Venting

[teyla]

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

Comments

[petrichor-fizz.livejournal.com]

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.

[teyla]

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.

[petrichor-fizz.livejournal.com]

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.

[teyla]

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.

[petrichor-fizz.livejournal.com]

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.

[teyla]

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.