#and he certainly has implicit sexism in his stories at times

[bellamysgriffin]

I was anti Moffat until I got on DWTwitter they softened me to the guy. He's still undeniably flawed and I'll never like Sherlock it is pretty bad to me but I realized a lot of what's on here about him was pretty bad faith. I fear I've become a light defender. And his Douglas is Cancelled joint is pretty damn good, shockingly feminist.

well I don’t think he’s a monster I just think he’s a bad writer lmao. i know he has liberal/feminist ideals but i do think some of his storylines have some sexist and offensive undertones, esp when it comes to characters like missy.

but my main beef with him is truly just the fact that I dislike what he did with multiple storylines on the show, the way he messed with the lore, the insane plot holes, reframing the doctor as a dark antihero instead of what he usually was, writing inconsistently for his characters, missing the point of the show several times, having everyone be so exhaustingly Cheeky, and always undoing the stakes he set out for his characters. some sins are bigger than others in my opinion and of course he has one offs that are truly wonderful (I think he writes better in a more limited sphere, weeping angels are the best but then became a joke immediately when he started fucking around with their lore as did river song). he’s not a worthless writer, I like a lot of what he did, but in general I thought he was a pretty bad show runner and a bad writer for doctor who lmao.

so I can see how the takes that he’s like a super offensive man might be some bad faith stuff, like he seems like an alright guy I suppose, but I just don’t think his writing is up to snuff

[latenightcinephile]

Film #716: ‘The Color Purple’, dir. Steven Spielberg, 1985.

My list of 'films that have made me cry' has grown more rapidly since the pandemic began, as we're all under a touch more stress than we used to be. I'm certainly not complaining: a well-crafted tearjerker can be just what I need sometimes. The Color Purple, adapted from the novel by Alice Walker, is one such film. It's sometimes brutal and always relentless, seeming at first like it takes an unflinching view of its subject matter. Steven Spielberg's direction, though, reveals a more optimistic reading of Walker's novel and encourages the viewer to have faith in a better future. Is that in keeping with what The Color Purple should be? It's hard to say, but I don't think it's doing a disservice to the novel. Furthermore, I'd argue that the film's production acts as a good analogy for its reception.

The Color Purple starts with the birth of a child, Adam. Within the first few minutes of the film, the boy is taken away from his 14-year-old mother, Celie, because the child's father is also Celie's father. "You better not tell nobody but God", the father warns Celie, and thus the film's narration structure, told through Celie's letters to God, begins. Already, there's no hesitation to depict the novel's more taboo topics - incest and rape to begin with, but before long we'll cover all sorts of domestic abuse, racism, sexism and sexuality to boot. Celie is soon married to Albert (Danny Glover; known only as 'Mister' in the novel), although Albert is more interested in Celie's sister Nettie. After Nettie rejects Albert's advances on a visit, the two sisters are separated for what Albert promises will be the rest of their lives. Most of the film revolves around Celie's fate and gradual emancipation from her husband, starting from when she reaches adulthood (from this point, she is played by Whoopi Goldberg). Raising Albert's young children to adulthood, she watches as the fractious family encounter more outspoken black women, including Shug Avery (Margaret Avery), a jazz singer who is Albert's mistress. In the novel, Shug and Celie have an ongoing love affair; in Spielberg's film the romance is kept implicit, with the exception of one lingering kiss. Spielberg has since said that the reduction of the lesbian plotline is one of his largest regrets about the film.Also entering the story is Sofia (Oprah Winfrey), the wife of Albert's son Harpo. Sofia's story is particularly illustrative: her first meeting with Albert and Celie indicates that she is absolutely unwilling to put up with ill-treatment, despite the societal norms of the early 20th century when the film is set. Celie, however, is so degraded that she encourages Harpo to beat Sofia to win his father's approval. It is immediately apparent to Sofia what has happened and she comes to Celie, telling her that she will retaliate if necessary against Harpo and Celie should do the same to her husband. Repeatedly, Sofia's wilfulness is bruised when it comes into contact with society. Harpo is unable to overcome his upbringing for a long time, losing Sofia and his children almost irrevocably. More painfully, when the mayor's wife naively asks if Sofia would like to be her maid, Sofia, unable to control herself any longer, replies "Hell no"... and punches the mayor for good measure. Sentenced to eight years in prison, Sofia emerges timid and maimed, and is released immediately into the employ of the mayor's wife anyway.

What seems like a cavalcade of misery is leavened by Spielberg in a series of atonements. Shug and Celie discover that Nettie has been writing consistently over the years, but that her letters have been hidden by Albert. Finally confronting Albert at a family dinner, Celie confesses that she plans to leave with Shug, and the strength shown in her outburst revitalises Sofia as well. Pursued by Albert, Celie stops as she mounts the car to leave and turns, freezing Albert as though he is under a curse. Eventually, Albert realises the error of his ways (his life obviously collapses without Celie), and he pays for Nettie and Celie's children to return from where they have been on a mission in Africa. In other words, Shug's strength brings Celie to the point where she can reclaim hers, and this in turn strengthens Sofia. However, the men of the film can only be redeemed once they atone for their brutal behaviour. Ill-treatment in this film flows in one direction, and it's always towards black women. It feels a little disingenuous to point out that, in a film about women, there's no mention of the experiences of racism that black men have. My intent in saying this, though, is to point to how effectively Walker's novel and Spielberg's film are crafted towards aligning us completely with Celie's perspective. There's no muddying of the audience's allegiance; every tragic event is primarily experienced through how the women of the film feel. Although The Color Purple isn't really a melodrama in a traditional sense, this is how melodrama works to wring tears from the viewer: restrict the audience's alignment to a particular character, and then subject the character to a series of powerful emotional shocks.

As for the crafting of the film, what is there to explore? Well, the task of adapting any epic novel is filled with difficulties unique to the genre, and one of the most pressing is how you cast your film. Spielberg turned largely to unknown performers, or actors who had worked in other media. Goldberg was a comedian, Winfrey a radio host (her daytime talk show was still a few years in the future), and Glover had mostly worked in theatre rather than film. In most of the casting, Spielberg allowed himself to be swayed by the recommendations of people like Quincy Jones, the composer and producer for the film. Thinking of these actors now, as grand nobles of their profession, it's hard to imagine that they were relatively untested at the time - especially given the uniformly high quality of their performances throughout this film. Spielberg has the task of persuading the viewer that these actors have aged four decades over the course of the film, and rather than resorting to unnecessary changes of cast (Goldberg and Glover cover the ages of eighteen to about fifty by themselves) he simply gives Goldberg glasses and Glover a bit of white in his hair. The actors do the rest, and they do it well. Beyond the spectacle of casting, there's very little dazzle on display in The Color Purple. There are some well-choreographed shots, such as a performance of Shug's at Harpo's bar, where the camera pans from a line of patrons waiting to cross the drawbridge across to Shug, who approaches the camera and then turns to reveal Celie and Sofia. Otherwise, the filming is relatively sedate, which indicates to me either a comfort Spielberg had in his ability to tell a story, or a desire to avoid complicating the film and leaving himself open to accusations of showboating over Walker's novel.

One of the most striking moments in the film also acts as a great example of the multiple levels of engagement that are going on. Shug goes to the mailbox, which Mister has forbidden Celie from doing, and discovers a letter from Nettie. She brings the letter to Celie and, suddenly grasping the depths of Mister's deception, they begin to systematically search the upper floor of the house while Mister is enjoying a drunken Easter lunch downstairs. At last, they discover the trove of letters in a box beneath a closet floorboard. The music soars as Celie gathers the letters, one at a time, into her shaking hands, the camera framed tightly around the identical addresses in her sister's neat handwriting. It's one of the most triumphant moments for Celie in the film, and it's one of the moments that practically brought me to tears. Beneath this moment, though, is the realisation that this demonstrates how systematic Mister's abuse of Celie has been. What is implicit here is literal decades of refusing to let the sisters communicate, and yet he has kept the letters - presumably so that they can be used at a future point to crush her further. This is a betrayal that cannot go unpunished, and we both crave and dread the moment where it happens: if this is the level of cruelty he is capable of, how will he punish her discovery of it?

The combination of joy and creeping dread applies almost uncannily to what happened when the film was released. Joy at what was accomplished mingled with an inability to separate the strands of the story. Celie's story became, to the public, not a story of black America, but the story.

Spielberg was at first uncertain about even helming an adaptation of The Color Purple, feeling that his knowledge of the cultural milieu was inadequate to the task. Again, it was Quincy Jones who advocated for Spielberg's involvement, and Walker was apparently swayed after seeing E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (not exactly a film I'd say is comparable in tone or subject matter, but it seemed to work). It seems like Spielberg's previous work carried a certain kind of optimism that is on display in this film, but on paper it looks like an odd fit. If nothing else, it's apparent that Spielberg's Hollywood experience enabled him to become very adept at managing large productions, and so The Color Purple is retrospectively a good fit - you can find the same kind of directorial sensibility in Schindler's List, for example.

However, Spielberg's apparent uncertainty about whether he was the right director for this film seemed to have spread to the film's audience as a whole by the time The Color Purple was released. The NAACP picketed the premiere over the film's depictions of rape, despite the fact that these scenes were treated on celluloid in largely the same way as in Walker's novel. It was the issue that drew the most criticism (although largely, as the New York Times observed, from black men, while black women felt the film accurately reflected their experiences in America). However, this formed part of a larger unease over whether the film, made by a white man from a novel by a black woman that showed the ugliness of sexism within the historical black community, could ever be an acceptable text in mainstream cinema. The head of the NAACP stated that the film "never showed the good" in black men, but the film's cast were quick to respond that Celie's story was just one example of a person's experience. In a comment that doesn't work very well in hindsight, Glover observed that more white Americans had gained a benevolent view of black America from The Cosby Show than could ever be undone by The Color Purple. "Lots of times we sweep our own problems under the rug under the justification of upholding black history and the black man."

Glover was right on that front, and continues to be as black identity on screen grows more multifaceted. But in 1985, the effects were more stark. The film needed to be rewarded for its groundbreaking nature, and as a result it received eleven Academy Award nominations. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Academy was not sold on the idea that the director of E.T. and Jaws could tell the story of black America, and Spielberg was not nominated for Best Director. More surprisingly, though, the film did not receive the award in any of its nominated categories. Out of Africa swept a lot of the categories that year, but Best Actress went to Geraldine Page in The Trip to Bountiful (a film I have never heard of in my life). A relatively high-profile stoush over representation seems to have cooled the Academy voters on rewarding the film that Roger Ebert called the best of the year, which is genuinely a shame for the people involved - it deserves to have a better reputation than it does.

The good news is that The Color Purple remains as vibrant now as it did thirty-five years ago. It buoyed its cast into becoming some of the most highly-regarded people in their fields. Were it not for the involvement of Spielberg, the film might not have been as appealing to audiences as it turned out to be, and that highlights the issues that continue in Hollywood about whose stories we deem 'marketable', but the film acted as proof for Spielberg as well, showing that he was capable of creating epics that dealt with genuine and heart-rending issues. That's what makes the film special, even if it's only down the line that we appreciate it for what it is.

[dgcatanisiri]

So... I have had THOUGHTS swirling in my head, and, well, I need to word vomit some. This gets LONG. I apologize for the lack of a cut, but nowhere really seemed fitting during my writing.

If you haven’t seen it yet, it’s going around - an article about fandom hating on women. A very long, very researched article. And I absolutely do not dispute that core premise. I am not going to dismiss the work that the writer put into it. I am not standing here saying to dismiss it at all. And, hell, I DO feel a little uncomfortable, writing this massive response to it, being a man writing something that is directly responding to a female experience. Just... My brain would not let me focus unless I wrote this all down, and wrote out my feelings on the matter to a conclusion.

When I first saw it the other day, it sparked a rant of my own, because something about it didn’t sit right. Its focus is on how this hatred of women has gone after those who ship a certain ship, one I avoid calling by name for a very specific reason. That reason being I legit fear being bombarded by people who search the tags for that ship getting a ping of me commenting about it negatively and lashing out at me.

Now, I am not saying that I discount the article writer’s experience or research. Far from it. This is, much as I am loathe to use the term, something I am willing to say that, within the fandom, develops an element of “both sides” to it, where an incident with one side (those in favor of the ship) leads the other (those against it) to respond on the defensive, and back and forth and back and forth, intensifying in each volley, because one random stranger attacked another random stranger and made them hostile to a third random stranger saying things similar to the first, and so on down the chain. It’s like the game of Telephone, just played with tactical nukes.

But, the thing for me in that rant, is that there is a very blatant MISSING of the element of racism that fueled that ship that will not be named, of there being a significant element of the fandom around that ship transplanting the characteristics and even history of the character played by the black man onto the character played by the white man. Like, talk about sock puppet accounts fanning flames and all, but I’ve SEEN fics for this pairing that vilifies the black man and props up the white man. I have SEEN the massive metas that try to explain how the white man kidnapping this woman involved a bridal carry that expresses his true love for this woman he’s just met, interpreting and reinterpreting and pouring over the screentime they have, and only a fraction of it being spent on what seemed like, in the first appearance of these characters. I have SEEN the ignoring and transferring of character backstories repeatedly. Like... Those are a lot of work for it to be mostly the work of sock puppet accounts - A Tweet is easy. A 15000 word fanfic takes time and effort. A meta dive that rivals the length of this post takes time and effort. 

That’s been MY experience in seeing this ship. That’s why I’m being non-specific, because I’ve SEEN the hostility come in and I am taking the steps that I can to avoid that coming in to my inbox. And even when it’s not hostility... I’ve gone and explored the tag for the female character in this pairing. On those occasions, frequently content solely for her is drowned out by the content for the pairing, or about her influence on him. His tag does not have the same issue - there, it’s probably around half shipping content, half individual character content. What I see is that she is neglected by those who claim to see her as part of the pairing they love, and he gets glorified. 

That’s the sexism that I see. That’s where I see the hatred of women happening. On the part of those who claim to love this pairing, but that really seems to just mean that they love him and want to make her stand in emotionally for everything they want to give him. That those who are against the pairing, at the least, want to see that character in particular, her unique characterization and dynamics, in a relationship with someone who is going to treat her with compassion, consideration, and respect.

And, of course, there’s the issue of the fact that this pairing EXPLODED in popularity, while her relationship with another character, with a black man, was from pretty much day one minimized and reduced and ignored, and the damage reflected into the on-screen portrayal so that they never really had any character rebound from the imposed separation in the middle of this content, while strengthening the reduction of this female character to the white guy’s sexy lamp.

It’s not that I’m opposed to women in fandom or that I see something inherently wrong with whoever ships this pairing. It is that I have seen the blatant and thinly veiled racism implicit in the ways that these people go about shipping it, dismissing and denouncing the canon portrayal of an interracial relationship, to the point that when even the (notoriously tumultuous) production came back to write the stories that followed up on their initial appearance, that black man and his relationship with this white woman was downplayed and rendered “less important” to her connection and relationship with the white man - the white man who, in that first appearance, had kidnapped and tortured her, greatly wounded her friend, and killed her mentor. 

Like, I’m just saying, I do not see how one goes from that point to everlasting true love, but I CAN see how that leads to a deep abiding hatred. And yet, you know, nearly 16000 fics for it on AO3, while only about 10% of the other pairing. So, hey, I guess I’M wrong.

This is, again, to say nothing of the reductionary way many portrayals of this ship approach the female half - she loses her characterization in their portrayals to become a stand-in for the (predominantly) female writer/reader, whose love redeems the bad boy from the darkness in his soul. Her contribution, as a singular, unique character vanishes so that she becomes his reward for turning around, and she cheers him on, supporting him while never upstaging him.

It’s the Twilight phenomenon all over again. And I say that as a fact statement, not a value judgement, that this is the kind of thing that we saw within the reactions to Twilight, a vocal segment dismissed it entirely, and we saw a relationship be romanticized when you could actually use it as a bullet-point list of abusive behavior (I say this because it has been - there are plenty of articles using those characters as such). 

I mean, I can easily see this whole thing basically as being “well, the Twilight readers are now adults, let’s throw them a bone and “grow up” the characters for them” on some level. And... Actually, this is going to get off topic, let’s stick a pin in this and come back.

So, look, if this ship is your jam, fine, okay? I’m not making any individual value statements on the subject. You do you. I’m not shaming that act in and of itself, even if, as I’ve made very clear, it is very much NOT my thing. Likewise, I won’t discount that it was investors and shareholders, a notoriously conservative group, who got cold feet and basically wanted to excise the “risk” of an interracial relationship, as opposed to trying to “appease the fans” or something like that.

Like, I know I’m not immune to propaganda. I know I don’t look too deep when a random post crosses my dashboard and talks about this group of people behaving badly - because I’ve seen fandoms and productions be racist. I’m not trying to start a round of victimization Olympics here, but in this case, this is discussing an issue that is wrapped up in BOTH sexism and racism. And on the one hand, that certainly makes it all the easier for bad faith actors to kick up dust and turn people against one another.

BUT...

As important as it is to bring up these issues on their own, you CANNOT. DISENTANGLE. THEM. FROM. EACH OTHER. Like, there are patterns to fandom. You see this repeat itself in every fandom. Fandom at large latches on to a pairing, and shoves most others to the margins. And frequently, when the media in question centers on a character of color, THEY are shoved aside in order to prop up a pairing of white characters. Major canon characters who are not white become secondary - or tertiary - characters in terms of their fandom’s creative output. This happens frequently enough that to try and say “well, maybe the character is just not appealing to the fandom” is actively ignoring the issue.

And this often takes the form of shoving aside healthy relationships and solid, established friendships in the name of pairing up antagonistic characters, declaring the antagonism to be “sexual tension,” that the characters dislike each other not because... y’know, they dislike each other, but because they’re repressing a deep-seated desire to fuck, and THEN they’ll miraculously starting being nice to one another.

Like, this is NOT an isolated thing, you can look beyond the scope of this particular fandom and this pairing and see the pattern repeat itself across media. It is still the outlier when the main fandom pairing is an interracial M/F pairing. 

It’s not isolated. But it’s magnified given the massive size of this fandom in particular. This is a generational fandom, where parents - even grandparents - are sharing it with their children. And those biases we as an audience have reinforce themselves on subconscious levels, we don’t even acknowledge these things until we finally have it pointed out to us - and then we see it everywhere, because we have been blind to it, but it is all over our media, our fiction, baked into the very tropes we are using to assemble our stories.

Pull out that pin, we’re back. When something engages with multiple generations, when this is something you can look back on as a fond memory you shared with prior generations, with people you love, you will become protective of that thing. So when someone comes along and says “hey, [thing] has issues with [whatever],” a gut reaction is to get defensive, coil protectively around it. 

I mean, tell a millennial you don’t like The Lion King (original animated version, I mean), and you’re liable to get crucified. And it traces its lineage to (at a minimum) Shakespeare and probably further. So if, for example, you want to criticize it for, say, only have three female characters of note, none of whom actually interact, in opposition to the nearly three times as many male characters of note, you need to approach the subject with some delicacy (okay, maybe not the most fitting example, since this was part of the reason that the Broadway version made Rafiki a woman, so the issue Is Known, but it does get the point across, okay?).

And it’s the same when it comes to a subject like this particular fandom and media that isn’t just something many get hooked on in their childhood, but is also something that may be among the fond and cherished memories of family figures, some who may have passed on. To say “that thing you love is flawed” becomes a personal attack, not just on you for loving it, but also that beloved family member who brought it into your life.

And absolutely, this is not a rational reaction. It’s pure emotion. But we are emotional beings, and we need to acknowledge that emotions will make us respond and often respond quickly and respond poorly.

Here’s where I think the bigger issue lies if what you want to talk about is how fandom hates women - rather than look at it in the lens of “this ship is called abusive and racist,” go in the direction of “why is THIS ship the one that seems to resonate?”

Because this is the kind of ship that fandom, as a monolithic entity, often gravitates to - the dynamic that says that being enemies will inevitable lead to being lovers. 

Once again, I do not want to shame anyone for enjoying this dynamic. Lord knows my search history has instances of them. BUT... We don’t really know how to approach the dynamic. It is frequently reduced to “well, we made out, so now I’m gonna become the snarky asshole friend no one likes and we’ll bone.” 

Like in general, writing redemption arcs seems to be a hard thing for media, but it really seems to only work when the active narrative endpoint does not end in a major romance - when a romance becomes a major narrative element in said redemption arc, it frequently reduces the subject to “[character] was bad, now they’re in love, so they’re good!” No further work needs to be done.

And so when you have a character who is in need of redemption, it is a problem to just toss them at another character and have them make kissy faces. But that’s what you can sum up much of the concept of enemies to lovers in this fashion. The work isn’t done to show the earning of redemption, just declaring it attained because of another character’s love.

And I’m being intentionally non-specific with gender, because I do have a prominent example of this happening in a female/female fanon relationship in mind, which I am also avoiding mentioning in the name of discretion. So this isn��t solely a M/F phenomenon. This is a media thing, this is an “our understanding and approach to these dynamics and portrayals in media seems flawed and needs examination” thing. 

I mentioned Twilight above, and how that features a relationship that is used as an example of domestic abuse. Now, look, we can go back and forth about interpretation, the thing to acknowledge about it is that there are a great many who walked away from these books, their movie adaptations, and saw this particular interpretation. While you can probably take any relationship in any media and spin it in such a way, I think there is something to be said for the ensuing argument: When this is exposed to young people who are beginning to seek out romantic relationships, if their example for what love is, what love looks like, has a basis that, based solely on interpreting the text alone, the actions and words of the characters involved, the narrative text, the exploration of their thoughts, is unhealthy, is something that doesn’t need to have a word or action changed to be legitimately cited by experts within domestic abuse counseling as the warning signs... What does that say about our perceptions of what love even is?

And this isn’t getting back into the element of racism, either. Because we could go in that direction, where the black characters in fandom see this selective reinterpreting of their characters, turning what are gentle, caring, loving men into scary figures who loom ominously when they feel threatened, which starts to seem like all the time. There are a set of stock characterizations for black characters, for really any minority character, and the fandom will make them exhibit them in their interpretations, even if it does not fit anything established on screen.

There are a lot of threads that tie into the problems within this fandom and in the approach to this ship in particular. I feel like just pulling at one of them is doing so at the expense of the others, ones that run as deep if not deeper. And it seems like a disservice, both to the complexity of the issue and to anyone impacted by these matters, to only do that deep dive on the one. And, if you are not capable of doing it alone, which, I understand, this is a tall order, then I think it also is important to acknowledge this and actively seek out the alternate views and perspectives that aren’t just total opposition to you (meaning the references to the groups that sprung up in alt-right forums and such), but also those who are going to say “okay, maybe you’re right about x, but your statement on y are missing a lot of context you do not have from your position,” and seek the necessary education.

While I can appreciate the time and effort put into this article and the points it wants to make, it IS wrapped up in elements that run far deeper than any single ship, and just really seems to ignore the intersectional element of fandom at large, how fandom’s problem run deeper than just hating women. To talk about how fandom hates women, you are also needing to open the door to how fandom hates black people, hates people of color.

There is a hierarchy to this, and at best, you are missing a lot when you only focus on the top layer of the issue, rather than even acknowledging the deeper dive that inevitably comes from this. Like, it’s bad for a white woman, dealing with sexism. It’s worse for black women, dealing with sexism AND racism. It is something of a position of privilege to only examine the sexism in fandom, without exploring or acknowledging the racism.

Fandom’s hatred of women IS real. I am in no way disputing that. But I do not think that this is the best example to that point, because it becomes all too easy to dismiss the valid complaints and concerns with the trolls and bots and sock puppets found in the process that deserve legitimate consideration - this is one of the things I have been over when I have (oh god, I’m about to break the self-imposed rule and directly reference the media and characters in specific...) been over the problems I have with The Last Jedi. It’s not that I dislike Rose or Holdo, but I feel like they came into the narrative to teach Finn and Poe (both men of color) lessons that either comes at the expense of the previous’s movies arc for Finn or the previous movie’s characterization for Poe. It is not the characters themselves, it is the utilization within the narrative, using these women to impose a lesson on these characters. That, as I said above, Rey is reduced to a sexy lamp, there to try and bring back to the light a character she has no reason to ever even care about.

That was my experience with The Last Jedi - I had honest issues with the film that weren’t “women? In my Star Wars? Unpossible!” But the surrounding discourse CONSTANTLY felt so toxic to anyone who disagreed with the idea that it had been a win, that it was a bold new direction for the series, and that anyone who disagreed MUST be a sexist/racist/whatever who couldn’t take a changing face to the franchise. 

Hell, that may even be why I got this ultimate feeling of defensiveness, both in my opinion of TLJ and the ship in question (yeah, that one I’m still not acknowledging), because what I saw was a lot of really prominent voices not seeing the issues I did, and making it come across like the people who disagreed with them HAD TO BE the ones who were mad on the basis of characters like Rose and Holdo existing, or complaining about Leia’s Force use, or things like that. But... THOSE things weren’t my issues. But I couldn’t talk about those issues on any platform where there was regular engagement on the subject, considering the amount of explanation I would have to do.

Probably also explains some of my inherent response of trying to figure out how I feel about this article, too, come to think of it...

That was how things were after TLJ, and that’s when a lot of this push and pushback really started to gain traction as far as I can see. And maybe we could go and blame this on *ahem* bigger issues that were happening in 2017/2018 that proceeded to exacerbate matters. Like, we’re still in the midst of cleaning up the worst of all of what went on because of the time we live in, since things are still getting messier while we deal with prior fallout.

So... I honestly don’t know how to sum this up as a TL;DR. It was kind of a process for me to get to this point, and I don’t even know if I really have a conclusion. The best way I can go about summarizing is that I do not disagree with the article’s core idea. But I do not agree with its focus, while I understand that a portion of it, if nothing else, justifies why it is the focus. We are dealing with a very complex and complicated web of issues on this, and while I understand focusing on a single thread of that web, it feels like doing so also fails to acknowledge the various connected threads that wrap around that singular thread, in particular the racial elements, which, considering the profile image included, I do not believe this article was written by someone who is inherently aware of these aspects (while I’m also aware that, as a white person myself, I only have so much room to talk). This is all a very long way for me to go about saying “fandom has a lot of issues.”

[agentmanatee]

Don’t judge people you don’t know based on one opinion. Everyone doesn’t see the world as you do.

 I should be going to bed after a long shift, but I gotta say something first. I have noticed a lot in the discourse about the Fitz and Daisy conflict some Daisy supporters throwing certain rhetoric in comments. Their responses being you must be both racist AND sexist to support Fitz/criticize Daisy. NOT THE CASE. I have even received these kind of comments in posts that bring up positive things about Daisy. Honestly, I have seen these kinds of posts before season 5. I’ve seen people say he “made” Daisy hold the portal open in rescuing Jemma from Maveth; as if Daisy wouldn’t choose to give her all to save her friend.  I would never respond to someone who posts criticism against Fitz as being “against the mentally ill/neurodivergent.” Because that is a massive and nonsensical generalization about a complete stranger. 

Fitz is canonically neurodivergent; he has brain damage; he has experienced psychosis. These are clearly in his story, and are one reason people love him. He also has a lot of autistic-coded behavior, whether or not the writers/Iain intended doesn’t matter. The fact is many fans identify with him because of it. A lot of that behavior is part of why he’s my favorite character.

 Our experiences affect how we view the shows we watch. Recognize that other people have different experiences that will inform which characters they like and how they interpret stories. I would never come to the conclusion that “this person who disagrees with me must be prejudiced against [insert group of people ] and therefore terrible.” Because that would be foolish and make me look like an ass. I would never try to “guilt” them by calling them something they’re not or act like my point of view is somehow morally superior. That’s nonsense. Just like anyone who reads this is not my moral superior, I am not theirs. 

Look it’s ok to have a different point of view than me. If you don’t like it, just keep strolling. You do not have the right to make gross generalizations about me when you don’t know me. While I am white, I am also a Hispanic woman. As in one of the worst paid demographics in the United States. My last job certainly reflected that statistic (a white man with some college and who had just started was making more than me, I have a bachelor’s degree and had been there for 5 years). I understand that my experiences in racism are completely minimal and limited to “on paper”, and do not make me an authority by any means. Additionally, my dad wasn’t white and it upsets me to know how people perceived him because of how he looked. His education was very much hindered due to the racism of the time. His school forced his parents to stop raising him in Spanish and put him in “Special ed” instead of diagnosing and helping him with his dyslexia. He chose not to graduate because of this. This caused a lifetime of self-esteem issues for him. That will never not anger me.

To anyone who may be concerned, my opinions regarding the fictional characters’ discussed above recent behavior are not stemming from sexism or racism (yes even the implicit kind). I have gotten good at catching myself at something that everyone is guilty of. When you so much as imply racism or sexism (or any prejudice) every time someone disagrees with you, you take away from arguments when they do factor in. By all means, if someone really is being prejudiced, call them out on it. Do NOT use it in a desperate attempt to win an argument; especially if it’s unnecessary.

Sorry for the long/rambling post folks, I’m tired and had to get a lot out.

[bellboy905]

On July 15, President Donald Trump stepped onto the South Lawn of the White House for the third “Made in America” showcase.... Confronted with his tweets telling Reps. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, and Rashida Tlaib to go back to their home countries... [and] asked about criticisms that his comments were racist, Trump replied, “It doesn’t concern me because many people agree with me.”

[...]

These controversies are, in some sense, bad for Trump... but they’re also bad for the country. The people I fear are benefiting most from these spectacles are racists, who are seeing their views mainstreamed and watching the Republican Party contort itself closer to their positions in order to defend their president.... We in the media have amplified every moment of this horror show.

[...]

“What Americans... do now will define us forever,” wrote Adam Serwer in a powerful essay. But what if the thing Americans should do... or at least the thing the media should do... is stop playing our part in this nightmare? What if the right answer... isn’t to meet Trump’s worst invective with round-the-clock coverage but to deny him the thing he wants most?

[...]

As a writer, I have written tens of thousands of words about Trump’s worst comments. As an editor, I have assigned dozens of stories on them. I know the peculiar mix of moral urgency, journalistic values, and competitive pressure that generates our news cycles. But it is hard for me to look at American politics in 2019 and say that what we are doing is working. Is the public more informed? Are the incentives we’ve constructed leading to a healthier national debate? If the answer is no... we need to be open to rethinking the decisions that drive our coverage.

[...]

When I choose to cover racist comments like the ones Trump made, my implicit rationale... is something like... It is newsworthy that the president of the United States is an unreconstructed racist. It is important that the public knows he is an unreconstructed racist. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. But... sunlight isn’t only, or even mainly, a disinfectant. What sunlight mostly does is help things grow.

[...]

What I fear Trump is doing, with the media... as his accomplice, is suffusing one of the hardiest weeds in American life with sunlight. These controversies are a constant signal to racists... You are not alone. You do not have to hide. You have powerful allies.

[...]

What Trump is offering, so often, is pollution. His attacks are not a statement of policy. They are not honest or illuminating, save insofar as they reveal his own character. He’s designing a set-piece showdown... a symbolic clash over power in America, designed to aggravate the racial polarization Trump believes to be key to his success. Trump... is nothing if not a master of getting people to watch him fight. He chooses his enemies based on who he thinks will rile up his base. He uses outrageous, offensive insults to get the media to take notice... then he feeds off the energy unleashed by the confrontation... The amplification and opposition we offer him are part of his brand. Our sunlight doesn’t disinfect him. It’s the medium in which he grows.

[...]

The one thing the media is doing all the time... is choosing to amplify some subject while ignoring others. Yet we have almost no criteria (and certainly no transparent, rigorous criteria) for making those choices. The closest we come... is the concept of “newsworthiness.” But newsworthiness is slippery.

[...]

Part of the problem here is that the media isn’t a “we.” For all the claims of media bias or conspiracy, we’re actually a collection of outlets in competition with each other for the audience’s attention. When everyone else is covering something, it’s hard not to also cover that thing. Moreover, we’re... navigating a shaky business model. Trump coverage means traffic, and traffic is part of the business. In practice, those incentives do not enter our editorial conversations explicitly, but they are part of the context in which those decisions are made.

Trump, for one, understands this perfectly. “Another reason that I’m going to win another four years is because newspapers, television, all forms of media will tank if I’m not there,” he told the New York Times.

Still, there are easier... ways of making money than journalism. Most outlets are mission-driven first. If Trump’s comments didn’t fit our definitions of newsworthiness, they wouldn’t receive coverage. But they are newsworthy. It would be malpractice to suppress coverage of Trump’s racism. The question is whether it should receive continual headline coverage.

[...]

We knew Trump was racist before he said a word about Ilhan Omar. By suffusing the airwaves with his racism, were we further informing the public, or further polluting the ecosystem?

[...]

The effort to avoid normalizing Trump has been operationalized by... lowering the bar to covering Trump. We’re on high alert for his... moments of racism, sexism, or bigotry... outright lies... [and] flirtations with fascist ideas or autocratic leaders... so all he needs to do to refocus the political media and thus the country on the worst possible conversation is to make a comment that falls into one of these buckets. But what if... instead of lowering the bar to cover Trump, we raised it?

[...]

Perhaps offense and bigotry should be understood as... newsworthy... but not worthy of blanket coverage upon every utterance. Perhaps Trump should only get the coverage he seeks when he acts like the president rather than an internet troll.... Perhaps, to receive the coverage he seeks, Trump should have to normalize himself.

[...]

We ignore topics, and Trumpian set pieces, all the time.... The "Made in America" showcase was meant to be a spectacle.... The White House... lawn was covered in boats and motorcycles, missiles and buck knives. It was suffused in patriotic branding. It failed because the media didn’t care. The event itself released no energy. If a spectacle takes place and no one watches, it’s not a spectacle at all.