teyla | Venting

Current Mood: fed up
Current Location: parents' place

Entry tags:

rant

Venting

Okay, internet. ENOUGH with the heterosexual privilege fail.

Ever since this post went up at

doctorwho, it reminded me to actually pay attention to how much heterosexuality is accepted as the only valid norm in all parts of western society, and good lord. It's making me tired.

Sure, you can be gay, as long as you act according to the norm. Nobody really cares about what you do in your bedroom, but don't you dare disrupt people's views of what men should be and how they should act, of what women should be and how they should present themselves. And this isn't even limited to people with a heterosexual orientation. Enough queer people are of the opinion that hey, as long as you don't get beat up on street corners for being with a same-sex partner, it's absolutely fair that you keep your head down and adapt to the heterosexual norm. Because anything else would create conflict, and gosh, we can't have conflict.

Yes, there are mistakes being made on both sides. That's because queer people as well as straight people are people, and people make mistakes. But to reach true equality, the queer community has to become a visible part of all aspects of society, and that won't happen if the they keep to themselves and adapt to the norm in order to avoid conflict.

And sexism isn't a thing of the past, either. Look at the representation of women in Hollywood movies; there's sexism for you, no matter if this is the 21st century or not. And no, don't shrug and say, well, they're Hollywood movies. They're the side of the media that's shaping the images that our society draws its norms and standards from, which means that if you want the images to change, the media needs to change first. And it won't do that unless the minorities keep pointing out that yes, they actually would like to be represented equally and fairly.

comment on LJ

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

While I agree with a lot of what you're saying, I have major problems with that post. First of all there seems to be an assumption that having children precludes being queer, and second of all I think it ignores a lot of subtext - to give one example, between the Doctor and Van Gogh. I also think that conflating what was essentially, in the Vampires of Venice, rape and torture as a means to the propagation of a species with heterosexuality is... kind of insulting, actually.

Sorry to argue all over your rant, I know you probably just wanted to blow off steam, it's just I can't comment on the post because I'm not a member.

The inclusion of families with only a single parent present in the list of heterosexual moments was addressed as one of the very first things in that post, and the OP agreed that she would adapt her final list to exclude the not explicitly heterosexual families. And I think the Vampires of Venice thing was less equaling rape/torture and heterosexuality, it was more that an alien species was presented as having a heterosexual norm. There are other versions of family structure they could have used--two same-sex partners, three partners, more than two main genders, etc etc. But they went with using the standard male/female structure, which is why, I think, this item ended up on the list.

I think it ignores a lot of subtext
Well, of course it does. It's a post about the textual references, not the subtextual. Which have decreased by a huge amount. There were groves of subtext in RTD's era--take the Doctor/Master relationship, for example--but there were also a long list of queer textual references. Queer subtext is completely useless when it comes to queer representation, because you only see it if you're already on the look-out for queer relationships. I would bet money on any casual viewer, especially kids, not having seen a shred of homoerotic tension between Vincent and the Doctor.

I mean, Star Trek: TOS had bucketloads of subtext. Doesn't mean they had anything resembling equal queer representation.

Okay, sorry, clearly I misunderstood the point of the post. I guess it was partly because it mentioned flirting, which to my mind is subjective and therefore only borderline textual. I did think there were several textual references to asexuality. My understanding of heterosexuality is not the same as literally an organism with large gametes procreating with an organism with small gametes. I didn't read all the comments because I didn't have time. But I don't think this is going to get us anywhere so I'm going to butt out.

My understanding of heterosexuality is not the same as literally an organism with large gametes procreating with an organism with small gametes.
Neither is mine. Procreation =/= heterosexuality. Obviously.

I did think there were several textual references to asexuality.
Really? Asking out of curiosity, not controversy. I didn't see any, but I'd be delighted to find out that I simply missed them.

Well that was what I meant in relation to the Vampires of Venice - they're basically farming the females to use as baby incubators, or that was my reading of it, so I didn't really see it as heterosexual per se.

I might be misremembering but I thought the Doctor, in this incarnation, was being portrayed as basically asexual. I'm sure there was a line to that effect in The Lodger (when he was asked if he wanted to bring home a girl/boyfriend), and possibly another reference in Vampires (in reference to his kiss with Amy). But like I said, I might be wrong.

Ah, see, I didn't see it as pure procreation. It could have been, but there was also the family aspect of the "queen"--I don't remember her name--having a son, and caring for him the way a mother, in our heterosexually defaulted society, would care for him. She was even looking for a father figure for him, in hitting on the Doctor and trying to convince him to join her in her world domination plans. It comes back to a nuclear family picture--a mother seeking opposite-gender mates for her sons, and for herself.

I can see how the Doctor could be argued to be asexual in this season. However, for me, it never went beyond a subtextual level. As far as I remember, he never outright said that he's not interested in sexual relations--and with definitely-not-asexual Ten as his predecessor, this hypothetical, and, if it exists, quite significant character change would have had to be made more clear, at least for me, to be unambiguous. Also, there's the whole River-is-the-Doctor's-wife plot that undermines the Doctor as an asexual character--not because asexual people can't have partners, but because River is definitely not asexual. (I'm remembering the exchange in Time of the Angels of the Doctor saying "River, I could kiss you" and her answering "maybe when you're older".)

I'm trying to remember the instances in Vampires of Venice and The Lodger you're mentioning, but I'm drawing a blank. I'll have to rewatch.

I read that post but never really bothered commenting. But you know, it did get me thinking.

The overly white, hetero-normative, patriarchal, etc etc views in Sci fi don't really make sense. In the case of Doctor Who- sure, if we're talking earth past, have the views of the time represented, but if we are talking the future of humanity and alien societies, shouldn't other forms of thinking be present?

I know sexuality is "not the point" in DW, but certainly it's okay to have throw away characters or throw away lines that elude to the gay, the bisexual, the asexual, the transgendered and all sorts of orientations and sexualities that we may have never even heard of because it's specific to an alien species.

I think overall Hollywood thinks people are a lot more homophobic, racist and sexist then we really are. I'm not saying people aren't all those things, but I think if people in the deep south of the United States were capable of watching Will & Grace then we can sneak in a bit more diversity in our media

if we are talking the future of humanity and alien societies, shouldn't other forms of thinking be present
They should be. And hey, theoretically, they are, what with the whole 51st century thing, where everybody apparently sleeps with everyone. It is significant, though, that Moffat never actually set an episode in the 51st century. He uses characters from that time in present-time episodes, to excuse making a spectacle of their sexuality and otherness. Or, well, he did with Jack. With River, he had a couple of throwaway funny lines about her fancying other women in the Library episodes, but once she became a recurring character, that completely went out the window. She's supposed to be bi- or omnisexual, but there wasn't a single non-hetero reference to her sexuality in season 5. (While there were a lot of hetero references, of course.)

but certainly it's okay to have throw away characters or throw away lines that elude to the gay, the bisexual, the asexual, the transgendered and all sorts of orientations and sexualities
Yes. Especially considering that there were a ton of references to heterosexual sexuality in season 5. Non-hetero and hetero references don't have to be equal in number, but it'd be nice if the non-hetero part were present at all.

I think overall Hollywood thinks people are a lot more homophobic, racist and sexist then we really are.
I think Hollywood is playing it safe. Because if you put a queer reference in your movie, people might not react with open hostility--but they might subconsciously decide that hey, that movie had all those modern, newfangled ideas, and might end up have a small sting of ambiguity about it. It's not so much about openly gay characters, I think--if a character is established as gay, then people can prepare themselves. Okay, this one's gay, this one's not like me. But if you put queer references into a movie without warning, you startle people out of their heterosexual comfort zone, and Hollywood doesn't like not being predictable. (All of this of course goes for actually strong female characters as well.)

I do think, though, that more diversity in the media would be greeted positively. You can see it with Doctor Who. RTD's New Who had tons of textual queer references, and it's become the most-watched show in the UK and has finally managed to breach the American market on a scale that Doctor Who has never before achieved. But you have to have courage to write differently than the norm, and really, courage, especially to do new things, isn't exactly something that's welcome in Hollywood, or generally the media business.

has finally managed to breach the American market on a scale that Doctor Who has never before achieved

I don't mean to derail, and I do agree with your main argument, but I want to make a side point. (I guess that is derailing. Sorry.)

At least part of this is because we could only get it on public tv, long after air dates, back then. There was no cable, there was no SyFy or BBC America or anything - there wasn't even Fox. Or the internet. There were three or four local channels, affiliates of the main American networks, and PBS. If you were lucky and lived in an area with good reception! There were lots of American Whovians, and I firmly believe there would have been even more had more people had access to the show.

My first doctor was Jon Pertwee, so I was one of the lucky ones. :)

Derailing is fine! I was just venting, really, not actually trying to start a discussion--not that I mind having one, mind you.

Anyway, yes, I agree with you. I don't think that the only reason Doctor Who is being accepted and welcomed all over the world right now is because RTD added some queer representation. The ease of access definitely plays a major part, probably a bigger part than the open-mindedness of the episodes produced by RTD. However, the show is definitely not being rejected because it leaves room for queer representation and fully formed female characters. I do think that the ever-present attempt in the first four seasons to integrate all parts of society increased global interest in the show--everybody loves a scandal, as long as it isn't scandalous enough to be off-putting.

I always felt that this aspect of the show raised it above the level of being simply a silly SF show with an alien in a blue box--not that there's anything wrong with that; I love the Doctor Who concept--to the level of being a silly SF show with an alien in a blue box that actually had some relevance in regards to everyday life. Which, theoretically, might be the reason why a lot of people who aren't actually SF fans still like Doctor Who. This is just my theory, though. I might be miles off.

I actually will say that I think it's one of Moffat's failings this season. He had a chance to continue with representing a wide spectrum of sexualities and it makes me sad - and a little angry - that he didn't do so.

ESPECIALLY since this is a BBC show. Diversity is part of the charter!

I avoided the coments in that post for the most part and will continue to do so :/ I read the post and it actually made some really interesting points - namely the difference between text and subtext. I think sometimes I get so hung up on the subtext that I forget these things aren't explicitly stated. (You make a point in one of the other comments about Doctor/Vincent. I saw it, but it wasn't TEXT).

*edited for clarification.

I also didn't notice the thing with River. Hm. I don't know what to make of that.

I've been thinking about that and your right - subtext is NOT the same as text, and it's not proper representation.

Edited 2010-07-04 18:24 (UTC)

I think it's a fandom thing, largely, the text/subtext confusion. We've all trained ourselves to go subtext-mining and forget that it's part of the community, and not necessarily everyone outside of fandom does it.

Speaking as someone who remembers looking at slash and going BUT IT'S NOT IN THE TEXT, they're just friends, where are people getting this? I even did that with Doctor/Master, at first >_>

I think it's a fandom thing, largely, the text/subtext confusion. We've all trained ourselves to go subtext-mining and forget that it's part of the community, and not necessarily everyone outside of fandom does it.

That's actually a really good point! We (as in fandom at large) are used to looking for it, so we see it, expect everyone else to see it and, therefore, it's THERE right? Even when it's not.

Yep. I know I was watching How to Train Your Dragon, and I was like, why is there a female love interest? This is clearly a Hiccup/Toothless story.

Never mind that one of them is a dragon.

It gets into your head, the Subtext Goggles.

Word on the BBC show thing. It's a BBC show, and it's a show with a pretty big and pretty acknowledged queer following. Ceasing the textual queer references as abruptly as that does kind of feel like a slap in the face, especially since it's not like there hasn't been a lot of heterosexual representation and a strong focus on the idea of the nuclear family in this season.

That post on

doctorwho made me realize how many people still have difficulty with the idea that subtext =/= text. I know I used to count it in a show's favor if it had a lot of homoerotic subtext, but actually, I have to say that the presence of subtext is completely inconsequential if it isn't combined with other factors that make it clear that the subtext is intended to be read as queer--as, for example, in Due South, or Merlin. I can't really see that the subtext in DW season 5 was intentional. It was there, in a take-it-or-leave-it sort of way, but it wasn't trying to make a point.

As for the thing about River, well. I think this is part of the great difficulty Moffat has with writing female characters. As soon as River was established as the Doctor's wife, that was what she was--and she wasn't given any space to be anything else, or to have interests or personality traits of her own that gave her an identity beyond what the plot and the Doctor needed her to be. Moffat's characters always have a tendency to be plot devices--especially his female characters. Look at Sally Sparrow. She was sympathetic enough, but there really wasn't anything to her that she had without the plot needing her to have it.

Which is also quite jarring, since RTD's female characters were extremely three-dimensional, and going from that to a bunch of Female Plot Devices doesn't really sit very well with me.

...that the presence of subtext is completely inconsequential if it isn't combined with other factors that make it clear that the subtext is intended to be read as queer

I'm starting to understand how important the distinction is. The subtext may be nice but when it comes to actual portrayals of sexuality it's, inherently, useless unless it's backed up with textual evidence to support that reading.

I'd be really interested - if you wanted to share - about why you feel Merlin can be read this way. As far as I could tell it's all just subtext too?

Well, with Merlin it's that basically the entire show is about the Arthur/Merlin relationship, and the fact that Merlin has to hide his true nature from Arthur, not because Arthur would necessarily want to reject him for it, but because he would have to according to the rules of his society. You can watch the show without being aware of the Merlin/Arthur subtext, but that's like reading Kafka's Metamorphosis as a story about a guy who turns into a bug, without making the connections to Kafka's own life. In doing that, you're basically only getting half the story.

With Vincent and the Doctor, the subtext was a take-it-or-leave-it thing. Seeing the subtext wasn't a moment of, "oh, so that's what this story is about", it was more a moment of "oh look, that could be fun to explore". The former would have been a form of queer representation, the latter wasn't.

But to reach true equality, the queer community has to become a visible part of all aspects of society, and that won't happen if they keep to themselves and adapt to the norm in order to avoid conflict YES YES YES THIS!

I don't understand "norms". I have this total lack of ability to understand what's deemed "acceptable" and what isn't. I just go with what I think is acceptable, and my own standards are pretty simple: do whatever you want as long as you respect other people, don't hurt other people, and can look at yourself in the mirror, and treat people the way you want them to treat you. Obviously, I'm too basic/simple for this world...

Did you know people have images in their head of how cripples should act as well? It's fascinating. It turns out, I do loads of stuff I shouldn't be doing as a cripple.

I'm not making a point at all. So sorry, T'eyla. It all comes down to me agreeing with your point of view, basically.

Did you know people have images in their head of how cripples should act as well? It's fascinating.
I am not surprised. Not that this compares at all to your situation, but whenever people find out that I'm diabetic, they pull out these decades-old ideas about what they think I should be able to do, and what I shouldn't. "Oh, so I shouldn't offer you any sweets, then, yes? Okay, I won't." GOOD LORD. Diabetics not being able to have sweets, that was ages ago. And they do this even after I've told them that I can eat anything. People just hate giving up on their preconceived ideas.

I don't even want to imagine how much one would come across this sort of behavior with a visible disability. I'm sure it must be so frustrating.

People need their ideas of how things should be like, it's safe.

I must confess though, I do tend to ask (not assume!) when someone visits me who has diabetes if he or she is allowed to eat/drink anything, so that if not, I can make sure to get something he or she is allowed to eat, because I'm not really sure about that. But I would never just assume stuff. I hate it when people assume things about me, so I try not to assume things about other people, if that makes sense.

The way people look at cripples, yes, it is frustrating at times.

Real conversation with a random stranger I once had: "Are you supposed to carry heavy bags?" "Yes. And you, are you supposed to meddle in other people's business? Great, then we're both doing what we're supposed to do. Now leave me the fuck alone."

It depends on my mood how frustrated I get. Sometimes I shrug, sometimes I reply in a less-than-polite way, sometimes I just leave to prevent myself from bashing someone's head in with my cane.

In all honesty, some people are nice about it and help or care in a non-meddling, friendly way like Wih and Bertie and Shipper did in London.

You know what else is really awful, that pain is invisible. I mean, if I said to my former department-head "I won't come to this-and-that excursion, pain's bad today", he would say "wow, ain't that convenient for you". I HATED HIM BEYOND WORDS and I still hope he will get an awful and VERY painful illness and that his dick will fall off. But it made me wary to even bring it up. I rather just plow on than admit I can't do stuff.

I'm off on a tangent! Sorry!

Edited because I actually do know how to spell "ideas".

Edited 2010-07-10 14:54 (UTC)

It's a really difficult situation to be in, for both people. Because as the healthy person, you don't want to ask about every little thing, but you don't want to be tactless and make the disabled person feel excluded either. I think, however, that if you trust people to have the mental maturity to know their own limitations, and especially if you trust them about the things they already told you about those limitations (as in, me telling someone I'm allowed to eat anything), you should be able to avoid putting your foot in your mouth.

I have never snapped at people about their questions, but then, this kind of thing happens to me a lot less rarely than it must happen to you. But I know I've made harsh mental judgments on people who only had the best intentions, which is not exactly fair. On the other hand, it's a question of, as you said, assumptions. I never judge someone harshly if all they're doing is asking reasonable questions. I judge if someone asks me stupid questions--like asking whether I can eat sweets when I already told them I can eat anything--or makes assumptions based on preconceived generalizations.

You're right about the safety thing, though. Once you realize that all preconceived ideas you rely on are faulty as soon as you're dealing with an individual, everybody and everything becomes completely unpredictable. A lot of people are scared to death by that idea.

if I said to my former department-head "I won't come to this-and-that excursion, pain's bad today", he would say "wow, ain't that convenient for you".
Oh god. What at ass. This is why some disabled people, or people of color, or queer people, decide to sue for harassment--simply because the fact that you're not part of some vague mainstream group apparently makes it okay for members of that mainstream group to make condescending and hurtful assumptions about your character and personality. But because neither the mainstream nor people from other minorities can relate, to the majority the person suing will always end up seeming to be overly dramatic. And there's the fact that the legal system was designed by and made to cater to the mainstream, so you're at an immediate disadvantage if you're not a part of that mainstream.

It's really frustrating. Mostly because all of this could be avoided if people stopped being so extremely terrified of "otherness". There would still be a long way to go, but as it is, all conversations are immediately dropped onto a completely emotional level, and it's almost impossible to get through to someone on that level of discussion.

all of this could be avoided if people stopped being so extremely terrified of "otherness" Yes. It also makes me wonder WHY people are so afraid of otherness. Because maybe if they think about it, it's possible they have to change their worldview (which leads us back to feeling safe withing preconceived ideas)?

Or maybe if they think about it, they discover things about themselves they don't like.

It is frustrating, though. But we have to keep figthing the stupidity!! We have to, because if we let it go unnoticed, people will think it's acceptable to be horrible about anything or anyone that's "different".

Don't even get me started on how people react to people with mental illnesses. I've seen some examples of that after my dad had his breakdown and sweet Jesus on a plane, it's not pretty. I joined the Anti Label Campaign of the Dutch Schizophrenic Association because of all that shit. Another example of people being so fucking scared of what they don't know, that they try to exorcize it by insulting it.

Yeah. Mankind...

I think it's because it makes everything your own choice, and, if it goes wrong, your own fault. If nothing is preconceived, there is no "natural order", which means the responsibility of knowing the "right" from the "wrong" thing is entirely on you. People like to imagine that there is some higher order that will punish people for harming others, but, you know, there isn't. Accepting that there is no natural order is a huge step towards accepting that the only person who can make sure that you won't come to any harm is you yourself. That is sort of scary. On the other hand, there's no point in denying it, because by denying it, it's you who's harming others.

This is also why people are so extremely susceptible to dogmatic religious brainwashing. Yeah, you might never have an independent thought of your own, but at least you'll have order! That's a different rant though.

I'm weird, of course, but I actually find it comforting that everything is my own choice and that I only have myself to blame if I screw up. I am suspicious of people telling me what to do, or what to think, or how to act, or how to dress, or how to behave.

It doesn't even go against my conception of religion, because I believe God gave me/us that free will just for the purpose of making our own choices, and making the right ones!

But, yeah, I do also recognize that lots of people don't even want to decide things for themselves. So much easier to look for guidance to others, because if you then screw up, it's not your fault and/or responsibility.

It's also (again!) safe to trust in others, because it's hard to figure out stuff for yourself sometimes.

I'm the same. I like having a better reason for what I'm doing than "because I'm supposed to". Drove my mom nuts when I was a kid. ;)

Religion is so difficult. The basic idea really isn't a bad one, but it gets abused so frequently. Either it gets abused to gain power, or it gets abused to have an excuse not to have to think for yourself. My mom is religious, but with her, I know she's not blindly following rules--she has thought about the underlying principles of her religion, found herself agreeing with them--or most of them--and chose to integrate this into her life. I can respect that. But so often religion is used as an excuse to turn off your brain and live without reflection or second thoughts, and it can get very frustrating.

Oh, I agree completely. So many people use religion to justify their own prejudices, as well (like with homosexuality). I think basically what the Bible comes down to is: treat other people the way you want them to treat you, i.e. with respect, and have respect for weaker beings than yourself like animals.

But again - I'm probably too basic/simple.

I always instantly rebel when people tell me I should do stuff "just because". It gives me a reason to NOT want to do that.

Yeah. Religion is very difficult to talk about, and it's difficult to realize what its purpose really is, because it's customary to train people in their childhood already to accept religious truths as dogmatic. Questioning childhood dogmas requires a level of independent thought that some people are never given the opportunity to reach.

It's a shame though that some of the most worthwhile topics are often so hard to discuss because people freak out when someone doesn't share theire views/beliefs.

I like how you word this: a level of independent thought that some people are never given the opportunity to reach, because that's a good reminder that some people indeed just never have the chance to develop their full potentials. It's even sadder when people do get that chance, but prefer to keep their heads in their asses so they don't have to think. Some of the people I met in Uni were so stupid they made my eyes bleed, and still they managed to get their degree, even without ever having had one original thought in their lives.

It's even sadder when people do get that chance, but prefer to keep their heads in their asses so they don't have to think.
God, yes. I don't like ignorance in people, but I hate chosen ignorance. I think it's one of the most despicable things a person can do--choosing to remain ignorant about something because knowing too much about it will make their life more difficult.

When I meet an ignorant person, I try my best to treat them fairly and, if a more difficult subject comes up, I'll try to calmly explain to them why I think they're wrong about what they're saying. If I meet a person who has chosen to be ignorant, well, I usually lose my patience immediately. There's no excuse for being deliberately ignorant.

There's no excuse for being deliberately ignorant OMG I couldn't agree more. I have no patience with people who indeed choose to be ignorant, either. I think it's morally wrong to chose to be ignorant about stuff.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Venting

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject