#addict in a heroic role in media and we will never see that�� and… I was sitting there like… midnight mass was only a year old

[daincrediblegg]

I really wish people would stop being obtuse with their readings about things. Is it really demonizing The Thing or is it deliberately using a social perception and common tropes to frame the character in a certain light so it can deliberately subvert those things at the precise moment when it is necessary to prove that point that people are Not Like That?

[teacherunicorn]

Delores Theadosia Hargreeves

Chapter Fifteen

Italics = memories

@tomisbaeholland

A/N: I am aware of Elliot Page coming out as transgender and am fully supportive of it. With the future of his character still in the wind however, I will be using she/her pronouns for Vanya for my writings at least for the time being. If rumors are true and the character will be transitioning as well, I will wrap it into my story accordingly. For now, I'm just following the plot of season one.

Diego was one of two Hargreeves children left in the city, and was the first to arrive back at the manor. The place had always been too big for comfort, but it still seemed strange seeing it so empty.

Not for the first time, he wondered what Delores' life here had been like before they'd come into it.

Traditionally, boxing was a more serious sport. The kind that attracted harsher people, under the counter bets and the like. Then again, Delores Theadoisa Hargreeves had never been traditional.

She stood just outside the fighting ring jumping up and down, and waving a handmade sign over her head. "Go Diego! Boo everyone else!"

Diego's opponent of the night; a burly man with full sleeve tattoos, looked between him and the tiny blonde.

"Your girl's got a lotta faith in ya."

Diego smiled but didn't drop his guard. "Wouldn't wanna disappoint." he said before throwing a heavy right hook into the man's jaw.

“Diego my boy.” Pogo’s voice broke him from his memories. “Good to see you.”

“Hey Pogo.” Diego smiled and hugged the chimp. “Anyone else turn up yet?”

“You are the first, but I expect your siblings shall be along shortly.”

“Delores?”

“The news got to her rather late, but she assured me she’d be on the first available plane.” Pogo informed. “Till then, she’s tasked me with keeping the rest of you in line.”

Number Two laughed. “Yeah, good luck.”

******

Next to arrive was Alison. Getting the news about Reginald’s death via paparazzi hadn’t been pretty, and frankly if it hadn’t gone down that way she probably wouldn’t have come. She had enough of her plate as it was.

“Onward to desert!” Delores ran across the large backyard, a then one year old Claire ridding piggyback. Patrick, who had been manning the grill for the barbecue, laughed and held the package of oreos over their heads. He was taller than Delores, so even with Claire on her back they couldn’t reach them.

Things had been a lot simpler when ‘Gammy Lori’ could be called any hour of the day. Having raised seven kids, Delores was much more capable of dealing with Claire than Alison was. It was hard sometimes not to take advantage of that.

It was even harder to stand by the lessons Delores had taught her and not take the easy way out.

“I want Gammy Lori!” a three year old Claire whined.

“Gammy Lori is working sweetie. She’s in Pennsylvania.”

“Where’s that?”

“A really long way away.”

“Can we go get her?”

“No, we can’t.”

“Why?”

“Because she’s busy.”

“Why?”

“Because she’s very smart and works with smart people.”

“Why?”

“I heard a rumor that you stopped whining.”

******

Klaus tumbled in through one of the back doors and was immediately skimming the place for valuables.

"Really?" Ben's spirit said over his shoulder. "Didn't you tell Dede you'd keep at least a two month period between troubles with the law?"

"Hey, it's not like the old man is around to report anything stolen anymore. "God knows DT isn't gonna miss any of it; she hates this gaudy shit."

Every remaining member of the Umbrella Academy had a key to Delores' condo in the city. As such, it wasn't uncommon for her to come home to find one of them on her couch.

It was usually Klaus.

Number Four groaned as he blinked back to consciousness. His blurry vision focused in on the figure sitting on the coffee table. "Oh, hey DT. How long have you been here?"

"Couple hours. I came to check if you were alive again. You've been kinda in and out." While she didn't approve of Klaus' drug habits, Delores was the only one -- apart from Ben -- who understood why he had them.

"I didn't say anything stupid, did I?"

"You don't need drugs for that, Klausy."

"She's right, you know." Ben chimed from where he leaned against the couch's armrest.

Klaus threw a glare at the spirit over his shoulder before turning back to his caretaker. "Sorry, shady asshole must've mixed something in with the product. It's usually not that heavy...."

"Haven't I told you stay away from those types?"

"Com'on DT, I am one of those types!"

"Those are the rock bottom types that end up in a ditch somewhere." Delores flicked him in the head, making him wince as she rattled his hangover.

"Thank you!" Ben exclaimed.

"The type that don't have their big sister to push them into rehab. Speaking of, didn't you just get out of it like a week ago?" She continued, unaware that Number Six was even there.

"Maybe...." Klaus muttered. "But I'm not really the cold turkey type; you know that."

"There has to be something better." Delores sighed. "If you would stick around for more than a few days sleeping off a bender, you and I could figure it out! I've been riddling out your powers since you were born."

"No." Klaus said firmly. "Alright, I may be a deadbeat addict, but you are the one person who I refuse to mooch off of."

"Klausy --"

"Klaus --"

"Non!" He cut off both of them. "It took you way to long to get out from under dad's ass. You've finally got a life for yourself! Majority rules; you were out voted. No more mother henning!"

*******

Having the furthest to travel, it wasn't surprising that Luther arrived late to the mansion.

He had been the last of the Umbrella Academy, chasing the heroics dream Reginald kept feeding him. He and Delores had gotten into more than one argument regarding this, but she had always been there when he really needed her, wether she was angry with him or not.

Unfortunately, he had been out voted and she had left too.

Logically he knew it was good for her. She sounded so much happier on the phone than she had living here. The stubborn part of him that believed in the Academy's roles however knew her place was with them, even if they weren't kids anymore.

Delores hadn't been informed of his mission gone awry; his near death experience, what had brought him back, and the side effects of it. Reginald had done something or another to keep that out of the media, and Luther himself certainly wasn't looking to tell her.

The real kicker had been the moon mission. Reginald had sprung it on him so suddenly that he hadn't had the chance to call Delores beforehand.

He stood hunched in the doorway of her old room, eyes drifting over the relics she had left behind. Since Delores traveled so much, she hadn't taken everything with her when she first left. The majority of her things were now in her condo in the city, but there were still a few dusty pictures on the walls.

Moving forward caused his fingers to brush against the scritches on the doorway. Carved into the wood with one of Diego's knives were a series of dashes and dates marking the life of the Umbrella Academy.

Luther strained to stretch as straight as he could, resisting the urge to get on his tiptoes. He'd tried sneaking that past Delores and she'd smacked his head with the ruler.

The flat of a blade cut into the wood behind him and he immediately jumped forward to see her scratching the day's date next to it with a practiced hand.

"So?" He asked eagerly.

"Hmm." Delores held the ruler between an older mark and the mark she'd just made. "One and a half inches."

"Yes! I'm still the tallest!"

"Second tallest." Delores said, leaning her elbow atop his head.

"I told you to stop doing that!" He swatted at her, taking a step back to be out of reach.

"But you make such a good armrest!"

"Just you wait Dee; some day I'm gonna be even taller than you and you'll be the armrest!"

"Whatever you say squirt."

*******

Hesitant to come at all, Vanya was the last of the siblings to walk through the front door.

Ever quiet as a mouse, she stepped into the entry hall in near silence. Her sister was less so however.

"Vanya." Alison said in surprise as she came through the doorway of the living room. "You came."

"Hey Allison." Vanya smiled and accepted the hug offered to her.

Her flicker of confidence evaporated when Diego walked through the room and glared at her. "What's she doing here? You don't belong here, not after what you did."

"Diego now is not the time for fighting. And way to dress for the occasion by the way!" Alison called to his retreating back.

"At least I'm wearing black!"

"H-He's right, I shouldn't be here..." Vanya shook her head, wondering why she'd bothered. It wasn't like Delores would leave the country again without coming to see her -- she was the only family member who was still talking to her after all.

"No, hey." Alison cut her off. "I want you here."

The smile Vanya gave her sister was small and somewhat forced. The sentiment was kind, but patronizing. Everyone had been mad at her after her book had been published; even Delores.

Vanya unlocked her apartment door and jumped out of her skin at the sight of Delores sitting on her couch. She shouldn't be surprised at this point really, the older woman had mad it a habit since she'd been given a key.

"You should have locks on your windows." the caretaker commented idly.

"I live on the second floor."

"Rapist can climb."

"You are so weird." Vanya shook her head as she locked the door behind her.

"Oh now that's a simpleton word. You got much more creative as I recall. What was it? Apathetic, obtuse, and desperate to keep control?"

"M-my editor didn't like me making you a good guy when everyone else --"

"Oh will get to everyone else; you had no right to say what you did about them either. Airing out the dirty laundry for all to see....I'm really disappointed in you, Vanya."

*******

Vanya was the last of the Hargreeves siblings to walk through the front door, but certainly not the last to arrive.

After a very tense conversation about their father's death -- Luther was convinced it was murder, and while he didn't accuse anyone outright it was clear he didn't put it past them.

Everyone had split off to different areas of the house, and Luther thumbed through the records on the shelf in his room. The group really didn't do well as a group without Delores, but maybe he could at least minimize the hostility while they waited for her.

Finding the one he was looking for, he set it onto the player and turned the volume up as high as it would go. Soon enough, Delores' favorite song was echoing through the manor halls.

I think we're alone now

There doesn't seem to be anyone around

I think we're alone now

Alone now

The beating of our hearts is the onl-

The music was cut off rather abruptly as the walls and floor began to shake. Everything metallic went flying, and a large wave of something was glowing a familiar blue color in the backyard.

Next

[thecaffeinebookwarrior]

More Female Characters to Avoid in Your Writing

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

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

Enjoy, and happy writing everybody! 

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

Image source

Who she is:

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

Why it sucks:

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

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

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

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

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

How to avoid her:

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

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

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

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

Who she is:

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

Why it sucks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to avoid her:

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

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

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

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

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

GIF source

Who she is:

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

Why it sucks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to avoid her:

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

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

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

Who she is:

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

Why it sucks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to avoid her:

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

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

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

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

GIF source

Who she is:

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

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

Why it sucks:

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

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

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

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

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

How to avoid her:

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

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

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

[irrevocably-delicious]

A Brief History of LGBT+ Characters and Why the Death of Adam in Voltron is Worth Being Upset About

So uh.... Good morning.

So I think it’s pretty obvious by now that the reception to season 7 has been less than... good. The fan base has been shattered. People are upset, angry, and abandoning this series in droves (I’ve lost over 50 followers as I write this, just from people no longer wanting anything to do with this show) and have been incredibly vocal as to the reason why.

They killed Adam. 

After two weeks of receiving praise for the relationship that was revealed at San Diego Comic Con, fans discovered on Friday night that Adam’s existence would be short lived, further contributing to this popular “Bury Your Gays” trope. 

And I’ve seen people confused at this outcry. They don’t understand why people are so upset at this tiny side character’s death. What’s the big deal, right? It’s war! There’s supposed to be casualties!

And to that kind of response I have to narrow my eyes and go:

“Oh.... maybe you understand the history of this.”

Because it is a history. A rich one. “Bury your gays” isn’t a trope in the same why that “Fake dating” is a trope. It’s not popular out of coincidence and I feel like many people are ignorant of that, which is FAIR! Because most voltron fans are young, most tumblr users are young, so I don’t expect you to be watching documentaries on LGBT+ cinema in between studying for your chemistry exams. 

So that’s where I come in. Buckle in children as I take you on a journey on why the “Bury your gays” trope exists, and the harmful ramifications that it has had on the LGBT+ community since its inception.

So lets go back. Way back to the 1920′s when homosexuality, or at least homosexuality adjacent themes were seen on screen. 

A time where a bro could kiss his bro, and it was seen as heart wrenching and realistic (Wings, 1927). A time where Marlene Dietrich could wear a suit better than a man, and flirt and kiss a lady just because she fucking could (Morocco, 1930). A time where gender roles were a bit looser, and there wouldn’t be an outcry over such imagery.

But as the great depression continued, and film producers became desperate to get butts in seats at the cinema, these LGBT+ themes became outright explicit. Raunchy even. Used for titillation and shock value. 

“Have you seen that new picture, Doris? The one where the roman emperor has the hot male sex slave?? Mmmmm scandalous!”

But with this rise of LGBT+ characters and interactions used for shock value, also came the rise of public outcry. The catholic church (those debbie downers) started boycotting films. This lead to the formation of the PRODUCTION CODE, which is a fancy way to say THE CODE THAT WILL NOW CENSOR THE SHIT OUT OF YOUR FILMS in 1934.

Backed by catholic activists, the code made it impossible for LGBT+ representation to exist on film. 

But did they?? See, this is actually were we start to see the development of “Queer coding”. Where actors and directors got savvy, and let you know a character was gay, whilst never explicitly stating so. It was subtle enough that it got past censors, but clear enough that audience members, especially LGBT+ people, got clued in.

Yeah Peter Lorre, you put that phallus shaped object next to your mouth a lot. They’ll get what your implying, don’t you worry. 

Oh, I’m sorry.... did i say you couldn’t have LGBT+ characters?? My mistake, you totally fucking could. Explicitly even.... if they were the villain. Religious people were totally cool if the villain in your film was LGBT+, because to them, that’s what LGBT+ people were.... villains. 

Film’s like Rebecca, Dracula’s Daughter, and Alfred Hitchcock’s Rope all centre around truly horrifying and despicable villains... who are all gay. LGBT+ villains became such a staple in horror films during this time that it lead to a whole near character archetype! We have the damsel in distress, the heroic soldier, the wise old man, now welcome the rise of the: 

PSYCHO QUEER.

Yikes. 

But why I’m talking about this so much is because this popularity in LGBT+ villains is what creates the “Bury your Gays” trope. 

Because the villains.... always die. 

It’s their comeuppance. Their karma. Of course bad people will die and the heroes will go one to live a happy life! But what crime are we punishing these villains for? 

The message these movies gets across to their audiences is that “If you are gay, you are a bad person... and bad people deserve to die”. Because Gay and villain were so synonymous with each other, they become one in the same, and as we all know by now REPRESENTATION MATTERS.

This influences how society views LGBT+ people, so that in 1952, when the PRODUCTION CODE of YOU BETTER NOT CONDONE ANYTHING SINFUL IN HERE BECAUSE JESUS DOESN’T LIKE THAT is torn down, things still don’t get much better for LGBT+ representation. 

LGBT+ characters no longer have to be villains, but society is still not super cool with LGBT+ people, so now we get a new archetype: The self hating tragic gay character. And often? These characters kill themselves, such as in 1961′s The Children’s Hour. Because this is palatable to audiences who do not condone homosexuality in any way, but watching an LGBT+ struggle with themselves? Watching them become overwhelmed by guilt and hatred until they decide that death is the only way out? How tragic! How cursed they are! How pitiful! How... marketable. 

But to see LGBT+ characters end up happy? Audiences at this time would not have stomached it, because to them, being LGBT was immoral and these characters were not deserving of happiness. A good analogy might be how modern audiences would view a film with a drug addict character in it. The addict either succumbs to their addiction and dies tragically, or they “Go straight” and have a happy ending. For these audiences in the 50s and 60s the only happy ending was a straight ending. 

Then in 1969 we get the Stonewall Riots, and in the 1970s things actually look alright.

That is until the 1980s and society finds a new reason to hate, fear and vilify LGBT+ people. The AIDS crisis wipes out lives and almost all positive representation in the media. This fear is echoed in film as LGBT+ people become villains again. Sleepaway Camp and Cruising are such examples. 

The 90′s are better. Whilst mainstream cinema is still vilifying LGBT+ in the 80s, more positive independent films still exist, and the success of the 1991 documentary Paris is Burning prompts Hollywood to go “Hey... maybe we can get some money if we pander to these LGBT+ folks”.

There is a brief period in the 90s where gay comedies like The Birdcage, In and Out, and To Wong Foo are allowed to exist. They’re comedies. The stereotypes are played for laughs, but there is a level of joy and care with these movies where even though these characters are making us laugh... for once we’re not laughing at them. We love these characters. We want them to succeed. No. One. Dies. 

It smells like progress. Finally.

Or at least it would. Because these films also exist in the same decade that Philadelphia wins Oscars and the musical Rent is winning Tonys. Both of these deal with the tragedy of the AIDS crisis and have main characters die from the disease. Am I going to point out that Rent has four characters suffering from AIDS, but the only one to die is the Trans-coded poc gay man? Yes. Yes I am. Meanwhile the heterosexual couple suffering from AIDS gets a happy ending.

Interesting. 

I hate you Rent. I hate you so goddamned much.

Also the 90s sees a good return to queer-coding villains. It’s always been there. It’s never really gone away, but I need to talk about the queer coding of 90′s villains because I’m sure all of you will actually recognise them.

Ah. There They are. Queer coding and Disney have a very rich history, which MANY articles have been written on. One might even say that it’s a... tale as old as time.

Mmmm no thank you. 

But why it is so rampant, particularly in animated films, is because the films have a limited run time. 

“We need to convince the audience that these characters are villains IMMEDIATELY. We don’t really have the time to waste on developing them and showing all their evil actions. We need audiences to believe when we tell them that these characters are bad. how do we do that?”

“.... make them kinda gay??”

That’s not actually how the conversation went in the board room, I’m sure, but it’s a very reduced down version. Because of the history of LGBT+ villains in the early years of cinema, animation relies on the stereotypes of villainous characters... well unfortunately those villains of old were LGBT+, so now we have LGBT+ stereotypes being passed on to new villains. 

Anyway, my point is that almost all Disney villains die. Sorry that’s where I was going with this. Most of them die. The “Bury your Gays” trope is repeated here because of the villain’s queer coding. It’s not obvious, but the subtext is “Hey, if you’re a bit effeminate or do things outside of your strict gender role? Mmmmmm you deserve to die.”

“Bury your Gays” continues in modern media. Despite the importance of Brokeback Mountain, which explicitly shows a romance and intimacy between two men... Jake Gyllenhaal’s character still dies, and it’s implied that it may be due to a hate crime. 

We see it in television. Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Downton Abbey, Arrow, there was a massive outcry over the trope in The 100 when a female character, after just entering an intimate relationship with another female character, is killed off seemingly senselessly. 

The LGBT+ community is tired of only seeing themselves killed for shock value, character growth, or tragedy. Even Ru Paul’s Drag Race has come under fire in recent years for seemingly exploiting its contestants traumatic histories for ratings. 

This is why this year’s Love, Simon was so important. The film portrays an adolescent gay character as he struggles with being open with his sexuality and finding a meaningful relationship. Simon is portrayed as a sympathetic character. He’s the hero.

And he gets a happy ending.

This is why Korrasami, a same-sex relationship in children’s media, is so important. It shows two girls achieving their happy ending together.

It’s why in the same year that Steven Universe portrays a same sex wedding, Adam’s death feels like such a step backwards. 

The producers have stated that Adam’s death was supposed to raise the stakes of the season, it was supposed to make viewers realise the severity of the situation and overcome them with a feeling of loss, but Adam’s death doesn’t just fail the LGBT+ fans... it fails to effect viewers emotionally.

Because audiences can’t mourn a character that they have no connection with.

Most of Adam’s character was developed in interviews and not in the show, where he only spoke for one scene. The creators talked about the deep relationship between Adam and Shiro, but none of that is actually visible in the series. Taking the season at face value, Adam is just some guy who’s connected to Shiro that is killed off unceremoniously. He wasn’t even given the dignity of  hero’s death, taking out even one enemy before he died. That’s what hurts the most.

His death is meaningless. It does nothing. It’s pointless.

But of course “There’s still Shiro, right?”, which is true. Shiro still exists and is confirmed a mlm, which is important, but it’s understandable why fans may not be satisfied with this. Let’s take a closer look at Shiro.

I often joke with my friends that Voltron should be renamed Shiro Suffers: The Series, because out of all the characters in the show, Shiro has definitely endured and been subjected to the worst (you could argue that Allura has, but Shiro has the joy of being tortured emotionally and physically, so I feel he wins). 

The writers have tried to kill him numerous times, with only toy sales saving him. He’s been beaten, tortured, terminally ill, killed, revived, possessed and used... it’s a lot. In the old days, I used to ship shallura, not really out of feeling a real romantic connection between the characters, but just because I wanted Shiro to have someone. Someone to help support him. Someone he could open up about his struggles with. The paladins mean a lot to Shiro, but because he is their surrogate guardian, he cannot open up to them like this. He cannot show the paladins weakness, and we see this in how he keeps his disease a secret from Keith, because he does not want to burden Keith with his struggle. 

The introduction of Adam wasn’t just exciting because of the potential of seeing a caring LGBT+ relationship, but because it gave fans hope that Shiro would have someone. There was the potential that Shiro might finally gain some kind of supportive relationship outside of his strict roles of “leader” and “guardian”.

Adam’s death removes that possibility. Despite how caring, generous, strong, intelligent, kind, patient and capable Shiro is written... his life is fucking awful. It’s very telling that in the final scene of the season, when every other paladin is in the hospital surrounded by their family and loved ones, Shiro is alone. He’s on a stage, giving a rousing speech to a crowd, still trapped in this role as an inspirational leader.

God, they don’t even let Shiro mourn Adam. Does he feel guilty that he was the one who supposed to die, whilst Adam lived, but now their roles are reversed?We’ll never know. Adam’s death doesn’t even give some insight into Shiro’s character. It’s truly pointless.

Season 7 of Voltron has made it clear that this is not a kids show.  This is a serious show with dark themes. The writers want it to be taken more seriously.

Then I will critique it more seriously.

While I strongly doubt it was intentional, season 7 perpetuates the age old message “If you are LGBT+, you will not achieve a happy ending.” The “Bury your Gays” trope is steeped in a history of oppression, censorship, and vilification. When Adam dies, you’re not just seeing a character die, but you’re seeing the series make a conscious decision to participate in this oppressive trope. And it stings even more because the series sets two heterosexual relationships to potentially end in happiness, whilst the LGBT+ relationships have already ended in tragedy.

Why Adam? Why not literally anyone else? We had no connection to him, so it’s not like they could have used a handful of other characters for the same effect. (Kill James. Fuck that guy. And he’s young so it really would have hurt.)

And that’s what you have to question. This is why fans are upset.

I’m not writing this to convince anyone to boycott the show, or plead with you to stop watching. That’s up to you and your own belief system. I definitely do not condone harassing the writers or voice actors.

I just want people to understand why fans are so upset over season 7, and that they have every right to be. To state that the outcry is just because “fans didn’t see their ships become canon” is dismissive and cruel. Adam and Shiro’s relationship was heavily used in marketing by Netflix, so much so that you could call it queer-baiting. It was hyped at SDCC and explained as this deep and meaningful relationship, whilst the producers knew what Adam’s fate would be the whole time. 

I know producers have to answer to higher ups. I know the crew were largely on edge about what would get approved and what would not. 

But the point remains... they still made this conscious choice. Fans don’t have to be happy about it. They shouldn’t be. 

I have no idea what season 8 will bring, and at this point I feel like it might be a mess. But I encourage fans to support each other and be vocal about why you’re upset. You can’t change this show, but there’s hope that another series could learn from this. 

History repeats. Until we don’t let it. 

[rookiecookie23]

Check out the old movie Without a Clue, with Michael Cain as Holmes and Ben Kingsley as Watson. 

Dr Watson is a deductive genius, but when he first began solving crimes he didn't want all the attention, so he attributed to work to a made-up friend by the name of Holmes. Enough people began asking to meet this Holmes that he hired an actor to play the role. Unfortunately, an actor who was a drunkard, a lech, an addict, and a buffoon. 

Brilliant comedy and a good detective yarn, highly recommended. Most of the comedy aged rather well. One warning I should offer:

SPOILER WARNING POTENTIAL TRIGGER WARNING

SPOILER WARNING a couple of somewhat transphobic scenes, very mild by the standard of 1988, very YMMV today. 

MORE DETAILED SPOILERS the character is a trans woman appearing in only the climax and denouement. Her first line: "You're disappointed, aren't you?" in response to Holmes realizing she's trans. Last line "There's something you should know," as she walks off with potential love interest Inspector Lestrade, indicating she intends to come out to him (which again, in 1988, was coded as "good behavior" for trans folk, indicating the filmmakers intend the audience to see her as honest and forthright - an uncomfortable artifact of a less-informed time). Additionally, Holmes and Watson seem to think presenting Lestrade to her as a heroic figure is a jolly prank they've played on him, which is frankly pretty gross. We can only hope that the cast and crew have learned better in the last 32 years. END DETAILED SPOILERS 

SORT OF TANGENTIALLY SPOILER the movie does contain a few details about how a transgender child was historically handled in the Victorian era, such as by sending the youth away from London for a number of years, to return under her new identity with everyone sort of pretending they'd never thought she was a boy in the first place. On the other hand, in 1988 the general public still conflate transgender folk with drag queens, and kind of saw them all as "really committed gay men" and that kind of shows too. 

So, as with many older media that touch on LGBT issues, the effect is very mixed and YMMV by like a lot. For me, when I was very young, I loved just seeing a character like this show up, but years later I was kind of afraid that the way characters see her is the way people would see me. 

Ha ha my spoiler/trigger warning was longer than my recent pitch of the film, I guess that's the 80s for you argh 

fucking losing it at the concept of a reverse Holmes and Watson like there's this genius journalist who goes around solving crimes and writes about how he does it and then there's his useless himbo assistant who does fuck all and just follows him around absolutely out of his mind on cocaine

[sharkiegorath]

@almaviva90​ thanks for mentioning That Article, the only thing that can make me write coherently rn

I mean, God, if it’d just been called an underwhelming/bad show that would’ve been, like,  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, it’s your opinion, buddy. But personal bias aside, singling Finn out of all the characters in the series, especially the Scotland Yard arc, is??? It’s compounded by how the article doesn’t actually give any reason for why he’s included, unless you count ‘he’s like this one iconic character except not I guess’. So I’d like to examine the subconscious processes behind why Finn is listed as a Great Character while everyone else - cast and character - is disregarded, especially since positive reviews pinpointed the ensemble effort.

anyway I took this as an opportunity to Go the Fuck Off suddenly synthesizing loose scraps of information I’ve had for some time so bear in mind

“The folks who did stick with it mostly stayed onboard for Bertie Carvel’s Finn”??? Where are you getting this information? Since 2014, positive reviews and tweets mentioned the ensemble. For mediocre-to-negative audience reactions, I’d say there was a 50/50 split between people saying they only continued to watch for Bertie versus only continuing to watch for Brit. I’m pretty sure social media suggested there were more people who started watching for one actor then ended up immersed in the overall series.

Anyway.  Anyway.

The reason the article loosely gives for Finn's impressiveness is silly in the first place. Yeah, he's superficially like Malcolm Tucker, they're both spin doctors who go on shouty elaborate tangents. If it's been done before, why's it interesting? What distinguishes Finn so much that he's not just a clone in a different, allegedly weaker setting - which shouldn’t be worth listing - and how can he simultaneously be so similar that the explanation relies on preexisting knowledge of Tucker? 'He's even less charming' isn't a good reason, because intensifying one trait doesn't necessarily make a distinct character. (And based on what I've seen, isn't Finn less intense?)

Oh, and the fun thing is, that implied reason why he’s a stand-out character isn’t that accurate in the first place.

Firstly: we’re socially conditioned to identify with nominally straight white men, even (especially?) when they’re jerks. We create justifications for them in the absence of explicit excuses; we perceive complexity while oversimplifying other characters, even if we feel positively about them. But I’ve seen enough mediocre TV to think Finn is above-average. Until Ep. 5, I was partially willing to view him as complex because I believed everyone else was complex, and everyone else had interesting dynamics with him. I watched along with the original C4 airing. In terms of ‘sticking it through’, no, I didn’t watch just for Finn, and I had only watched the pilot for Bertie. Finn didn’t seem *that* important in the first two episodes of the main series, it looked like he might leave in the third, and his characterisation from the fourth onwards was tied to the overall plot. It was only subsequent marketing that gave away his prominence.

The article mentions (and dismisses) Bertie Carvel’s own opinion on Finn. (Which may have been paraphrased by the interviewer, but was probably still sympathetic.) He's realistic about his characters' flaws, including unambiguously sympathetic protagonists, including those who try to take advantage of institutional injustice. For him to say something along the lines of Finn not being that bad, Finn probably isn't. Babylon takes place over around a month, under uniquely stressful events. Since Liz's escalating issues make her act 2edgier and more unpleasant than usual, I think it's fair to infer that Finn is also not acting entirely like 'himself'; we don't have anywhere near the amount of context about his personal life as we do for Liz or Richard, but we do see his seemingly stable preexisting workplace relationships. Whether any of that justifies his behaviour is up to personal interpretation.

In Babylon, lack/introduction of context is juxtaposed with the transparency debate. (Actual Critic Genevieve Valentine also noted the narrative style, I'm not desperately bullshitting here.) It's ironic having characters argue about transparency when they aren't honest about themselves. It's not a mystery show, but mundane-yet-important details about main characters' personal lives are revealed suddenly, sometimes as surprises to the audience but not to other characters, sometimes as shocks to everyone. When characters learn more about each other and adjust their opinions, they themselves become more sympathetic in the process because it parallels audience reaction. I'm insistent that the series - specifically the Scotland Yard arc - is a team effort because otherwise Finn is just an asshole bouncing lines off people who don't verbally respond half of the time, and that's amazingly boring.

There isn't much evidence that Richard is a good person or Commissioner besides the word of his best friend and an infatuated woman he barely knows. He mistreats both of them in some way. He’s not mean to his family, but he's mentioned and shown as verbally abusive towards subordinates. Delgado may have had a point, since every other hint he gives to Liz is reliable. Yet the overall audience is probably more inclined to perceive Finn as the most-likely-to-be-abusive character, even though the only evidence is A) his interactions with Liz (who's matched him since day one; arguments aren't inherently abusive and they’ve started to Calm TF Down by the end) and B) his annoyance with Tom, which only peaks in the last two episodes.

Why does this happen? Because early on, Mia says Finn is an ‘arsehole’ - never mind how they usually seem to get along. (The only time they clash, his anger isn't actually directed at her.) No one paints a heroic picture of Finn; he describes himself through fictional villains or less-than-anti-heroes. He's not charismatic like Richard. He uses big words and has a severe gum addiction. Those 'undesirable traits' are subconsciously associated with being a white collar villain, while the obviously wrong actions of police characters aren’t as strongly vilified.

Audiences are so conditioned to expect certain story beats or clichés that we automatically assume they exist, or that there's a strong connection between things that aren't inherently linked. It happens with Liz, who might be negatively viewed the way Finn views her, or through a stereotypically rose-tinted ‘strong female character’ lens. It happens with Finn...who becomes most prominent as he’s part of the arcs of white women and a Black man. In his specific case, is that why the other characters aren't interesting, while he mysteriously pops out like a fucking daffodil in the middle of a desert? After Richard dies, only Finn could possibly fit what the protagonist of a satire 'should' look like, if you shut one eye and thought satires can't be humanist and pretended you didn't see certain scenes and turned off your deductive reasoning.

The worst things about Finn are his casual -ism’s and active role in the institution. I wonder if they’re the Bad Things identified by people who view him as an archetypal career-driven sadist, or if they come to mind at all. He’s not manipulative or a jerk as a default, he’s not motivated by money or power for its own sake. He’s arrogant and abrasive - that’s the rule in his setting, not the exception. Yet he mentally registers as a flat archetype at the cost of recognising his actual pressing issues. Not seeing his deeper issues undermines his dynamic with almost every other character - which, if you’re using him as a reference point, maybe explains why they might not appear as compelling, just maaaaybe. 

The trickiness of contextualization is specifically linked to Finn, who’s implied to have some sort of literary background. (Thanks, inexplicable Shakespeare bust!) In another interview, Bertie says Finn would describe himself as a ‘realist’. Finn occasionally brings up facts, but his concept of realism revolves around how other people construct their own fiction. (A neat thing about how Liz and Finn usually communicate: she ‘sells’ ideas, he gives mini narratives.)

It’s impossible to guard Richard while being honest about him or the police. Finn is opposed to Liz’s policies because their ‘story’ doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. He also romanticizes the job, but it’s in a Byronic way instead of straightforward heroism; he knows the truth is ugly and gives people more reasons to hate them, so he thinks they might as well control the narrative while they can. He frames his job as a gritty morally grey drama to justify himself - but it’s the wrong ‘genre’ and he fails to salvage their image anyway. Liz and Inglis have idealized, somewhat self-righteous perceptions of the institution, but they don’t use it to justify really bad things; their morality overrides conventional logic several times and it turns out to be the right thing, or the least wrong thing. They’re the only ones who remotely gain something they want by the end.

The emotional climax or whatever of Finn’s largely background arc is quietly admitting that he needs Liz, that her approach might be better than his, and encouraging Inglis’s interest in transparency - an interest that’ll likely have a long-term impact. Finn’s cynicism begins to recede and it’s largely dependent on them; he represents the shifting status quo, he’s an indication that they succeeded in some way. So he’s quite obviously not static and he can’t exist as effectively as an isolated entity therefore, bite me, Digital Spy.

[comm4000]

Hardball: Youth, Sports, and Education Is The Way Out

The movie Hardball was released in 2001 and it stars Keanu Reeves and Diane Lane. Reeves plays Conor O’Neill, a high stakes gambler who is in serious debt to multiple loan sharks with no way of paying it back. Lane plays Elizabeth Wilkes, a middle school teacher at a catholic private school in inner city Chicago. The story revolves around O’Neill facing the harsh reality of his gambling addiction and thus doing anything to pay back the money in order to avoid serious harm or death from the loan sharks that he is indebted to. Out of desperation and running out of options, O’Neill strikes a deal with a wealthy friend of his to become the assistant head coach of a little league baseball team in the inner city of South Side Chicago. As long as he shows up to practices and games the entire season, O’Neill’s friend will pay him $500 per week. O’Neill initially sees this as a quick and easy money making opportunity to help him pay off his debts, however he quickly has his views and life perspectives changed by the kids he coaches and their teacher Ms. Wilkes. While this film is overall a feel good story with ups and downs as it demonstrates the familiar narrative of motivation, hard work, education, and sports overcoming a bad situation in the inner cities of South Side Chicago. This film also fails to address the underlying causes and issues that create these problems that are still affecting mostly minority children that reside in the dangerous and big inner cities of the United States. Many of these modern day issues stem from institutional racism, the culture of toxic masculinity, and sports being seen as the main road to success and salvation away from inner city violence in minority communities. Also known as achieving the American Dream through perseverance and individualism. 

The first of three movie clips that I will analyze in depth that outlines these societal, racial, and historically attributed problems is titled: “Losing G-Baby”. Now while the main focus of the scene is the tragic death of the character/player G-Baby, there is a different part of the scene that I would like to draw focus to. In the beginning of the scene G-Baby and his brother attempt to enter the projects where they live, however they are confronted by numerous gang members that tell them to wait. It is among those gang members that they see a former teammate of theirs named Jamal. Jamal acknowledges them when his name is called, however he just aimlessly stares at them with no emotion. It is that part alone that perfectly outlines and demonstrates one of the points in my thesis. Jamal was kicked off the team because he altered his birth certificate in order to seem of playing age. Since he no longer had sports to neither pursue nor invest his energy and talents in as an outlet, he succumbed to the influences and pressures in the environment around him. Beamon & Messer (2013) essay defined the following: Even though segregation has ended as a legal principle, sociologists point to continued realms of institutional racism, where a color line highlights the social, political, and economic disparities that routinely privilege Whites, including in sports. Even gaining access to sports and success, though, doesn’t thwart institutional racism.  (p. 2) One could also highlight G-Baby’s tragic death as another working example of this definition. Because even though he and his brother had access to a sport and played on the team, the unequal disposition of the projects they lived in created a deadly environment where G-Baby paid the ultimate price. Even though this is a movie portrayal of this situation that is now 16 years old it is still a tragic reality for many young minority children in American ghettos across the country, especially Chicago which today has the nickname Chiraq. 

The second movie scene which relates to the issue of the culture of toxic masculinity is titled: Big Poppa. The scene revolves around the team’s star pitcher Miles. Miles was recently told by the little league’s commissioner that he was no longer allowed to wear his headphones while he pitched because it was a safety hazard. In reality, the opposing team’s coach complained because Miles was dominating on the pitching mound while he had his headphones in. Without his headphone Miles told coach O’Neill that he could not pitch or perform well. That the song that was playing on the headphones was Big Poppa by The Notorious B.I.G., without the music Miles felts out of rhythm and weak. On top of that without the music Miles could not block out the opposing crowd’s chants where they were chanting: “Sally! Sally! The pitcher’s name is Sally!” Now in our culture of toxic masculinity we teach our boys from a young age to never show emotion because it can be perceived as weakness, and to be tough and act like a man because otherwise you will be compared to a girl or woman. This teaches boys to value women less in our society from an early age and to perceive them as the weaker sex. According to Messner (2013), our sports fantasies are tied to our own fears, inadequacies, even failures as men…The sports-media-commercial complex consistently sells boys and men a glorified package of what masculinity is and should be (Messner, 2013, p. 115) . This is why Miles feels as though he needs the headphones for peak performance so he can live up to these strict standards of masculinity in sports.

  The final scene which ties back to race, minority role models, and sports being seen as a way towards success and achieving the American Dream is titled: Seeing Sammy. Coach O’Neill takes the entire team to see a Chicago Cubs game. He does this to treat the boys for their hard work, to share a new experience with them, and also because he thinks seeing professional players would give them motivation. According to Butterworth (2007), This has created a dynamic in the mythology of America and the “American game” that continues to the present. Because of a deep connection to frontier imagery – in other words, an era that pre-dates baseball’s integration – black and Latin baseball players have struggled to find a role within that mythology. (p. 236). After they walk into the stands one of the boys on the team, Jefferson, recognizes Cubs star player and baseball legend Sammy Sosa. From there he and the rest of the team keep shouting is name. He eventually turns around, acknowledges the boys and waves to the team. Being recognized by a star player, albeit one that is a minority motivates the boys and gives them something to strive for and replicate by using their baseball talents. Thus embodying the American Dream.

References (2012, May 22). Retrieved April 09, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrgGccehkKY

2012, May 22). Retrieved April 09, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ji7Coh4O7E

(2012, May 22). Retrieved April 09, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwMoiBGmH_4&t=6s

Butterworth, M. L. (2007). Race in “The Race”: Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, and Heroic Constructions of Whiteness. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 24(3), 228-244. doi:10.1080/07393180701520926

Robbins, B. (Director), & Coyle, D. (Writer). (2001). Hardball [Motion picture on DVD]. United States of America: Paramount Pictures.

Messer, C. M., & Beamon, K. (2013). The Enduring Color Line in U.S. Athletics. 1-9. doi:10.4324/9781315879611

Messner, M. (2012). Reflections on Communication and Sport: On Men and Masculinities. Communication and Sport, 1(1-2), 113-124. doi:10.1177/2167479512467977

[prymetimeonline-blog]

Whitney Who?

MY PERSPECTIVE is derived from Donovan’s feedback on various conversations, posts and articles that he has had or come across on the internet. MY PERSPECTIVE generally provides a more in depth insight on subjects that has captured his attention instead of the abbreviated responses to any given questions. You can find more “MY PERSPECTIVE” posts on PrymeTimeOnline’s blog.

While I rarely ever post or leave messages on FB (Facebook), after reading many of the comments on this particular post, I felt moved to share my thoughts. Let’s start off with the “subject”…HEROES. A “hero” as described in the dictionary is:

1. A man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities.

2. A person who, in the opinion of others, has heroic qualities or has performed a heroic act and is regarded as a model or ideal:

With that being said, every day “unsung heroes” die around us…grandparents, parents, siblings, friends, co-workers, associates, acquaintances….never getting the true recognition that they deserve or that we believe they deserve. We EACH have a purpose on this planet. Not everyone was destined to be on the frontlines of a battlefield in a foreign country to defend our liberties. Some were destined to be nurses and doctors to aid our troops back to health after receiving injuries. Some were destined to be psychologists to assist in their mental health after experiencing the devastating effects of war. Some, entertainers who encourage and inspire through song and/or acting while creating a much needed and welcome distraction from the daily chaos and/or mental pressures they face from choosing to serve our country. Whatever the gift(s) we possess, there is a hero in each one of us.

There have been countless individuals who have fought overseas and here in our own country for our moral, political and civil liberties. While honor and recognition have been awarded to only a few, in comparison, many stories go unheard of and unrecognized such as the mothers who nurture and instill a sense of humanity in their children…fathers who cultivate courage and fortitude in their children to stand up against injustice, both at home and abroad… teachers who implant knowledge and understanding so that individuals can have a direction and choose wisely in life…mentors who encourage, uplift and redirect that well-intentioned someone who has gone astray. ALL are heroes in their own right and without their influences, the heroes we know of today wouldn’t be the heroes they have come to be…veterans and entertainers alike.

So, let us not devalue either the lives of our entertainers or the positive influence he/she has had on society by asking the question, “Whitney Who?” “Michael Who?” “Amy Who?” While every entertainer may not have had the “perfect life”, if any, I would dare to say neither do our war heroes. We should strive to highlight and encourage the good in others therefore creating an even stronger desire in those individuals to give the best of themselves. The value of life is equal in ALL mankind, regardless of occupation, ambition or adversity. For those who find it necessary to shine a spotlight on Whitney’s addictions (on anyone’s perceived failures, for that matter), only lends me to believe that their doing so is in hopes of distracting others from seeing their own shortcomings. Let us not judge ‘til we have walked a mile in the shoes of those who we are tempted to discredit.

I would like to share an analogy… The heart is a major organ which pumps the source of life throughout our entire body. We place a great deal of importance on this organ, and rightfully so. However, without the lungs, the blood will not have the necessary oxygen in the blood to sustain life. Without our nostrils, the lungs will not be able to receive the oxygen that it needs to distribute into the blood stream and to our brains. Without our brains, our hearts and lungs will not know what to do in order to sustain life. We can see that our muscles, eyes, stomach and parts we don’t even know exist within us all play a vital role in the harmonious flow of the body working as “one unit” though consisting of many parts. So it is with everyday life. We need our teachers, laborers, soldiers, entertainers, researchers… and the list goes on and on…each a hero in their own right. Without any one of them, there would be an unbalance.

Now, in my humble opinion, a REAL hero is anyone who gives of themselves to improve the quality of life of someone else. If there is ANYONE you feel is worthy of such acknowledgement for being a hero, then do something about it. Don’t wait for the media or anyone to wave that torch of recognition. Get others who feel and believe the same to join forces with you so more people can become aware and be inspired by that/those individual(s). We should mourn the loss of EVERY life, while celebrating the legacy they leave behind. ~ Donovan Simons

[zenruption]

Social Media is a Failure.

By Brian McKay

Add to Flipboard Magazine.

It’s kind of crazy to be stating that social media is a failure. Our lives are pervaded by it. Facebook has a valuation of almost $500 billion. Mark Zuckerberg is one of the richest persons in the world because of it ($71.5 billion estimated, 5th richest in the world). Today it was announced that Donald Trump is worth $2 billion to Twitter as yet 15 tweets came out this morning from his account, many an abject embarrassment to our nation.

Social media is a must use for those of us in business. It has made new media outlets popular and destroyed others. If you don’t have a Facebook page, a Twitter account and an Instagram account, you are failing the minimum requirements of online marketing. While teenagers are not embracing Facebook as much as their parents, a Snapchat account is a jr. high imperative. You’ve probably reconnected with friends from high school and college because of social media. It’s very likely you’ve made new friends that you’ve never met and probably been hit on by a potential suitor.

Yeah that sounds pretty successful, doesn’t it? It’s here to stay and will most likely become more and more pervasive in our lives. How long until we move to virtual reality social media with it plugged into our brains?

 Believe it or not, it’s a total failure that is destroying the Internet and taking our society down with it.

A Harvard dropout has become obscenely rich while over a billion people proffer some of the most inane bullshit on the planet. Meme’s have more impact on the lives of many than actual life experience. The amount of people that get their news from memes has become astounding.

Fake news became a thing because of social media. In the 2016 election, Pizzagate became a thing believed by many. George Soros is now an even more nefarious figure trying to rule the ruled in the minds of many due to Facebook. An open forum exists for anti-vaxxers, climate deniers, conspiracy theorists and other flat-earthers to reaffirm one another. Fact checking isn’t necessary when everyone you know is telling you what you want to hear. Popularity of a post might be the new substitute for fact. There was never an echo chamber that existed on such a scale. That Facebook has recently found Russian entities paying to advertise fake news and micro targeted ads based on political philosophy, isn’t surprising in the least.

Is it any wonder that a picture of Trump saving two cats from the floods of hurricane Harvey has been propagated by his supporters as proof of his heroics on social media? What about him saving people from those same flood waters in a rescue boat. Never mind that his head is inserted on a body that clearly doesn’t have his propensity for KFC or that he is in a boat with a suit on, no life vest and that the Secret Service could never allow such presidential risks. Facts and logic are not a consideration. Even the knowledge that there is no way the guy would get himself dirty beyond lifting that one bucket and placing it on a driver’s lap, instead of in the back of the truck, was his one photo op of doing something to help. All of it goes out the door because everyone else posted it. Must be real right?

Social media has also replaced good mental health counseling as the help center of choice. No effort is required and no co-pay needed when one can post depression and suicidal intentions for worthless concern and bad advice. The help people really need is avoided as a five minute fix and insincere pandering are both readily available.

A psychologist I had used lamented that his group therapy sessions that had once been so popular had all but disappeared due to the advent of social media. It is very likely that your social media account is actually contributing to depression as we see the difference between the persona we feel the need to display and the actual lives we lead.

Another issue is increased stress of social media users. The idea of transference plays out in life when we are around a depressed person and find that depression also becoming part of our own reality. Imagine having a thousand friends of whom you are exposed to their life struggles or statements that make you question the human condition and our actual ability to behave in a manner conducive to survival and respect of one another. The outcome is stress while we incorporate those messages.

The use of social media can create ideas of social status and approach that are vastly different from real life. Using a keyboard is so completely different from actual conversation that the expectations of social interaction can become completely unrealistic. It isn’t a new concept that when something becomes perceived as easy when it should be difficult, the outcomes change and reaffirm bad behavior. Surely your female friends can detail numerous episodes of men sending inappropriate pictures while also experiencing the stress of seeing their married “friends” talk about their perfect married lives. Social media can create highly disproportionate stress on women for this reason alone.

Additional issues include productivity drain ($1 trillion a year in lost productivity when combined with email) and economic cost. Loss of the mental benefit of just letting go and looking for small moments. Reaffirmation of social roles in teenagers with, now quantifiable, benchmarks of success and the well known “social media bullying”. Body image is another area which has become an amplified and negatively impacts both teens and even older social media users.

The list of harms is tremendous. Benefits just don’t measure up. Unlike other addictions, this one is incredibly prolific but without the social stigma of alcohol or opiate usage. The US has constant discussions of an opioid epidemic but not a social media problem which might even be a contributing factor as many see the pretend lives of others and try to craft the same for themselves.

It has dumbed us down, stressed us out, fostered bad behavior, created an echo chamber, made us more depressed and born unrealistic social expectations.

Social media is a total failure and destructive to society. The problem is that we can’t bring ourselves to leave it. As technology advances and we move to a world without work, it might only get worse. Even after writing this, expect this article to be posted on Facebook and Twitter as soon as it is published.

Maybe I should go watch some clouds for a minute just to say I was in the real world today.

medianet_width = "728"; medianet_height = "90"; medianet_crid = "728762653"; medianet_versionId = "111299"; (function() { var isSSL = 'https:' == document.location.protocol; var mnSrc = (isSSL ? 'https:' : 'http:') + '//contextual.media.net/nmedianet.js?cid=8CUTI81HQ' + (isSSL ? '&https=1' : ''); document.write('<scr' + 'ipt type="text/javascript" id="mNSC" src="' + mnSrc + '">' + 'ipt>'); })();

[thedreamerthebelievertheend-blog]

Hardball: Youth, Sports, and Education Is The Way Out

The movie Hardball was released in 2001 and it stars Keanu Reeves and Diane Lane. Reeves plays Conor O’Neill, a high stakes gambler who is in serious debt to multiple loan sharks with no way of paying it back. Lane plays Elizabeth Wilkes, a middle school teacher at a catholic private school in inner city Chicago. The story revolves around O’Neill facing the harsh reality of his gambling addiction and thus doing anything to pay back the money in order to avoid serious harm or death from the loan sharks that he is indebted to. Out of desperation and running out of options, O’Neill strikes a deal with a wealthy friend of his to become the assistant head coach of a little league baseball team in the inner city of South Side Chicago. As long as he shows up to practices and games the entire season, O’Neill’s friend will pay him $500 per week. O’Neill initially sees this as a quick and easy money making opportunity to help him pay off his debts, however he quickly has his views and life perspectives changed by the kids he coaches and their teacher Ms. Wilkes. While this film is overall a feel good story with ups and downs as it demonstrates the familiar narrative of motivation, hard work, education, and sports overcoming a bad situation in the inner cities of South Side Chicago. This film also fails to address the underlying causes and issues that create these problems that are still affecting mostly minority children that reside in the dangerous and big inner cities of the United States. Many of these modern day issues stem from institutional racism, the culture of toxic masculinity, and sports being seen as the main road to success and salvation away from inner city violence in minority communities. Also known as achieving the American Dream through perseverance and individualism. 

The first of three movie clips that I will analyze in depth that outlines these societal, racial, and historically attributed problems is titled: “Losing G-Baby”. Now while the main focus of the scene is the tragic death of the character/player G-Baby, there is a different part of the scene that I would like to draw focus to. In the beginning of the scene G-Baby and his brother attempt to enter the projects where they live, however they are confronted by numerous gang members that tell them to wait. It is among those gang members that they see a former teammate of theirs named Jamal. Jamal acknowledges them when his name is called, however he just aimlessly stares at them with no emotion. It is that part alone that perfectly outlines and demonstrates one of the points in my thesis. Jamal was kicked off the team because he altered his birth certificate in order to seem of playing age. Since he no longer had sports to neither pursue nor invest his energy and talents in as an outlet, he succumbed to the influences and pressures in the environment around him. Beamon & Messer (2013) essay defined the following: Even though segregation has ended as a legal principle, sociologists point to continued realms of institutional racism, where a color line highlights the social, political, and economic disparities that routinely privilege Whites, including in sports. Even gaining access to sports and success, though, doesn’t thwart institutional racism.  (p. 2) One could also highlight G-Baby’s tragic death as another working example of this definition. Because even though he and his brother had access to a sport and played on the team, the unequal disposition of the projects they lived in created a deadly environment where G-Baby paid the ultimate price. Even though this is a movie portrayal of this situation that is now 16 years old it is still a tragic reality for many young minority children in American ghettos across the country, especially Chicago which today has the nickname Chiraq. 

The second movie scene which relates to the issue of the culture of toxic masculinity is titled: Big Poppa. The scene revolves around the team’s star pitcher Miles. Miles was recently told by the little league’s commissioner that he was no longer allowed to wear his headphones while he pitched because it was a safety hazard. In reality, the opposing team’s coach complained because Miles was dominating on the pitching mound while he had his headphones in. Without his headphone Miles told coach O’Neill that he could not pitch or perform well. That the song that was playing on the headphones was Big Poppa by The Notorious B.I.G., without the music Miles felts out of rhythm and weak. On top of that without the music Miles could not block out the opposing crowd’s chants where they were chanting: “Sally! Sally! The pitcher’s name is Sally!” Now in our culture of toxic masculinity we teach our boys from a young age to never show emotion because it can be perceived as weakness, and to be tough and act like a man because otherwise you will be compared to a girl or woman. This teaches boys to value women less in our society from an early age and to perceive them as the weaker sex. According to Messner (2013), our sports fantasies are tied to our own fears, inadequacies, even failures as men…The sports-media-commercial complex consistently sells boys and men a glorified package of what masculinity is and should be (Messner, 2013, p. 115) . This is why Miles feels as though he needs the headphones for peak performance so he can live up to these strict standards of masculinity in sports.

The final scene which ties back to race, minority role models, and sports being seen as a way towards success and achieving the American Dream is titled: Seeing Sammy. Coach O’Neill takes the entire team to see a Chicago Cubs game. He does this to treat the boys for their hard work, to share a new experience with them, and also because he thinks seeing professional players would give them motivation. According to Butterworth (2007), This has created a dynamic in the mythology of America and the “American game” that continues to the present. Because of a deep connection to frontier imagery – in other words, an era that pre-dates baseball’s integration – black and Latin baseball players have struggled to find a role within that mythology. (p. 236). After they walk into the stands one of the boys on the team, Jefferson, recognizes Cubs star player and baseball legend Sammy Sosa. From there he and the rest of the team keep shouting is name. He eventually turns around, acknowledges the boys and waves to the team. Being recognized by a star player, albeit one that is a minority motivates the boys and gives them something to strive for and replicate by using their baseball talents. Thus embodying the American Dream.

References (2012, May 22). Retrieved April 09, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrgGccehkKY

2012, May 22). Retrieved April 09, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ji7Coh4O7E

(2012, May 22). Retrieved April 09, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwMoiBGmH_4&t=6s

Butterworth, M. L. (2007). Race in “The Race”: Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, and Heroic Constructions of Whiteness. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 24(3), 228-244. doi:10.1080/07393180701520926

Robbins, B. (Director), & Coyle, D. (Writer). (2001). Hardball [Motion picture on DVD]. United States of America: Paramount Pictures.

Messer, C. M., & Beamon, K. (2013). The Enduring Color Line in U.S. Athletics. 1-9. doi:10.4324/9781315879611

[yes-dal456]

Batman Broke The Internet. And Told The World It’s OK To Face Addiction Out Loud.

There aren’t many people I would call a hero. Some of the bravest people I know are in recovery—not wearing a cape and fighting crime. But last night Ben Affleck got hero status in my book. The actor, who’s recently reprised his role as Batman, announced that he’d completed treatment for alcohol addiction.

His statement, which was heartfelt and sincere, sounded totally different from the Affleck who’d tried getting sober in 2001. Now, he says, he’s serious about recovery and wants to be the best dad he can be. The mask, it seems, has come off.

Within a few minutes of Affleck’s post, thousands of well-wishers sent messages of support. Many people shared their own experiences of seeking sobriety or how they’d gotten to long-term recovery.

Reading their comments, I was overjoyed. By showing his true self and being candid about his recovery, Batman sent a signal to the world. He wasn't going to apologize for who he was. His recovery wasn't a secret anymore. He was done hiding. His honesty gave permission to many people to stop lurking in the shadows and recover out loud. Affleck’s courage inspired other people to share their stories, an incredible outpouring of love, support, and admiration on social media. Now, the recovery community—over 23 million Americans—has added a new hero to its ranks. Here are some of my favorites from last night:

@BenAffleck thank you for @FacingAddiction PUBLICLY - 23 million Americans stand w/ u in recovery! #RecoverOutLoud https://t.co/JYAyPMl46k

— Greg Williams (@GregWilliamsFA) March 15, 2017

.@BenAffleck I'm with you! Easy does it—you can do it. #sobriety #ODAAT #xa

— Claire Rudy Foster (@claire_rudy) March 15, 2017

@BenAffleck thank you. Recovering out loud was the best decision I've ever made. Just celebrated 2 years #recovery #inspire #facingaddiction

— Garrett Hade (@GarrettHade) March 15, 2017

The most difficult choice I’ve ever made was opening-up as a person in recovery from addiction. I’ll never forget how hard it was. I had to confront not only my own shame, but also the immense social stigma surrounding addiction. Just saying the words “I’m sober” made my skin crawl. Who was I? How would people treat me if they knew I was an addict? Two years later, I don’t regret it for a second. Affleck’s post reminded me why it’s important to be fearless about who I really am.

You see, honesty is like a domino effect. Once I opened-up, my friends began to open-up. Then, my community began to open-up. I expected to be rejected, judged, and shamed. But just the opposite happened. The more I opened-up, the more acceptance I experienced. I became part of America’s recovery movement. I’m one of millions all across this country who refuse to remain silent.

Ben, you’re not alone. As you take the next step into your recovery, please know that millions of people support you—because we support one another. You do not have to fight this battle alone. Keep telling your story and sharing the truth about your recovery. Together, we can work to end the stigma that kills so many, and bring hope to those of us who still struggle with addiction. Every day living in recovery is a day with hope in it.

“It’s not who I am underneath but what I do that defines me,” says Batman. That’s you, Ben. That’s recovery. What we do, and where we go from here—that’s heroic.

Ryan Hampton is an outreach lead and recovery advocate at Facing Addiction, a leading nonprofit dedicated to ending the addiction crisis in the United States.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

from http://ift.tt/2n9TpGL from Blogger http://ift.tt/2mNKude

[imreviewblog]

Batman Broke The Internet. And Told The World It’s OK To Face Addiction Out Loud.

There aren’t many people I would call a hero. Some of the bravest people I know are in recovery—not wearing a cape and fighting crime. But last night Ben Affleck got hero status in my book. The actor, who’s recently reprised his role as Batman, announced that he’d completed treatment for alcohol addiction.

His statement, which was heartfelt and sincere, sounded totally different from the Affleck who’d tried getting sober in 2001. Now, he says, he’s serious about recovery and wants to be the best dad he can be. The mask, it seems, has come off.

Within a few minutes of Affleck’s post, thousands of well-wishers sent messages of support. Many people shared their own experiences of seeking sobriety or how they’d gotten to long-term recovery.

Reading their comments, I was overjoyed. By showing his true self and being candid about his recovery, Batman sent a signal to the world. He wasn't going to apologize for who he was. His recovery wasn't a secret anymore. He was done hiding. His honesty gave permission to many people to stop lurking in the shadows and recover out loud. Affleck’s courage inspired other people to share their stories, an incredible outpouring of love, support, and admiration on social media. Now, the recovery community—over 23 million Americans—has added a new hero to its ranks. Here are some of my favorites from last night:

@BenAffleck thank you for @FacingAddiction PUBLICLY - 23 million Americans stand w/ u in recovery! #RecoverOutLoud http://bit.ly/2mZjLuX

— Greg Williams (@GregWilliamsFA) March 15, 2017

.@BenAffleck I'm with you! Easy does it—you can do it. #sobriety #ODAAT #xa

— Claire Rudy Foster (@claire_rudy) March 15, 2017

@BenAffleck thank you. Recovering out loud was the best decision I've ever made. Just celebrated 2 years #recovery #inspire #facingaddiction

— Garrett Hade (@GarrettHade) March 15, 2017

The most difficult choice I’ve ever made was opening-up as a person in recovery from addiction. I’ll never forget how hard it was. I had to confront not only my own shame, but also the immense social stigma surrounding addiction. Just saying the words “I’m sober” made my skin crawl. Who was I? How would people treat me if they knew I was an addict? Two years later, I don’t regret it for a second. Affleck’s post reminded me why it’s important to be fearless about who I really am.

You see, honesty is like a domino effect. Once I opened-up, my friends began to open-up. Then, my community began to open-up. I expected to be rejected, judged, and shamed. But just the opposite happened. The more I opened-up, the more acceptance I experienced. I became part of America’s recovery movement. I’m one of millions all across this country who refuse to remain silent.

Ben, you’re not alone. As you take the next step into your recovery, please know that millions of people support you—because we support one another. You do not have to fight this battle alone. Keep telling your story and sharing the truth about your recovery. Together, we can work to end the stigma that kills so many, and bring hope to those of us who still struggle with addiction. Every day living in recovery is a day with hope in it.

“It’s not who I am underneath but what I do that defines me,” says Batman. That’s you, Ben. That’s recovery. What we do, and where we go from here—that’s heroic.

Ryan Hampton is an outreach lead and recovery advocate at Facing Addiction, a leading nonprofit dedicated to ending the addiction crisis in the United States.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

from Healthy Living - The Huffington Post http://huff.to/2msa98z