#creating multifaceted characters comes with realizing that you need to treat your characters like people and realize that they will react

[rabbitsparklez]

✨sorry Im kinda late if you're still doing the ask thingy. anyway, what are some of your UNPOPULAR opinions?

No, it’s fine! I’m happy to get asks whenever :)

First of all, I’d like to apologize for the delay. It took me like 3 days to answer this because I added a lot. This was a LOT more elaborate than you asked for so uh...... enjoy?

I have a lot of conflicted opinions that I wouldn’t exactly call “unpopular”, but I also have several that I would. There is negativity in this post, and if you’d rather not read it, then please don’t.

Please do not comment or message me about these if you disagree. This is my blog, and if you generally disagree with my than I don’t know what you are doing here.

Thank you for the ask!

1. I kinda... almost.... hated “Buddy”.

 Yes, it’s a really catchy song and a great blend of Zach and James’ voices, but it also serves as a reminder that the writers prioritized Cassandra’s importance over Eugene’s. I’m already not a fan of it when people use strong and mature characters in overly silly scenarios, but it makes my stomach churn to think that they would actually dare to ridicule Eugene to such a far extent in order to give Cassandra the spotlight, when her entire arc was written poorly despite all their costly efforts to give it to her. I know that Eugene didn’t intentionally fall under the influence of those flowers and he certainly would’ve done something had he been there when Rapunzel discovered the Moon Incantation, but honestly that just bothers me even more because Eugene had so much potential and they wasted it.

2. (I don’t know what’s gonna come of this) I don’t hate King Frederick. I’m very disappointed in him, but I don’t hate him. Everyone hates him because of his failure to handle a threat to the kingdom, and his rashness and dishonestly toward his daughter, and I both agree to a lot of it, but I don’t hate him.

I have no excuses for the fact that he lied about having the black rocks under control because he didn’t know what to do about them. As the king, it is his responsibility to consider what is best for his kingdom, and by lying about a major threat, he only caused the problem to get worse. The reason the black rocks came in the first place, however, is because he took the Sundrop to heal his dying wife and unborn child. I know it wasn’t the most prudent decision, and he did a horrible job cleaning up the mess he made afterwards, but he was desperate to save his family, and chances are likely that he didn’t have time to consider every aspect and consequence that taking the Sundrop would cause.

Regarding his actions towards Rapunzel, I hate the fact that he would dare consider locking his own daughter in her room to protect her from something that he’s not making any effort to fix. Treating people immorally harshly while saying it’s for their own good is toxic, and I want to make it clear that I am the last person to defend abusers, but I highly doubt that Frederick gingerly considered every aspect of locking his daughter in her room and how it would affect her. Rapunzel was kidnapped as a baby, and that gives two reasons why Frederick is so protective of her: the fact that he is her father and the pain and trauma in itself. Everyone takes trauma differently, depending on the person and the weight of the situation. I hate it when people who are clearly smart and strong enough to understand the situation use their traumas as an excuse to justify their actions, but some people are so devastated by their traumas that they completely lose themselves. Again, he logically wouldn’t have thought about every single thing he was doing and the trouble it would cause. He lost his baby girl. I’ve heard many times that losing a child is the worst pain imaginable, and you could only understand that pain if you experienced it. Perhaps he even felt responsible for the fact that his daughter was kidnapped because he thought that he wasn’t as protective as he should’ve been, and the idea of “making things right again” and protecting her was drilled so deeply into his mind. In addition to the pain that he went through and how that affected his judgments, Frederick had no parental experience whatsoever. All parents have to figure out who their children are and how they should handle situations. Doing this involves trial and error, tears and pain. As seen in the episode “You’re Kidding Me”, Rapunzel and Eugene both thought they knew how to treat children but both of them made errors due to the cooperation and sensitivity of the kids they were looking after - this applies to every parent and every child. Frederick was completely ad-libbed into parenthood, and his trauma from losing his child did not mix well with Rapunzel’s spirit of adventure and independence.

As a king, Frederick failed in his responsibility to do what is best for the kingdom, and I agree that he wasn’t justified for the actions he took (or didn’t take), and he was a jerk for lying about it; but as a father, I feel more sympathy for him because in his eyes, he was doing the right thing, even though we know that he wasn’t. People are so quick to justify Varian for his actions following his traumas, when he’s admittedly intelligent enough to understand them; but people are so quick to demonize Frederick for his actions following his traumas, when he’s clearly not intelligent enough to understand them. I don’t think that’s fair in the minimal sense and it still irks me how biased a lot of people were in this situation.

3. I’m not sure how “popular” or “unpopular” this one is considered, but I hated both Stalyan and Brock Thunderstrike. It takes a lot for me to actually hate a character, but considering how much they wronged Eugene, I can’t ever see them in a positive perspective.

Aside from almost killing Lance, Stalyan abused Eugene. When he was only 16, she tried to marry him so that he could be her partner in crime, and judging by the way she talked to him in BTCW, it’s likely that she manipulated him and constantly belittled his choices. (which is another reason I hate how they did that with the Cass arc, because he should be entitled to such a valid opinion). She called him by his fake last name and tried to pull him back into the past, showing that she gave no importance to his persona and development as a character. When he refuses to marry her, her dad poisons his best friend and forces Eugene to either let his best friend from childhood die, or leave his girlfriend - his closest companion who filled in his missing parts and helped him to know that he mattered. Afterwards, she brushed it of with “that was my dad’s idea, but bad guys have a flair for drama”, in the least sympathetic tone imaginable. She then locked him and his dying friend in prison until the wedding, and tried to convince him that he wasn’t good enough for the woman he loved. The writers could’ve used her as a way to understand Eugene’s insecurities and pain a little bit better, but they freaking REDEEMED her. She just went with Rapunzel on a little road trip where she decided “y’know what, you can have my ex boyfriend and I’ll move on! Tell him I said hi!”. We didn’t get a proper address that Stalyan likely had a role in damaging Eugene’s sense of importance and trust, but even worse, we didn’t get an apology. I can’t believe that they made Rapunzel deal with someone else’s abusive relationship, where she hardly understood what was actually going on. Stalyan never said another word to Eugene or apologized to him or Lance for what she had done to both of them. She married a guy that looks exactly like him in the end too! Instead of looking for someone new, she chose a guy who looks exactly like her ex, showing that she cared more about his looks than his inner self.

Speaking of her new boyfriend, I hated Brock Thunderstrike. Let’s just pretend that Eugene hasn’t already been sidelined and ridiculed for Cass, and make an almost exact copy of him, only without his flaws and development! Let’s make him look exactly like him, make him repeat every iconic action and line that he made in the movie in a flawless way, and make him steal his entire former identity!  - THAT WAS SO STUPID! I can’t believe they actually did that! Eugene is one of the most meticulously created, personified, and multifaceted characters that Disney has ever created, but not only did they push him in the mud to give Cassandra space, but they created this idiot Mary Sue copy of him with no personification otherwise! In the end, just like Stalyan, he decided with no redeeming deeds or apologies that he would make a new person of himself.

They really make a good match, and that’s not a compliment.

4. I love Lance as a person, but not as a character - If that makes any sense.

I love that wholesome boy a lot, but I don’t like the way he was used in the show. I think that even he pitched in to the factors that flattened Eugene as a character in the show. First of all, it takes away some of the meaning of love and it’s necessity to Eugene’s life. We always thought that Eugene was a lonely, rejected child who needed love more than he realized, but it turns out he did, in fact, have a buddy who wasn’t just his partner in crime for years, but a close, brotherly figure. That contradicts the significance of Eugene’s childhood and life as an orphan. Secondly, Lance was often used as an object to distract Eugene and drag him into the stupid and nonsensical scenarios that prevented him from interfering with Rapunzel and Cassandra’s overly prioritized involvement to the plot of the episode. Don’t get me wrong. I love Lance and have nothing against him, but his role as a character could’ve been used in better ways.

5. Adira should have either had a larger or smaller role in the show.

When we were introduced to Adira in Season 2, she was the fairy godmother  that always came when the squad was in distress. She could do everything: she is superhumanly strong and agile, can cook, can effortlessly cut down trees, can survive in the wilderness, knows everything, and is practically perfect. But considering her knowledge of the Sundrop and Moonstone and her past with the Dark Kingdom, I was disappointed that we couldn’t explore more of her character and personality. In Season 3, she just kind of vanished. Considering her amazing abilities, we could’ve explored her character and learned of her weaknesses and backstory in season 3, but we didn’t. She played a lot of parts in Season 2 but almost none in Season 3. I thought Adira was sort of a Mary Sue. She’s perfect on the outside, but we have little knowledge of the inside. To make her a better character, she could’ve either been brought into the light in Season 3, or not given as much attention in Season 2. Either way, she’s an unbalanced character. I like her, but she’s hollow.

6. I like Shorty. 

He’s kind of pointless and it made me roll my eyes when he unintentionally saved the day when other characters *cough* Eugene *cough* could’ve done so, but he also made me laugh a lot. He’s an idiot but fairly harmless otherwise. Also, unlike a lot of things in the show, he’s in character. In the movie, it wasn’t out of character for Shorty to pop up in weird places or save the day without really knowing it (he was one of the ones who helped Eugene break out of prison). The Snuggly Duckling was a major point in the movie and we didn’t see a lot it in the show. While Shorty’s tagging along didn’t contribute anything to society, it kept the Snuggly Duckling present in the show.

7. As much as I love him, I’m not attracted to Eugene.

I think he’s handsome and charming, but I ship him with Rapunzel too much to be in love with him :). I would give anything to have a platonic friend like him, but maybe not a husband.

To be frank, I’m a little creeped out by people who seem to “fall romantically in love” with characters, because they sometimes........well let’s just say that they portray them in a way that makes me incredibly uncomfortable - if you know what I mean. This applies to all characters, but especially to the ones that I like.

8. Varian’s role was too invasive. You’re probably surprised at this, because a lot of fans seem to think that he didn’t get enough of a role and wasn’t put to his full potential. I agree that he is a very elaborate character with a lot of potential, but he was never intended to be a main character, and he shouldn’t have been given a larger perspective and more angst factors than the actual main characters.

After his villain arc, fans started hating Rapunzel because they had sympathy for Varian and accused her of not treating him well, which I hated. It is true that he was in a situation worth having pity on him for, but they expressed a lot more emotional impact from his perspective than from anyone else’s, thus fans only considered his feelings. Rapunzel was going through an extremely difficult time at that moment, too, but it was shown in a less dramatic and sympathyzable way. She almost lost her parents and the man she loved in a snowstorm, while for the first time when she had to make prudent decisions as a leader, the kingdom was in a state of distress. After the storm, her father continued to lie to her, and the reason she never helped him was because he convinced her that Old Corona was under control. All she wanted to do was stabilize herself in a calm state of mind, which was ok, because she didn’t realize that there was more trouble. Even so, she could hardly do so because she was still stressed and traumatized. If these things from her perspective were more clearly presented to the audience, there would’ve been less of a war in the fandom and there probably would’ve been sympathy from both sides. But they wanted to show things from Varian’s point of view, which was valid until he went feral. {He stated in the episode before the finale that he understood that Rapunzel “did what she had to”, and he is clearly intelligent enough to pull things together, but everyone used trauma as an excuse. If he could connive that entire plot where he would kidnap the queen, use a dummy of him, extract the Sundrop’s power, etc. then he clearly was in a sane enough state of mind to put things together, but he didn’t. In Season 3, he admitted that the reason he became a villain was because he had taken his anger too far, after realizing that he was wrong. }

Considering that Rapunzel is the main character and the writers expect us to feel sympathy for her, they should’ve at least made the situation less dramatic from Varian’s point of view. Chris Sonnenburg himself was annoyed with fans who sympathized more for Varian and watched the show for him instead of Rapunzel - but in a way it was his fault for the way he portrayed the situation. I agree with him in the sense that I was annoyed with Varian fans taking over the fandom and demonizing Rapunzel, but it was the crew’s own choice to make Varian such a likable character to so many people.

Although his redemption arc was handled well in my opinion, it was more focused on and important to the show than that of the Father of Tangled Redemption Arc’s - Eugene’s. His redemption arc is the backbone to the entire franchise, but the series didn’t take him seriously, so even though his redemption subtly fell in place in Season 1 especially, I was disappointed that he didn’t have a nice serious episode where his redeemed self shined in the light, while Varian, a secondary character, did. Although not to such an extent, Varian’s role, similar to Cassandra’s was prioritized in the show above the main characters’ and that bothers me.

9. I’d say this one is more under-acknowledged than unpopular, but Cassandra’s existence contradicted Rapunzel’s development rather than bringing out her characteristic “compassion”

Even after all of the horrible things Cassandra did to Rapunzel, to Eugene, and to the kingdom of Corona after deciding to turn evil, she was redeemed. Anyone would’ve stopped pitying her and left her behind, but Rapunzel still cared for her and let her be her friend again. Why? Because the writers tried so hard to convey the message that Rapunzel has compassion for everyone and anything that comes in her path.

It is true and in her character for Rapunzel to be compassionate and humane. The movie conveyed the message that Rapunzel, even after spending so many years unloved and mistreated, loves and has sympathy for everyone. She sees the good in everyone and everything, thus she is capable of redeeming those who have strayed. This characteristic of hers is what caused Eugene to leave behind his past self and find a new life. She didn’t fix him; she opened his soul and brought out the good person who had been hiding inside him for the longest time. The same thing happened to the thugs, other former thieves, and many others. Rapunzel’s compassion and love for others brings the best out of the unlikeliest of people. The way Glen Keane described it, Rapunzel is the representation of humanity.

However, Mother Gothel is the representation of everything that is an obstacle to Rapunzel and her freedom. She gaslight and objectified her by passively claiming that she loved her, and used her as an object to satisfy her own vanity. She never let her express her energetic and adventurous self by locking her inside, and when Rapunzel rebelled, she locked her in chains and took her to the dungeon. Rapunzel’s development can only grow if she is not stifled by chains and abuse, therefore she should avoid Mother Gothel at all costs. But who is this person who, three years later, Rapunzel tries to redeem? The very daughter of Mother Gothel, who is more like a reincarnation of her to be frank. She brought back what Rapunzel was supposed to leave behind. She condescended over her and shamed her for her underdeveloped tendencies before she even betrayed her. She constantly wanted more from her instead of accepting her who she was. She blamed her for her problems and victimized herself. Rapunzel is supposed to be past these things so that she can grow to be a strong and independent woman. Using Cassandra as a permanent villain who Rapunzel would fight against would define her as a developed woman who has moved on from her traumatic past - but it wasn’t like that. Rapunzel pined onto Cassandra despite everything she put her through. The writers tried to use this situation as a way to bring out Rapunzel’s compassion, but it contradicted her self independence and strength.

Rapunzel and Cassandra’s relationship was a toxic one, and it shouldn’t have been portrayed as a good thing at any time in the show, because of it’s disintegration of Rapunzel’s development. Rapunzel is both compassionate and resilient, but because of how poorly the writers handled this, they contradicted both of her character tendencies. It looked more like schizophrenia to be honest: One day Rapunzel resents Cassandra for her actions and fights her with a powerful incantation to keep her away from Eugene; the next day, she sings a song mourning their friendship and expressing how much she wanted her to come back.The way a character’s personality traits are presented is very important. Imagine that you’re at a restaurant where every item uses the same ingredients, but is arranged and composed in a different way. A burger on a bun with lettuce, tomatoes, cheese and ketchup would be delicious and appealing; however, a hamburger and cheese smoothie with chunks of lettuce and tomatoes floating in it and ketchup drizzled on top would be nauseating and a horrible idea (sorry for the ridiculous comparison but hopefully it gets the point across). Even though the two items have the same composition, one of them works and the other doesn’t. Rapunzel is both compassionate and resilient, but the writers made a contradicting mess out of these two tendencies because they made them clash.

10.. It annoys me when people think Eugene overreacts to things. He’s neither whiny nor childish. He’s a realistic person in a crazy world, who can’t help but be upset about certain things.

Let’s face it, he’s been through a lot, and all things considered, he’s very tolerant and resilient. He’s the most realistic character in terms of skepticism and trust issues, and that’s something I’ve always loved about him. In situations where nobody’s in danger and things are fairly normal, he tends to “overreact” to minor things, but in dangerous and serious situations, he is the first person to stand up and help people. If he was a shrimpy, whiny wimp who can’t handle things, he wouldn’t have willingly died to save someone, led a rescue squad to save the king and queen in a dangerous situation, decided to live with his former abuser to save someone who was dying, or willingly accepted his role as a captain and lead the safety of the kingdom.

If you were abandoned by your father and ended up as a poor orphan who became a criminal to fend for yourself, it’s only human to not immediately feel inclined to accept him into your life, especially considering his apparently whimsical and unconcerned personality. By the end of the episode, he himself realized that his father kept in touch with him and by the end of the show, came to understand his motive for abandoning him. Nobody forced him to see the good in his father. He realized it by his own effort. When his father gave him a gift at the end, he was the first to hug him, showing that he had come to accept him willingly.

If for generations, your family has dedicated and lost their lives to destroying a dangerous object that has caused a lot of deaths and destruction, and you break your trust with your girlfriend to protect her from it; then when you finally allow her to take it when her jealousy-driven handmaiden takes it with every intention to kill her - of course you are going to resent that woman and be upset that your girlfriend still cares about bringing her back, (especially considering you weren’t keen on her in the first place). Even though Cass didn’t deserve it, he still patiently put up with and respected Rapunzel’s opinion of her despite obviously still disliking her. That doesn’t show that he was happy about it, but that he patiently tolerated situations that he didn’t agree with.

Imagine that the only comfort and security that you had for 15 years was your fake reputation as a different character, despite knowing it wasn’t a good one, and you find it difficult to let him go because you still can’t help but wish you were as established and “successful” as he was. Then some cocky twerp that looks exactly like you comes along, dresses exactly like you and uses the same name as you did, and repeated everything that you were proud to accomplish but only better, and is liked by your friends better than you ever were. Despite the fact that your former identity wasn’t a good one, it was the only thing you had and the only thing you could find pride and joy in because you had a low self esteem about your actual self. I can certainly say that if I met someone like Brock Thunderstrike but a copy of me instead of him, I wouldn’t be happy at all. But in the end, although he obviously resented and was jealous of him, Eugene disinterestedly told him that he saw potential in him, and allowed him to find his own identity.

Eugene is one of the most realistic characters that I’ve ever seen, but he lives in unusual circumstances that he’s not used to. There’s nothing wrong with the fact that he can’t immediately see something, because all’s well that ends well - and in the end, he always makes a just decision.

{There was one more that I wanted to post but I thought it would be too conflicting so I didn’t.}

If you agree with some of these but not others, that’s fine! After all, these are unpopular opinions and I’d be lucky if anyone agreed with them.

Again, thanks for the ask!

[lawlightfan42069]

iyo when you write non-straight characters should you specify their sexuality/gender? I mean I'm personally a very 'not into labels at all' person for my own sexuality but support ppl who do find comfort in labels. but when I write I also tend to go toward the 'he just loves who he loves !!!' that sounded stupid but idk how to explain it.. so... like I was wondering why you feel strongly about explicitly stating someone's queerness instead of it being implied (at least u come off as that sorta)

i do definitely feel like that so!! i happen to have a lot of feelings about this so get ready for a Long Ramble. this is a precaution before ive even started typing i just know im gonna write a lot

i think before we start saying anything, we’ve got to acknowledge the difference between people who say that they dont like labels, and writing characters who Don’t Like Labels™. pointing out the problems of the latter is not a condemnation of the former. if someone rly doesnt feel like labeling their sexuality or gender, thats totally alright. the difference between these two is the person is a nuanced, multifaceted human being who may have lots of personal reasons for feeling that way, while the second is a fictional character that is Created and informed by cultural views of the creator. a person is not “created” by one single author and characters arent like…real living agents that have their Own Free Will, they are what their creators make of them. anyway i just feel like this is a rly important distinction that gets lost often!! i’m also more willing to look favorably on someone who self describes that way writing characters based on their own experiences, bc this perspective is inherently different from a straight person writing these sorts of characters. but moving on. 

whats also important to understand, beyond writing characters, is how being openly not straight is shunned. queer people are not allowed to Exist as openly queer and they have not been allowed historically. even these days among people who consider themselves progressive, you’ll often hear that “its alright if someone is gay but do they have to shove it in my face all the time.” this attitude isnt somehow formed in vacuum, but created in a society that treats been openly queer as a taboo. we aren’t allowed to be open about our sexualities the way straight people are. we can’t acknowledge that we’re queer lest someone tells us to Stop Shoving It In Their Face (not missing the irony as we’re surrounded by 400 billboards of hetero couples everywhere). i dont wan’t to delve into other aspects of discrimination and get too off track here, i just want to focus on how being Openly queer is treated as a taboo, particularly among people who still want to call themselves ‘accepting.’ the only way society allows queer people to exist is if they never remind anyone, Ever that they are not straight.

this is Integral to understanding why the i Don’t Like Labels characters are so frustrating. the unwillingness to Explicitly talk about queer people carries over quite handily to media. the same faux progressive people that demand queer people never talk about being queer bc its Too Much Information, will praise queer coded characters that hint at their sexuality but never confirm it. the reason these characters are written is not to genuinely explore why someone might feel uncomfortable with applying labels to themselves, but to appease people who will accept queerness as long as they never have to acknowledge it. this way, u can court queer people interested in representation And people who might like the story but will be uncomfortable with explicit queerness. its an attempt for writers to cash in on peoples desires for interesting queer characters without ever actually fully committing to representing them. you dont get to claim to support queer people if ur also out there providing comfort for peoples homophobia. you cant have a foot in both doors. 

describing queer experiences without calling them queer means that youre okay with this story as long as u dont acknowledge it as something Explicitly not straight and like…why?? why is it suddenly not okay when u take that bundle of experiences and use the word that theyre defining?? theres Weight behind using words like bi, gay, lesbian and if u reject them are u Really okay with lgbtq people? or are you okay with them Despite the fact that theyre lgbtq and not because you take into account theyre lgbtq. acceptance is not tolerating people Despite something, its acknowledging it and validating it as an okay thing to be. especially when it is something that historically Not been validated as okay. dismantling structural systems of queerphobia does not go about by ignoring queerphobia…shit this doesnt just fade away by chance, it takes active work. and part of this active work is Acknowledging Peoples Queerness As Something that is okay Out In The Open. the You in this isnt directed at you anon, just people who have these sentiments. 

throwing vague statements like ‘they just love who they love’ Also creates this level of ambiguity. you might say “well why do u need the certainty when ur describing what is at the very least, something obviously very not straight” and to that i say youd be fucking surprised at how goddamn hard straight people will try to erase the queerness out of a character. like i’m going to use a game called life is strange as a example. i’ll give some background: in the game, the main character max can romance both chloe and warren. note that max is not one of those blank state wholly customisable bioware-esque player characters, she has a personality outside of the choices u make. anyway, the conclusion that is Logically drawn from this is that she is most likely bisexual. or at the very least in some way, not straight. and Yet i have seen discussions that say “she doesnt have a set sexuality it just depends on the playthrough so shes not rly a Queer Character.” even more than that, ive seen people that saw “well even in the chloe one shes not necessarily gay or bi maybe shes just Making an Exception for chloe bc their relationship transcends sexuality” and like ??? Why??? why cant she just be bi?? even when given a queer romance, why do u try and interpret it in a way that sets her up as straight?? ive seen people say “its not a romance its just something that Transcends Words” as if this is… mutually exclusive from being a romance. like… Why doesnt this happen when hetero relationships are depicted?? ive literally never seen someone say “u know, maybe hes not attracted to women and just Making an Exception so hes not straight” why dont u see people try to erase the romance aspect out of hetero romances by claiming their relationship is “Beyond Words.” this treatment is 1000% only ever afforded to queer characters. this attempt to play off romance as not rly romantic is only done to queer characters, even if its done subconsciously. people will Refuse to accept a character is queer as fuck if you dodge around it, because heteronormativity is so ingrained in every interaction that even obviously queer characters get filtered through this lens. the problem with this isnt necessarily apparent until u look at it within historical context, where queer people are repeatedly not allowed to be openly queer. these arent isolated incidents, but manifestations of the idea that queer people shouldnt ever be open about their sexuality. youve got to tackle the discomfort that people have with words like gay/lesbian/bi/etc

i think this particular character trope wouldnt bother me so much if it wasnt like… the only narrative ever present. time and time again, i have to see characters proclaim that they dont like labels while never once even hearing people breathe the word bisexual. if it existed alongside characters who were explicitly queer it would be less frustrating But its literally one of the few ways (semi positive attempts at least) queer characters are ever portrayed. this is particularly true for bisexual characters lmao like… yes…theres people who dont like labels…but theres also millions of bi people that just wanna see a fucking bi character Talk about being bi and all we ever get is a vague “i dont like labels” (that is often never explored further than that and treated as a throwaway line anyway). is creating characters who say that a genuine attempt to characterize someones struggles with labels or is it just a way to avoid saying the word Bisexual.

same with queer romance in media. its only ever Okay if u just hint at it- see dumbledore being gay. see- the korrasami thing (though i dont fault the writers for this bc they pushed hard for what they got, its issues with the network). why are queer people relegated to drawn out stares that May imply something while straight characters are allowed to get into explicit relationships. when u create ambiguous characters that May be interpreted as straight (even if youve really gotta stretch) ur prefer to maintain the negative “neutral” of the heteronormative status quo and allow homophobes to live with their views unchallenged more than u care about addressing queerness in characters. 

 its not a coincidence that we dont do this to straight romance or straight characters. this is particularly important for queer kids!! its good to see queer characters out there being openly queer. while me and u can often pick up on queer themes and narratives, a 8 year old is not going to get that. especially when theyve been conditioned to see straight romance as the only feasible choice. they wont realize the character youre writing is gay or bi or whatever Because they havent been exposed to the connotations we associate w certain phrases. its so important for queer kids to see queer characters Owning that theyre queer. its especially importantly to normalize words like gay or bi or pan. being gay is often Extremely hypersexualized (which is why so many people will tell u they dont care what u do in the bedroom bc they can only picture queerness is a sexual context) so when u Dont treat these words as things only adults can say, u help get rid of the stigma surrounding them. u help remove the idea that being queer is inappropriate for kids to hear about and that the only possible aspect to being queer is sexual. 

anyway this has been Quite the Ramble but the point is that yes, we need to write more characters who are absolutely explicit about their sexuality and move away from the expectation that queer people need to create euphemisms to comfort homophobes desires to never hear about queerness.

[talabib]

Leadership Journey: Morgan Jerkins

Most of us want to contribute to building a better society for all, but we’re often not sure where to start. In an increasingly multifaceted world, it can be difficult to navigate the varied perspectives on what needs to be done in order to support marginalized communities.

One such community is that of black women in the United States – but in order to help them, you first need to understand the context and historical background that gave rise to their marginalization in the first place.

This is where Morgan Jerkins steps in. Drawing upon her own experiences growing up and living in contemporary America as a black female, Jerkins identifies why black women face hardship, while highlighting the areas that must be addressed to improve their position in society.

Whether you’re a white female, a man or even a black woman yourself, everyone has a role to play in creating a society that is fair and just for all – including for black women.

When Jerkins was a young girl, she wanted to cast aside her blackness and assimilate into white culture.

This is a common desire among young black girls wanting to make it in a white-dominated world. They understand that their blackness is a threat and that in order to be nonthreatening and succeed in the world, it should be toned down.

Therefore, during her teenage years, Jerkins didn’t leave her hair in its natural state and wore jewelry and clothes that were status symbols of whiteness – such as items from Gap and Limited Too – and sought to avoid black classmates who shunned white culture.

During this time, Jerkins learned when it was advantageous to use her racial heritage and when to adapt to the rules of whiteness. She soon realized that, in most cases, white culture always won because many people don’t see black culture as a viable option. Why is this so?

Remarkably, the answer is that some white people see the labels “human” and “black woman” as mutually exclusive.

Once, a white man asked Jerkins why she didn’t just define herself as a human instead of as a black woman – a label that many white people stereotype negatively. Her reply was that she is both; however, the man said that she didn’t assume the role of a black woman. Why?

Because Jerkins was well-spoken, went to Princeton and worked in publishing – all qualities that didn’t fit with the man’s perception of a black woman, the man didn’t see her as a “typical” black woman. Moreover, Jerkins sometimes adjusts her mannerisms to fall more in line with white culture; she minimizes gestures, avoids sucking her teeth and doesn’t talk as loudly.

Blackness is denied when black women don’t conform to the stereotype of “sassy black woman.” This stereotype reinforces the perception that black people aren’t as educated or worthy as white people, and if a black woman doesn’t fit this description, then she isn’t black but rather white – and thus human. And so, by this logic, it is impossible to be both black and human.

Unfortunately, acknowledging a black person as though she or he were white is still considered a compliment.

“Color-blindness” is a myth that doesn’t help people of color.

Many white people think that not being able to distinguish between skin colors is a progressive stance. It’s not.

Being blind to black skin is the same as being blind to black history and everything that being black represents. The daily experiences of people of color aren’t the same as those of white people; a lot of liberal white people claim that they don’t see skin colors because they think identifying someone as black is somehow equivalent to being racist.

However, racism only exists when a negative judgment is made due to the color of a person’s skin.

The problem with ignoring a person’s blackness is that the societal challenges they face, including real systemic racism, are also ignored as a result. Furthermore, the rich cultural history of black people – including all the good things that contribute to their uniqueness – is also disregarded.

Those who claim to be color-blind hold a “universal” standard that is actually a white perspective. The “universal” standard is, in fact, the perspective of white North Americans and Europeans, which white people inaccurately present as inclusive of everyone.

It’s easy for a white person to claim they don’t see color when referring to a black person who has become successful in a white environment. That’s because the black person possibly took on white characteristics in order to assimilate into the dominant culture.

So, when black people aren’t regarded as black because of the claim that color doesn’t exist, it actually means that they have successfully camouflaged themselves as white.

The bottom line is that white people don’t have the right to determine whether someone identifies as black or not.

White people fetishize black women’s bodies.

Historically, black women’s bodies were put on display so that people could openly gawk at them. For example, in the early 1800s in South Africa, Hottentot Venus, a black woman with an extraordinarily big bottom, was turned into a freak show by Dutch colonists.

Though this kind of distasteful display doesn’t happen as obviously now, the mentalities underpinning such acts are still present.

Using black women for entertainment purposes is made possible by dehumanizing them, a process that has been happening for centuries. Black women were once slaves, which meant that their bodies were the property of their white owners. Back in those times, they were raped by their owners, and in more modern times, they’ve become overly sexualized by the media.

The notion of black women as sexual creatures rather than people has been embedded in society for hundreds of years. Black girls are taught that they shouldn’t embrace their sexuality because it will be used against them – but this teaching restricts their self-discovery.

Even if it’s intended as a compliment, fetishizing a black woman robs her of her agency. For instance, asking a black woman if you can feel her hair treats her as though she were an animal or object that exists only for your enjoyment.

Whether the white person wants to touch the hair because it’s beautiful is beside the point; it’s stepping beyond the boundary of personal space, an act white people hardly have to defend against. Similar acts of touching or petting are also used with animals as a way to express or exert power.

There’s a lot of culture in black hair, and trivializing it as something nice to touch disregards its cultural significance. Natural black hair or black hairstyles, such as twists and braids, are considered bold by white standards. Having your hair natural has become a political sign of nonconformity to mainstream, white culture. Thus, a white person attempting to turn that political statement into something trivial is an offensive and degrading act.

Mainstream feminism usually belittles, negates or doesn’t take into account the experiences of black women.

The 2014 film Girlhood, is about a young, black French girl and was directed by a white woman, who said that the movie doesn’t feature the experiences of a young black girl but instead the experiences of a young girl in general. This, however, is an inaccurate claim, and it serves as an example of color-blindness negating real experiences.

Having black women’s stories told by white women can often be oppressing and belittling.

With Girlhood, generalizing a young black girl’s experience to that of any young girl is inaccurate because it dismisses the very different experiences of black girls compared to white girls. Above all, it ignores the fact that black girls are often sexualized or stigmatized in a way white girls aren’t.

For instance, in coming-of-age TV dramas, the white girls usually experiment with drugs in a manner that is portrayed as challenging the constraints of society. Black girls experimenting with drugs, on the other hand, may well become addicts.

Generally, there are fewer representations of a black girl’s potential role in society, whether seen in the minority of black Barbie dolls or the lack of shows and movies in which the main character is a black female university student.

What women can do to change this lack of representation is to try to understand it, but at the same time come to terms with the fact that they will never be able to fully empathize. This doesn’t mean that white women can’t talk about black women; however, they must do so reflexively and realize that there’s much of the black female experience that they will never truly grasp.

Ultimately, feminism cannot be successful if it doesn’t accept the discrepancies between women of different ethnicities.

Black womanhood is complex and has been appropriated by white women.

Black womanhood is not homogenous. However, it is usually perceived that way by people threatened by its complexity and multitude of power.

Black women are limited by stereotypes forced upon them either by white people or their own community.

One stereotype is that they’re expected to be able to handle a lot of suffering and not succumb to the pain or pressure, just like their ancestors did. Signs of vulnerability are prohibited because they are already at the bottom of the social hierarchy.

Black women perpetuate this stereotype further as a means of protecting themselves and their daughters in a world where they’re already vulnerable. This kind of teaching can prevent black girls from growing up into proud black women who are able to freely express their emotions. Furthermore, it can deny their ability to reject a burden they don’t deserve to carry.

While black womanhood has both negative and positive connotations attached to it, the positive ones only emerge once they have been appropriated by white culture.

The stereotype of black women as sexualized beings is limiting and diminishes these women’s existence as intelligent humans who have control over their own bodies.

Meanwhile, dance moves that originate from black culture, such as twerking, are appropriated by white women. The irony is that white women performing black moves are celebrated, while black women celebrating their culture tend to be frowned upon.

A case in point is the aforementioned twerk, which Miley Cyrus took and profited from. On the other hand, Nicki Minaj is deemed a bad example for doing the exact same dance move.

Another example is black hairstyles. While Kylie Jenner received praise for her cornrows, many black girls and women can’t have their hair this way at school or work because it’s seen as distracting – or, in other words, threatening.

Successful black women need to help other black women.

As we’ve established, the modern world isn’t so accommodating to black women and their efforts toward success.

But just because it’s difficult, doesn’t mean women shouldn’t try to help; rather than being a threat to a woman’s success, elevating fellow black women can be strengthening.

Many black people believe in the crabs-in-a-barrel theory, which likens members of the black community to crabs trying to escape their confines. Once they’re out, they’re advised not to look back and try to pull another crab up in case they get dragged back down.

It’s a mentality of self-preservation that black people – especially black women – learn as a result of the lack of opportunities available for them. The mentality goes like this: if one black woman helps another black woman out of the barrel, it could result in her spot being taken, leaving her to fall back down.

But by working with and helping one another, the constricting barrel can be eradicated altogether.The success of one black woman means success for all black women.

It’s not surprising to find that there’s a strong connection between members of the African-American community, even between those who have never met. Often, this bond originates from a shared sadness, but we must try and extend it to encapsulate joy as well.

When a black son is unlawfully killed by the police, the entire community weeps as if he was biologically their own. Underpinning this shared sadness is the possibility that next time it really could be a member of one’s own family.

Similarly, a black girl making it in a world run by the white patriarchy should be a success for all black women and girls. Parents should be inspired by this one girl’s success, as it lets them know that a bright future is also possible for their own daughters. Furthermore, a single success story can validate the hopes, dreams and struggles of the community at large.

Whether black or white, feminists need to continue fighting for the progress of black women.

Black women in America are dehumanized, fetishized and even ignored by feminists. To overcome these struggles, they need to empower one another, and white feminists must be more inclusive and sensitive to the polarizing effects of cultural appropriation.