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

[choukoumei.livejournal.com]

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

[teyla]

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.

[inlaterdays.livejournal.com]

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. :)

[teyla]

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.