#whereas queerness is the joy of discovery

[rollercoasterwords]

honestly the main takeaway from Wednesday for me was that queerbaiting used to feel like ur a starving dog who's secretly crawled under the table and is snuffling around for crumbs and scraps, but now the person hosting the dinner party knows ur under there and they're winking and passing scraps to u by hand and going good dog instead of acknowledging the fact that u are not, in fact, a dog and inviting u to eat at the actual table like a fucking human being bc they don't want to risk upsetting their guest of honor w ur weird gross freakishness. so.

in conclusion if i'm going to get treated like a dog either way personally i'd rather not suffer the additional insult of having the person treating me that way act like it's a joke we're both in on.

[chevelleneech]

Crazy thought: Eddie tells Buck it makes sense Tommy dumped him…

This came to me, because it’s said Eddie will have an unexpected reaction to the news, and I want it to be something new.

As in, Eddie isn’t exactly kind in his reaction, not because he is aiming to be hurtful, but because he’s just kicked off a self-discovery arc of his own. He’s being confronted with all the ways in which his own self-sacrificing has harmed him, so he’s “ultra enlightened” and leans a little too far into honesty.

I don’t even know if I’d call it too far, but he sort of over course corrects, and tells Buck they are similar in the way that they both put other people’s happiness above their own. Except he himself does it to punish himself, while Buck does it unknowingly.

I feel like that would be such good tension, without making their conflict revolve around Eddie figuring out his sexuality, as him being queer seems to be the path they’re taking. I don’t really know how to explain it, but I don’t want Eddie to have any inclination he’s queer. I want him to be so unaware that he’s queer, and so focused on finding joy in all the small things in his life, that he doesn’t even realize he’s coming out of the closet. I feel like that would be the most gradual and easy way for general audiences to catch on, while also making sense for Eddie as a character.

Eddie is so repressed and self-punishing that he doesn’t know what he’s sexually repressed. He just knows he’s locked something away for twenty years, and is finally doing the work to allow it back into the light. And part of that could be him becoming almost overly aware of what repression and emotional self-harm looks like. So he tells Buck, “You stayed with Tommy because he liked you, not because you liked him.”

That would force Buck to look inward and question how true that is, and if he’s done it before. So then their conflict would be the fact that Eddie is joyful and excited to see where his release of repression takes him, while Buck sort of spirals as he realizes he’s never took time to confront his own repressed trauma. It would also make it clear their repression stemmed from two different things, and is leading them down two different roads.

Eddie will be discovering the fact that it is okay to enjoy his life and let people in, and find comfort and happiness in himself no matter what that version of himself looks like, with all his mistakes and misunderstandings. While Buck would be discovering the fact that abandonment is inevitable. People don’t always stick around and often times leave without a reason, but that’s okay. It’s not his fault, and he doesn’t need to whittle his own happiness away in order to keep them near.

And that would ultimately bring them closer together, because Eddie will look at Buck as the one person outside of his son who brings him light and joy, and never causes him to feel undeserving. Whereas Buck starts to understand Eddie as one of the only people in his life who has not walked away, and in fact was pissed off when he couldn’t be near him.

And I think this would work on the general audience not feeling blindsided by queer Eddie, because it’s already been explain “how” a gay man (because I’ve been neutral here, but Eddie is very gay) could date, marry, have sex with, and father a child with women while still being gay. As well, it would put the focus on him being religious, and then thrust into a role of adulthood due to getting Shannon pregnant, thus he’s never actually explored his sexuality.

So Eddie not knowing he’s gay the same way the audience doesn’t know, would allow them to take the journey with him in the way we didn’t with Buck. Buck kissed a man was like, “Yeah, more of that.” Whereas Eddie’s journey would be like, “I’m repressed because I’m a former Catholic boy who became a dad at 18 and then got shot up in war.” So the audience would follow him as he tries out different forms of happiness, which would lead to him realizing Buck makes him happy, thus the realization that he likes Buck romantically. Which then sparks both Eddie and the audiences “Oh” moment as they realize his Catholic trauma caused teenage fatherhood which caused his military journey, because he’s been gay this whole time. Boom!

[thedreadvampy]

ok the thing I'm struggling to find words for in my mind tonight is. a deep discomfort with the framing that complex relationships to sexuality and gender are something exclusive to queerness. that cishet people's relationship to sexuality and gender is by definition simple. and that's a tempting idea and like, yeah, there's much less impetus for a cishet person to examine their sexuality and gender. but that doesn't mean there's no complexity to it. and this isn't intended as a Don't Be Mean To The Poor Straights post it's just. observably not true that no cishet person has a complex relationship to sexuality and gender.

queerness is a complicating factor in people's relationship to sexuality and gender - we are made more conscious of the ways we don't fit what's expected, our sexuality and gender is often what is used to justify marginalisation and it comes with a whole host of pain and joy because of that, and the way that queerness is marginalised forces us into direct conversation with our sexuality/gender

but queerness isn't the only complicating factor in people's relationships to sexuality and gender. like as a woman who is pretty Definitely Cis I still have a huge ongoing wrestle with my gender - it's female, but what that means and how that's expressed and how that affects how i move through the world is still complicated and fraught and often messy and contradictory. that doesn't make me trans but it does feel pretty alienating that in a lot of queer spaces there's this implied assumption that the only type of gender complexity is a discovery of non-cisness.

(and tbh a lot of the time that's fair because a lot of people aren't cis and as I say like. it's much easier to Never Have These Conversations (with others or with yourself) if you're cis. so a lot of cis people never really name their gender troubles because they're not brought face to face with them.)

but there are a lot of things that affect your relationship to your gender. for me, I know I'm a woman, but how I'm a woman is a messy question wrapped up in trauma, in misogyny, in bisexuality, in autism, in body image, in the specifics of who I am and how I relate to the world and how I want to be seen and why. and there kind of is a thing in a lot of IRL queer spaces I hang out in where people jump straight to diagnosing me with Trans of Gender if I try to discuss a complex relationship with womanhood, or a desire to present as GNC, or a discomfort with being performed in certain gendered ways. and for a lot of people that is a step on the route but as far as I can tell it's not for me, I've spent many years trying out the shape of different genders because I had got into a headspace that any complexity in my relationship to genders must mean I was Not Cis, and for me it just didn't fit, womanhood remained the best fit. and I don't regret that, I think in an ideal world everyone should push themselves to question their gender and try out and see what good, and some people are just statistically gonna be cis like. it would be a weird numbers game for absolutely nobody's gender and sex to line up.

but I'm getting sidetracked. I was thinking about how cis and het people have the capacity for equally complex relationships to gender and sexuality as anyone else, and why that's important.

(I've never been straight or even thought I was straight, but I have occasionally talked to straight people and like. I have never met anyone, straight or queer, with a simple and uncomplicated relationship to their own sexuality - is it right, is it socially acceptable, there's shame, there's trauma, there's confusion, there's gendered and racialised and ableist baggage)

and like. it isn't that sexuality and gender aren't less of a fraught space for cishet people as a group than for queer people as a group. obviously in a group that faces a history and present of marginalisation and active violence on the basis of sexuality and gender, those are more intense complexities, and because of that there's also more intense joy as well as intense conflict. we are able to build community through marginalisation. we're brought face to face with our complex relationships to ourselves and because we can't ignore it we have built the language and community and frameworks to explore it and revert in it in a way many cis het people haven't.

but.

understanding intersectionality means understanding that as much as the marginalisation of queerness is bound up in the complexity of our relationships to gender and sexuality, so are power structures of race and gender and health and neurodivergence and wealth and class and geography and culture and language and religion and politics and education.

ultimately sexuality and gender are a huge element in how we relate to the world and our bodies and ourselves. and how the world relates to us. and there isn't a person on earth for whom that's 100% simple.

and idk I think a) to pretend that cishet people can't experience their bodies and themselves in a complex way is just a denial of reality, b) it simplifies out the many intersections of identity and power in all of us (even the straightest cisest manliest rich white dude) that make our social and personal identities messy and intricate and c) it gets in the way of us building meaningful intracommunity solidarity through a shared understanding of the beauty and pain and infinite variety of gender and sexuality

also idk. it's weird to me. to me it posits that to be cis, to be straight, to be allosexual and alloromantic, is a default whereas queerness is a deviation. and I just don't believe that, I don't think there's a 'normal' and uncomplicated Default State and then everyone outside it is a complication. I think there's value in embracing that othering in the world we live in, where we need to find strength in anger and in resistance, but I don't think it represents a truth about the world as much as a reclamation of the weapons used against us.

to me it feels similar to the way that white people thinking of ourselves as aracial and everyone else as racialised is an act of unconscious white supremacy. or the way that people are really keen to draw a sharp line between the Disabled Other and the Healthy Normal People. the idea that there's Normal People and Diverse People isn't...good...really? and this is in itself a messy issue because I do think there's a lot of power and value in taking pride in the complexity and thoughtfulness of queer relationships to sex and gender and I don't think there's some great evil in joking at the expense of the privileged. but when that starts to inform your actual serious thinking I think it can be counterproductive because erasing the complexity of cishet identities and acting as if any complexity in relationship to sexuality and gender means someone's Wrong About Being Straight/Cis is kind of reinforcing the otherising of queerness.

ughhhhh this is why I say it's hard to find words. because to me now it sounds like I'm saying 'don't suggest people might be queer' and like. do do that. we're in a world where that space isn't left open for the vast majority of people and straight or not, cis or not, allo or not, I think pretty much everyone benefits from having the space and community and language to have a conversation with their own identity. but that's kind of my thing like that conversation doesn't have a right answer. the conversation needs to have room for a model of straightness and a model of cisness that doesn't immediately slam the door on further exploration.

(also I've mostly been taking about cishet people here but let's be honest it's really a question of cis AND/OR het. one thing I'm finding really difficult at the moment is that there seems to be a lot of conversations about queerness and gender expression which conflate GNCness and a complex relationship to gender exclusively with being trans, and a lot of the time talk about how being a woman and being sapphic affect your relationship to gender are understood as less authentic explorations where they incorporate cis gendered identities. and a lot of discussions about complex cis wlw relationships to gender and womanhood get coopted by terfs who think that because their complex experience of gender is a cis one that means all complex experiences of gender are cis ones being wishfully misinterpreted (this is because TERFs have. no capacity or will to imagine experiences beyond their own, apparently) and that leaves. for me. often very little room to authentically discuss and explore with others my own identity as a cis wlw who uses she/her pronouns and still has a complex relationship to gender. and indeed as someone whose attraction to men (and no it's not straight but it's different-gender) is as textured and complex as her attraction to women. like it's a long way off the top of the list of Things To Worry About but I think about it a lot.)

[thequeenofsastiel]

People talk a lot of trash about women(specifically straight, cis women) being drawn to gay male pairings, but I don't see a lot of people asking why that is. People generally tend to dismiss it as a gross fetish, because our culture hates sex and thinks that anything which involves sexuality is wrong. Which is bullshit, partially because it's not always about sex and partially because there would be nothing wrong with it if it was, but I digress.

Personally, I'm a queer woman, but I'm extremely drawn to gay male pairings as well. I've noticed it a lot more since my discovery of BL shows. When two men connect romantically, just by looking at each other, I always feel soft and happy by it. It instantly pulls me in. True, some of the pairings I don't like once I get familiar with them, but my immediate feeling is one of joy.

Whereas when a man and a woman look at each other and are obviously interested, I almost never like it. At best I'm indifferent. More often than not I'm repulsed. There are definitely many occasions where I do enjoy straight pairings, but they're almost always enemies to lovers(Bellarke, obvs), or ones where I already know and love the characters before they meet. I need to have time to fall in love with the characters to be able to accept them loving each other.

It's that feeling of instant disgust vs instant love that I find so interesting.

Okay, sorry, this became about me.

The point is, why are women so drawn to gay pairings? Thoughts?

[sophygurl]

Wiscon 42 panel Lighter Side of the MCU

Okay, the rest of my panel write-ups are not going to be quite so dramatic as the Killable Bodies one thank goodness. And I’ll be typing the rest up in chronological order - excepting the ones I was on since I don’t take heavy notes for those, so will add a bit about them at the end. 

The first panel I went to was Lighter Side of the MCU

Reminder that these panel notes are only my own recollections and the things I managed to write down - my notes are incomplete and likely faulty in places. Corrections and additions are always welcome. Especially please do correct me if I get names or pronouns wrong! 

Also I name panelists as that’s publicly available information but not audience members unless requested by that person to have their named added. 

Panel description:

In 2017, the Marvel Cinematic Universe gave us 3 movies that were lighter, funnier, and a bit different from their normal fare: Guardian of the Galaxy Vol 2, Spider-Man: Homecoming, and Thor: Ragnarok. All three of these movies felt like a year-long palate cleanser after the darker path the MCU has been on. However, with movies like Black Panther and Avengers: Infinity War coming next, are we back to serious business, or is there still room to play? 

Moderator was Christopher Davis. Panelists were Jess Adamas, V. Greyson, and Carrie Pruett. 

Chris talked about Thor: Ragnarok as having a shift from the other Thor movies, not just due to Taika Watiti’s influence but the writing and acting as well. 

Jess said people figured out that Hemsworth can do comedy and is not just ridiculously good looking, but also willing to make an ass of himself.

Jess and V. agreed that they almost can’t even remember Thor 2. Thor should be funny and silly - the comics are. There are still real feelings and relationships in there, but every scene looked like it should have been painted on the side of a van. 

Carrie said the movie found the right tone for including the Led Zeppelin song. The use of Bruce/Hulk in the movie also used more comedy than earnestness. She compared it to Deadpool as far as pointing out the ridiculous parts. 

She also talked about her desire for Darcy to interact with more MCU characters. 

V. talked about Kenneth Branagh’s Thor 1 and that she liked how serious it was. But she enjoyed the comedy of Ragnarok even more as a contrast. She brought up an article that talked about the Maori flavor of the comedy in the movie, the deprecating aspect and poking fun at the earlier movies (example: “the sun is going down”). 

Carrie liked the calling out of Loki as Odin as a reminder of how Thor 2 ended, but doing it in such a funny way.

Jess talked about Korg and the hilarity of how his revolution failed because he didn’t print enough pamphlets. She brought up the Grandmaster - Carrie asked who? - Jeff Goldblum - oh yea! (lol)

Chris discussed the heavy 80′s nostalgia and Jack Kirby aesthetic in the visuals and musical choices. For example, the Pure Imagination song while going through the tunnel.

Jess and V. joked about their husbands not getting why certain things were funny (IIRC this was because they weren’t as familiar with some of the references to earlier Marvel movies?).

Chris said that Goldblum was the perfect choice for that role. He asked the panelists what their favorite bit of his was.

V. said the meltstick part. Carrie added - accidental killing is hilarious. Jess brought up the part about Bruce looking for a button on the ship for a weapon and getting the song and lights - the discovery that it’s an orgy ship. Carrie added that Bruce’s whole life is a series of wondering how he got here. 

V. talked about the deleted scene of the Grandmaster engaging in tentacle porn. Chris said in Watiti’s director’s cut, he filks the Marvel logo at the start and it just goes from there.

Chris moved on to the Guardians movies - a part of Marvel that’s not well known outside of the deep fandom. This gave them more freedom in their choices. They mostly take place outside of the MCU world, but still did well.

Carrie compared Guardians to Deadpool 2 saying that there is such a thing as too many ironic music cues and Guardians had just enough while D2 went too far. 

Carrie also added that the Guardians/Thor part of Infinity War was the best part. The bit where Thor keeps calling Rocket a rabbit (I added from the audience that this somehow didn’t make Rocket mad) and Carrie agreed saying he really responded to Thor as an authority figure in ways that he usually doesn’t do with anyone.

Jess said that she has James Gunn issues and especially didn’t think Guardians 1 was that well written, but that G2 did a good job of balancing the serious with the funny. She was really resentful about crying at the end. She really bought the Peter/Yondu relationship. Jess tears up talking about the scene with Rocket at the funeral and how he noted that Yondu yelled a lot and was mean but that people still stuck with him. [I teared up a lil too, that part hit me hard]

Jess also added that the rainbow glitter aesthetic of the Guardians movies seems to be responding to the darker superhero greyscale we usually get.

Carrie said that they did good with the Ego stuff, as well. She knew that a twist was coming, but not what the twist was going to be. It called out toxic masculinity in a unique way. Kurt Russell was used well in the role. Peter has his own sexist issues, especially in G1 - which is not interrogated - but in G2 he’s clearly trying to be better than his dad. 

Jess said Russell was great in the role because the audience sees him as his oeuvre.

V. didn’t like G2 as much as G1. G1 had a lot of lampshading of Peter calling himself Starlord and the group the Guardians of the Galaxy. Also - so many Groot-based tears. She didn’t like the start of G2 with the team all fighting and being mean to one another. But G2 and Thor:R both used that rainbow glitter aesthetic well and showed that you can have serious issues going on even if it’s sparkly - things don’t have to be all grey with just some blue.

Chris brought up that lighter movies can still have some very serious issues and still be funny. The characters and relationships can grow and change, for example Thor finally acknowledging that Loki is going to keep tricking him. 

V. talked about how Spiderman: Homecoming’s humor is more of the #relatable type. Peter is “just like us” and we identify with him. 

Carrie said she has a complicated relationship with Spiderman. She saw the Toby Maguire movies before she got into comics and didn’t realize that Spiderman was supposed to be funny. Andrew Garfield did okay but still didn’t really feel like Peter. Tom Holland does Spiderman/Peter better. But the movie changed around some of the characters from the comics. Also - why is it appropriate for Tony to have this relationship with a high school student? On the other hand, Tony’s use as a side character is funny and done well.

Jess added that Tony makes terrible decisions but doesn’t realize it until someone else points it out to him - like, maybe don’t take a minor out of the country for combat-related reasons?

Jess went on to say that all Marvel movies have some humor, and it often is that relatable kind, but it also comes from the fondness for the characters and their relationships to one another. It’s not just references (V. - like The Big Bang Theory).

Jess talked about how Thor:R addresses colonialism and anti-colonialism while being funny. Spiderman:Homecoming culminates in a homecoming dance. Jess always wanted a Marvel high school movie. Also Michael Keaton did well in the role for similar reasons as Russell in G2. Both actors bring their career history with them into the role. 

V. talked about the humor of Spiderman in the pratfalls. Heroes already have such exaggerated physical movements, so this leads well to physical humor. Holland is a good physical actor in both senses.

Carrie lamented the lack of funny women in the MCU. (I spoke from the audience again pointing out MJ) 

Jess said that Gamora did not get a lot of comedy - a lot of her character is wrapped up in drama with Nebula. Mantis is a character we laugh at and she is not comfortable with that. Valkyrie gets to be funny. Cate Blanchett as Hela was very campy but in a straight-faced way. She does tell jokes, but they’re terrifying.

Carrie discussed the issues with Mantis a bit more. The jokes were mostly about her fitting the submissive Asian trope. Black Panther has women who got to actively do stuff and be funny! There should be more little sisters in superhero movies. Lupita  Nyong’o was used better as a funny character in BP than she was in more serious roles. Jess added that Okoyo was used in humorous ways too.

Carrie said BP was not just about found family, as many of these movies are, but is actually a family movie. 

Chris said that Hela got some of the best lines in Thor. Examples: “Whoever I am?” and the bit about the executioner to execute plans ... but also people. 

He added that BP did have a lot of humor. It also had a similar plot as Thor, but with a very different tone and narrative. 

Carrie said BP makes you care about Wakanda. Asgard feels more distant. While watching Infinity War, her concern was for Wakanda - why are they bringing the fight there?!

Thor:R builds on the other movies for it’s worldbuilding, whereas BP is introducing us to this world for essentially the first time. There is a sense of wrestling with what is the right thing to do. An audience member added - it’s a less mythical world. 

Jess talked about BP having lots of joy - you get the sense that the cast and crew just loved being there and making it what it was.

V. talked about Thor 1 having more of a fish out of water type humor. The humor in BP comes from investment in the character relationships.

An audience member brought up the M’Baku vegetarian joke. Someone (another audience member maybe?) brought up how the Grandmaster was queer-coded and a villain and funny but it was not offensive. 

Jess said that was just Goldblum being Goldblum. It also works because Watiti is queer, so he’s aware of the tropes and it’s not a mean-spirited laughing - we’re not laughing at the queer-codedness of the character. Contrast this to Mantis, where we are supposed to be laughing at the racial and sexist stereotypes.

Chris brought up that Mantis literally personifies emotional labor. 

An audience member said that the Grandmaster reminded them of Tim Curry’s characters - he’s using himself in the role, so we’re not laughing at someone’s depictions of an other.

V. said in Thor:R the gags are at everyone’s expense - it’s equal opportunity joking. We’re not just laughing at say, the one campy character in the entire movie. 

Carrie talked about not liking Drax as much in G2 because he was so mean to Mantis - we were expected to laugh at this one character. 

An audience member talked about Drax’s actor being hilarious. The MCU and DC are mostly white and male, so they appreciate when this is not the case. The Drax/Mantis issue would have been better if they’d addressed his crush on her. It felt like a third of movie was cut out because they skip right over his meanness to acceptance. Mantis is the first Asian character in the MCU.

Carrie said there is a representation problem. A friend of hers who is Asian said her kid told her she looks like Mantis, and she wasn’t sure how to deal with that. There were no other characters for the child to compare her to.

Jess said this was especially bad because outside of the Mantis thing, Drax is the best of them as far as emotional expression. 

Chris said - as a white dude named Chris, I’m getting lots of representation and I’m getting tired of it. (lol)

Valkyrie came up and someone said their headcanon was that she lived and took the half of the Asgardians who live off to safety. I shouted out from the audience that this was confirmed as canon. V. said her theory is that she took the sex space ship!

An audience member brought up how some people found Asgard as a flying disc in space as being more relatable than a non-colonized African country. This is partially because you have to set up the seriousness first and then introduce humor. Thor could be funnier right away because it was the third movie. 

V. said that both Thor and BP had interesting things to say about colonization and Chris laid it out as: Killmonger wants to start conquering and Hela wants to go back to doing it.

V. talked about BP as having to engage white Marvel fans, black audiences who aren’t as familiar with the comics, and of course the Venn Diagram of black fans of the MCU. Discussed the use of both Wakanda and Oakland scenes to accomplish this.

An audience member asked about the evolution of Hulk as a comedic character.

Chris said Ruffalo was able to pull off the humor well on Thor. The physical comedy of when he tried to pull the Hulk out and then splat! The movie used both Bruce and the Hulk for comedic effect. 

Carrie related back to the comment about starting off with the serious backstory and then adding in the humor - Bruce himself has learned to take himself less seriously over time.

Jess said that he does get to be funny here and there in the other movies, but it’s more of humor as coping mechanism. In Thor:R he gets to do more slapstick stuff. 

And that’s all I got! Overall this was a fun, funny panel which also hit on some serious themes in these lighter movies. 

[aion-rsa]

Star Trek: Discovery’s Adira & Gray and The Need For New Kinds of Origin Stories

https://ift.tt/eA8V8J

This Star Trek: Discovery article contains MAJOR spoilers for Season 3, Episode 4.

Note: I highly encourage you to read Riley Silverman’s “Star Trek: Discovery’s Trans Representation is Both Heartbreaking and Groundbreaking” over at SyfyWire. As a trans woman (not to mention a brilliant pop culture critic), Silverman has a perspective on this representation that I, as a cis woman, do not and has beautifully written about her complex reaction to Discovery‘s latest episodes.

If you pay attention to Star Trek news, then you probably saw and got got hyped about the pre-Season 3 announcement that Discovery would be introducing two trans characters: non-binary character Adira (played by Blu del Barrio) and trans character Gray (played by Ian Anderson). In “People of Earth,” we met Adira, the human host of a Trill symbiont who cannot remember anything of their past. In “Forget Me Not,” Adira traveled to the Trill homeworld and was able to unlock the memories of not only their past self, but the memories of every previous host of the Trill symbiont known as Tal. Those hosts included Gray, Adira’s boyfriend, who we quickly learn was killed when the generation ship both Adira and Gray grew up on was hit by what appeared to be asteroid. While the final act of the episode shows that Adira can still see and interact with Gray for some as-of-yet unexplained reason, we still had to watch Gray die in Adira’s arms. This was our introduction to his character, and is now the traumatic backstory that both Adira and Gray share.

Star Trek: Discovery is making some wonderful strides when it comes to inclusive storytelling. It is so very cool to have Adira and Gray as part of the Season 3 cast for this show, which has always intentionally worked to be an inclusive representation of our own world. Both Adira and Grey are introduced as complex characters whose gender identities are only part of their stories. Adira is an engineering (and art) genius who gets snarky with Michael and is incredibly brave. Gray, who we have spent less time with, is warm and loving; he plays the cello beautifully and knows how to make Adira laugh. Both characters are played by actors who share their gender identities, and whose input has been taken into account in shaping the characters’ journeys. This is why it is frustrating to see these two young trans characters strapped with such a traumatic origin story, one that leaves one of them dead and the other forced to face the loss of their loved one.

Pop culture loves a traumatic origin story. From Disney to Game of Thrones, it’s honestly difficult to find a mainstream narrative that doesn’t include some kind of gruesome past. If Jane Austen either couldn’t imagine or simply just didn’t care what a conversation between only dudes might look like, then much of our white male-driven mainstream pop culture seems unable to imagine or care about what a backstory without violence might look like. When the backstory in question is centering a white cishet man, a traumatic origin story may be trite but it’s not usually traumatizing. But when a traumatic origin story centers a trans character, for example, it hits different—not only because trans representation on TV is still so rare, but because so much of what does exist is told through a lens of violence and trauma that can be triggering for those who share the identity and a dangerously narrow representation of the diverse trans experience for those who don’t.

As popular culture strives for greater inclusivity (and positive change happens much faster in front of the camera than it does behind it), there is a representation lag time: an era of storytelling in which we have more diverse characters included in central aspects of our stories, but they are placed in narrative structures developed by, for, and around the white cishet male experience and perspective. While, to some, this might seem like perfect diversity—to represent queer characters, for example, in just the same as you would represent straight characters—it is not. To better understand this, let’s use the language of equality vs. equity.”Equality” is treating everyone the same, whereas “equity” is giving everyone what they need to be successful. If the goal here is more inclusivity (which I genuinely think it is for Star Trek: Discovery), then that means recognizing that characters with marginalized identities are starting out with a disadvantage in a storytelling culture that skews so heavily towards the white cishet perspective, and has for a very long time. That means thinking before placing trans and queer characters in the same narrative structures that were built for white cishet men, and brainstorming what interesting, respectful, and inclusive kinds of beginnings, middles, and ends could look like for diverse marginalized characters.

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

There’s presumably much more story to tell when it comes to Adira, Gray, and their relationship, and there is presumably narrative room to see these groundbreaking characters defined both separately and together by many other kinds of experiences. When these new characters were first announced, Star Trek: Discovery showrunner Michelle Paradise (a queer woman!) made it clear that the writing team (“Forget Me Not” was written by Alan McElroy, Chris Silvestri, and Anthony Maranville) would be working with Nick Adams at GLAAD, as well as actors del Barrio and Anderson “to create the extraordinary characters of Adira and Gray, and bring their stories to life with empathy, understanding, empowerment and joy.” It’s amazing to see not one, but two trans characters as central parts of the Star Trek story, even if there are going to be some stumbles along the way. There’s more story to come for Adira and Gray, and I am excited to see it.

The post Star Trek: Discovery’s Adira & Gray and The Need For New Kinds of Origin Stories appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3lfCkpQ

[strwbrymoonchild]

Creating Our Own Spaces: Open Television and the Importance of Intersectional Streaming Platforms

Open Television (OTV) supports Chicago-based artists by producing indie web series and pilots that tell intersectional stories. The platform revolutionizes streaming by highlighting nuances in the lived experiences of people of color and the LGBTQ community, and by intentionally holding space for joy, healing, and humor. Lack of diversity in film is well-documented; a recent study by the Annenberg Inclusion Initiative shows that of the top 100 films in 2019, 78 had no LGBTQ characters and 94 had no female-identified LGBTQ characters. The study also found that of 4,357 speaking roles, only 61 (1.4%) were LGBTQ, forty-five characters were gay, 10 characters were lesbian, 3 characters were bisexual and 3 characters were transgender. All three trans characters had a total screen time of no more than 2 minutes. About 71% of these LGBTQ speaking roles were white. While there have been both strides and shortcomings in efforts to increase the depth of LGBTQ and BIPOC television characters in mainstream media, diversity, and inclusion behind the camera is just as integral to filmmaking as representation on screen. 

There are some perceptions that we are entering into a Black film Renaissance. The rise of shows like Insecure and Atlanta FX in addition to major Black blockbuster moments for films like Black Panther and Moonlight all suggest that progress is being made. However, the figures reported by The Annenberg Inclusion Initiative show that the number of movies with Black Directors in 2019 fell by more than half; only nine movies released in 2019 had Black directors whereas 15 movies released in 2018 had Black directors.Even when we look at Black and POC directors as a whole, the numbers don’t get much more encouraging; the study also found that out of the 112 directors that made movies in 2019, 19.6% were from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. While representation for Black directors has been halved, the percentage of women directors helming the most popular films more than doubled between 2018 and 2019. Nevertheless, their share of representation remains critically low. The Annenberg Inclusion Initiative found that only 10.6% of directors across the top 100 films of 2019 were women. When it comes to writing and producing, representation for women is only slightly better. Women made up 14.4 % of writers across the top 100 films, and only 21.1% of producers. 

Diversity behind the scenes is so crucial because it ensures that marginalized communities can tell their stories using characters that have distinct voices, complex backgrounds, agency that extends beyond tokenistic supporting roles, or even leads roles that myopically reinforce tired tropes and harmful stereotypes. For example, when Black writers are in the room, they can construct characters that speak like us instead of mis/overusing awkward AAVE that’s cut and pasted from Twitter into contexts that don’t fit. When women writers are in the room, they can squelch manic pixie tropes and fridging for the sake of male character development. When LGBTQ writers are in the room they can mitigate issues like queerbaiting or focus solely on the trauma of coming out stories without centering queer joy and romance. Similarly, when producers with marginalized identities are in the room, they can thwart gatekeeping by expanding the production value of films made by marginalized artists with limited resources, and by prioritizing inexpensive and creative ways of funding and distributing media (e.g. crowdfunding, virtual screenings, DIY film festivals, etc.). Furthermore, when filmmaking spaces lack diversity, the result can be toxic and alienating, which stifles creativity and demoralizes BIPOC and/or LGBTQ creators. OTV has shown that one of the keys to creating authentic stories is not only getting diverse voices in the room but also making the room a brave space that emphasizes accountability and community while allowing artists the independence and freedom to innovatively experiment with storytelling without fear of exploitation, bigotry, or violence.  

OTV exemplifies how critical it is to not only feed diverse narratives into the mainstream media, but to introduce more accessible, inclusive, and alternative ways of filmmaking.

Executives in the film industry often buy into the misconception that intersectional stories that have characters with marginalized identities aren’t worth the investment because they only appeal to niche audiences. On the contrary, many viewers don’t just want cookie cutter, predominately white shows; they are hungry for diverse content that is striking, informational, and binge-worthy. A study released by UCLA revealed that in 2019, films with 41%-50% minority cast earned the most from box office ticket sales, whereas films with the least diverse casts performed the poorest. The #RepresentationMatters report that the National Research Group released in September 2020 shows that 2 in 3 Black Americans don’t see themselves represented in movies or television, and 86% of Black Americans want to see more representative stories on screen. Taken together, these findings suggest that when underrepresented groups see someone who looks like them in a film, it makes them want to support it more because representation is such a coveted rarity for these groups.  

It's not enough to sprinkle diversity into mainstream media to increase sales. OTV exemplifies how critical it is to not only feed diverse narratives into the mainstream media, but to introduce more accessible, inclusive, and alternative ways of filmmaking. Recently, Open Television started the OTV Fellows program for emerging writers and directors from marginalized communities. The program seeks out and supports promising talent, helping them build their portfolios for a career in the film industry. OTV also hosts a seven-part workshop series called OTV Study Hall, which features a wide range of panelists and offers insights into career development, production, and marketing. 

When we create intersectional TV platforms that are for and by us, shows that spotlight multiple marginalized identities can reach their full potential, and flourish in conversation with content that has a similar range. There is power and value in seeing multi-faceted, genre-bending, intersectional stories as the centerpiece of streaming, rather than cramming them into a specialty category tucked away in a corner of Netflix or Hulu or trying to make them fit in a category where they don’t belong.

Check out some top picks from OTV’s incredible content below

The T | For fans of Pose FX and Lovesick

The T follows the relationship between a Trans white woman named Jo and a queer Black man named Carter. The two are former lovers turned best friends who support each other through the insecurities and bigotry they face as they re-enter the dating world. 

You’re So Talented | For fans of The Incredible Jessica James and Brown Girls

You’re So Talented follows Bea, an actor looking for work in Chicago and navigating the twists and turns of love and life in her twenties. A character many millennial BIPOC creatives out there can relate to, Bea does her best to find meaning through her art while keeping the bills paid. Through it all, her best friend’s Devin and Jesse are always there for her. (You may recognize the actor who plays Bea, Sam Bailey, as the Director and Producer of hit web series, Brown Girls). 

The Right Swipe | For fans of Broad City and The Perfect Date

We’ve all seen our fair share of tragic online dating app profiles: a man holding big fish twice his size, stale jokes about The Office, shameless gym mirror selfies, etc.. In The Right Swipe, best friends and business partners India and Margo team up to start a business fixing men’s dating profiles. They extend their services to a diverse set of clients including a trans man, a queer poet, and a hotep. They have 3 simple ground rules 1. They must use their powers for good, 2. They charge clients on a sliding scale, and 3. No sleeping with or dating clients.

Velvet | For fans of Insecure

A hyper-competitive young professional named Demetra attempts to revive her social life by striking up a friendship with her cooler more laidback coworker Cymone. The duo eventually builds a squad of friends who take on the city of Chicago as they explore their own identities and relationships with each other. 

The Haven | For fans of Orange Is the New Black (before they killed off Poussey)

The Haven follows the story of overworked and underpaid staff members at a domestic violence shelter. Once accepted into the shelter, residents of The Haven have only 90 days of refuge before they must find a way to propel themselves onto a new life path. The odds are stacked against those seeking a fresh start as they face a range of obstacles including addiction, mental illness, poverty, immigration complexities, and PTSD. 

Damaged Goods | For fans of Euphoria

Bathed in technicolor and barely getting by, four young, messy creatives of color walk down uncertain paths of self-discovery in Chicago. When Sanavi tries to dismantle the Boy’s Club in her white-dominated workplace, she’s met with hostility and discrimination. Meanwhile, Caleb navigates the queer club scene and struggles to make ends meet. In contrast, Marlo thrives as a Black wellness guru/yogi/influencer. Ezra supports himself as a weed dealer and Uber driver, but has big dreams of becoming an artist. 

Otito Greg-Obi is a poet and aspiring screenwriter based in Washington D.C. Her poetry appears in "small poems for the masses," a quarterly zine by Post Ghost Press. She is a former member of The Excelano Project, a poetry collective in Philadelphia. When she’s not writing you can find her slow-mo milly rocking in the pouring rain to MorMor, baking sourdough bread, over/underwatering succulents, or knitting something cozy. Her favorite color is mint green, and she’s obsessed with pop culture and with television (particularly dramedies and dystopian sci-fi). You can find her on Twitter at @otweetoh

Like this post? Support our writers by buying us a coffee