queer objectives

anonymous asked:

Hey Foz, hoping you could help me understand something! what's the difference between fetishisation (eg of mlm ships) and supporting/enjoying representation? i don't want to be ignorant

That is a complicated question, but one which ultimately hinges on the acceptance of personhood. In fetishising a person or group, you consider their humanity as being:

a) secondary to your needs; 

b) valid only if it adheres to a set definition or stereotype; and/or

c) not the same as your own.

It’s important to note that, as per the example of benevolent sexism, your beliefs about said person or group don’t have to be strictly negative in order to be fetishistic or damaging - they just have to be reductive. Saying that “gay men have such great fashion sense”, for instance, becomes a form of benevolent homophobia when held up as a declarative truth by straight people, as while this is a positive attribute, the act of expressing it as a generalisation rather than as an individual compliment (”James has such great fashion sense!”) makes it a stereotype.  

Similarly, if your sole or primary form of engagement with a particular group is sexual, then changes are high that you’re being fetishistic. Straight dudes who watch lesbian porn because it’s hot, but who don’t give a shit about queer rights, have no queer friends and take no interest in lesbian narratives otherwise are being fetishistic: they’re constructing a fantasy about queer women as sexual objects for their own gaze without any reference to viewing those women as people. Likewise, straight women who obsess over queer men and who subsequently feel that this “support” entitles them to ask invasive personal questions of real human beings, or who think that their enjoyment of queer male narratives automatically invalidates any discomfort or criticism that actual queer men might feel on hearing about it? That is fetishistic. 

Let me really fucking clear about this: regardless of the real-world sexuality of the man in question, anyone who asks a male celebrity inappropriate questions about his apparent sexual/romantic relationship with another guy is being fetishistic. It’s not cute, it’s not funny and it’s not okay, because what such people are doing in that moment is declaring that their own curiosity - their own desire to consume queerness as entertainment - is more important than the needs and boundaries of actual people. If a male celeb is openly queer, you are not entitled to details about his sex life just because you’re interested: that is fetishistic. If a male celeb is known to be straight, but you think he’s secretly got something going on with a friend or colleague, you are not entitled to ask invasive, leading questions in a bid to confirm the relationship: that is fetishistic, even if the guy really is straight, because your belief in his queerness is what makes you feel entitled to be invasive in the first place. And, most importantly, if a male celeb is actually queer but isn’t out, you do not get to try and fucking out him for funsies, oh my god. Which is what people are ultimately doing, when they ask wink-wink nudge-nudge questions of presumably straight men at conventions and in interviews: they’re fishing for proof of queerness at the expense of the individual’s privacy. In that sense, it doesn’t matter if the dude you’re asking is “really” queer or not - if the presumption of queerness is enough to make you push their boundaries, you’re being fetishistic, and you need to fucking Stop.

Basically, supporting representation in a non-fetishistic way means supporting and listening to the actual people it depicts at other times and in other capacities, and not just using them as a way to get off without caring for their personhood otherwise. 

Heterosexuality is not … simply an orientation toward others, it is also something that we are orientated around, even if it disappears from view. It is not that the heterosexual subject has to turn away from queer objects in accepting heterosexuality as a parental gift: compulsory heterosexuality makes such a turning unnecessary … Queer objects … may not even get near enough to ‘come into view’ as possible objects to be directed toward.
—  Sara Ahmed, Queer Phenomenology (90-1)
I like that on the road to wokeness, somewhere between Trump’s inauguration and her now iconic haircut and blondness, Katy Perry somehow became this queer object that the general public just does not get? And it makes me like her more? It’s so funny how a simple short haircut can change the entire perception of a pop star. If she was singing “Swish Swish” with a purple wig on and was wearing a bralette made out of Twizzlers and daisy dukes instead of her shortcut and Beetlejuice on vacation top that she is drowning in, that song would be a #1 smash. Image is everything in pop and I like how she is playing with perception.

Submission by mithingthepoint

[Two brides under a chuppah, New York City, 2014. Photo credit Christa J Newman.]

Even though it’s legal for us to be married in NYC, we wanted to acknowledge all the queer Jewish couples who don’t yet have that right around the world. So before we shared the wine, we poured some out.

anonymous asked:

You keep mentioning queer subtext in last nights episode...I didn't pick up on any at all. In fact I haven't found there to be any this season really Can you give me some examples?

YES PLEASE! I could talk about this stuff foreverrrrrr so I am absolutely game for this discussion :)

[[OKAY SO. I MEANT TO JUST TALK ABOUT CUANTO. BUT THIS KIND OF TURNED INTO A MANIFESTO ON CHARLIE AND QUEER SUBTEXT. I do a close reading of the instances in Cuanto that you’re asking about, and then fit it into the larger context of the show and what conclusions I draw as a result]]

Keep reading

Organizing a movement around queerness also allows [queer theory] to draw on dissatisfaction with the regime of the normal in general. Following Hannah Arendt, we might even say that queer politics opposes society itself… . Can we not hear in the resonances of queer protest an objection to the normalization of behavior in this broad sense, and thus to the cultural phenomenon of socialization? If queers, incessantly told to alter their ‘behavior,’ can be understood as protesting not just the normal behavior of the social but the /idea/ of normal behavior, they will bring skepticism to the methodologies founded on that idea.
—  Michael Warner, /Fear of a Queer Planet/

b7-kerravon  asked:

I have to agree with sarisa-rahe; I've never gotten a 'Mary Sue' vibe from any of your OCs. Firstly, no 'violet eyes' or 'waist-length auburn hair'. Second, no mysterious disappearance of every other female character in the story. Third, no one has yet proven smarter than Tony Stark, stronger than the Hulk, sneakier than Fury, more wholesome than Cap, and a better shot than Hawkeye, and have all the aforementioned characters fall madly in love with her. Somehow, I think you're safe.

Okay, okay!

There is a series of Star Trek books by Peter David, the New Frontier books.  Let me just…  Tell you about he main character, okay?

-He was a literal teenage warlord who literally freed his planet and his people from colonization by another species.
-Literally.  A TEENAGE WARLORD WHO LED HIS PEOPLE FROM SLAVERY.
-While in the process of being a teenage warlord who led his people from slavery, he meets Jean-Luc Picard
-Who sponsors him for entry into Star Trek academy, despite the fact that he has no formal education, has had no training in sciences or advanced technology, and if I am remembering correctly, is barely literate.
-BUT JEAN-LUC RECOGNIZES LEADERSHIP POTENTIAL IN HIM SO YEAH HE’S GOING TO SKIP ALL THOSE TROUBLESOME TESTS AND SUCH AND HE’S GOING TO THE ACADEMY.
-The series follows him being a hotshot Star Fleet Captain who don’t have to obey no rules because rules are for SUCKERS.
-If any of you know anything about Star Fleet, I’m sure you’re giggling like a loon right now, because Star Fleet loves rules so much that it’s almost sexual.
-His first officer is his ex-fiance.  Who still kind of loves him despite the fact that she should know better.  (She is practically perfect in every way, in the BEST way, though so he kind of looks better because she tolerates him)
-He’s a champion sword fighter
-He dies to save his crew
-Don’t worry, he gets better.
-He has purple eyes.

So let’s go over the major ‘fanfic Mary Sue tropes’ here.

-tragic backstory
-unreasonable levels of badass
-inexplicable connection to canon character who heartily approves/loves the OC
-everyone loves them
-dies heroically
-odd colored eyes.

Hmm.  We’ve got a pretty good match here!  So that must mean these books were boring and unbelievable, right?

Nah.  I would’ve followed Mackenzie Calhoun into battle any day.  I love him.  I followed willingly along with what was, let’s be honest, “Peter David Writes Star Trek Fanfic and Manages to Get It Published.”  

THE TROPES DON’T MAKE A CHARACTER BAD.  Tropes exist for a reason.  Tropes exist because they are tried and true.  Because writers, often young, female writers, many of whom fall somewhere in the queer spectrum, are reclaiming their power, are writing self-inserts or perfect characters or just characters they want to read.  Idealized characters.  Hopeful characters.

My issue with the “Mary Sue” tag is that it is gendered.  Yes.  There is the male equivalent, “Maurice Stu” is the one I’ve seen the most.  But you know what?  That’s not in general use.  That’s never been leveled against any of my male characters.  That is an attempt on the part of certain portions of fandom to claim that this is NOT A SEXIST ATTACK.

And to that, I say, like hell it’s not.

Mary Sue is the term used to shame female authors.  It is used to discourage adding female characters to fanworks.  It is used to exclude and attack and maintain the status quo, where, slash or not, typically the only characters that are focused on are the white males.

It is shorthand for “girls aren’t welcome, in canon, in fandom, or in fanworks.”  

You think an character is unrealistic?  Then say that.  Don’t use the shorthand.  Think about what you’re saying.  Why are you rolling your eyes and thinking Mary Sue.  What, exactly, are you targeting here?  What characteristics?  What actions?  What abilities?  

Look for specifics.  And if you can’t find any, then think about gender, or skin color, or religion, or queerness.  Think if you objection would be valid if the character was one of the main characters, or even just an adorable white male.

But before you move beyond thinking it, before you SAY it, think.  Think about why this character is written in this work by this author.  Think about the ability of the author and the age and intent of the work.  And think about if it’s really necessary for you to tell someone that you think their characters don’t meet your expectations.

Especially female characters.  We have media that gives us a vastly, VASTLY unbalanced scale when it comes to female characters, POC characters, queer characters.  So think before trying to silence them in fanworks, too.

anonymous asked:

What do you think the A in Lgbtqia stands for?

LGBTQIA isn’t an accurate acronym in the first place because it doesn’t encompass a cohesive group. Many, many intersex people don’t consider themselves queer or LGBT and object to being labeled with a slur, while plenty of LGBT people, myself included, take issue with the transphobic and homophobic behavior of het aces/aros. In general, I simply use LGBT when referring to the community because of this. However, when people do include the A in the acronym, I associate it exclusively with LGBT aces/aros and the issues we face. 

Given that the community as we know it was formed around the axes of transphobia and homophobia, I have a big problem with cisgender heteros calling themselves a slur that doesn’t apply to them and trying to claim a place in a community that was founded in direct opposition to the oppressions they have a role in and help perpetuate. Cishet aces/aros are included in heterosexism and benefit, despite their aceness/aroness, from both transphobia and homophobia. With regard to the LGBT community, the safety and comfort of actual LGBT people takes absolute precedence over how included cishet people feel. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: being different or marginalized in some way does not grant automatic access to LGBT spaces. The community is not a catch-all group for anyone who faces some kind of adversity.

I hope that clears it up.

someone is using one of my posts as an example of why you Can’t Trust people who use “dogwhistle” terms like… gasp horror… “lgbt”

then they link to a bunch of searches on my blog that are supposed to show how evil i am, and how much i hate the “wrong class of queers,” but that are actually just full of like, scholarship information, act up flyers, discussion of biphobia based on personal experience, anger at the idea that marriage is the only important lgbt issue, pained attempts to explain why closeted people’s access to lgbt resources is life or death and not a cudgel to use against us, attempts to find common ground between people who are and are not ok with being called “queer,” etc. oh and objections to homophobia, that must be the most sinister part of all. very dogwhistley, that.

so that’s me, that’s the big scary “sga” enemy. that’s fine, i’m not hiding. but i hope you’re cool with yourself and your own witchhunt against the Wrong Kind of lgbt people. i hope that works out well for you in the end.

wading into politics some more

I’m probably the wrong person to have opinions about this because there’s no way in hell I will identify as ‘queer’ no matter how this debate shakes out, but a lot of the arguments that poly people shouldn’t count as queer seem to miss the boat really profoundly.

To get this out of the way: depending who you ask, either ‘queer’ is a reclaimed slur (in which case the only people who can use it are members of the identity classes it was used against, which would be gay, bi, trans and gender-nonconforming amab people) OR ‘queer’ describes people who experience some aspect of their gender and sexuality as part of the political struggle against cis/hetero/amato-normative patriarchy. Usually the argument is over whether various groups are eligible under the second definition.

So, the argument goes, we have this mess of expectations about people - that they’re cis, that they’re straight, that they are interested in falling in love and settling down and having children. And we have this mess of expectations about relationships - that they involve sex and romance and are sexually and romantically exclusive, that they are between two people who experience romantic love toward each other, that they either end in marriage and a family and eventually in death or are a ‘failed’ attempt at that.

Keep reading