#actually yes plenty of women but particularly black women and lesbians have a lot to say about the specific brand of misogyny

[ot3]

this flavor of trans guy misogyny where they do rhetorical backflips to explain why them not caring about women is good, actually, and since cis men are also misogynists a lot of the time we should all just stop complaining about it.

[cuntess-carmilla]

On disability and gender

I'm writing this from my perspective as a dyadic TME non-binary lesbian (also mixed but very pale and non-Black, as well as relatively thin). I will group myself with women but like, I'm also not really a woman it's complicated lol. I say this because I can't have first-hand comprehension of all the possible dynamics between gender and disability, and other physically disabled people are very much encouraged to add their own thoughts and perspectives to this post.

I don't feel equipped to speak on how being disabled and intersex impacts gendered experiences because I have too much left to learn, so I'm sorry that I'm not going to go into it. It's not because I don't recognize that struggle, it's because I just don't have the range, so please, if you're an intersex and physically disabled person and you want to expand on this, don't be afraid to do so.

Able-bodieds can reblog but don't speak out of turn.

------------------------------------------------

For a long time I've been trying to articulate my thoughts and pain on how physical disability impacts our gendered experiences and I think I'm finally starting to get to it.

When you're physically disabled you're immediately stripped of a (willing) gender identity as well as desexualized.

Gender is embodied and performed. You can embody it "incorrectly" and perform it "poorly". Everything regarding the embodiment of physically disabled people is seen as incorrect, and the literal meaning of "disabled" is that we can't perform the same way that able-bodied people can, or at least we can't without severely impacting our wellness.

Disabled men are emasculated. Constructs of ideal manhood are in big part built on things such as physical prowess, never expressing vulnerability, being self-sufficient outside of anything domestic, and conquering women sexually and romantically.

Disabled men are seen as weak, they are seen as pathetic for having visible vulnerabilities or (if their disability isn't immediately visible) for exposing their vulnerabilities instead of "sucking it up". By needing aid, accessibility and carers that do more than what a wife would traditionally do for any man, the sense of self-sufficiency men are supposed to perform is unavailable to disabled men. All disabled people are desexualized and seen as repulsive once our sexualities are acknowledged, and even disabled dyadic cishet men can't escape this. Able-bodied women see them as unfit for any sort of serious romantic or sexual partnership. Not to mention too the traditional role of men as providers and how difficult it is for any disabled person to acquire wealth at all, let alone enough to support more than ourselves alone. The rates of poverty for physically disabled people are fucking astronomical, so most disabled men can't even use that to their advantage in romance and sex to make up for all the other ways in which they're at a disadvantage compared to able-bodied men.

Disabled women fail at embodying and performing every single aspect of traditional womanhood too, but in particular; domestic labor, sexual labor, and beauty standards.

All labor is difficult if not downright impossible when you're disabled. Disabled women who need carers as adults are seen as complete failures because, even as children, but especially as adults, we're the ones who're supposed to be the carers of others, not the other way around. People love to pretend that women are coddled more than men, but nothing breaks that illusion more than being a disabled woman. A woman's needs are supposed to be invisible and self-fulfilled, or else we're whiny spoiled bitches, and guess what that means for disabled women. When we can't perform this pristine role we're immediately marked as failures, we're undesirable and nothing but a parasitic drag in the lives of abled people.

Yes, not all disabled women are straight, plenty of us are bi or lesbians, many are also aro/ace, but the point is that the patriarchy doesn't really give a shit what a woman's sexuality is, because no woman is seen as having sexual agency, so even if we're not straight we're expected to exist to satisfy men sexually. I cannot describe how difficult it is to be sexual, even when you're not ace, if you're physically disabled. Speaking from my own experience, trying to maintain a sex life as someone who experiences chronic fatigue and chronic pain is one of the most frustrating and demoralizing aspects of my disability. I want sex, I want to want sex, to be able to fuck my fiancé, but most of the time I simply can't gather the energy to even feel horny. I feel like such a failure of a lover because of it. Even though my fiancé is patient and understanding with me!

Can you imagine what it is like for disabled women who aren't as "lucky" as me, to have a partner who understands that we simply can't do it all the time even if we do want to? I don't want to go into too much detail about this because it's very painful and triggering to many, but I think you can imagine what happens to a lot of disabled women (and disabled people in general) when we're not satisfying a partner sexually and they get too frustrated by it. Being as vulnerable as we are, nobody cares much what happens to us. More so since, again, physically disabled people are seen as sexually repulsive, so if anyone wants sex with us we're supposed to be "thankful" for it, no matter the circumstances.

As for beauty standards, any woman who doesn't fit traditional beauty standards will know just how badly men treat you when they don't find you physically appealing, and well... Let's just say that a cane or a wheelchair aren't seen by society as particularly attractive, no matter how much the woman using them fits traditional beauty standards otherwise. Then there's female amputees, women with deformities, etc. In my case, I'm a literal mutant. If I don't disguise my tells with corsetry, long sleeves, and so, so much more, my body looks "off", I have been told repeatedly that my body looks "off" my whole life, and I'm one of the least visibly disabled ones! Even regarding body hair it's fucking hell. My collagen is so elastic that when new hair grows it stays ingrown unless I manually break my skin with a needle or a pumice stone (no, gentler ways of exfoliation don't work), but shaving isn't ideal either because my skin is, due to my altered collagen too, literally transparent and you can see the roots of my dark hairs under it even if I shave down to accidentally harming my skin with the blade.

Performing femininity at all is just... It's fucking hell. If it's exhausting for able-bodied women, can you imagine what it is like for us? I can barely manage to shower, by the time I'm done with my hair, makeup and outfit, every bit of my very limited energy is depleted and then I still have the rest of the day to go through. And I LIKE being feminine. I like wearing makeup and wearing the outfits I wear and yet I still dread it when I know I'll have to do more than stay in my pajamas at home.

Also, the perceived fragility of disabled women isn't the type of fragility that is seen as desirable in women. It's not delicacy. Wheelchairs, canes and other mobility aids aren't seen as "delicate" or "demure". Neither is kinesio tape, or compression stockings, or any other sort of medical equipment which, on top of it all, tend to not be very "aesthetic". Our fragility isn't the romanticized type, it's the "wow, you're an useless burden who can't serve me the way I expect you to" type.

When it comes to "binary" disabled trans people (for a lack of a better term) the degendering is even more intense than it already is for their cis counterparts (all that I described above applies to them too). There's a dichotomy of the even heavier denial of their actual genders as men and women due to the combination of their transness and disabilities, contrasting with how even if they were to conform to their assigned genders at birth they'd still be seen as failures at it due to everything I've already stated. There's also the sentiment that their identifying outside of their assigned gender at birth is a sort of consolation prize, something they're going for only because they were failing at being proper cis men and cis women, and thus their actual genders are even more invalidated and effectively pathologized in the most medical sense of the word, which is already a problem for all trans people, but for physically disabled trans people this intensifies the problem even more.

When it comes to non-binary disabled people things get so fucking confusing and infuriating. If binary disabled people get denied their manhood and womanhood, best believe that multigender disabled people (bigender, genderfluid, etc) are denied all aspects of their genders even harder. Not even completely agender disabled people are safe from being seen as failures of their gender identities by people who would perfectly respect the identity of an agender but able-bodied person. The fact that the default gendered status of all disabled people is forcefully degendered makes it so agender disabled people aren't seen as having any agency or self-determination in their (lack of or neutral) gender identity, it's seen as a passive inevitability from their embodiment, so it doesn't really "count", while simultaneously being subjected to the general transphobic bullshit any other agender person would be subjected to.

All of these things already affect white, thin and dyadic physically disabled people. When you add race (especially Blackness and/or being dark skinned), fatness and being intersex into the mix, the ways in which we're degendered and misgendered are off the fucking rails.

We can't fucking win.

[dansenfans]

From Dansen fans admin.

This is a collaborative reaction to some (not all as we would be here forever and a day trying to write it down) of our problems with the current storylines on Supergirl. Before we get into that, a word on who helps run the account. We are a varied set of users, but all recognize the importance of Dansen, but also Brainia as representation that not only helps other LGBTQ people - it undoubtedly has saved a life somewhere simply because someone sees themselves represented onscreen. Do not think for a second this is an exaggeration or untrue. The representation is that important and needed. LGBTQ representation is far more than just having a character on TV. It gives those who are marginalized a voice. It gives that child growing up in a hostile environment simply for being LGBTQ hope that their life can be okay. That they aren't a freak. Or they have sinned.

We are from within the LGBTQ community, white, POC and from the heterosexual community (as an ally). So these comments are from a diverse set of people. We all love different characters and even multi-ship in some cases. What we all have in common is a love of Dansen.

What we all also have in common is our absolute horror in not only how the current LGBTQ characters are being used, but how relationships are suffering for it. 

Even away from Dansen we are finding the current overall arc of the story extremely difficult, because there is now such a disconnect from characters and friendships.

Let's tackle the LGBTQ and Dansen problem first. 

William has as much presence as a tree stump. There is something called the potted plant test, and that basically means, if a character can be replaced by a potted plant in scenes and not be missed, they don't need to be there. William is that plotted plant. So many of his scenes could easily have been done by Nia (who is a journalist after all) or Kelly (who we still don't know if she knows Kara is Supergirl, which under the circumstances is utterly laughable).

There is also something in the screenwriting industry that is writing 101, and by all accounts (according to a screenwriter a couple of us know, and no they aren't in the Supergirl fandom, SM or watch Supergirl), “Show us, don’t tell us why this relationship or friendship should work," is what you should have at the forefront of anything you write.

In other words, if fans are being told, or characters get continually told by those around them why they should be in a relationship, it isn't working.

The premise is pretty simple. You outline you want your character to have a love interest. You indicate who that LI might be. You get casting sorted, have chemistry reads. Consider the way in how they get together to fit the bigger narrative. What you don't do is tie it down that this is the way you have to go, regardless of what the story calls for. If after a few episodes, the chemistry onscreen between a character and someone completely different to the LI you had in mind is so obvious, so powerful, you adjust. You don't try to force the original LI into that scenario. If you then have to justify that LI (in Supergirl's case by having those around continually tell her she should go for a date with William, when she looks nothing but awkward and the chemistry is flat), then you fail on this basic writing point. If you ignore what a lot of fans, media and casual observers see elsewhere, you fail at the job of being a good storyteller. 

Supergirl has done both.

Ah but now we head into that territory of Supercorp. Look, we don't ask that people like Supercorp. This truly isn't about that. We aren't a Supercorp account. What it is about is the groundswell of fans who have increasingly seen a crackling connection between Kara and Lena, who had either of these characters been male, would've had them together by now. There are so many direct parallels to other couples, not just on Supergirl but elsewhere (particularly Clois, which fans have plenty of examples about if you look).

But this season, Supergirl took it a step further. The romantic coding that went on in 5a, that had direct parallels to the canon couple (Dansen) on the show to bait fans into watching (and yes it was queerbaiting if they didn't intend to make it romantic because that is exactly what queerbaiting is, and Supergirl has queerbaited now in the worst ways possible) is inexcusable. When you have media outlets, blogs, even non Supergirl fans see this and talk about it (each of us here has someone who isn't a Supergirl fan, but knowing there is a lesbian couple on the show assume Kara and Lena are that couple if they've caught sight of clips) then you have a problem, even if you don't acknowledge it. 

The latest hypocrisy of all this is how some fans have tripped over themselves to say how lovely, how romantic it was of William to remember Kara's coffee order, yet scream down other fans who said the same thing as Kara not only got Lena her favourite coffee and food - she flew across the world to achieve that, at a time Kara fully believed the friendship was fixed. To have fans called delusional for it is preposterous. You cannot do that. You simply can't, and this is a prime reason so many fans get angry and upset. 

Aside from that, the overtones of why William did the coffee run, it was actually more on the creepy side than friendship side. He even acknowledged his behaviour, with the coffee, the texts and the compliments was overstepping and not respecting Kara by his actions. Some say that's self awareness and bravo. We all argue it is borderline abusive.  If your self awareness is such you know your behavior is wrong, and you do nothing to stop or correct that behavior and carry on, then those are nothing more than platitudes. There are examples of people who have been triggered by 5.14 and Williams' actions, and citing why that has occurred as IPV survivors. Melissa is a IPV survivor and if others have been affected by this, we truly worry Melissa has been too, although we sincerely hope that isn't the case. Is that what you want as a fan, even if it is only a possibility with Melissa? Because we definitely don't. No fan should have been triggered from a character like that.

The 100th episode basically turned around and told Kara that she and Lena's destiny was so entwined, that they couldn't live without each other, or they would die for the other. Platonic or not, that is soulmate status. As for best friends? Those of us who are married are all married to our best friend. So many people, whether gay, straight, everywhere in between, say a spouse is their best friend. For anyone saying a best friend doesn't mean they're in love with that person is the worst take, as most of the time the best friend is the partner or spouse. William has barely been in the friend zone, let alone best friend zone. 

As for how William is impacting on the LGBTQ and current cast, there is no doubt he is in an extremely negative way. To the degree that Dansen has suffered significantly. Sure we had an emotional scene in 5.07, but we are now at 5.14, so a further 7 episodes in, and we barely have minutes worth of Dansen onscreen time. Last episode was less than a full minute total Dansen time and that's the best it's been in weeks.

Less than a minute! It was approximately 45 seconds for the first scene. 7 seconds (yes you read that correctly 7 seconds) on the second scene.

So this means that while we got nice character development beginning in S4, and to some degree early in 5a, we have had nothing on any note in regards Dansen all season, or Kelly throughout the entire season so far.

This means that we got invested in these characters, we were promised it would develop as S5 went on, to have this thrown at us as the best they can do? Any intimacy has been pretty much nonexistent, (we had more from Sanvers), and we get told that what they have given us we should be grateful for. No-one deserves that sort of disdain as fans. Yet we get told by others that Kara deserves a relationship with William? Save us the hypocrisy. 

No-one here is saying Kara doesn't deserve a relationship, but at the expense of others? Lead of the show or not, that is an awful take. Particularly when we have a fundamental relationship with her and Lena, even if it isn't romantic. 

If you cannot find balance as a writer to incorporate all of these things, then you aren't doing a good job of it at all. Azie in particular has been given the shittest end of the stick possible. Chyler hasn't faired much better. It is making Dansen now appear forced and lacking depth, and that's even allowing for the build up they gave us in S4. Kelly is a Black Lesbian, is highly educated, has (by all accounts) a loving solid relationship with another woman. All aspects we should be highlighting and applauding. Instead, here we are having to write at length some of what is so wrong for us.

Moving on to another area that was problematic. To have Alex discuss technical details as Kelly arrived in regard her work at Obsidian North, but to hear Kara say to Kelly, "She has never said words like that." 

Now this line could have been in jest, but it didn't feel like that, and considering Alex has a PhD in bioengineering, Alex is also an expert in alien physiology, and has used this knowledge in multiple D.E.O. operations. Alex was able to successfully create Blue Kryptonite to incapacitate Bizarro and working with Maxwell Lord, synthesized a cure for Red Kryptonite. She is also an accomplished neuroscientist and xenobiologist. Alex herself stated she could've had a promising medical career as a researcher had she not decided to work at the D.E.O. instead - and now you are saying Alex would never use that kind of language? Come on! That's so unrealistic it would be laughable if it wasn't so awful.

If you are a show who claims to be at the forefront of LGBTQ representation, who claim to be about female empowerment, you are giving us neither of those things. Someone else wrote this (taken with permission from Buddha in disguise on Tumblr).

"It seems we shouldn't ask for justification as to why William is on the show, but when we say the LGBTQ characters are being sidelined, that it doesn't matter one jot how diverse a cast can be; if said cast are not being given credible storylines or screentime, and if we say as much, we have to continually justify why that is the case. We get told to take what we are given. To insist on better, is oppressing the straight characters on the show, often said by CIS men (in some cases CIS women have argued the same). This isn't oppressing anyone, but asking that if we get given relationships, given characters we want to invest in, they get the storylines to accomplish that. Supergirl is failing the LGBTQ audience so badly at the moment. So many have the same complaints it is ludicrous to suggest this is just one section of a fandom or trolls."

The show is floundering. Winn got a more complete arc and closure in two episodes than anyone else so far on the show this season. We might have had 3 or 4 great episodes out of 14 of the 20 so far this season. The rest have been mediocre at best, with no obvious cohesive plot or storytelling. 

It is crazy that a Superhero show, that effectively has the freedom to pull in ideas from multiple sources with unique interesting takes that allows, has made it so boring, so full of drudgery that people are starting to turn off in droves. A fandom boycott isn't enough for such poor ratings on some episodes. Having moments in an episode that are good, possibly great, when the rest around it is so poor is destined to fail. 5.14 was another example of that. The moments that were good were enjoyable but the rest was so bad, it is harder to enjoy those good points. To even remember them.

Batwoman and Legends of Tomorrow have both done this far better of late (even if Legends have been a bit problematic with Zari), and the POC and the LGBTQ side of the stories have primarily been handled well. Batwoman in particular has just done an amazing storyline with Sophie Moore. The interesting thing is, a lot of people found Sophie hard to like to begin with. Many thought Kate Kane was better off without her. What changed all that was they gave Sophie an in depth, credible backstory and the chemistry between them grew organically. Fans could see the connection and increasingly yearned for it. They have also just tackled homophobia in families, particularly for POC. All without taking away from other essential elements of the storytelling. Supergirl take note; this is how you write a show that is integrated without hurting either the POC & LGBTQ characters or CIS straight characters. 

Now let's just broach the disconnect with characters and friendships. 

Because of the fracturing of friendships and relationships has been so extreme (virtually every one has lost all or most of what we had in previous seasons), we have lost core elements of the show. Of course the most obvious is Kara and Lena, but it extends far beyond that.

Alex and Brainy. Brainy and Lena. Brainy and Nia (Brainia is groundbreaking representation for transgender people to show they too can have relationships, but no, we can't even have that). Kelly and Kara (early S5 suggested Kara and Kelly were close enough friends now to talk about presents for Alex). Alex and Lena. 

Alex, Lena and Kara, which in the last two seasons have been the powerhouse behind them defeating whatever was going on around them as a team, but still allowing Kara to shine as the Superhero.

All these intricate relationships have gone. Instead we are faced with pairings that feel uncomfortable and awkward as a viewer, so the crux of what made Supergirl work has been lost. We are suddenly expected to be able to feel emphatic and understand completely unheard of pairings when we know nothing about them under those circumstances. Strangely enough, the one new pairing they have achieved this with is Andrea and Lena, because we got a fully fleshed out background, that also helped explain some of Lena's behavior today. The rest feels chaotic, and so far into the season that feeling of chaos should be going the other way. Instead it's increasing.

As we wrote this, the latest media outlet to highlight some of the problems the last episode faced came out.

It might not be a big article or have any real depth, but when The Radio Times wades in, you are beginning to lose serious credibility in media circles. The Radio Times is not some 2 bit media blog that you can laugh off or blame a fandom for.

5.15 promises to have better LGBTQ content, and is tackling a subject that Nicole herself became involved in with the writers. This gives us higher hope it is a better episode overall. We also know Kelly and Alex work together with J'onn, and while it would be great to see them partner up onscreen, we would actually really like just softer Dansen at home moments. We hope it incorporates both, but honestly the way this season has gone we aren't holding out much hope on that.

Last of all. We have seen several people tout that the plot twist is William in fact becomes a villain. None of us like the idea that another POC becomes a villain, but if by seasons end it occurred and so explained his presence (as a tool or high up member for Leviathan for example,) then at least that would give us something solid. But again, to do all this at the expense of all other characters is not what you want to see. Nor do any of us wish to see another POC get killed off if this happens as is being suggested. We would all rather William just disappears back to London to The Times. 

The last thing any of us wanted was to be writing this, but collectively our patience has run out. Our disappointment is acute. 

While we try to avoid mistakes and edit this, none of us are writers so please forgive any glaring errors you find.

[skamofcolor]

why are you one of the Eve haters? Is it just because she's not a POC?

Lol, so the short answer is yes.

But if you feel like reading me rant, here’s my longer response. This is just gonna be about the casting and styling because I think that’s the part that most important in terms of this blog. I do have my own thoughts on characterization, but let me not get into that here, lol.

When the casting call went out, the show said it could be for a queer woman of any ethnicity. So maybe this was on me, but that alone sparked a hope that they would be casting a Woman of Color, particularly someone who was a Black stud/butch/tomboi/masc/etc. lesbian in that role. When I found out that they cast a skinty feminine white woman instead, it was extremely disheartening. There was literally no reason why they had to cast her as white. Even if she is Grace’s cousin that A) is a choice made by the showrunners and B) doesn’t rely on whiteness to be true. Multiracial families exist.

My issue is that someone’s ethnoracial identity absolutely cannot be thought of as a separate entity from their gender/sexuality.

Okay, so let me explain.

Every version of Eskild is not only vital to their Noora’s storyline, but to their Isak’s. And for me, that’s why Eve’s casting made no sense to me the most. Now, to be fair: we had a submission earlier that said it wasn’t right that no Eskild was getting the same scrutiny as Eve, and I think that’s a fair assessment (and the submission is worth reading). No other Eskild has gotten this kind of criticism for being a white cis guy.

But for me personally, when it came to the other remakes, my annoyance was always at the lack of diversity in the Isaks first and foremost. This is because it stood to reason that whomever was cast as Eskild would have to match up. I think at a certain point I was resigned to the idea that each remake would have cis white gay Eskilds for cis white gay Isaks. Would it have been really nice to have more gender/racial diversity? Yes, of course. To me though, it didn’t feel as pertinent for those remakes to cast diverse Eskilds. Both because of my resignation and also because… tbh this kind of matching made sense to me in terms of an intersectional lens - meaning the types of discrimination that Isak faced should match up with Eskild, in order to really make the Pride lecture make sense. Right or not, it’s how I felt. Obviously other folks, especially lgbtq+ MoC who don’t have any rep in the Skams, can and might feel differently.

Now, when I’m saying intersectional lens, I want to be clear. When Kimberlé Crenshaw  first coined intersectionality (though ofc her focus was on Black women specifically, not all PoC) she wasn’t really talking about identity at all, she was talking about discrimination. it means that the oppression people with multiple marginalized identities face has to do with overlapping forms of discrimination.

Isak only has one marginalized identity. On the discrimination he faces from that alone, Eskild can wholeheartedly relate. That’s what make that mentorship/friendship so important and more equitable.

Shay on the other hand has multiple marginalized identities: woman, Black, lesbian. The discrimination she faces isn’t just because she’s Black, or just because she’s a woman, or just because she’s a lesbian. They all intersect, and the sexism, antiblack racism, and homophobia she will face are  inextricably intertwined. There is no and never will be a white lgbtq+ person can ever, nor will ever, understand what it means to navigate the world as an lgbtq+ Person of Color.This is the heart of my disappointed with Eve’s casting.

Again - as a Black lesbian, Shay will have to deal with sexism/antiblackness/homophobia. All as one, all informing each other, and inseparable. This is something a white woman, even if she experiences sexism/homophobia, will never, ever be able to grasp. Even if Eve were butch, she wouldn’t ever be able to understand this experience. White women do not experience sexism the way a Black woman or an other WoC does. White lgbtq+ people do not experience homophobia or transphobia the way a Black person or an other PoC does. There is no possible way for them to know what we go through.

And so. The idea of having a white woman lecture Shay on Pride? On the discrimination she’s going to face? On the history of lgbtq+ liberation in the U.S? Specifically when it was started by trans women of color? It’s ugly to me.

It’s true we don’t know what they will do in Shay’s season. But I can’t stop thinking about this. I’m not speaking for all lgbtq+ PoC, just from my experience. I honestly do know that there are lgbtq+ PoC who are really freaking excited about Eve. And that’s great for them, honestly. If other folks can still see themselves in Eve and feel represented, that’s a good thing.

But for many of us, we didn’t/don’t have any lgbtq+ characters of color to look up to. The majority of lgbtq+ characters in the U.S. media have been white. Even in 2018, 58% of lbpq+ characters in the media were white. And even when we do get lgbpq+ characters of color, most of them weren’t stud/butch/tomboi/masc/etc. or gender non-conforming. Rarely are they trans or nonbinary. They didn’t and don’t reflect a lot of the realities that we live in. This lack of visibility means something. When every lgbtq+ person you see on TV is white, it’s alienating. (See this Autostraddle survey for more on this data.)  

But I can’t feel that way. Because I was a Shay, and in my experience, being lectured to by white people only served to push me deeper into the closet. It only made me think that being gay was for white people. Because their whiteness protected them and they got to be out in a way I thought I would never be. That is, until I met older lgbtq+ PoC. Who looked like me and shared my cultures and got it. And yes, she’s a TV character. But I’m devastated that from what we’ve seen, Shay won’t get this.

Fine, though, they cast who they cast. My biggest issue is in terms of presentation and style. First, it literally makes no sense to me why Eve isn’t a butch lesbian. Second, I HATE the way they styled her in hipster faux-poverty aesthetics.

We look at the role of Eskild and his characterization, his femininity is a huge part of who he is. It’s a massive part of the Pride lecture he gives Isak, especially because a large part of Isak’s internalized homophobia comes from just wanting to be “normal.” Eskild is not ashamed of being flamboyant/feminine because it’s who he is, and he said a big fuck you to gender roles and expectations. This is the same with the other Esikld remakes that we’ve seen. They show that being who you are is never a stereotype.

Binaries are fake and socially constructed, yes. BUT with Eskild’s femininity in mind, it would only make sense to make Eve butch. There is a massive stigma against GNC lesbians/queer women not only in general society but in lgbtq+ spaces. This is not to bash or police feminine/femme lgbtq+ women (I’m one of them!) but it’s also to acknowledge that the ways in which butch/stud/tomboi/masc/etc. women express themselves makes them extremely visible, and that’s not a privilege. Butch women face high rates of sexual violence and assault based on their appearance in the same way that feminine gay men do.

And even with the increase in lgbtq+ women in media (again see the Autostraddle survey) the majority of portrayals are NOT of butch/stud women. Which fucking sucks because that’s erasing a huge population within lgbtq+ communities. It’s not that having a butch white woman lecture Shay really makes it any better for me personally, but it would’ve made so much more sense to have Eve be butch. Because that’s the direct correlation to Eskild’s femininity.

Finally, once you cast someone you can style their character anyway you want. Just because Eve’s actress dresses/looks as she does doesn’t mean Eve has to. So why did the showrunners chose to style Eve the way they did? Rather than do something actual subversive, they styled her like every other 20-something middle class white hipster who relies on an aesthetic of poverty. (I know one of her defining character traits now is that she never has any money, but… something about that framing feels like it’s supposed to be kitschy and not because she’s literally impoverished. Could be wrong, but look at Grace in comparison.).

Personally, this stylization is especially hard to witness because of how many white lgbtq+ people I know who dress and act exactly like Eve. It’s not something that’s specific to white people - I’ve seen plenty of middle to upper class PoC aestheticize poverty too - but this kind of thing is often rooted in the junctions of class and whiteness. For more on this, I would really suggest reading this article. It really gets into this like… fetish that middle/upper class lgbtq+ people have for “looking” poor.

Anyway this is really long so let me wrap up. My issue here is mainly what my issues has consistently been with some of these shows. The showrunners want to include “diverse” issues and (for the most part) a “diverse” cast but it seems like they don’t have a crew that have strong race/gender/class analyses. Eve could’ve really been something but from casting and styling alone, her character already falls flatly for me.

So, yes. At the base of it is because she’s not a Black stud, but it goes deeper than that, too.

- mod Jennifer