don't be such a Kant

Lindsey sophomore Global Health/Sociology yo this tumblr is for a class so you can follow but it might be weird

[ursuchakant]

it's been real everyone

[aseaofquotes]

Jeanette Winterson, Written on the Body

[gingerhaze]

HUNGER GAMES COMICS

PART 2

[ursuchakant]

This article briefly mentions the study I was talking about in class. Dr. Arthur Arun had two strangers reveal intimate details about their lives and then stare into each other's eyes, and his subjects reported feeling very attracted to their partner, and two of them got married.

I couldn't find any sources to the original study, so I don't know how accurate this is but it's an interesting idea regardless.

[jaygabler]

I had to Google this. Worth it.

[teenwitched-archive-deactivated]

good lord there are nine fics about this commercial on AO3

[the-eleventh-blog]

[ursuchakant]

magic queers

This is kind of a mix of queer headcanons and mini-fics. The ideas are really cute and the community is very positive and supportive and a lot of people will reblog their posts saying that they're on the verge of tears, just imagining representation of their identities in one of their favorite stories.

I know I've been quite vocal about this in class, but I just want to say that if I had been able to watch and read about, say, a bisexual Ginny in Harry Potter, then it wouldn't have taken me til high school graduation to understand that bisexuality is valid and to be okay with who I am. Queer people grow up not even understanding that we exist because of this lack of representation, much less understanding that queerness is valid and that we are worthy of love and happiness.

The consequences of oppression (of queers/people of color/women/etc) are very real and very horrifying: higher rates of... poverty, mental illness, homelessness, harassment, unemployment, domestic/sexual/physical violence, suicide, murder, and on and on. Under-representation or misrepresentation of a minority in media is a key tool used to reinforce oppression. I know it seems like I'm complaining a lot, but there's a reason why I care so much.

[spontaneoustonguecalcification]

It’s a cOFFEESHOP AU???????

[mswyrr-deactivated20181203]

just a friendly reminder

that when the vast majority of mass media narratives fail to represent marginalized people, they’re sending a clear message that this society is a place where, in our fantasies and dreams of better, more beautiful and interesting worlds, these people should not exist

they only exist in reality as a flaw that needs to be erased to make better, more beautiful, more interesting worlds

and misrepresentation sends the clear message that, in better, more beautiful, more interesting worlds, these people are kept in their place (as our playthings, our jokes, the sacrifices that help us grow as people, the representations of our inner evil, etc)

media matters

[atlanxic-deactivated20250205]

An Explanation of Queer-Baiting and Why it's a Problem

In this context, I am using the word “queer” as an umbrella term for gay, bisexual, pansexual, trans*, and gender-variant people. I recognize that it is not ideal, and I am sorry for that.

For those of you who don’t understand the concept of queer-baiting, allow me to explain it. Queer-baiting is what happens when a series wants to attract a queer audience without alienating their homophobic/transphobic audience. They introduce a character that queer people can relate to. They use the details and feelings common to queer people’s lives to make it very obvious to anyone who is queer, that the character is also queer. They know that because there is very little queer representation in media, queer people are going to latch onto this character, and therefore latch onto the series.

However, they never let the character actually come out. When the homophobic/transphobic part of the audience starts to realize that the character is queer, the writers add something to reassure them that no, of course the character is straight. Often, this takes the form of a character who is clearly portrayed as gay suddenly entering a straight relationship, but that is not the only way it can play out.

What this does, is tell queer people that their stories are not decent or important enough to be told. This tells queer people that their stories are only acceptable if they’re changed to be the stories of heteronormative people.

Additionally, when queer people say, “I identified with this character as a queer person,” or “I think this character could have been queer,” the heteronormative parts of the audience are encouraged to tell queer people that they should not be saying that. The heteronormative parts of the audience are encouraged to tell queer people, “stop projecting,” and “stop dragging respectable heteronormative characters into your weird issues.” Queer people are told that they should be ashamed of themselves for thinking that the character was being portrayed as queer.

Queer-baiting is even more painful than erasure, because it dangles fair and equal representation in front of your eyes, and then snatches it away. And then it tells you that the whole thing was in your imagination all along.

[ursuchakant]

Why I Hate Glee, Part 2

Sexism: Puck date rapes Quinn but Quinn is blamed for it because she was a dumb, drunk slut. (Drunk people cannot consent to sex.) She lies to Finn about who the father is and immediately decides against an abortion, but the show fails to explore the massive amounts of race and class privilege it takes to make a decision that easily. When she gives up her baby for adoption, she walks away, doesn't look back or grieve or second-guess, until suddenly she's obsessed with getting her baby back and both Quinn and the baby's adoptive mother are framed as bitchy women having a catfight. The representation of Terri's pregnancy is equally sexist, as she is presented as a crazy, manipulative, and stupid liar. Later, the Born This Way episode managed to blame the female characters for their insecurities and low self-esteem. It completely fails to identify the culprit responsible for unfair beauty standards - racism and patriarchy, which told Rachel her nose is ugly, Tina her eyes are ugly, and Quinn that she wasn't pretty until she wasn't fat. No, it's because women are just so superficial and insecure about their looks. (And on top of that, Puck tells Rachel that Jewish girls with nose jobs are "less hot," because obviously the most important thing here is what a guy finds attractive.)

Transphobia: Transphobic slurs like "tranny" and "she-male" are thrown around without question. It might seem like this is to show the reality of transphobic abuse, but all because it goes unchallenged all it does is normalize transphobia. The role of Dr. Frank'N'Furter was cut from the Rocky Horror episode, along with the word "transexual." The LGBT lyric in "Born This Way" was cut out of the performance (No matter gay, straight, or bi / Lesbian, transgendered life / I'm on the right track baby / I was born to survive). The portrayal of Unique was confusing and poorly executed and seemed to conflate a transgender woman with a guy dressed in drag. Unique is constantly misgendered and harassed and seemed like just another token minority for Ryan Murphy to exploit. And like an abled-bodied person playing Artie, having a cisgender* man play a transgender woman is beyond insulting.

*Cisgender describes someone whose gender identity aligns with the gender they were assigned at birth. ie. The doctor said "it's a boy!" and they identify as a man.

[ursuchakant]

Queer people do not need to offer excuses or defend their own existence. If one could become queer by simply waking up one morning and deciding to become queer, for a day, for an hour, it wouldn’t change the fact that being queer is just as good, as valid, as worthy, as being straight. Providing straight people with reasons or excuses for our queerness simply confirms their suspicions that our sexuality really is their business and that we need to justify our existence to them. This allows heterosexists to continue to believe there is something superior about heterosexuality, and that being queer is a deviation from some kind of normal or default sexuality. There isn’t and it’s not. We don’t need to justify ourselves to anyone. We don’t need a reason to be queer. Maybe we were born this way, maybe we weren’t. Maybe sexuality is fluid for some people and not for others. It’s totally irrelevant either way. The message we need to send to heterosexists is not that our sexuality was foisted upon us and that they should be “tolerant” and “understanding”. The message is: our sexuality is perfectly valid and none of your business, we offer you no excuses, and we are never going away.

Fauxgress Watch: "Born This Way"

This is the problem with Glee's and Lady Gaga's Born This Way rhetoric. If you can only accept yourself or other people if you believe those differences can't be changed, that isn't acceptance.

[ursuchakant]

Why I Hate Glee, Part 1

Not gonna lie, I'm kind of excited about the Glee unit just because it gives me a valid platform to complain about how much I hate this show. I want to talk about sexism and transphobia as well, but I'm going to make a separate post later so it doesn't get too long. (Disclaimer: These are huge, complicated social issues, I stopped watching Glee somewhere in the 3rd season so I can't speak to recent episodes, and I'm not judging anyone who's a fan of this show.)

Racism: The cast seems diverse, until you realize that all of the characters of color are treated like novelties. Racist jokes and stereotypes abound, masquerading as "post-racial" humor. (Racism is over now, so we can be racist!) Mercedes is the Sassy Black Girl and the Angry Black Woman, fat, a diva, self-entitled, and lazy. There's an episode called "Asian F" where Mike gets an A- and his dad wants to drug test him. Mike and Tina have the same last name (!), very few speaking parts and solos, and their relationship is nicknamed "Asian Fusion" by the other characters. Mike was referred to as the "other Asian" for most of the first season. Santana is the fiery Latina, flirty, manipulative, and bitchy. Her only role in the first season was to sleep with (literally) every guy in the school and like the other characters of color she had few speaking and singing roles. The white characters are the ones who get to have complex storylines, and everyone else gets to be a horrifying racist stereotype.

Biphobia: Brittany is the only bisexual character on the show, and she is framed with biphobic stereotypes as extremely stupid and slutty. The gay characters make nasty biphobic remarks that go unquestioned, like when Kurt tells the suddenly bi-curious Blaine that "bisexual is a term that gay guys use when they want to hold hands with girls and feel like a normal person for a change." (Because, you know, bisexual guys don't really exist. And Blaine is back to 100% homo by the end of the episode.) Santana's character is also very problematic, as she goes from being attracted to guys and girls to proclaiming that she is a closet lesbian, with no explanation. In season 5, Demi Lovato's character Dani and Santana chat, and Santana mentions that Brittany was bi. Dani says that the breakup was probably for the best and that Santana needs a "100% Sapphic goddess" (who says that? No one says that). They start dating, and finally Santana has a girlfriend that she doesn't "have to worry about straying for penis." (Brittany never cheated, and Santana actually broke up with her, but whatevs!)

Ableism: They cast an able-bodied actor to play Artie and gave him an episode where he dreamed about being magically healed and being able to dance. (By the way, wheelchair-bound people can actually dance.) While the other characters get to fulfill their dreams, Artie can't, and he is unable to accept his disability. The whole episode is disempowering "pity the poor sad boy in the wheelchair" patronization. The portrayal of Emma's OCD is also problematic, because it's framed as cutesy and quirky (not a real struggle with mental illness) and is used to give Will a free pass to be an abusive boyfriend. He tries to coerce her into sex and uses her disability to manipulate her, and Emma is framed as frigid and childish for not wanting to have sex with him while Will is still framed as a nice guy and a loving boyfriend. Not to mention the endless jokes about Artie being a "cripple," the digs slung at the Deaf Choir, Sugar "self-diagnosing" with Asperger's as an excuse to be impolite, and on and on it goes.

Keep in mind that every piece of media is problematic somehow, even my favorite movies and TV shows. But you can't just ignore or deny these flaws, you have to accept them and like the piece of media despite them.

[ursuchakant]

The Strong Female Character has become another way for writers to avoid developing realistic women in their stories, relying instead on tropes and shallow stereotypes wrapped up in the guise of girlpower!feminism. Worse, it’s become a way for readers and viewers to comfortably dismiss flawed or feminine characters as “weak,” while holding onto their not-sexist card by praising the stereotypically masculine (but not too masculine) behavior of the Strong Female Character... The key to a great female character... lies in having agency (or reasons for a lack of agency), a well-developed personality and set of motivations, and an existence as an entity all to themselves, rather than as a tool in another character’s story... The "strong female character"... backlash has turned into another form of sexism, another set of unattainable standards that women must meet to be “good enough,” standards that strip away any traditionally feminine traits and often dress up sexism and sexual exploitation as “girl power.”

The Problem with Strong Female Characters (TM)

Sometimes what looks like female empowerment is really just sexism wearing a different disguise. If the only way women can be strong is to be masculine, then that isn't feminist strength.

The fourth trait of the Strong Female Character trope (sexually "liberated") is a perfect example of the male gaze pretending to empower women while really just sexually objectifying them. This is a particularly harmful form of fetishization, because it allows the male audience to warp female strength into their sexual fantasies, literally turning feminist efforts to empower and liberate women into sexual objects for men to consume. Here, women are only given the power to please the male gaze, not to challenge it.

[ursuchakant]

You can watch Miss Representation instantly on Netflix. Sign up for access to a wide variety of Movies & TV Shows streaming instantly to your TV, computer, tablet or favorite device.

This is a fantastic documentary about sexism and women in media and I recommend it to absolutely anyone and everyone. It's available on instant stream on Netflix, so if you have an hour and a half to spare, then you have no excuse not to watch!

[iyliayazmin]

[drdovevie]

While I completely understand the problematic nature of the Thicke parody video—in fact, it made me quite uncomfortable the first time I saw it, and that had nothing to do with its “raunchiness” and everything to do with the fact that I find flip-the-script style feminist enagement inherently discomfitting (objectifying men isn’t the solution to women being objectified, etc.)—I also like to leave room open for multivalent responses and reactions to the issues we confront in our lives. Mikhail Bahktin writes “that in parody two languages are crossed with each other, as well as two styles, two linguistic points of view, and in the final analysis two speaking subjects.” I’d add that there are often more than two, in parody or other forms of cultural engagement, but also that judging what response is right, which subject speaks or if both/all speak simultaneously, is difficult. I think it’s easier to judge the wrong response, but can a response to something which offends us ever be right? And right to whom? Moreover, since being offended is so personal (and I’m talking about the original offense here as the Robin Thicke video), how can the response,  through parody or otherwise,  then not be personal and, therefore,  not “right” for everyone?

Tl;dr: can even the responses we don’t think are “right” have some (cultural/use) value? (This is an honest question,  not rhetorical.)

[ursuchakant]

I'm reminded of a documentary I watched on the portrayal of women in advertising, and one of the tools it used to demonstrate how ridiculously infantalized and sexualized women are in ads is to switch out the woman with a man. People are much more uncomfortable looking at a man who is naked or mostly naked, sexualized, posed in a vulnerable or childish way, etc. and it calls attention to the sexism in the original ad. So in that sense I think this type of parody is useful, because it shows how ridiculous and degrading it is to treat women as subordinate sexual objects for men's pleasure.

But it still fails to challenge our view of sex as a game with a winner/loser, our association of femininity with an inferior submissive object, heteronormativity, racism/classism, etc. It can be useful, but only if we consume it critically and are aware of the toxic norms this parody is portraying. Unfortunately, most people, even most feminists, are not. So I think my answer is that yes, this parody could be useful, if it were within a larger context of complex, critical feminist conversations about sexuality, consent, objectification, and rape culture, buuut it isn't. I think that's a failure of both our larger culture and feminism.

[iyliayazmin]

The ladies of Auckland Uni Law Revue took Robin Thicke’s ‘Blurred Lines’ by its balls and gave it a good shake. Scholastic, smart and sarcastic indeed!  Probably THE best parody out there. Spread the love!  

[scwheele-blog]

So it’s a little raunchy and I apologize, but it’s all too perfect for me to not post. I mean, it’s nothing compared to the original music video (which understandably sparked the parody). I was thinking about this during our discussion in class a week ago when Dr. Dove brought up the Harry Potter parodies, and of course with our talk about feminine roles in society and codes. I forgot to bring it up though so I figured i’d post it to Tumblr. To make it even more perfect, the video mentions Freud’s castration anxiety. It’s definitely entertaining. 

[ursuchakant]

I'm gonna be "that person" again haha. I loved this parody at first too, but then I read a really great feminist criticism of why it's actually bad and it totally changed my view.

Basically, humiliating men through emasculation, sexual degradation, and castration threats doesn't really challenge patriarchy. It reinforces the idea that a man's worth is his masculinity and his penis, that femininity is a punishment because it is shameful for a man to embody femininity, and that sex is a zero sum game with a winner and a loser where the loser is subordinate and feminine and the winner is dominant and masculine. It also implies that only smart, educated white women don't deserve to be objectified (whereas shallow "plastic" women do). I long for the day when everyone, even feminists, stop seeing femininity as degrading and start seeing it as something for everyone to celebrate (and embody if they so choose).

This is a great parody that actually challenges white, heterosexual, patriarchal gender roles and lets everyone experience masculinity and femininity in a fluid, positive way, rather than making the feminine role a submissive object and the masculine role a dominant aggressor.

(I want to make it really clear that these are all very great ideas that totally did not occur to me at first and I'm not judging anyone who enjoyed Defined Lines at first because I did too.)

[sarae620-deactivated20150821]

‘Star Trek’: Damon Lindelof apologizes for showing Alice Eve in her underwear. (Seriously?) | EW.com

In Star Trek Into Darkness, Captain Kirk and his team take on a new foe, travel to new planets, and generally do new, sequel-y stuff. Also:…

Reading Mulvey immediately reminded me of reading this article back when Star Trek: Into Darkness came out. I had already seen the movie before reading the article, and hadn’t thought anything of the scene where Alice Eve starts changing in front of Chris Pine (and, more importantly I suppose, the camera). After I read this article, I happened to have an opportunity to see the movie again, and I found myself sort of agreeing and sort of disagreeing with the outcry over the scene. Is it sort of ridiculous and unnecessary? Pretty much. But the article points out an important note: Chris Pine is also half-naked in scenes of the movie for no other reason than to show Chris Pine half-naked. Maybe things have changed in Mulvey’s time. The camera isn’t just focusing on women’s assets to please men in the audience, we’ve evolved to focus on men’s assets to please the women right along with them.

[ursuchakant]

As a lover of Star Trek and a hater of J.J. Abrams I just have to add my two cents.

Of the five main women in the two reboots - Kirk's mom, Carol Marcus, Gaila, Uhura, and Spock's mom - three are shown in their underwear at some point and only one of them had given consent to be seen half-naked. Kirk is shown in his underwear too, but never in a sexually objectifying or voyeuristic way, and his sexual boundaries are never violated. Kirk's half-naked scenes show his masculinity and sexual prowess as a womanizer, so I think the male gaze is still at work here to please the male audience's need for a power trip (as opposed to like an equal-and-opposite "female gaze"). Don't get me wrong, I'm in love with Chris Pine, and I think plenty of women enjoyed those scenes, but I don't think the female audience has the power to objectify Chris Pine the way the male audience can objectify those three actresses.

I think what really gets me with the reboots is that 2 out of the 3 women shown in their underwear didn't consent to Kirk seeing them undressed (Carol even specifically told Kirk not to look). Abrams framed the violation of women's sexual boundaries as sexy and fun.