or written stereotypically, you’re telling us that our mere existence is a “political issue.” 

Fandom is supposed to be fun. Being told what to do or not to do isn’t fun.

It should be fun for us POC too, and it’s not when we’re consistently misrepresented or we don’t exist in this fandom. By using this as an excuse to exclude POC from your works, you’re saying that only some people are allowed to have fun or that having fun is conditional. Also, no one is forcing you as an individual to do or not do anything. See two paragraphs above.

I put a lot of different people in my works, and I do research about the groups they’re in. For example, I have a *marginalized group here* character (e.g., disabled), and I did research to represent them accurately. It’s not fair to say that I don’t care about diversity.

Just like you do research for those groups, you can easily do research on POC. Also, please be aware that this statement is similar to the “I’m not racist because I have a ___ friend/have a ___ person in my works” argument that many people use to prove they’re not racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. We aren’t interchangeable with other groups. 

I don’t think people should write about POC if they’re white, just like I wouldn’t want anyone to talk about *insert topic you’re passionate about or interest group you’re in here* (e.g., the BDSM community) if they didn’t know anything about it.

Something like BDSM is a lifestyle and preference. It is a choice. Being a POC isn’t. We can’t take off our identity every time we leave the house, the way you might keep it secret at work that you’re in the BDSM scene. 

I really don’t have any knowledge about what it’s like to be a POC, though, so maybe I’m not the best person for this. If POC want to see themselves represented, they should make their own works.

We do. Also, all of us fanwork creators make works with characters who are different from us all the time. Fandom is largely composed of people who aren’t straight cis men, yet the bulk of works on AO3 features characters who are canonically or implied to be straight cis men even if we end up changing that in our works. Most of us aren’t billionaires, but we don’t have a problem writing Tony. We don’t know what it’s like to be a WWII-soldier-turned-brainwashed-assassin who was kept in cryo for decades except when deployed on missions, but we don’t have a problem writing Bucky. The list goes on.

I’m not comfortable with writing POC as I’m unfamiliar with the struggles they experience. I don’t want my writing to come off as inauthentic, inaccurate, or offensive. Why are you saying it’s harmful to use this as a reason for abstaining from writing POC?

Your concern isn’t harmful. Reducing us to our trauma is, and you’re doing that if the reason you’re not comfortable with writing POC is that you don’t know how to write our struggles. We’re not only our pain. We’re more than that.

Not every fic has to be about the trauma of being a POC. We deserve to have fun, silly fics in addition to serious, plotty drama. We’re not thinking about our suffering 24/7 even if we do think about or are affected by it a lot. It’s not like if you write a Sam/Bucky fic, Sam is going to randomly lecture Bucky about the history of Black people in the U.S. and modern enslavement through the prison industrial complex while Bucky is trailing kisses down his neck in bed. We don’t need everyone being racist to MJ in a Pride and Prejudice AU. If you do want to include their struggles because that informs the way the characters think or act in your story, you can do so in ways that feel organic. 

Additionally, this is an excuse that we hear often; you may have heard it as people in Hollywood have used it to explain why they don’t have any, or at least any major, characters from marginalized groups in their works. If we allowed this excuse, an overwhelming majority of who we see in the media would be straight, cis white men considering who has power in the film and TV industry—and we would have to say that’s okay. We would have to say that the only people allowed to write about a certain group are members of that group, e.g., only women can write women. That’s not acceptable especially considering the gatekeeping, oppression, and high barriers to entry and success that make it difficult for marginalized people to even be in the room let alone make a name for themselves.

Fandom is no different. You’re saying that you can’t relate to POC because you’re white, but none of us POC have any problems making fanworks with white characters even though we don’t know what it’s like to be white. There are straight women who write fics about gay men and don’t feel uncomfortable doing so when they don’t know a single thing about being a gay man and the struggles of gay men (M/M can include bi or pan men, fics about gay men by straight women can sometimes include problematic portrayals, and straight men, queer women, and non-binary people write M/M too, but this is just an example).

You should be more careful when writing a POC if you're not a POC. The same goes for men writing women, cis people writing trans people, straight people writing queer people, able-bodied people writing disabled people, etc. However, there ARE ways to go about it, and while I understand the fear of messing up, the truth is everyone is racist, sexist, etc. Everyone including people in marginalized groups. Being a white lesbian doesn’t mean you can’t be racist. Being an Asian man doesn’t mean you can’t be sexist. You can see that within groups themselves. POC are not exempt from racism against other POC or from internalized racism against themselves or their own group. Women aren't free from internalized misogyny. The best we can do is to not make that prevent us from making inclusive works; if you make a mistake, which may happen, all we can ask is that you try your best to be open to feedback and grow. 

It doesn’t make sense to include every single POC in my work.

No one is telling you to. Choose characters who make sense for the story. Don’t choose them just so you have a POC in your work. We don’t want them to be tokenized. 

What you said and the data you have don’t necessarily point to racism. It might just be individual preference. I prefer certain ships over others, and it has nothing to do with race/I don’t see color.

This argument is identical to the “not all _____” rebuttal (“not all men,” “not all white people,” etc.) which places the blame on a few lone individuals and shifts the conversation away from an existing widespread problem. When there’s a consistent pattern and there are many examples of it both within the fandom and in other fandoms, it no longer is about individual preference. 

I urge you to consider the following:

If most people say they don’t write about or include a POC in their work because it’s too difficult or they’re afraid of making that character inauthentic, but they don’t seem to have an issue with writing other characters from groups they’re not in (e.g., if you’re a straight woman who writes a lot of M/M fics despite not knowing what it’s like to be a bi, pan, or gay man), doesn’t that say something?

If most people have the same reasons you do about not being interested in POC (e.g., “they’re not fleshed out enough” while being interested in or fleshing out minor white characters who get the same or even less development as those characters) or ships with POC (e.g., saying “they’re like brothers” while being interested in a white ship with similar dynamics and tropes or seeing why other people might ship it if you don’t), doesn’t that say something?

If most people give characters of color the same roles in their works even if that makes them OOC and/or the role reduces them to a (frequently stereotypical) trope, especially if they’re never fleshed out beyond that trope (e.g., the funny sidekick, wise friend who always helps or gives advice/free therapy, or responsible, mature, and sometimes stern friend who “parents” the protagonist), isn’t that saying something?

If race truly isn’t a factor for you when it comes to liking characters and ships, then this isn’t about you and you don’t have to distract people from the conversation by announcing that. That said, we should all look at characters and ships we like anyway instead of assuming that’s the case as that’s good practice. How much of your list is white? If it’s mostly or entirely white, why is that the case and why do you feel differently about ships of color?

A big part of what informs my shipping is physical attraction or interest in the characters.

What characters and actors do you find attractive or interesting? Are they all or mostly white? If they aren’t, are you drawn to any ships that include those POC? Refer to the section above.

I don’t ship _____ because I see them as brothers/sisters/siblings.

Part of this is preference as it comes down to perceived chemistry and relationship dynamics. However, POC are often not seen as romantic leads both in fanworks and the media and are just friends or “brothers/sisters” (this is why Crazy Rich Asians was a big deal). Sometimes, people even argue against POC being or having love interests in the name of diversity. You see this a lot with WOC in the media where the explanation against a love interest is “she’s a strong, independent woman who doesn’t need a man”; yes, they don’t and sometimes the story doesn’t need a romance, but WOC deserve love too and it’s strange that while white women can get the guy and be independent, WOC can’t and it somehow belittles or reduces them if they do. 

The way you can gauge whether it’s just preference at play or biases you may not have been aware of is to see how many relationships featuring a character of color fall under the “just friends/siblings” category for you, what you need to ship something, and how you feel about white ships with the same type of relationship or same lack of chemistry. For instance, you may say that there needs to be enough interaction for you to ship something and that’s why you don’t care much for Rhodey/Sam. Do you feel the same way about Clint/Coulson then, which has much less interaction (actually much less than Rhodey/Sam in this case)? If it’s about chemistry, are Steve and Sam just “brothers,” but Bruce and Thor aren’t or, if you don’t ship Bruce/Thor, you still “see it” and get why other people might be into it?

What do you ship, or what ships do you understand even if they’re not for you, and how is that different from ships that follow the same beats? Why are Steve and Bucky not brothers, but Rhodey and Tony are (there are many parallels between the two relationships—and one can argue the latter is more nuanced—than appears at first glance, and Rhodey/Tony can be just as sweet or angsty)? If you like the rivals/enemies-to-lovers or meet-ugly aspect to Steve/Tony, Sam/Bucky, Scott/Jimmy Woo, and M’Baku/T’Challa have that dynamic. You like that superior/subordinate-to-lovers dynamic that Clint/Coulson has? Coulson/Fury. Flirty meet-cutes or love/trust-at-first-sight? Steve/Sam.

Some white characters and ships are popular in the MCU fandom because people bring in canon characterization or material from the comics to the character(s)/ship. Your MCU-only examination fails to account for ships with one character from the MCU and one from comics (e.g., MCU Bucky/616 Clint or Spideypool).

I explained why I focused on the MCU here and that most of the fics that feature an MCU character and comics ’verse character tend to be heavily or entirely MCU-influenced here.

Also, characters of color exist in the comics, cartoons, and games too. By this logic, Steve/Sam and Rhodey/Tony should be juggernauts in the MCU fandom considering the depth and history of the characters and relationships. Ask yourself why people are happy to ship MCU Spideypool, to draw on the comics for that relationship and even bring a non-MCU character into the MCU and write him based on his comics history and characterization. Ask yourself why people are unhappy with MCU Clint’s terrible writing and lack of characterization and decide to give him his 616 (usually Fraction-era) characterization. And then ask yourself why people don’t do that for characters of color and then use “___ is a minor character/doesn’t have much development” as an excuse for why they’re uninteresting or not shippable with others.

There are many strong and interesting relationships in the comics, but only a few make it to the MCU fandom and almost all, if not all, of them are white.

Some subfandoms just have fewer POC which means there will naturally be fewer ships featuring POC. To say that the Marvel fandom is racist as a whole is disingenuous; you can see how more diversity in the cast leads to more diverse ships in fanworks.

It’s more important to see how many fanworks there are for ships of color in a fandom than how many ships of color there are in that fandom. See how few works there are for POC ships other than MJ/Peter in the MCU Spider-Man fandom despite the diversity of the cast. See how the most popular ships are white and three of them involve white characters from the Iron Man fandom (explain to me how Harley/Peter has over 1,000 works, but Ned/Peter has 436). 

And sure, you can say almost all of the Black Panther ships feature a character of color so there’s “more” diversity, but see how few works there are for them and how works with a white character fare compare to POC-only ships (almost all have 100-200 or fewer fics, with many having so few that I didn’t include them in the post, while BP ships with a white character have more works despite little to no interaction between the characters). 

Both of these, by the way, are critical and box office hits with characters who are clearly supposed to be the faces of the MCU now that the OG6 are gone. Black Panther is an award-winning critical and box office hit, and it is, more than any other film in MCU history, a huge cultural phenomenon with tremendous impact. It broke so many records and milestones, and it’s STILL breaking and making them. It has the most nuanced and balanced ensemble cast with side characters just as three-dimensional as the lead, a rarity in MCU films. Yet, its tag only has 3,966 works, fewer in total for the whole fandom than some of the white M/M ships on this list. Even if you account for BP fanworks that may have been tagged as MCU instead of BP, the number is paltry as you can see in this post. People simply do not want to make fanworks for characters of color (in this case, specifically Black characters) and don’t. It’s not about how diverse or successful a film is.

Some of the characters and ships are popular because white characters get the lion’s share of screen time and development or they appeared in canon earlier.

Yes, that’s true, but fandom has no problem catapulting white ships with minor characters into extreme popularity. See Clint/Coulson. See fics prioritizing Happy and having him show up more than Rhodey in Steve/Tony fics. 

It’s not about chronology. Many ships of color came before white ships as a whole and before white ships with the same white character they have. See Bucky/Clint vs. Bucky/Sam. 

Lastly, please don’t tell me how certain white M/M ships came to be to explain how they’re exempt or how I’m failing to consider other factors for their popularity. I’ve been in the fandom since 2012, and I’ve seen almost all of the white ships in the fandom be born or boom into popularity. Don’t try to explain, for instance, that Clint/Coulson is big because Coulson has his own show and his fans followed him from the show (this logic falls flat when you look at something like Luke Cage); that ship became huge way before that happened and way before Agents of Shield became “big.” Also, see the section above regarding screen time, development, and fame. 

Is it racist to racebend a character? 

People’s opinions differ on racebending—and often that comes from personal background and on the situation—so I can’t speak on anyone’s behalf. However, I think everyone can agree on the following:

Racebending a white character is not the same thing as whitewashing a POC. For example, making Tony Stark Indian vs. turning T’Challa white or as canonical examples, making Fury black in Ultimates and the MCU vs. making the Ancient One or the Maximoffs white. The latter (whitewashing T’Challa, the Ancient One, and the Maximoff twins) is racist for various reasons. There’s a long history of POC being erased and white people taking roles from POC, a huge imbalance in representation between white people and POC, the unfortunate perception by the public and media that “white = neutral/standard” (Bruce’s whiteness doesn’t define his characterization and development), and the way race plays a role in influencing the way POC feel, act, and are treated.

Racebending a POC from one ethnicity or racial group to another is also problematic as we’re not interchangeable. Hollywood often does this and goes, “But they’re still a POC! We’re being diverse!” 

In general, people who racebend white characters to POC want to see more POC in canon and in the media! These aren’t mutually exclusive.

Sometimes people racebend because they’re not represented at all in their works. (This happens with other marginalized groups too; for instance, some people make cis characters trans in their fanworks as there are few to no trans characters in the canonical source.) For example, there are, as of now, no Latinx superheroes in the MCU films. Even if people wanted to, they can’t make works with an MCU Latinx superhero unless they bring one from the comics or the one Latinx superhero from Agents of Shield (if they know the comics or AoS), make a minor Latinx film character like Luis a superhero, or racebend their favorite white character and put a fresh spin on the character, drawing from their personal experience and background.

There’s a massive difference between fans racebending a character and a creator taking credit by pretending they viewed a character as non-white or didn’t see race all along when it’s clear that the character is canonically white (this is different from a creator saying they support anyone, POC or white, playing that character onscreen or onstage). 

Racist language in fics is more important than fandom representation.

We don’t have to pick our battles. Both are important! I focused on fandom representation as it’s much more quantifiable and easy to find and analyze data for than racist language on a fandom-wide scale on my own without any tools. You’re right that the latter is a problem as is racist representation in fanworks, though. 

My fanworks tend to focus on one ship and don’t really include other characters in general. When they do, the others mostly talk about that relationship. Am I falling into the trap you mentioned?

If the story is about a relationship (examining that relationship and the feelings of the characters in it) and there isn’t much of a plot outside of that, then that makes sense. However, even in situations like this, consider how much time you dedicate to characters of color vs. white characters. If the story is about a ship featuring a POC, do you spend more time on the white character of that relationship? Their white friends and how they feel about that relationship? If it’s about a white ship, do white side characters appear more than side characters of color even if the latter have a closer relationship with the protagonists? For example, does Wanda show up more than Sam or play a bigger role than him in a Steve/Bucky fic? Do you have Pepper show up all the time (or even Happy), but Rhodey is chronically absent? Do only the white characters get to be more than the tropes you’re using, if you’re using any, while the POC don’t get to be nuanced? Are there any stereotypes that you’re reducing the POC to?

I feel guilty about not including or writing about *character of color’s name here*.

See “It doesn’t make sense to include every single POC in my work.” Include the character(s) who make sense for the story, perspective you’re writing/drawing from if applicable, and central group or ship if this is a ship-specific work. For example, if you’re drawing the Avengers and you include the newer Avengers, Rhodey and Sam should appear too, not just Wanda, Scott, Bucky, and/or Carol (this happens a lot). If you’re writing a Tony POV fic that includes other characters, depending on the story, it may make sense that Sam doesn’t appear much as he and Tony aren’t close whereas he would in a Steve POV fic.

How do I ensure that I don’t offend anyone if I include POC in my work?

You can’t ensure anything as POC aren’t a monolith, but you can try to be as informed as possible and avoid common pitfalls while writing. You can do research, just the way you might research anything you’re not familiar with. You can ask if anyone is willing to do a sensitivity read while you write or before you post. You can look for betas. There are a lot of resources out there, but these are good places to start if you’re looking for more information and help:

Writing with Color - resources

Writing with Color - Stereotypes and Tropes page

Reference for Writers - POC tag

What should I do to examine myself for any implicit biases?

We should all take stock of:

our feelings about different characters and relationships, both platonic and romantic, who we prioritize in our works, and how much they’re prioritized

our decision whether or not to seek or make content with characters of color. This includes content for white ships because sometimes every white character in the MCU shows up as a side character, but characters of color don’t or all of the white characters play bigger roles than the POC despite how close they are to the protagonist(s)

the way we interpret and write/draw those characters. For example, is Sam a yes-man? A figurative or literal therapist for white friends? The bro who only cracks jokes and/or gives sage advice but seems to not have any flaws, struggles, or life of his own outside of his white friends? The BFF who thinks his white best friend is being ridiculous about another white guy and wants them to get their act together already? Does the character of color talk in the way you perceive everyone of that race to talk rather than the way they personally do (e.g., does Luis randomly and awkwardly switch into Spanish when he talks just because he’s Latinx despite never speaking Spanish with Scott? Does Sam use AAVE with Steve, Bucky, and Natasha when he doesn’t do that with them?)? 

Also, here’s a Google doc with more anti-racist resources.

Even well-meaning people can slip up or not be as proactive as they hoped they would be so it’s just good practice to check in with ourselves every once in a while and see if there’s anything we missed or didn’t notice.

[antiresperidoneclub]

i havent posted anything in awhile but happy pride month yall! and, very much in me fashion imma take this time ta make another informational post! this installment is called

why assimilation is overall harmful to the queer community + the damage of pseudo-right wing ideas spread thruout the trans community!

CW: queerphobia, transmedicalism, bl*ir wh*te, k*lvin g*rrah, violence against queer ppl.

so, where do we start?

assimilation, what is it?

assimilation is a deliberate effort made by a minority/ marginalized group to (instead of become free) join the majority/privledged, which is wildly more accesible ta abled nuerotypical cis white lgb folks.

now, how does that apply ta th queer community? before that, we hafta look at th stark distinction between th LGBT community and th QUEER community.

because sadly its now different

imma make this as short as possible but basically,

despite its intentions when it was formed decades ago, th LGBT communiy an th way it functions is percieved is different. case in point, th term LGBT has been heavily gentrified and commodified especially by corporations tryina sell it to non-lgbt audiences. youll notice a majority of LGBT voices an advocates are usually white cis lgb ppls or are assimilationists. th term LGBT aswell has been heavily diluted and decontexualized from its roots, such as fightin for rights wit riots an demonstrations, bein heavily tied wit black an indigenous liberation, socialist ideals and memorializing th struggle for our freedom. its also (as apart of its gentrification) is bein forced ta be more 'family friendly' in an effort of control an ta make cash off of us an further assimilate us.

the QUEER community is a somewhat niche nowadays as it sticks fairly close ta th original goals as th LGBT community once had. such as wantin an willin ta fight for liberation rather than succumb ta assimilation. its also seen as a threat as it directly challenges th authority (capitlism, cops/military, goverment, white supremacy, fascism) for its mistreatment an oppresion against queer ppl and other marginalized groups. if th LGBT community is th privledged assimilations that can be proffited off of, then th queer community is more alike 'outcasts' or 'rejects' that arent as palatable ta a cishet majority ie; trans women/ trans/queer ppls of colour, more radicalized queer folks, or those impoverished.

so, with that said, how has/does assimilation harm queer ppl?

as i said, assimilation is disspraportionatly accesible ta able-bodied, neurotypical, cis, non-poor white LGB ppls (shocker) meaning th majority of queer poc, trans people, impoverished, and diasbaled/neurodivergent folks get left behind and continuosly stomped on in an attempt ta eradicate us. and it should be noted theres 2 types of assimilation

1. forced assimilation; forced assimilation is where marginalized ppls thru cultural eradication/genocide r forced ta strip themselves of their identity an join th majority which results in oppresion, discrimination, an further erasure of th ppls themselves. this is heavily seen within th queer community wit th AIDS crisis where those who survived were later branded as 'brave' by th very system that sought their demise in th first place, leavin our community in shambles.

2. chosen assimilation; chosen assimilation is where usually a small group/ or a singular person will disregard their people in an a attempt ta be spared from oppresion or discrimination. in terms of queer ppl (especially trans folks) th main contendors r blair white, kalvin garrah, an buck angel. blair is a stellar example of attempted assimilation. she not only rejetcs, but constantly puts her own people on blast publicly ta her audince of white cishet conservatives an (more often than not) fascists. not only that but she deliberatly associates wit th very ppl who seek her erasure an oppresion in an assbackwards attempt at salvation. more concrete examples include 1. showin herself as 'one of th good ones' or 'normal' 2. acting as if shes cishet 3. constantly self-hating ta appease those mentioned above 4. spewing dangerous an misinormed rhetoric aimed at trans ppls which directly affects trans poc an non-passing trans women. next, kalvin garrah. i was gonna write a whole thing on him but instead ill (below) link copshatemoe's videos about him.

so, now that we know how assimilation both forced an personal harms queer ppls in general, what about trans ppls an th trans community?

transmedicalism and its disasterous effects towards the trans community.

transmedicalism is a belif system of sorts that follows ideals such as

beliving trans ppls must be suffering from dysphoria to be trans

a trans person must want to transition to be trans

being trans is a mental illness/ neurological condition/ birth defect cause by unbalanced horomone levels or th existence of "male and female brains"

belivies HRT or surgerys are a 'cure' for dysphoria/ 'transness'

that neopronouns or non-lesbian, gay, bisexual, or binary trans folks are invalid or 'wannabes' who see th "lgbt community as a club of sorts to join jus because"

borderline or blatant rascist, transmysoginistic, ableist rhetoric.

intentional or not, that assimilation is key an becomin 'as close ta bein cis as possible' is th goal of transition.

now, i could spend ages rantin about how these belifs are blatently wrong but however rather than disecting them lets jus go over th direct harm these belifs have caused th trans community.

lets start wit nonbinary folks. nowadays as ive seen transmedicalism has become more open ta acceptin nonbinary folks but regardless they were one of th first punchin bags. since bein nonbinary in any facet isnt exactly 'medically sustained' its already seen as bullshit, but past that it opens th gates for neoprounouns an non-convetional identitys. enby ppls would be attacked constantly or called "trenders" in an attempt ta discourage them from even existing. this 'highschool bully' type of mentality along wit th superiority complex behind transmedicalism created a stark divide between "normal" trans ppls an th "weirdo, faker" trans ppls. not only did these attacks further stigmatize an already oppresed minority but also forced ppl ta hide themselves from they own community ta avoid ridicule an bullying. this type of harrasment has left these ppls wit trauma an fear of they identity bein challenged not only online but also in IRL queer spaces while they already hafta stay hypervigilant around cis ppl, now it seems th same around binary trans folks. not only have nonbinary ppls have been impacted however, binary trans ppls were left wit insecurities, wonderin if they dysphoria is 'rlly that bad compared ta others' and worrying about things they usually didnt care about. probably th biggest of those is 'passing'. passing is th action of looking as cis as possible ta blend in an avoid general treatments sustained by cishet ppls. i as a transwomen was directly affected by this rhetoric which caused me years of my transition spent not becomin myself, but becomin as close ta a cis girl as possible. this lead me ta become embarresed by my own community also factored in by havin virtually no trans friends IRL. this was th shared experince of many binary trans folks an nonbinary trans folks i know an am friends with. in conclusion, transmedicalsim has not only ostrasized an traumatized queer folks, but has also left insecurities an damage ta binaty trans folks aswell.

so, with that in mind, how do we combat, well, all of this an much more?

liberation

liberation is th action of freeing a marginalized group from its oppresive chains. an how would this look/work for th queer community?

majority of cishet ppls think that queer liberation ended wit marriage equality but thats very much not true. multiple basic human freedoms have been stripped from not only cis lgb queers but also trans people aswell. rights such as affordable housing witout discrimination, medical options for trans people being completly accesible or downright free, safe spaces or areas where were able ta exist free of fear of persecution or discrimination, better healthcare treatment towards queer ppl, things sometimes neccisary ta ones transition bein more accesible such as name/document changes, and many more things. but remember, none of this is possible witout ingigenous liberation/land back, black liberation, or under capitlism

anyways, i have 0 way ta end this so happy pride month an a very happy juneteenth!! if ur black ur more than welcome ta leave any gofundmes, cashapps, venmos etc in th notes or reblogs!

also, if you have any additions or points/topics i shouldve made or covered pls reblog wit them!

-alexis

[uselessheretic]

to be clear, i am in favor of criticizing celebs and dont think anyone is exempt from that but also bad faith criticism of taika is a wee bit irritating when done by minimizing his body of work and place as a māori/indigenous creator.

obviously he is not above criticism, but the wholesale dismissal of a person based on limited things and held to a standard that other celebrities are not is frustrating.

especially so when its followed up with comments like "just because theres a few woke jokes in his work" or whatever like god it feels so belittling like just say youve only watched thor and what we do in the shadows 😭 taikas body of work is not a handful of woke jokes.

its just like... there are not many indigenous creators in hollywood and even less that are māori. if you follow his work outside of marvel youd know that hes aware and brings that culture into his work and onto set. that and pays it forward too! he does quite obviously seek out indigenous creators/actors/writers/directors within an industry that is not kind.

its just... i wish criticism could come from a place that doesnt intentionally erase and minimize it by making him out to be ignorant and exploitative of poc. i just feel like if you have to intentionally dismiss that and frame him as only having white interests in mind, then you should reevaluate your critique to make sure it holds up on its own without erasing him and his identity.

there simply are not many others doing it like him! and i just hope that if people are going to dismiss him completely, often based on standards unevenly applied that are much harsher towards marginalized creators than anyone else, that at the very least they can commit to making an effort to seek out other indigenous creators/projects as well to uplift and promote. bc overall as a whole, we are not doing enough to support indigenous communities. theyre named in discourse, but almost never actually centered in a tangible manner.

and again, criticism is fine, but it should take a holistic approach that places it within the context of his work and the ongoing conversation hes having about indigenous representation and opportunity. not as a way of excusing whichever critique, but because it stunts any conversation and makes it impossible to do a thorough analysis if you flatten him to a caricature. literally just stop pretending and saying that he only has white interests in mind. its literally just not true and you can criticize him without doing so.

[coffeeandcalligraphy]

Hello! I just found your yt channel (it's amazing) and watched your video on writing diversely. What an awesome video, I learnt and took away a lot from you and your thoughts, especially as a white writer. I am still however a little conflicted on one thing. Not just writing the characters as another race or gender or identity of any kind from the writer, but the actual main character. Would it automatically be offensive and destined for failure for a white author to write a black main protag?

Hi there! I’m happy you found the video helpful, thank you for watching! This is a link to the video if anyone reading this has not watched it.

To be honest, I think I explained this as concisely and accurately as I could in the video as it’s truly the thesis of the video itself. I don’t want to fully reiterate what I said in the video because I feel like I won’t be as accurate/coherent, so I urge you to rewatch the video and take care to look at the timestamps as that may clarify your particular question, first and foremost! Taking a look at some of the comments too might also be helpful.

Stay in your lane as a detrimental, albeit well-intentioned, mantra

As I say in the video, it’s not as easy as saying “white people can’t write XYZ main character” or “we can write whatever we want”, nor is it as easy as and saying “stay in your line” , which may inadvertently enforce the majority as publishing is majorly white (stats are in the video). I believe I did address main characters too in that video, but whatever I said about characters in general 100% applies to POV/main characters as I was rebutting the well-intentioned, but perhaps detrimental idea that it’s only appropriate for a marginalized POV character to be written by someone marginalized in the same way (IMO, long-term, this will cause an influx of white POV stories which is the opposite of the intention [people say “stay in your lane” will allow marginalized folks to represent themselves rather than have white people represent us] as the publishing industry a) is mostly white and b) only seems to care to actively publish white people. “Stay in your lane” may also inadvertently define the role a marginalized person should play in the writing industry [responsible for writing stories about their marginalization]).

Writing POC main characters = automatically offensive/destined to fail?

If you’re viewing or questioning if writing a POC MC is “automatically offensive” or “destined for failure” I really urge you to rewatch the video because this is covered quite extensively but particularly take a look at the “trade fear for empathy” section as this question in itself is laden in a black and white binary of right versus wrong. If you’re asking this question, it might be that you are lacking the empathy to understand what I’m saying in the video (which is okay! there are many others who I’ve further discussed with in the comments). Writing POC isn’t something that’s destined to fail just because you’re a white author IF you do your research, be respectful, write empathetically and craft well-rounded, complex people. If you’re thinking you might automatically fail in this department because you are a white person, I did mention in the video that you may not be ready to write diverse characters in the respectful, robust ways necessary because you may be viewing POC as a “pass or fail” system which is obviously not what we are. If you want to write a diverse POV character and you do your research, write empathetically, speak to those people from that community (with their consent) and be willing to adjust your representation with that feedback without getting defensive, I don’t see how this would be automatically offensive or destined for failure, just like anything else that requires research.

Disproportionate amounts of white versus POC writers being published

In terms of publication failure, white people are actually the ones being majorly represented to write marginalized stories (when they don’t share that marginalization), so you probably wouldn’t have a problem getting a POC-lead story published (not saying I think this is right) because publishers treat diversity as a quota/marketing tactic and IMO, don’t seem to actually care about representation on a structural level, but rather on a topical, superficial level (which is why my main point in that video is that publishers, not individual writers, need to be held accountable).

White writers accidentally “dehumanize” POC in a misguided attempt at being empathetic

I think some white people, (and I don’t exactly want to use this word because it is quite severe but illustrates what I mean) may accidentally “dehumanize” people of colour in worrying that whatever move they’re going to make is automatically going to offend us, when in reality, if you take the time, and put in the effort to research and get to know people of colour (from my comments, these worries often stem from white people who don’t know many people of colour IRL), you will see that yes, we are different from you and difference is good, but no, this difference does not make us an untouchable, unknowable species. I don’t mean to make this seem like an “I don’t see colour” or “the only race is the human race” argument, which would be harmful, but rather a reminder that people of colour are also human beings and as you would write a white character with empathy, integrity, and vigour, you should also do the same when writing characters of colour (I address this in more detail in the video).

Doing personal research in times of confusion

I understand that as a white person, thinking about and understanding these issues may not be particularly easy, and even after a nearly hour long video of me expressing these thoughts, I genuinely do understand why someone who is not affected by these issues daily may still struggle with grasping these concepts. That’s because anti-racism is not something you can accomplish by watching one video, or reading a few articles--it’s a lifelong commitment, and so that’s when you would take your privilege as a white person to do more digging before you ask questions to those who have to expel emotional labour to answer them for you (not saying I have any problem answering your question at all, but putting this out there because there are many well meaning white people who I’ve encountered in my comments that do ask me or other BIPOC questions before turning to other resources that wouldn’t require free labour). Take some time to ruminate with this info, and then do some digging of your own. If you haven’t checked out these, these are my favourite anti-racism resources, all of which are free to access (noted otherwise):

Jane Coaston - The Intersectionality wars

A pretty comprehensive place to start with Kimberle Crenshaw’s theory of Intersectionality

Peggy McIntosh - White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack

Wonderful place to start in understanding white privilege for those who don’t understand the differences/nuances between race VS class VS gender privilege etc

Article that explores white privilege beyond McIntosh’s ideas

It’s really important that white people also learn the systemic ways in which they benefit from white privilege and not just the “bandaids are made in my skintone” examples (though those examples are often used first because they’re the easiest to understand for a white person who is affected by other intersections, i.e. class, sexuality, gender, who does not feel they are privileged in other ways i.e. race).

Documentary on white privilege (Jane Elliott’s Brown Eyes VS Blue Eyes experiment)

Angela Davis - How Does Change Happen?

bell hooks - Ending Domination: The Struggle Continues

Abena Busia - In Search of Chains Without Iron: On Sisterhood, History, and the Politics of Location

I was able to access this reading through my university but IMO it is a must-read, especially for non-POC who may not fully understand the privilege of whiteness.

Claire Heuchan - Your Silence Will Not Protect You: Racism in the Feminist Movement 

**Absolute must-read: “The theory did not emerge in order to aid white women in their search for cookies – it was developed predominantly by Black feminists with a view to giving women of colour voice (Heuchan).”

Tamela J. Gordon - Why I’m giving up on intersectional feminism 

Powerful perspective on Intersectionality and how it’s been used in white feminism

Jennifer L. Pozner - How to Talk About Racism, Sexism and Bigotry With Your Friends and Family

Really good place to start if you have loved ones in need of education.

Maria Lugones - Playfulness, “World”-Travelling, and Loving Perception

This is the absolute crux of my points in writing empathetically.

"The paper describes the experience of 'outsiders' to the mainstream of, for example, White/Anglo organization of life in the U.S. and stresses a particular feature of the outsider's existence: the outsider has necessarily acquired flexibility in shifting from the mainstream construction of life where she is constructed as an outsider to other constructions of life where she is more or less 'at home.' This flexibility is necessary for the outsider but it can also be willfully exercised by the outsider or by those who are at ease in the mainstream. I recommend this willful exercise which I call "world"-travelling and I also recommend that the willful exercise be animated by an attitude that I describe as playful" (Lugones 3). 

^^^ For writers struggling with the prospect of diversity and trying to find a place to start in what I call in my video "letting go of fear and voraciously welcoming empathy" I highly recommend this article as it is a powerful account of travelling across each other's "worlds". Read it for free with a free JStor account or through your institution, like your public library.

How to BLACK: An Analysis of Black Cartoon Characters

A FANTASTIC video that is an absolute must-watch (covers writing empathetically, writing with care)

If you have not already, read through the sources I used to formulate and argue my thesis in my video (much more detailed than I could do in an hour!):

Corinne Duyvis (ownvoices creator) on # ownvoices

CCBC - "Publishing Statistics on Children's/YA Books about People of Color and First/Native Nations and by People of Color and First/Native Nations Authors and Illustrators"

Hannah Heath - "5 Problems Within the Own Voices Campaign (And How to Fix Them)"

Saadia Faruqi - "The Struggle Between Diversity and Own Voices"

Kat Rosenfield (Refinery29) - "What is # ownvoices doing to our books?"

Lee and Low - "Diversity Baseline Survey 2019 Results"

Vulture - "Who Gave You the Right To Tell That Story"

School Library Journal - "An Updated Look at Diversity in Children's Books"

TL;DR: if you’re more overcome with the fear of offending people (often grounded in white fragility) instead of making the active, albeit sometimes uncomfortable, decision to do the hard work necessary to empathetically represent someone outside of your marginalization in fiction, I don’t think you’re ready to write POC in the nuanced, complex, empathetic ways necessary for good representation, and I would encourage you do more independent anti-racist work. (Note that “you” is not individualistically aimed at the asker!!)

Questions like this don’t necessarily have a clear-cut answer, and that is essentially the point of my video (I know, not super helpful, but I hope that makes sense!).

Hope this helps!

--Rachel

[maxellminidisc]

I was talking about this with my mom but one of the things that bothers me with online discourse especially that which involves LGBT topics, race, leftism/communism, and especially the intersection of those topics in particular, is that white/white gay people have this like abundant access to information (not just from sources but people with experience themselves!!! And they abuse that but that's another topic) so they eat it up but have very little experience with how these systems of opression and theory are actually applied outside of a white upper/middle class lense (and to be honest even poor white lenses are put in scope of hopes of being upper/middle class). They have very little to no experience with it what so ever because their whiteness is much more valuable and significant in the greater scheme of things but they cannot acknowledge it for shit.

And I think the worse thing about this is the eventual weaponization that white people craft out of that information against the people who are most effected by these systems of oppression they're learning about. Like the most obvious example I can think of with this is the rise in leftists on here who cannot and will not see their blatant anti-blackness/racism in whatever criticism of US imperialism or drastic ill wishes they have on American people they're lumping together when they damn well know white Americans are the groups that perpetuate and profit off white supremacy, capitalism, imperialism etc. at the cost of Americans of color. And when confronted with it they turn to their argument into an attack on their identities outside their whiteness. They will legit use their identities as LGBT people or any other marginalized identity+ whiteness to excuse themselves like poc who also share those identities dont exist and often than not said poc who share those identities arent also the ones calling them out on it. They KNOW their whiteness is what counts in society at large, they KNOW their whiteness has more value in any conversation they hold and they throw it in your fucking face.

Like its devastating and also infuriating the way whiteness will always let people get away with things even if they have other cards stacked against them. And it's even worse being a PoC with those other "cards" having to sit there and see someone weaponize them against you knowing that if you tried it, you would NEVER get away with it, in fact youd be even further scrutinized for the simple fact that you are not white.

What is the use of all this access and all this supposed time spent absorbing it just to abuse it? What is the use in you learning the keys to dismantling systems of opression when you're literally using them to open doors only for yourself and on top of it using them irresponsibly? What is the use in needing you in these spaces then?

[soulvomit]

I mostly care about people’s praxis, far more than their analysis or their fandoms. You will reach that point, too.

I feel like a lot of the culture of young Millennials and Gen Z hitting “cancel” on friendships with people who aren’t ideologically identical, is kind of interesting, because there are only a few ways that could have come about. This filtering is something I can apply to *new* friends, certainly - I have, and I do - and my newer friends are much more “like me” in terms of how I presently am. But it’s harder with legacy friends, and it’s harder with people who are clique members. There is very little way I could do this because of what the general social shape of my life is like. I wouldn’t be surprised if many of you feel the same way in your 40s, once you’ve had a chance to make a bunch of different friends in the non-digital world - at your jobs, in your neighborhood, etc. - and once you find that your same-age friends that you had in your teens and 20s, have either changed, or *not* changed (and *you* have changed). One of my groups of mismatched, imperfect people goes back to the 1980s. We are in our mid to late 40s now. This is the group I run into the most issues with, with politics. Many of them were oddballs or even radical in their day.  It’s not that they are now Trump supporters or anything. They aren’t. They largely either voted for Bernie or Hillary and not a single one of them voted for Trump. But after I moved away, I got involved in LGBTQ culture... and they simply stayed the same. Being actually in LGBTQ culture in the Bay Area, in the 90s, isn’t the same as being a hetero person in a heterocentric world who doesn’t hate gay people. Most of my friends up here are actual allies or activists. Most of my friends in LA, who I grew up with, are simply not haters. Most are super progressive by 1990s LA standards. They support trans rights and gay rights and bi rights and women’s rights at the most basic and active level I actually require from cis het middle class people: as a non-hating outsider who will back up LGBTQ people at the polls and who will back up their LGBTQ friends when there’s trouble. They call people out when people tell gay jokes. They use people’s preferred gender pronoun, respect trans people’s identities, and probably even have friends who are trans. But they have no idea what’s actually going on in the LGBTQ community or what conversations are being had or even what those conversations are being called. I’m pretty sure they don’t “get it” about any gender identities besides male and female, on a deep internalized level. But they will respect your identity despite not “getting it.”    They are not the perfect kinds of 100%-validating all-accepting friends *now* that I needed as a teenager and 20something. The funny thing is, they *were* the 100%-validating all-accepting our-politics-100%-match friends when I was initially friends with them. But people change. They meet the minimum requirement I have of family members, to be able to sit at the same dinner without me raging and walking away. There are things I simply don’t talk to them about, because I feel like they live on a different planet from me and just don’t get all the finer points of political or social stuff I’ve dealt with since leaving LA. While they don’t particularly do anything that is harmful or racist by today’s terms, I also can’t really talk about them about that stuff, because they just Haven’t Kept Up. It’s annoying sometimes, because I love to talk about that stuff and think about that stuff and a lot of them seem like they’ve closed themselves off since their early 20s.  And that’s the thing - lots of people, particularly people who are not that marginalized themselves, simply Do Not Keep Up with the latest discourse around every new movie or piece of media or every new offense. And even older marginalized people don’t necessarily have the same analysis as younger marginalized people.  The group I grew up with, knows what’s on the ballot, they support their real-life friends, but it is the kind of thing of “I don’t know your life experience, but I love *you.*” No, that is not the same at all as “hate the sinner but love the sin.” The shape of this is more like, in real life, “I support your rights and I support *you* and I voted for the right things, but I don’t get what’s wrong with the representation in that movie nor do I even know what people are saying about it.” They have no problem with analyses of racism and other forms of prejudice as a more binary thing but aren’t up on the latest analyses of it as a pervasive cultural thing or The Invisible Knapsack or 2019′s construction of cultural appropriation. I can’t even talk with some of these people about these things. They don’t even know these conversations are happening any more than they know what music the young people are listening to. Their whole world consists of other people their age, older people, and their own children. Actually the ones with teenagers more up on the issues. This will happen to you, too, because chances are, you will either politically drift from your high school and college age friends, or they will drift from you. Some of you will “keep up” more than others have.  Sometimes you’ll educate them - but sometimes you’ll just leave those topics alone. Most of the time, you’ll just leave it be. Especially since so many people past their 20s have just frozen in place, culturally and socially (those of you who are a little older know this, just think about your high school reunion).  There gets to be a point at which you just end up accepting that there is such a thing as Woke Enough.  Here is the thing: It’s a stark truth that a lot of you, in your 20s, are probably at the peak level of engagement that you will ever be. And some of you who go on being activists, will be burned out by this age. Even those among you who are LGBTQ may find a partner then just kind of close yourself off inside your world of partnered friends, and move to the burbs away from where all the discourse is taking place. And with the discourse swinging younger and younger - you may eventually find yourselves totally out of the loop. Eventually, you will find that your friends that once matched you on everything, no longer match you on everything... but provided they don’t do anything too horrific (and you get to decide what your limits are, and yes you will probably have to pick and choose your causes because by your 40s you’re going to find that it’s impossible to be all things to all people and “not being a dick” is the best you can offer.) You won’t even know it’s happening until it’s happened. And it WILL happen and there is pretty much nothing you can do about it. There are a couple of them whose politics infuriate me, because of how oblivious they seem to be about anything that has happened since 1999.   Honestly, these people do piss me off, and I feel like there is a lot of willful ignorance among a lot of cis-het white middle class people in my age group. Especially the ones who didn’t lose privilege in some major way. And honestly. I have to just hold my nose. Because after 30 years of friendship, they’re still the group in which I’m most likely to find a place to live should I need one, or a kidney donor.  It would be almost impossible to “cancel” them for not being perfect. For not knowing the newest and most woke terms. Here is a way that in your teens and 20s you get to more play “pick and choose” - if your friends are all individual people whom you met as an individual person. None of them know each other. You aren’t in some enmeshed group with a lot of overlapping, intersecting interdependencies. Small town and clique and workplace dynamics almost always have a little bit of “Geek Social Fallacies” to them, because it’s not like you can just push someone out of the group, not when they’re married to your other friend and their wife is your kids’ babysitter.  I have a couple of legacy friends from the high school days who were progressive for the 80s and 90s. Not a single one of them would ever vote for or support Trump and plenty would defriend you over the same. They’re not progressive by Gen Z standards. I just have to be okay with them not being transphobes, not being racists, not being homophobes or biphobes. I have to be okay with them backing me at the polls and boycotting problematic companies, even when their analysis is not all that. There is a lot of indirect problematica in 90s progressive politics. People just didn’t have as much information. Here’s an example. You get a lot of political analyses that are the product of people who know about the Civil Rights Movement, who generally are the most generous definition of what the 90s thinks of as “not a racist.” They voted for Obama, are great with their kids marrying a black person (or they married one), are great even with living in diverse communities. They may even be against police brutality. They grew up in upper middle class communities that weren’t necessarily ethnically or racially exclusive. But they don’t have the analysis that Gen Z leftists have, or that the LGBTQ community has, or that poor marginalized communities have. They don’t use the same framing or same words to talk about these issues. They don’t think they are racist, because their main connections with POC are with other second-generation middle class people. Their analyses almost always exclude generational poverty.   So what happens is because they’re so clueless, they support policies that they think are not racist, but lead to racist results. Because this cause and effect  can be almost invisible to someone not actually living in poor, diverse communities. They genuinely think gentrification is awful but at the same time they don’t actually know anyone who’s ever been gentrified out. Or their friends moved away who were poorer, but it’s “a mystery,” because the thing with Bay Area gentrification is that it was happening one family at a time as far back as the 90s and no one was talking about it. Most of them are well-intentioned but the particular set of issues are so incredibly nuanced that somebody on the outside just probably won’t understand unless they’ve grown up around that group or put a lot of time into learning the problem. Like, I’m pretty sure that a lot of them, as good as they are about relating to other ethnicities, don’t really get Native issues. I’ll have to settle for the fact that they know enough to only buy Native art from Native people, and they know not to wear war bonnets. But I don’t expect them to know a single thing about S’Klallam land management crises. It’s only recently that any of them would’ve had any context regarding residential schools like the one my grandfather was in. And yes I like when people listen and actually grasp what I’m saying from real empathy and understanding and interest in knowing. But you’d be surprised how short this is, about so many things, in the real world. Most people are not that interested in my long stories about ANYTHING unless that’s what they actually came for. I have to be okay with the fact that my friends that I grew up with, are not “with it” as much as I’d like them to be, and decide how “with it” I require - then once I have decided, I have to be okay with the fact that they would probably give me a kidney. My more recent friends are the ones who are more “with it” about the same things I care about.  But you’d be surprised how little a lot of subjects ever, ever actually come up in a conversation of longstanding acquaintances - when the acquaintanceship runs a decade or more. And the main metric for “listen” is, “if it DID come up, would I be able to tell them? Would they get it?” A lot of them won’t Get It to the degree that someone just like me would get it. And I’m so many things in one person, that nobody is ever going to be Just Like Me. So others’ empathy and understanding, for the purposes of my own life, has to be Good Enough. Everyone has to make an individual choice on this one and decide how much sameness they need in certain areas, how much empathy. The people who really fucked up - like the couple of people who really did turn out to be racists - I’ve long since canceled. I’m no longer friends with any radfems, either.  And what’s more is that I have a big extended world of people, but I also have a “circle of trust” that is only a few. Those are the handful of people who know me, get me, I can fully be myself with. And these are not my high school or college era friends. These are worth three times their weight in gold. But most of what younger Tumblrians expect in their dealings with people - that’s stuff I only really get out of the people in my circle of trust.  For everyone else, Good Enough will have to be okay. What’s more is that I bet a lot of you will come to the same conclusion one day.  I realize this sounds like middle class white normie neoliberal apologia. But there’s a difference between “people who are my very best friends, who I can tell everything to” (which is not actually THAT many people, but it’s enough) and “people I generally otherwise enjoy and wouldn’t kick out of an AD&D game, but can’t talk about EVERYTHING with.”

[veridium]

when you say a white writer has no business writing a POC, do you mean due to our world's inequality issues, or under absolutely any circumstances? e.g if there was a fiction AU world where there was no differences between the races whatsoever and never had been, would you apply it to that as well?

You know. I sat back and thought about this, and TL;DR my answer is those two reasons are inextricably linked. White creators have no business writing POC in stories because of our world’s inequality issues and because their liberty in doing so is won after centuries of international, settler-colonial genocide and abuse. 

And I’m just gonna have this out in the open: one of my characters in my fiction is a Black woman. I do not talk about this with the presumption that I exist outside of this situation. I also know that we as fandom creators make characters of different races and ethnicities all day, every day. My critique here is with the industry, the flow of economic and social capitol that functions to privilege whiteness, neurotypicality, heternormativity, etc. I don’t get paid to write Naomi, and I don’t get industry clout for writing her in my fanfic as a character. I still try my best to consider how her world could be shaped and how her life happens with all facets of her identity configured, but I never ever claim nor want to claim that my writing her is an organic meditation on racism through a closed read. 

CW: racism, settler-colonialism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia.

Here’s the thing – universes and worlds are places of endlesspossibility, right? But if we are talking worlds with societies, cultures, andother staples of anthrocentric environments, a utopia is inherently paradoxical.You cannot have a world of groups, societies, and governments without identitiescoalescing and diverging from one another in both interest and history. No matterwhat, whether it be on the basis of skin color, origins, traditions, norms,values, ambitions, social organization will manifest itself.

And here’s another thing: 99.99% of the time in games, movies, tvshows, utopian worlds where race, class, gender, and sexuality are “unimportant”is a half-assed narrative style. Why? Because we don’t know what that actually lookslike without getting our perspectives and experiences on them like muddyfingerprints. If we’re simply talking Dragon Age, and specifically Inquisition,we have one Codex entry – “Sexuality in Thedas” – that discusses sexualidentity in several different cultures as being more behavioral quirk than anything.And yet:

1.       Dorian is threatenedwith blood magic as a form of identity conversion therapy,

2.       Cassandra objects toromance with a F!Inquisitor due to her gender and her faithful morality, and

3.       We see social stressorstake place wherein people who are LGBTQ+ are seen as philandering, sexuallypromiscuous, etc.

It is a similar botching when it comes to race, because eventhough skin color isn’t supposed to be theoretically consequential, Vivienne isfaced with misogynoir that gets violent from the Imperial Court, and Elves areoppressed by virtue of their race.

Creating fictional worlds where identities marked by skin color, anatomy,economic class, etc. is nice to think about because it removes the stress ofhaving to construct and reckon with the violences of inequality. And who doesthat most benefit? White people of Anglo-European descent. It is no surprisethat in media industries unjustly dominated by white, cisgender, heterosexualmen, utopianism is an uncritical broad-brush tool used in narrative to removeresponsibility for the creators to flesh out and consider alternative perspectivesoutside their positionalities.

These worlds, these narratives, come from us, and we are in thisworld. This planet, wherein colonial white supremacist genocide has wreaked havocglobally for centuries and continues to do so. I don’t care if Steve Stevenson fromGlendale, CA with his Prius and polo shirts can write his pants off for acharacter who “just happens” to be a person of color. The fact is and willalways be that he gets money deposited into his bank account for it that couldhave gone to a Creative of Color to write, construct, design, illustrate, etc.instead of him.

More often than not, Utopian AUs are the playgrounds of privilege.We dissect this in social theory and ethnic studies, how the concept of a “Utopia”presents itself as disconnected from past and futurity, suspended inegalitarian stasis. It proposes a place where generationally inherited anger, poverty,abuse, cultural erasure, etc. have no bearing on the community or the individuals’identities. Who has the most to benefit from that? Who has the most to benefitfrom subjugated identities not having reason nor evidence to thedisorientation, persecution, and estrangement they feel from the body politic?

So, no, I don’t think white creators have any business writingcharacters of color. I don’t think cishet creators have any business writing LGBTQ+characters. I don’t think able-bodied or neurotypical people have any businesswriting neurodivergent and/or disabled characters. But that’s the thing: theydon’t have the business, but they still do it, and get paid and awarded for it.Because societies do not exist without someone being more susceptible than theother, and more apt to be exploited and marginalized.

In the United States alone, Black families on average have afraction of saved wealth that white families do, due to hundreds of years ofunpaid labor. Their descendants have less inherited wealth to invest inhousing, education, healthcare, and travel. That means generations of Blackcreatives have had a starting line dozens of miles behind their typical White peer.Indigenous peoples in this country are the descendants of communities activelytargeted with genocide and are still enduring tactics of it in environmentaland land-grabbing public “policies.” Trans women of color’s average expectedlifespan is ~35 years.

There is absolutely no fucking reason why characters who look likethem, who come from experiences they have had, who are products of theimaginations in this world, should be coming from anywhere else but them. Thetalent and skill are out there, the content is out there, and they are workingtheir asses off in a system that does not serve them and in fact repressesthem.

But I think all in all, my statement should be more precise: Thereis absolutely no fucking reason why white cishet people should have theliberties they do in creative fields to write racism, racial sexism, colorism,misogynoir, that they do. The fact that a white person can make a movie, writea book, make a TV show about racism, or a cishet person can make content about homophobia/transphobia,and be paid for it, and take credit for the work those communities do, shouldtell you they have no business. And yet. People from those communities andgroups die in the streets, in detention centers, in prisons, etc. and yet theirexperiences don’t matter as much as the hot new story on the movie posters orin the game trailers. This is the social product of hundreds of years of imperialismtaking stories, taking cultures, and taking heritages, and claiming ownershipover them. Popular culture and media does not exist outside of theseideologies, and in fact they are blunt results of them.

[ungracefulace]

I feel like comparing marginalized communities is sort of tone deaf anyways? Like yeah they intersect but histories are different and a thing that applies to one community might not apply to another. Ie the n slur can be reclaimed but isn't an identifier (I think? I'm not black so please correct me if I'm wrong), whereas yeah queer might be considered a slur but it's fully reclaimed AND an identifier.

Honestly anytime someone makes a comparison between communities they dont belong to it ends up tone deaf. And even sometimes if they do belong to both groups if they're detached enough from one or the other. And their shitty comparison was no different.Starting with the fact that yeah, nigga/nigger isnt a fucking identity. Queer people, whose sexuality/gender or relationship with those is just queer? That exists. No one's race is nigga. Also, queer encompasses multiple identities along with being an identity, whereas the n slur is specific to black people ONLY. It's not for all POC or anything like that. And also it's just at the heart a false equivalence. Queer is a slur, but it also functions as an identity and an be used for/against multiple identities and on both the axis of gender and sexuality. It's got a past of being a rallying cry, a unifying term for the LGBT+ community along with being a slur. Nigger, on the other hand, was used against one (1) group, is historically violent and only historically violent, has only recently (when you consider how long it's been used) been used in a more positive way and even then the spelling is different and the tone is more relaxed because of the history the word has. It's not the fucking same and especially shouldn't be used as a discourse pawn for people who arent even affected by it.These are all things I would have explained to asexythot, but they were too busy ignoring an actual black person's complaints and acting like the victim because it's easier than acknowledging you might have fucked up

[transgenderteensurvivalguide]

My parents are split but we're (me and mom, who I live with) still under my dad's insurance. He changed it without telling us and now only a very limited list of therapists are covered. I can't find any information on whether they're trans friendly but I'm feeling really dysphoric and want to talk to someone, esp since I'm closeted. Suggestions?

Lee says:

You most likely need your parents’ consent to see a therapist, but that depends on your age and the laws where you live. Here’s a website with information about that. 

You don’t have to tell your parents that you want therapy because of any trans-related thing if you think they wouldn’t accept that reason. Telling your parents you struggle with mental illness is likely true and can help convince them to get you a therapist.

Here’s How to Find a Therapist When Your Parents Won’t Help. You could try googling “LGBT friendly therapist [your town/region]” or “affordable therapy [your town/region].” 

Another method of finding a therapist is bringing it up the next time you see your primary care doctor if that’s soon or you’re able to get an appointment to see them, as they can sometimes refer you to other professionals. It seems like you did this already, but you can also try calling the number on the back of your insurance card, if you have access to it, and seeing if they have a list of therapists. 

Since you have a list of the therapists your insurance will cover, you can try emailing them or calling them and asking if they’re trans-friendly, or just make a first appointment with one of them and ask then. If they don’t respond positively, just tell your parents you don’t think they’d be a good match for you and you’d like to try a different therapist. You don’t always find The One (haha) on the first try; sometimes you have to see a few of them until you find someone you’re comfortable with.

General info:

Types of mental health professionals

A Beginner’s Guide to Starting Therapy

What is psychotherapy?

Black mental health resources 

5 mental health podcasts by therapists of color

22 Messages for People Who Think They ‘Don’t Deserve’ Therapy

29 Things No One Ever Tells You About Being In Therapy

Gender therapy:

Telling a therapist you’re trans

Do you need a gender therapist to start hormones?

Do I need a gender therapist to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria?

Questions a gender therapist might ask

How do I find a gender therapist?

Ask a gender therapist youtube channel

Choosing a therapist (outdated language)

Trans-friendly therapists

Pride Counseling

Note that any therapist can call themselves a gender therapist if they want to- they don’t have to have gone through any specific training or get any additional degree to claim that title. 

Some people find gender therapists helpful since they may be able to help you work out your identity, but other people find they’re not as up-to-date or as “woke” as they would have hoped. If you have a therapist who isn’t supportive of you in the way you need them to be, stop seeing them and look for another therapist! It’s okay to “therapist shop”.

Getting letters for hormones/surgery:

Any therapist can write a letter for you to start hormones, you just need a therapist who is willing to do it. You aren’t limited to a so-called gender therapist for that.

You should be direct about what you want when you contact a therapist- say something like “My primary goal in my sessions with you is getting a letter to start HRT/get surgery. Here is the relevant portion from the WPATH-SOC on writing the letter. How long will it be/how many sessions do you think it’ll take before you’re comfortable writing this letter for me?” (This only applies to folks who are solely looking for letters)

You can see an example of what a letter for hormones or surgery looks like here, and you can show them that and the WPATH-SOC which has information for providers on writing the letter. It might help to email them the link and also print out the relevant sections to bring with you.

Getting a therapist:

This post on picking a therapist has some great tips.

Getting a Therapist - a brief step-by-step

Psychiatrist, psychologist, therapist or counsellor?

Need to find a therapist by location? Psychologytoday lets you search by city or zip code

http://finder.psychiatry.org/

Can’t afford therapy? No insurance? Need low cost options? Here is a great list of ways to get help when money or insurance is an issue.

What to Do When You Can’t Afford Therapy

Here’s What To Do If You Can’t Afford Therapy

Affordable therapy by state

Therapist shopping

How to Find a Therapist

A Beginner’s Guide To Starting Therapy

What to ask when transitioning to being in college

6 Tips for Marginalized People Looking for a Good Therapist

How to Find an LGBTQIA-Inclusive Therapist

How To Find The RIGHT Therapist For You (And Make It Work!)

How To Find A Therapist Who Understands Oppression And Intersectionality

So You Need a Therapist Who Identifies As (And Specializes In) Disabled, LGBTQ+, POC, or Religious Minority

Why I Needed to See a Queer Therapist (And How You Can Find One, Too)

5 Tips to Help You Find the Right Therapist for You

10 things to ask a potential therapist

Ask These 5 Questions Before Choosing a Therapist

If you can’t access therapy

Therapy options for low-income individuals

7 things to do during your first therapy appointment

Once you have a therapist:

10 things i wish clients knew before starting therapy

Therapy goals

About the therapy session

What should happen in a session

Here is a video Demonstrating what a first therapy session may look like made by a mental health professional

5 Tips on how to talk about yourself in therapy

How to broach a difficult subject in therapy

How to tell a therapist almost anything

21 Tips for getting the most out of each therapy session

6 Ways to open up to your therapist

Communicating with your health provider

Here’s How You Can Get the Most Out of Therapy

Here’s How You Can Get the Most Out of Therapy (Part 2!)

50 Signs of Good Therapy

Having issues with therapy? Here are 50 Warning Signs of Questionable Therapy

If followers have experience with gender therapy or gender therapists then feel free to reblog or comment with your info or experiences!

[plunder-heaven-and-devour-god]

Tropes!

My brother and I are discussing how to put out tropey indulgent media out there while still making original content that is aware of its environment. 

We were looking at tropes and stupidities that we never get tired of in movies/books/games and why we still kind of want them in our content. For example, I can’t get enough of Enemies to Lovers and the bro loves the Jerk with a Heart of Gold Trope. How do you incorporate that into new original ways to stories that still feature a socially conscious voice?

You cannot slap on traits of that trope and expect it to work. You cannot frame the shortcomings of the trope as ideal and you cannot gloss over the ramifications of the trope. Discard what is harmful, take what you love, and run with it. 

EDUCATE YOURSELF, really though, figure out the shortcomings of this trope. Where does it fail? Where does it succeed? I know that my Enemies to Lovers falls through A LOT! How many times do you find  they’re battling each other and clearly the writers weren’t aware of the rules of said trope and they end up being ultimately flat and abusive? The Byronic Hero being the other one people get wrong A LOT. How do you tread that line with elements that can easily run into abusive and violent (or fucking stupid for that matter)? Same for the Jerk with a Heart of Gold  trope, which done properly is great. How many of us have fallen prey to any character who cracks wise and makes bad decisions but ultimately loves and cares? If done badly it treads into dismissive/belittling/abusive 

To give examples of two shortcomings and two successes with these tropes I’ll offer up:

Byronic Hero:

Good: Mr Rochester 

Bad: Literally any bad YA love interest

“Byronic heroes are charismatic characters with strong passions and ideals, but who are nonetheless deeply flawed individuals who may act in ways which are socially reprehensible because he's definitely contrary to his mainstream society. A Byronic hero is on his own side and has his own set of beliefs which he will not bow nor change for anyone. A Byronic hero is a character whose internal conflicts are heavily romanticized and who himself ponders and wrestles with his struggles and beliefs. Some are portrayed with a suggestion of dark crimes or tragedies in their past.” THE LITERAL BYRONIC HERO TROPE PAGE

I feel like that biblical paragraph sums up the Byronic Hero. Where lets say Rochester and Frankenstein or their modern equivalents never have their behaviour or actions framed as good, we still find ourselves engaging with them. It’s indulgent in its admission. It has to be your bag, and it’s that you have to be here for. You have to like engaging with a character that has done bad things but still has enough emotional relatability that instills fascination. 

What is not fascinating/enjoying/attractive is watching bad YA that frames these bad qualities as ideal or go as far as to fetishize them. For instance, the possessive boyfriend angle ‘cause it’s hot is one of my PET PEEVES. YOU WILL ALWAYS GET MORE TRACTION WITH FRAMING THEM AS BAD THAN HAVING THEM DO CREEPY SHIT AND BANKING ON US EMOTIONALLY ENGAGING WITH THEM POSITIVELY. (Looking at you Tiger’s Curse)

You have to be aware where the trope works and where it doesn’t. The authors of bad YA have the intent to make them conflicted/tragic/flawed but don’t really want to examine what made those byronic heroes enjoyable. Instead they take surface attributes and slap them on. Byronic Hero is hiding a wife in the attic (BAD and framed as such)! Bad YA Love Interest is demeaning and patronizing to flirt (BAD and framed as good!) Challenges God and Nature and is NOW A FATHER (Not So Great Frankenstein and not framed as such) . Bad YA Love Interest is physically possessive because that is what this demographic finds sexy (BAd and framed as Good)

Here is an alternative! YA Love interest does bad shit and its not framed as anything good! The protag can react with more autonomy than :Oh that’s hot and my reader’s will think so too! The protag can be dismissive, angry, or shitty right back! No one is absolved! But you can still engage with them on a more nuanced level. You can suddenly make connections with the Byronic Hero because you understand their fear or their conflict, rather have it be a lazy flashback to explain why your bad YA Love Interest is being shitty. 

How to be indulgent: Make your awful characters awful and frame them as such! IF you’re able to create a subtle character that warrants the trope then clearly they have what it takes to be engaging! 

The Jerk with a Heart of Gold trope:

Good: Iron Man (I know people with debate this but we like him in this house so go with it) 

Bad: Any sitcom husband ever

“A person you would expect to be a big Jerkass has some redeeming qualities behind their tough demeanor. Occasionally, they'll try to make it a Hidden Heart of Gold.” - The Jerk with a Heart of Gold TV Tropes Page. 

Awareness is a big factor in incorporating this trope into new ideas and new content because I don’t think this one is ever going away. It obviously manifests in different capacities and genres. But I chose the above examples because they’re familiar, and can be played for drama and laughs. 

Tony Stark is a good iteration Jerk with a Heart of Gold because his actions aren’t framed as harmless or irrelevant. He is a hot mess, he says it himself. He makes bad decision after bad decision and endangers himself and others in the process. Why does he still have a heart of gold? He still gets the “save the cat moment” and he is given time to show his conflict and reasoning as relatable.  He creates Ultron, sides with the UN in Civil War (I still see a lot of his motivation as valid which to each their own when it comes to that movie). He does so out of guilt and the desperate need to hold himself accountable. Being the only person on the avengers who fights by ways of inventions he has understood the consequences of bringing this technology in the world and stepping up an arms race. And yet he continues to fight. To an audience we see his shortcomings as an individual. And yet we feel for him. He is framed with a more subtle dialogue, he is flawed, he tries to be heroic, but he has no clue what he’s doing, and continues anyways.        

I bring Sitcom Husband up because so often show writers will create Sitcom Husband with harmful and toxic male coded traits in mind. They are:

Callous, lazy, clueless, domineering, stupid, always wrong, uglier than their partner, enforce toxic gendered norms, homophobic, transphobic, and/or racist? 

You are not framing your Sitcom Husband’s actions as shitty and bad and worthy of changing. They are being framed as commonplace, expected, and normal. These are not just “jerk” things to do, they are emblematic of larger social issues that many sitcom writers shouldn’t be allowed to tackle. There is the opportunity to have characters that evolve and change but they aren’t allowed because they represent you, the male viewer, and you are shitty and unable of changing. And to all the other genders out there: this is your lot and life, this is how people will treat you. 

Flawed Superhero sides with the UN (Not Ideal but Framed with Good intentions). Sitcom Husband cant remember anything relevant about children’s lives (NOT GREAT but framed as commonplace instead emblematic of a larger issue).

To give an example of Sitcom dads who don’t hit this bad note: Bob from Bob’s Burgers is great, he’s tired of his family’s Shenanigans, but loves them and would do anything for them. An example of Jerk with a Heart of Gold that doesn’t have his shitty actions framed as okay but is still likeable (sounds a bit Byronic Heroish but he’s not trust me). 

The Lens:

Gender

The Byronic Hero and the Jerkass with a Heart of Gold are very gender laden tropes as well. The moment you apply these tropes to people who are not cis men, they transform in meaning, and not to mention, there are BARELY ANY OF THEM. Just trying to find villains who are just cis women with proper writing is a task in 2018. These terms get applied to men and their definitions are validated by their interaction with heroines or other men. 

The failed Byronic Hero is aimed at “female audiences”. It’s a tangled snare of a male content creators guessing at what “women” want and women who have fetishized and internalized the failures of this trope. All come to the conclusion that “chicks dig bad boys”. Not to be that person, but it also vastly misunderstands the appeal that Byronic Heroes have for all genders. It is extremely difficult to create new content that pays homage to this trope without hitting the pitfalls of most media. 

The failed Jerk with a Heart of Goal is aimed at a gender dichotomous audience. It’s a snub of content creators of what they think, you, man or woman, are. The faults are framed as inevitable manifestations of gender and yet still excusable because these jerk related tendencies are just part of being man or a woman, and not a vast social system that favours few and marginalizes many. This extends to race and sexuality as well. Your jerkishness is thanks to your identity, and therefore, unchangeable. 

Race

From a race perspective? They’re all white. We are at a point in Western Media, at the very least, where diversity is becoming an increasing demand. But with media content creators still being part of an out of touch racial group, it’s difficult to see any character, let alone anyone with the discussed tropes represented. We are at the point where your diversity, if a larger role, is going to be portrayed as perfect. This is a major issue I take with creating poc, and woc characters, not to mention characters of different gender and sexual identities. There aren’t enough diverse content creators to get us past this block of creators making them perfect because they don’t know how to make a human character who is also of color. 

This makes the Jerkass with a Heart of Gold impossible to tackle. We are starting to see more fleshed out characters nowadays. It is still a fairly recent sensation to HAVE A SELECTION to chose from.

I would love it if Byronic Heroes and Jerks With A Heart of Gold came in color. We are meant to watch white guys do bad shit and engage with the conflict of their character. And as a mixed race women it is definitely a weird place to sit when one does enjoy tropes like that. IT’s even more unsettling when we can’t extend that empathetic engagement  to men of color, or woc, or god forbid, trans people. (let everyone have a byronic hero honestly)

And in a world of hate crimes and deplorable race relations, what is the relevancy of this trope? What is the relevancy of this trope in a visual mass media already saturated with badly written YA Love Interest or Not So Deep Byronic Heroes?

I’m not an expert, but as a  consumer of books/tv/movies/etc I don’t think fiction is the root of all mankind’s evil and I don’t think fading this trope out of visual mass media is going to get rid of it. I, personally, think we need more content creators of color, of different gender identities, and different sexualities reinterpreting Jerk Ass with a Heart of Gold and the Byronic Hero.

Gender Binary and Sexuality

I chose these two tropes because they’re traditionally VERY gender related. And I mention this to clarify that the market is aimed at a gender binary: straight girl or straight boy. Gays, Bis, Non Binary, Gender fluid, or trans folk, for example, are left out of the equation of: what do they want to see in media?

I do know that for as long as evil has existed there has always been a very clear coding as to what the villain’s sexuality might be. It’s clearly deplorable how literally the only representation a huge marginalized community get will be in the form of a morally or sexually debauched villain. Which is why I will never forgive LeFou being made gay (you couldn’t have picked any other character from your 600000 other features Disney?). 

Also as a Cis woman, I don’t feel like I can do an accurate run down of how indulgent tropes fail or succeed with a LGBT lens. I have a base idea of WHAT NOT TO DO but I would rather see other people talk about it! 

 So PLEASE! Add to this discussion! I would love to hear about which tropes you love but where media fails you and in what capacity! Or where they’ve gone right! 

But as someone who loves their tropey enemies-to-lovers and villains I will keep returning to them in my media consumption and I be subject to paying them homage when the time is appropriate! 

That being said! I had no clue this would get so long.

[hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger]

Strap in as I dissect this one.

I'm gonna be brutal here...Miles is a charcter with some merit and a lot of potential but his merit stems from the fact that relatively speaking he's been portrayed in a way that doesn't do a bad job capturing the feelings of a young biracial poc in modern day NYC and his relationship to his identity as a POC.

I think there are much better examples out there and there have been times where you could at least argue Miles has dropped the ball.

But overall it is Miles' greatest strength as a character.

In other aspects though....not so much.

Because as much credit as you can Miles in regards to handling race and identity...his personality outside of that, his career as a superhero and his general status quo are laughably bad.

Miles suffers from the exact same problems most of Bendis' characters suffer from (including the Ultimate versions of Peter Parker and the other Spider-Man chaacters).

That is to say he is mostly bland as bread but he is handed praise simply because Bendis is associated with him. In a similar (but not as largescale) a way Stan Lee is revered because he pioneered a new way of doing comics Bendis' name automatically makes readers and observers praise his work because when his comics career began at Marvel he pioneered a brand new way or writing comics.

Problem is a lot of the time in pop culture people confuse novelty with quality.

Because Bendis and Stan Lee both, from a creative writing point of view, tended to miss way more than they hit.

Oh sure Bendis' Daredevil and Alias runs in most respects deserve the acclaim they get as does Stan Lee's Amazing Spider-Man and Fantastic Four runs.

But if you bother to really read most of Stan's OTHER Silver Age work...it's a billion miles away from those runs. Stan's Avengers, Iron Man and Thor stories are NOT stories that come anywhere close to the brilliance of his ASM and F4 work. They have great concepts behind them for sure but they are NOT executed very well.

And yet ALL of Stan's Silver Age work is held up in reverence.

The same holds true for the majority of Bendis' work. Most of it is garbage but is revered because he pioneered a new way of doing comics and readers of the early 2000s mistook the novelty of his work for genuine quality writing.

I mean when you honestly think about it for 2 seconds the decompression style he employs is financially and creatively toxic because it literally means readers need to spend more money to get ONE complete story and the pacing of it is destroyed. Reading in trades might be satisfying but the month-to-month sales get fucked in the ass.*

But people don't see that. They see decompression and they think it's goo because bendis does it and Bendis is the best writer around right so that must mean the way he writes is he best way to right.

Except it isn't.

Because Bendis is the guy who on Ultimate Spider-Man tookt he character of Peter Parker who's whole point is that he's the every man superhero motivated by the death of his Uncle ben and decided that his biological Dad Richard parker should be like massively important to the ongoing narrative along with his pseudo father figure Nick Fury the head of the super duper secret spy organization that runs the world. And then on top of that decided that instead of having J. Jonah Jameson be you know...an important character like he has been in....oh yeah EVERY iteration of Spider-Man's story he'd rather Jameson be rarely seen or heard from.

That's not even getting into what he did to the villains. Using just one example Ultimate Venom is objectively speaking a worse version of Venom than the 616 iteration of the character.

At his worst 1990s Venom was an over the top caricature embodying everything wong with the 1990s. He was a mindlessly violent grimdark anti-hero complete with a slavering tongue and idiotic catch phrase (I'll eat your brains!).

It was godaweful personality for the character....but at least it WAS a personality.

Ultimate Venom had ZERO personality. He was nothing more than a gnarling, gnashing mass of goop, teeth and tentacles. Which is NOT what Venom is supposed to be. Venom s supposed to be a evil version of Spider-Man. He's supposed to look like a warped image of Spider-Man and have all his powers, except he doesn't in this version.

When you look at the entire point of that character and of the Ultimate version of Spider-Man overall it was a colossal failure from everything other than a financial point of view. It's job was to do a modernized and more realistic take on Spider-Man but it failed because it fucked up the fundamental points of Spider-Man's story and characters.

But people PRAISED that which underscores my point. People praise Bendis' work because it's Bendis regardless of the quality of the content.

Miles is no different except he ALSO gets handed automatic praise because he provides representation for marginalized people again regardless of the quality of the character. This isn't unique to him because the SAME thing occurs with Riri Williams who is aggressively poorly developed from a characterization POV. I mean for goodness sake we're talking about a character who doesn't seem to care about her Dad dying to the same degree she cares about her BFF. Like...what the fuck. We're talking about a character who asks her teacher to marginalise her.

And despite that, she's praised by the comic book press in general.

Because they aren't bothering to look too deeply at her personality or her characterization or her development or any of the important shit that goes into evaluating writing. They just see a black woman in the role of a prominent white male superhero and that's all that matters.

Which is exactly how the author of this article looked at Peter Parker and MIles Morales.

Peter and Miles aren't people. They aren't characters.

Those aren't the most important things.

The most important things are that one is a white person and the other is a poc.

That is the primary capacity in which their characters and their very identities are to be viewed. That's the 'right' way to view them.

Except it's not and doing so is immeasurably stupid and in fact harmful to the cause of equality.

Saying ANY given instance where a black person or a person of colour is deferring towards a white person in the way Miles does is equitable with racism is as fucking stupid as saying Boys from the Hood is prejudiced towards white people because there are very few of them in the movie.

It divorces fucking CONTEXT.

So let's look at the scene from an in and out of universe perspective with the context applied shall we?

If you bother to read up on Miles Morales goddam history you'll KNOW he has routinely defined himself in contrast to older more established heroes, trying to live up to their legends. You could even argue it's part of the core concept of Miles Morales so having Miles state Peter is the real deal Spider-Man is not just 100% in character but not doing that in this context could be argued as being the height of dishonesty for his character.

It's like complaining that Spider-Man felt guilty over Aunt May's illness in this storyline. Him NOT feeling that way would be bad writing. Because of his established characterization he is OBLIGED to react that way.

But that's an in-universe thing.

Out of universe this is saying Miles lives in Peter's shadow and Peter is the one true Spider-Man.

Yeah.

That's 100% accurate. And to explain why we need to do a little history lesson on the very foundation of the Marvel universe.

Once upon a time in the late 1930s Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster invented the first ever superhero, Superman. The hook for the character was that he was a guy with powers beyond those of ordinary men and used them to fight crime and save people. it was a hit and soon shittons of other characters were created with every name, costume and super power gimmick you could think of being canvassed.

Times changed though and supeheroes fell out of fashion and most of those characters disappeared. Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman however hung around because they were the most popular. Why were they the most popular?

Simple, of all of the various characetrs created they were the ones with the most substance to them relative to everyone else. Every other superhero more or less was a costume and a set of powers and a flashy name and little more than that. Batman had a compelling origin story and gharish supervillains. Superman was the ultimate embodiment of childhood wish fulfillment and Wonder Woman was the definitive female power fantasy.

In contrast the Flash and Green lantern were about a due who was fast and a dude who had a ring that made glowing green shapes. Riveting.

These characetrs were so unimportant that DC comics in the 1950s revived them by basically creating all new characters to replace them. And so we got Barry Allan and Hal Jordan amongst others.

And it was fine because nobody gave a shit about the old Flash and Green Lantern because again...they were superficial. So long as someone could run fast and had a green ring they were good enough. The superficial aspects of both superhero identities was actually so foundational to them that they were replaced AGAIN by Wally West and Kyle Rayner. Because again, the Flash was about a guy who was fast and GL was about a guy with a green ring. That was the POINT of them.

But in the 1960s some guys called Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko (along with others) struck upon the idea that....maybe they should NOT make superheroes who's main hooks were their flash names, costumes and powers.

MAYBE instead of their powers the point of these characters should be their personalities, their relationships, their personal lives in general and the struggles they face day to day like most of us.

Spider-Man wasn't the first experiment with this idea but he was the most successful.

The point of Spider-Man is objectively NOT that there is a guy called Spider-Man, with web spandex and spider powers running around fighting crime.

The POINT is the life story of Peter Parker. The point and the thing that made Spider-Man popular was Peter Parker's SPECIFIC personality. His SPECIFIC relationships with his SPECIFIC friends, family and colleagues. His SPECIFIC jobs. His SPECIFIC life stauts quo in general.

It wasn't the case that ANY given character with ANY given set of friends or personality could've been plugged into that role and would've been as successful because if that was true Daredevil and multiple other Marvel characters would've been as successful too.

Hell NOVA, Speedball and other characters who were deliberate attempts to be the Peter Parkers of their generations never came close to that level of success.

Because the entire CONCEPT and APPEAL of Spider-Man is rooted SPECIFICALLY in Peter Parker.

Now with all of that said let's look at MIles?

Is his personality as vibrant and fleshed out as Peter's? No, he's bland and talked up as 'just a good kid' which is to say he lacks flaws in his personality (which was you know, part and parcel of the entire fucking POINT of all the Marvel characters)

Does he have a compelling motivation and concept powering him such as the guilt and sense of responsibility stemming from his Uncle's death which he blames himself for? No, not anymore. His core concept was that he was the legacy Spider-Man who picked up Peter's role when he died, something Miles feels he could have prevented. Now though that version of Peter came back to life and MIles is in a universe where Peter Parker is alive, has never died, is still active and Miles merely co-exists with him rather than adopts his role and tries to live up to the legend of a fallen hero.

Is his powerset a fine balance of making him a formidable fighter but also far from invincible? No, he can literally win any given fight by turning invisible, sneaking up on someone with his wall crawling powers and spider sense and electrocuting them. And we know it'll work because apparently his electorcution powers are strong enough to knock out Blackheart who is literally evil incarnate and the son of the Devil...and Electro who's entire body is a living electical battery. Miles Morales has plot convenience powers up the wazoo. And if somehow none of those things do the trick it's okay...because he can like make his body explode with electricity and blast everything in his path. And on top of that (if you read the arc where Ultimate Peter Parker returns) Miles can ALSO come back from the dead. That is literally one of his powers. My...how relatable?

Does he struggle with balancing the responsibilites of life alongside the responsibility of being Spider-Man, including the immense burden of guilt, supporting his chronically ill mother, dealing with serious grief, having shit from his peers and the general public mistrusting him which makes earning money extremeley hard? No. In every way other than the fact that he must deal with the immense burden of institutionalized racism Miles' life is 100% better and easier than Peter Parker's. And he has people who can at least support him and help him through personal crises he endures. Peter for the longest time was entirely alone and had to deal with all the stuff you see in this issue and more. THAT is what FORGED him into the hero we know and love today.

He endured all this crap in his life but wasn't destroyed by it, in fact he rose above it and helped people.

THAT is what made him connect with millions of people across the world generation after generation since 1962.

So when Miles in the story, and Bendis through MIles outside of the story says Miles lives in Peter's shadow and Peter is the real deal he's 100% right.

Miles can be the best Miles Morales Spider-Man ever.

But he is NOT the measure of Peter Parker either as a hero in universe or as a character outside of it.

Because Spider-Man was never a name, a set of spandex and spider super powers.

Spider-Man WAS Peter Parker and his life.

To be Spider-Man is to be Peter Parker.

It isn't a mantle to be passed down like Cap's shield or Batman's cowl.

Spider-Man isn't a symbol or a mantle or a legend.

Spider-man is a specific person called Peter Parker and the life he leads.

So no.

It's not 'racist' for Miles or Bendis to acknowledge that or Miles place as NOT being ont he same level as Peter int he role of Spider-Man.

Because it's the truth.

*Bendis' USM work managed to survive that only because

a) It's Spider-Man, Spider-Man automatically guarantees certain baseline sales no matter what

b) At the time that deompression style had the novelty factor going for it

c) Early 2000s Spider-Man was in a state of collapse. Basically until JMS' run began it was bleeding readers badly so any vaguely decent Spider-Man felt like an oasis in a desert, even if the water wasn't exactly clean

e) Mark Bagley's art. Bags is a master artists at the best of times but more importantly his rendition of Spider-Man had been the definitive version used on most merchandise throughout the 1990s, even influencing the highly influencial 1990s cartoon that was back then very recent in people's minds. I mean is it any wonder the quality and sales dropped once Bagley left? If it was all about the writing then it wouldn't have mattered much but it 100% did

f) It was remaking old concepts. At the time that was a new thing so the idea of seeing a moderization of Spider-Man's origin or of the origin of Venom or of Spider-Man first working at the Bugle seemed enticing to readers

g) Whatever you say about Bendis as writer because he was the lone author of USM and because USM the one and only main book for that version of Spider-Man there was a consistency lent to the work that wasn't alienating people and it was easy to catch up because you just needed to follow from issue #1 then issue #2 etc. the same applies for the trades. Much like Japanese Manga USM regardless of the quality of the content was very accessible because you could just start at the beginning and gradually catch up without having to figure out that you needed to read this mini-seires over here or that crossover over there and then in your head explain any contradictions that cropped up because of it.