I am so sick and tired of people calling female characters ‘useless”.
Women.
Are.
Not.
There.
To.
Be.
USED!
Do you ever read something that changes the entire way you think?
Holy shit.
Was she going to slap you because you never in any way made him gay in the actual books, taking zero risks/doing absolutely nothing for gay characters in literature, and only announcing your “authorial intent” afterwards for a cheap shot at looking like an ~ally~
^^^
Gay people are just normal people. We are not told about any of the Hogwarts professors love lives, other than Snape, and it would be completely out of character for Dumbledore to walk around telling everyone about his sexuality.
Did you want her to make him dress in glittery platform boots, a crop top, and decorate his office in rainbow flags to make it more obvious for you? Would that be enough of a stereotype to appease you people? Or what? Please tell me. I’d like to know how you think a gay character is supposed to be portrayed.
And did you miss the Grindelwald chapters in the ‘actual books’? Or was that also not obvious enough for you? Did Dumbledore need to whisper “always” wistfully in order for you to connect that he had romantic feelings for Grindelwald? Maybe you are American and need them to gaze longingly into each others eyes with awkward close ups of their fingers almost grazing each other that Hollywood thinks means ‘true love’.
It didn’t fit into his relationship to Harry to ever say “I’m gay”, and so it was not stated explicitly (you might have noticed the book was told from Harry Potter’s perspective).
The point is though, that he is a homosexual, well respected, powerful, and very loved wizard- and his sexuality doesn’t matter because no one else thinks it matters. a.k.a. no one cares that he loves men, and that is wonderful.
^ THANK
And yet I knew he was gay in the first book. Fancy that.
Um….
Did you want her to make him dress in glittery platform boots, a crop top, and decorate his office in rainbow flags to make it more obvious for you?
In the very first chapter of the very first book I believe he’s wearing high-heeled boots and a an eye-smarting robe with stars all over it… that’s my memory anyway, I’d have to check.
But no really, there is valid criticism to be had here.
Because Jo Rowling made a choice to have the only gay charterer in seven books be someone who was elderly, celibate, and had no reason to ever mention his sexuality any time in the canon.
Saying ‘Dumbledore was gay’ after the last book is published is spineless and meaningless move that allows her to say that she wrote a gay character without actually working at portraying a gay character and facing the criticisms that come from portraying a gay character while her works were still in progress.
What does this mean about Authorial Intent re: the sexualities that we are to presume of all the other characters (after all, she didn’t say anyone else was gay)?
If the character’s sexuality is not apparent in the canon, then it’s up to fan interpretation and the fans are not wrong about it. Your post-work declarations are not valid, author. Time for me to once again quote Ferretbrain:
“As far as Rowling is concerned, Harry Potter is not a series of cultural artifacts existing within the world, but a world that exists in her imagination. This is why she feels so free to amend, interpret, and justify the text after its publication. As far as she’s concerned (and, as other FB articles have discussed, as far as a depressingly large number of other people are concerned) the Harry Potter universe has a distinct, external reality and the process of reading about Harry Potter is a process of bringing your understanding into line with this distinct, external reality. Essentially a person’s appreciation of Harry Potter (as far as Rowling is concerned) can be judged exclusively in terms of how closely it matches her own.”
The entire post on this subject, “What The Fucking Fucking Fuck JK Rowling?” is also really worthwhile.
Basically, ROWLING IS NOT CORRECT. If she didn’t write, in the books, anything that indicates that Dumbledore is gay, her declaration that he is because she’s the author and she says so is worth approximately squat in terms of character interpretation from the text, because the text is a thing that exists.
JK Rowling didn’t write, in her text, any explicitly sexual relationships. No one is stated to be having sex with anyone else at any time during the events at Hogwarts. We can infer in some instances that sex has occurred between characters; we can infer that Molly and Arthur Weasley have had a bunch of sex because they have seven kids. We know explicitly that Merope Gaunt raped Tom Riddle Sr. with the use of drugs, because that story was explicitly told. But no one has sex or even is said to be having sex on the page. Hence it is legitimate to debate whether it happened/is happening/will happen at any point in the story. What this means is that Rowling has no characters that are explicitly gay because she never shows characters in explicitly homosexual relationships. Just like she has no characters who are explicitly trans, and no characters that are explicitly outside of the gender binary. Not having characters like this is -safe- because the erasure of such characters is ubiquitous. These are marked categories of humanity. If we are not given explicit details about certain things pertaining to characters, it is an unfortunate fact that we, the readers, live in a culture where certain things are to be presumed about them. A character that is not described physically is presumed to be white, cis, able-bodied, and of averge weight and height. A character who isn’t in a romantic relationship with anyone and doesn’t have any sexual thoughts about anyone is presumed to be straight. It is not the fault of the reader for presuming these things, because these are assumptions that the author generally expects the reader to make; characters are from default classes of existence (Male, white, straight, able, average) until described otherwise. This is why white characters’ skintone is seldom described in fiction but black characters’ skin tone -always is- and why if a director makes a casting choice in which a character whose skintone in not described is played by a person of color, the fandom rants and raves and rends the heavens. It’s also why many readers feel totally comfortable ‘not picturing the character that way’ even when the character IS explicitly of color. Because white is default. Straight is default. Cis is default. POC, Gay, and Trans are -marked-.
Everyone go read “He’s Gay, and He’s Native American: Rowling and Scalzi Claim Marginal Identities for Charcters After the Fact”. I’ll wait here.
When an author declares information about a character that is not indicated on the page in any way, and says ‘I always envisioned them thus’…that’s useless to us as readers. When an author further says ‘If you envisioned the character some other way than the way I envisioned them, and you’re upset that I didn’t indicate that the character was that way, it’s your own fault. I always thought they were black and if you think the fact that I never described them as black means they’re white, it is you who are racist!’ that’s…. a fucking horrible, spineless move. SHAME ON YOU, AUTHOR. MOTHERFUCKING SHAME.
So yeah, maybe that’s why the reader looked like they wanted to slap you, JK. Just a thought.
Also, let me address this:
Did you want her to make him dress in glittery platform boots, a crop top, and decorate his office in rainbow flags to make it more obvious for you? Would that be enough of a stereotype to appease you people?
No one is asking for Dumbledore to have been ‘more gay’.
Her not mentioning Dumbledore’s sexuality in canon is not bad. It’s perfectly valid to have characters whose sexuality is never mentioned at all because it’s not important to the plot. Much like it’s ok to have characters about whom we know fuck all because they are not important to the plot. If the protag has a short conversation with a person identified only as ‘The police officer’ who is never even referred to by pronouns and who doesn’t appear again, absolutely nothing can be determined about that character other than that the protag believes them to be a police officer. And that’s fine.
Knowing shit about your characters that never makes it to the page is fine. I myself have many characters who only briefly appear in the work but who, in my own little head, have whole life stories before and after their appearance in the text. And that’s fine.
What isn’t fine is the author then going ahead and telling us all kinds of things about that character and pretending like they’re true because that’s what the author intended.
Dumbledore, like most of the characters in Harry Potter, doesn’t have a canon sexuality.
That’s not a problem at all. It just means that all bets are off and that no one’s speculations can be wrong (or right) because there is not enough evidence in the canon for anyone’s claims. It isn’t there on the page.
Once your canon is closed, you don’t get to add to it. That’s how canon works. ‘Dumbledore is gay’ is no more canon than ‘Dumbledore is straight’ or ‘Dumbledore is asexual’ or ‘Dumbledore is only sexually attracted to pink wereleopards from mars’ because Dumbledore’s sexuality is not a part of the story. My beef with JK Rowling’s declaration after the fact of Dumbledore’s gayness is that she’s basically trying to get the attention of having a gay character…without actually having had a gay character.
I want you to read these two other ferretbrain articles; they’re about race, but they could easily be about sexuality because they’re really about portrayals of marginalized characters and lack thereof:
Musings on Race in Fantasy or: Why Ron Weasley isn’t Black
Race, Brand and the Placebo Effect
Let me quote from that second one:
To put it another way, just imagine for a moment that Harry Potter had been a black kid. Of course first you need to get over the fact that it would then be a book about a black kid who gets rescued from his abusive black family by a kindly white guy, but if we assume that Harry was black and the Potter books weren’t written in such a way that “Muggle” was effectively a racial slur. You would then have a situation in which the single most recognised fictional character in the world was a black kid (not only a black kid, but a black British kid). It would be huge, just like it was huge the first time they let an actual black guy play Othello. It wouldn’t matter in the slightest that Harry Potter didn’t listen to hip-hop or talk about Malcom X or use “urban” slang or do whatever else it is that white people seem to think black people have to do in fiction to properly represent “black culture”. The simple fact of the most popular fictional character in the world having black skin would have been huge. It would have changed the way a generation of children thought about race, and it would have changed it for the better. It wouldn’t have been a miracle, it wouldn’t have abolished racism overnight, but it would have done more good than any three government initiatives you might care to name.
What if Dumbledore had actually been gay on the page? What if it was a known and explicit fact that he (or any character, for that matter) had during the books or in the past been involved in a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex? Not implied, not hinted, not ‘read between the lines, reader!’ - STATED. What if, in the best-selling Childrens/YA series in recent years, in a series of books that were a generational phenomenon, there were one or more characters who actually affectionately cheek-kissed and held hands with characters of the same sex. Attended the school dance with characters of the same sex. Had childish crushes on members of the same sex. Set up households and raised children with characters of the same sex. Existed, in canon, as explicitly gay characters. Not as ‘the author said it, so it must be true’ after the fact bullshit; undeniable and incontrovertible statement on the page during the story.
That would have been amazing.
“Dumbledore was gay because I said so” is a pale fucking imitation of what could have been. JK Rowling should not get ‘wrote a gay character’ props for her portrayal of Dumbedore.
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
This is a pretty cool article on representation of trans people (women specifically) in advertising.
Moffat doesn’t believe in queer representation, he believes in using queer characters to appear ‘cheeky’ and ‘off-centered’!
I can’t at this moment put into words why that bothers me so much, but oohhh it does.
If anyone else wants to do it for me, be my guest.
Original interview here.
(via grafityvalls)
i would guess because it turns queer people into “cheeky”, “off-centered” attractions to be used for ratings and a ~*fun quirky tone*~ instead of just… people
(via oodlyenough)
Right. This is why I actually don’t like Moffat as opposed to just having a problem with some aspects of his writing. He’s basically just sat there telling afterelton how gay characters are quirky accessories to his cis-het male leads.
I just…I can’t even express how much shit like this pisses me off.
(via feministinthetardis)
hahahahaha srsly fuq u so much moffat
(Source: gendernarwhal)
OH MY GOD I FORGOT ALL ABOUT THESE
WHAT ARE THESE WHY WERE THEY NOT A PART OF MY CHILDHOOD
aw, robinita hood. love that the voice actors are POC too. these make me so happy, wow!
I have seen 3/4ths of these. Dear white people, I submit to you: You have NO idea how HAPPY I’d get when these came on t.v. How OVERJOYED I was to see people, even cartoons, that looked LIKE ME. Representing stories I’d grown up with, where I got to be the princess. Where brown and black people were happy. Where brown and black people overcame to triumph. Color, to children of color, DOES matter. The success and impact of these episodes from HBO show that. Fairy tales for EVERY child MATTERS.
awesome.
WELL THESE LOOK FANTASTIC
I can’t believe I never knew this show existed holy shit
(Source: marydoodler)
I think perhaps it perpetuates the “gay unless otherwise stated” idea that keeps befalling female characters without a male romantic interest, especially characters who are not exactly feminine. While “straight unless otherwise stated” isn’t much better, why does the defined sexuality matter anyway?
omg stop pls
I think the issue that person above is getting at is that Merida is a badass in a rather masculine-coded way, so some people were basically saying “she’s not girly enough, she must be a lesbian,” more as a way of policing gender expression than as a legitimate speculation on the possibility of her queerness. It seems to me that SJ-types are getting antsy about people saying she’s a lesbian because it rings too much like the standard homophobic shaming of women who don’t conform to social standards of femininity.
That doesn’t mean that that she can’t or shouldn’t be read as queer, or that queer people can’t choose to see themselves as being represented in her, or that sexuality isn’t important and we should just ignore it and heterophobia (??? lol) is as bad as homophobia, etc., etc. (we’re all starstuff!!!!). The problem seems to be who is deciding she’s a lesbian, and why.
Like, it’s awesome for a queer person to say “haha, she’s totally a lesbian!” meaning, “I can totally identify with her and see in this movie issues that the queer community has to deal with, that is so great”
but it’s really not okay for a straight person to say “haha, she’s totally a lesbian!” meaning, “she is not adequately feminine and subservient to seem appropriately non-threatening to the patriarchy/fuckable to straight men, so I’m going to shame her and dismiss her story by arbitrarily lumping her in with a group that I already have no problem persecuting.”
Does that make any sense? Am I talking out of my ass here?oh no i get that and i agree, but with what the rest of the person’s post was saying i am hesitant to assume their point was to tell straight ppl off for perpetuating stereotypes? like, i was willing to consider the possibility that it’s what they meant but with the “~why does sexuality matter anyway~” later in the post it’s just ugh no
hmm yes that is much more obvious now that I have slept for 8 hours. this is why I shouldn’t Tumblr (tumbl?) after midnight. :P
but clearly the only resolution to this issue of assumption of gayness or not gayness is to have everyone be explicitly gay.
ALL THE LESBIANS
FOREVER!!
I think perhaps it perpetuates the “gay unless otherwise stated” idea that keeps befalling female characters without a male romantic interest, especially characters who are not exactly feminine. While “straight unless otherwise stated” isn’t much better, why does the defined sexuality matter anyway?
omg stop pls
I think the issue that person above is getting at is that Merida is a badass in a rather masculine-coded way, so some people were basically saying “she’s not girly enough, she must be a lesbian,” more as a way of policing gender expression than as a legitimate speculation on the possibility of her queerness. It seems to me that SJ-types are getting antsy about people saying she’s a lesbian because it rings too much like the standard homophobic shaming of women who don’t conform to social standards of femininity.
That doesn’t mean that that she can’t or shouldn’t be read as queer, or that queer people can’t choose to see themselves as being represented in her, or that sexuality isn’t important and we should just ignore it and heterophobia (??? lol) is as bad as homophobia, etc., etc. (we’re all starstuff!!!!). The problem seems to be who is deciding she’s a lesbian, and why.
Like, it’s awesome for a queer person to say “haha, she’s totally a lesbian!” meaning, “I can totally identify with her and see in this movie issues that the queer community has to deal with, that is so great”
but it’s really not okay for a straight person to say “haha, she’s totally a lesbian!” meaning, “she is not adequately feminine and subservient to seem appropriately non-threatening to the patriarchy/fuckable to straight men, so I’m going to shame her and dismiss her story by arbitrarily lumping her in with a group that I already have no problem persecuting.”
Does that make any sense? Am I talking out of my ass here?
FANTASY!
The very word brings to mind the impossible, and is so wildly popular because it involves taking a piece of our world and juxtaposing it with literally anything your imagination can come up with. We’ve done this for thousands of years, telling stories of how the warrior slayed the dragon, how the enchantress trapped the magician, how it was the poor orphan who was the Chosen One all along.
It’s a genre where literally anything can happen, and where most things have, because the imagination of humanity is vast and deep.
So why is it that when a non-White actor or actress is cast in a Fantasy movie or TV show, so many people flip their collective lids?
Well, most Fantasy Fiction stories are set in Medieval Europe, or Britain, or a place that’s clearly based on such.
You’re correct, Devil’s Advocate Voice. There’s still a Eurocentric base to the Fantasy genre (which in itself is weird, given the aforementioned vast, deep imagination of humanity.)
And certainly, for example, the SyFy show Merlin obviously takes place in a fictitious version of Britain. It’s the millionth re-telling of a classic piece of the public domain, but it seems to be playing by the traditional storyline for the most part.
What’s that you say? The role of Guinevere is played by a Black actress?
And there’s a contingent of people on Tumblr who like to fan-cast Sophie Okonedo as Helga Hufflepuff from Harry Potter?
This is all historically inaccurate, you say? Well goodness me, don’t we have ourselves a pickle here.
Let’s pretend for the sake of argument that it’s completely not weird to have magic and dragons but definitely weird to have Black people in fictional versions of Medieval England.
Let’s do that for a second. Are we doing that? Good.
Because Black people have totally been in Europe, and England, for a really long time.
There exists this strange belief among otherwise well-educated people that from the time hunter-gatherers migrated from Africa and settled in their respective niches throughout the Earth until Europe got a bug up their ass about exploration in the 1400’s, nobody went anywhere. Everyone remained at home, in pure ethnic isolation.
Go Google a map of the Earth, specifically the Old World. Look at how close Africa is to Europe, and how Europe and Asia are connected. They’re connected so closely one might even say they could be considered one continent.
Isolationism has happened before, but mostly on island nations because inland isolation is difficult to enforce. There’s been so much movement and war and enslavement and migration through these continents that listing every major inter-cultural event would be impossible, so here’s a bit about Rome:
The Roman Empire, at it’s height, ruled the Mediterranean sea, much of North Africa, Western Europe, the Eastern bit of what’s now the Middle-East, and left a bunch of walls in Britain. Rome is fun in this context because often, the people they conquered were absorbed into Roman society, climbing high in the ranks of Roman nobility and military. Like this woman here, who was at least partially African, and was found buried with clear markings of being a noblewoman. In York, England. Hmm.
And they weren’t the only ones to do crazy things like move around a continent. The Huns originated somewhere in the Steppes of Central Asia and went on to tear Europe a new one, eventually giving the entire country of Hungary its name. The Scandinavian Vikings sailed around the known world, taking slaves from literally everywhere and trading them, as well as goods, with the Arabs. The Muslim Arabs themselves took advantage of the power gap after the fall of the Roman Empire to spread across Eurasia, absorbing the knowledge of the ancient Greeks and developing a center for learning in Baghdad that rivalled anything the Europeans were doing at the time. The Moors of Northern Africa get talked about a lot in conversations like these, and not for nothing. They waltzed into Spain and stayed long enough that their culture infuses Spanish life to this day. (Almost everyone read Othello in high school. I wonder if the English thought it was pandering for Shakespeare to have the main character of a play be African.)
And if you think for one second that these armies came in, killed whatever standing army was there, and then left nobody behind to rule the roost, and that these conquered people, who were at least second-class citizens of their new nation, didn’t travel for trade? Then there’s no hope for you and we should just turn back now.
Now answer me this:
- Do people like to have sex?
Yes. Yes people do. The vast majority of humans throughout history have enjoyed having sex. Sometimes, ethnocentrism and racism has kept people from inter-ethnic lovin’, but if you think that was the rule rather than the exception you’re underestimating the overwhelming desire humans have to get laid. Aforementioned Othello went into how Othello and Desdemona secretly got married, because per-marital sex was way worse than interracial marriage in Renaissance Italy.
Additionally, there were several conquerors and marauding armies, on every side of the equation, who ignored and/or promoted rape as a tool of war. For example, the Mongols did so much of this whilst pillaging across Eurasia that Genghis Khan, by himself, has about 16 million descendants today. The idea of consent meant basically nothing to most people at the time, given the extremely low status of women.
So, inter-ethnic sex was had, consensual or not, and heterosexual sex generally meant babies back then.
Ok, sure, says the Devil’s Advocate Voice, there were people of other ethnicities in Europe and Britain. There were interracial children. But certainly this wasn’t the norm, right?
I’ll give you that, because census data from the year 1000 AD is pretty sketchy.
But if you acknowledge that it did happen, that non-White people did exist in Europe, did work their ways up into nobility, you can’t turn around and say that having a Black actress play Guinevere is unrealistic. You can’t say that every single representation of a non-White British or European person is somehow “affirmative action,” or unrealistic, or pandering of some kind. To pretend it is is to erase the historical experiences of these people.
If there were a danger of there being no more White people on television or books, I wouldn’t be writing this. But there clearly isn’t.
Go read this post I did on how having a Black and Hispanic Spiderman matters. If you don’t want to, I’ll summarize it: it’s important that people, and especially kids, see positive portrayals of people who look like them represented in media. It’s important that kids of any ethnicity see a variety of people doing a variety of things.
And besides, all White people all the time is fucking boring. It’s boring and lazy and unimaginative to present one narrow view of history, and even more so to repeat, over and over and over again, the same narrow view of fictional lands that have never existed where the good guys are automatically White, and if there’s any Non-White people they’re presented as bad or primitive.
Beyond the tinge of racism that colors every debate about the “realism” of having people of color in Fantasy stories, there’s just a level of oh, I’ve read this story before, #shrug. Will the White protagonist of this Europe-analogous land triumph in the end? Will he?!? Fantasy exists because we wanted to plumb our wildest imaginations for adventures, and I think there should be a little more looking at actual history, more reflections of the lives that people really did lead.
It is 2011. Guinevere can be Black.
Star Trek: DOIN IT RONG
OH MY GOD FUCK THIS EPISODE SO MUCH
TOS was like the first TV show ever to have an African American actress in a seriously important role - that was fucking huge. that was groundbreaking.
Next Gen did still manage to cast a few POC (though apparently almost everyone is white anyway in the 24th century ummm yeah sure that makes total sense), and wouldn’t it have been nice if they had continued TOS’s tradition of taking people’s prejudices and punching them in the face? that would have been awesome, right?
because I mean it was the 90s and this is a show about the 24th century
so you think maybe they could have deigned to start representing some other marginalized groups as well
like I don’t know
gay people or something
but instead they go almost 4 seasons without even acknowledging the possibility of gay people or gay relationships, and when they finally do it is to shit all over them
awesome thanks a lot Next Gen
great job
fuck you very much.
(oh hey and while we’re on the subject of representation I really like how there was only one female bridge crew member [unless you count Troi], and she made it through one season. oh yeah except when you kept bringing her back to kill her off again.
I checked wikipedia to confirm, you assholes: Tasha has three death storylines and two rape storylines.
PLEASE GO STRAIGHT TO HELL
DO NOT PASS GO
DO NOT COLLECT $200)
Guys, guys.
The point of that post wasn’t that homoerotic subtext is meaningless or imagined, its that it isn’t enough.
(And I fucking side-eye anyone who tries to use this discussion to claim that fangirls need to find a better hobby than slash fiction — it completely marginalizes all the queer people who care about gay subtext. Also, its just fucking gross to be THAT angered by people who think two canonically straight characters are fucking.)
Do I believe Kirk and Spock are fucking? Do I believe there’s a huge romance between Dean and Cas? Do I believe John and Sherlock’s romance is so legendary that they were in love in every single iteration of their story?
Yes I do!
The point of the post was not that shipping same-sex couples is wrong or homophobic or delusional.
The point is: it matters that the shows and books and writers who provide us with all this glorious subtext don’t ever make it explicit. They never come out and say the “gay” word, unless its in a mocking, fanservicey manner. It matters that we’re never going to see Merlin and Arthur get it on, it matters that we’re NEVER going to see John and Sherlock fall in love.
Yes, write fics for it, talk about the subtext, fangirl and boy yourselves to death over how amazing these romances are — shit, I do that every night — but it should PISS US ALL OFF that these romances will never make it out of fanon.
The stories we tell ourselves about ourselves have political power. Its revolutionary, for a queer kid to see a canonically gay relationship on screen — because when we see someone talk about people who are like us, we are validated, to some extent.
I want a world in which fandom doesn’t have to do all the legwork when it comes to portraying gay characters; in which creators have more responsibility than just nudge-nudge-wink-winking at us. Even when they do acknowledge that the gayness might be a little more than subtext, I want them to write it into the show, write it into the story.
For example: I love that J.K. Rowling later-confirmed that Dumbledore was in love with Gellert Grindelwald, and I was also angered that this was never made clear in the actual book. And I’m even more angered by the fact that Dumbledore/Grindelwald is the only canonical gay relationship in the Harry Potter series, and that no one would even know that, unless they read that interview with Jo.
Keeping the homosexuality forever marginalized in subtext, keeping it forever out of explicit canon — its another way of telling queer people that their voices and their stories are not as important as their straight counterparts. That their lives are not to be brought to the attention of the mainstream, that their presence is acceptable in a narrative only if they keep their sexuality and their relationships under-wraps.
Subtext is fine and well — fanon and fandom are fucking beautiful things — but I want the canon to acknowledge it, dammit.
(Source: anedumacationisnomore)
A Brief List and Analysis of White Savior Films
A White Savior Film (WSF) is a movie that features a white person coming into the lives of a person or people of color (POCs) who are often low-income, troubled, and/or severely oppressed. The troubled times that the people of color are in can be a product of oppression from other white folks, or their own doing. Either way, the White Savior comes in, quickly sympathizes with the problems of the people of color, learning what needs to happen to solve their problems, and in doing so, wins their favor and becomes their hero. Here is a list of some of these films:
- Gran Torino
- Avatar (Jake Sully literally becomes the Messiah of the Na’vi)
- The Blind Side*
- Hardball
- The Ghosts of Mississippi*
- Glory Road*
- Dances With Wolves
- Finding Forrester
- The Principal*
- Music of the Heart*
- To Kill a Mockingbird (slightly on the fence with this one because the savior Atticus Finch does not save Tom Robinson from being convicted)
- Radio*
- Cool Runnings*
- Dangerous Minds* (This film was based on the true story of a Latina teacher, yet Michelle Pfiffer played the teacher, thereby turning this into a WSF)
- The Last Samurai
- Wildcats
- Freedom Writers*
- Amistad*
- Black Rain
- Sunset Park
- District 9 (Also slightly on the fence with this one since the white protagonist mainly follows the plan of the oppressed alien that stands for a POC, and he is more of an anti-hero)
- Mississippi Burning*
- The Last Airbender (the TV series composed of all Asian characters, but the film’s three main heroes were cast as white people, while everyone else was of color)
- Dune
- Glory*
- The Ron Clark Story*
- The Help
There are a few different kinds of WSF. The most popular kinds include the white teacher/administrator that helps the students of color realize their true potential and help them overcome their own prejudices (The Principal, Freedom Writers, Dangerous Minds, etc.), and the white sports coach leading his or her team filled with usually poor and troubled people of color to victory (Glory Road, Cool Runnings, Wildcats, Sunset Park, Hardball, etc).
The more epic, and true “savior” WSF that many sci-fi films also fit into feature a white person who is often an oppressor happening upon a culture of people of color or aliens that are POC stand-ins. The white hero eventually assimilates into their culture, and he even proves to be more skillful than them as learns the culture. He becomes their leader and savior in the battle against their enemies (Avatar, The Last Samurai, Dances With Wolves, Dune, District 9, etc.) Particularly for the “epic” WSF, the saviors are male, heterosexual, and very masculine.
So what are the problems with these films? Well, they portray people of color as too desolate, too hopeless, too overcome by their own prejudices and circumstances to help themselves, so they need someone to help them. But not just anyone, no, this helper must be a White Savior. This Savior inspires the people of color, teaches them how to be a better them, and makes their lives better when the people of color couldn’t do it themselves. These films ignore the stories of people of color helping their own communities and helping themselves.
Hollywood, and many white people, eat these WSF up because white audiences can identify wanting to be the “savior” in POC’s lives, to be the one who rescues the poor POCs from their circumstances, to be the hero in their lives. They help alleviate feelings of white guilt by projecting white people not as the oppressors, but as the heroes who can save people of color from their circumstances, and often, the oppression that whites in the past have caused. Essentially, these films capitalize on the stories of people of color, yet instead of telling the film through their eyes, they are presented as stories of the white people who help them. The people of color in these films function as catalysts for the White Savior to learn his or her lessons and reach the end of his or her own journey.
* You’ve probably noticed that many of these films are inspired by true stories. People who defend WSF often bring up the fact that several of these are “based on a true story,” however, that doesn’t necessarily mean that all WSF are valid as a group. Rather, it shows that Hollywood has a greater interest in the stories of heroic white people saving people of color than stories of people of color helping their own communities or people of color helping white people out of bad situations. WSF stories are being used to support the status quo.
Is it racist to enjoy these films? No, it’s not. You can still watch these films and like them, but they are part of a trend that chooses to ignore the perspective of people of color, and feed into the White Savior Complex that really shows what Hollywood, and unfortunately, many white people have, so choose your films well and watch them carefully.
(Source: daughterofmulan)
![applesarefuckinghealthy:
feministdisney:
harlequin-f0rest:
Progressive Princesses
So, mostly due to Feminist Disney, I decided to sketch up some princesses that are needed in the Disney lineup. Not necessarily these girls, specifically, but the concept. Now, I realize I missed many issues that are important. These things, for one reason or another, I believed were unrealistic of me to expect from Disney.
Princesses teach a lot for young kids. Marketing of princesses is advertised towards girls from a very young age, and they are introduced to these role models through immensely popular Disney movies. Disney is getting more progressive with their inclusion of many different races, but much more can be done. It is important to have a large variety of princesses to make an impact on children’s lives and on their tolerance of other people.
As a note, I am not a professional artist by any sense of the word, so my anatomy leaves a lot to be desired. They all have very similar faces, which is also the fault of my flawed style. Sorry!
The princesses, listed in colours from left to right -
IndigoCountry: BrazilWhy she’s progressive: She is disabled. A beautiful girl gets into an accident and ends up in a wheelchair. She learns that having a physical or mental disability doesn’t change who you are or make you any less beautiful, which teaches young kids a similar lesson.
OrangeCountry: KenyaWhy she’s progressive: She faces discrimination because of the colour of her skin. While Disney has done similar things before, it was never the centre of the story. A coming-of-age story for a princess is rare, and would help kids understand why racial bias is nonsense.
PinkCountry: America (Sioux)Why she’s progressive: She’s overweight, bombarded by the media’s messages that she is fat. Within her realization that she is a beautiful person inside and outside, it teaches kids that everyone is beautiful, and that people come in all shapes and sizes. Being fat doesn’t make you any less beautiful.
RedCountry: NorwayWhy she’s progressive: She has alopecia totalis, or the lack of any body hair. Children with no hair for whatever reason can learn that not having any hair doesn’t make you any less beautiful, as this princess learns to shed her wig and love herself for who she is.
Light blueCountry: AmericaWhy she’s progressive: She is a feminist in a time of rampant misogyny. Trying to defy gender roles while telling young kids that not all feminists are crazy man-haters who run around and burn bras.
PurpleCountry: IrelandWhy she’s progressive: She is autistic. While she finds out who she is and learns that her autism doesn’t affect her personality, children learn that disorders aren’t anything to be afraid or embarrassed about.
GreenCountry: LaosWhy she’s progressive: She is a lesbian. While she grows up and finds her friends love to talk about boys, she is worried about being unable to relate. She begins to realize that she likes girls. And as she learns that being attracted to the same sex isn’t something to be ashamed of, kids are comforted knowing that whoever you are/aren’t attracted to, your real friends will always love you for who you are.
word, I like such a list! The only thing I would probably change in my own personal lineup, if I were to make one, is that I wouldn’t want the movies to focus on their “progressiveness” so much. Or maybe I would want a double list where all of this happens, and then all of it also happens with the focus just being on the storyline that is independent of their progressiveness. For example, “She learns that having a physical or mental disability doesn’t change who you are or make you any less beautiful.” It’s a good teaching moment but I feel like so many times that disabled characters appear in tv or in movies, it’s usually because someone wants to give us a teaching moment about real beauty- like the character isn’t allowed to exist unless it’s teaching us more abled people a lesson about life. I’d like one disabled princess to never doubt from the beginning that she is beautiful and disabled, and have doubts about something else. :)
yes, what feministdisney said. progressive disney princesses movies should have them have adventures whilst just happening to be poc, queer, disabled, etc. if your whole movie revolves around how they’re not *normal* you are still positioning them as the Other. and that is. not. progress.
also, i’m sorry, but all of your princesses are white as fuck. your kenyan princess looks white. that is not okay.
next: a feminist in the time of rampant misogyny? do you mean, like, NOW? i love me some movies about feminists from history but i feel like having a film like that risks giving off an idea that it’s all in the past. that women fought that battle and won and feminism is not needed anymore. obviously, not true.
also, autism ‘doesn’t affect your personality’? yes, it does, in very important ways. it looks like you haven’t educated yourself on this point at all, and that’s a shame. if you’re going to talk about something, you should first know what the hell you’re talking about, don’t you think?
finally, i know that compared to what disney princesses normally look like, your pink princess looks progressive, but honestly? i wouldn’t say she’s fat at all. she looks (ugh i hate using it but for lack of a better word) average. her cheeks and chin are thin, so are her arms. her waist is not big nor are her hips. she has a flat stomach. her breasts are small. i want an actual fat princess.
YES. Ditto the above. “children learn that disorders aren’t anything to be afraid or embarrassed about” is a nice enough sentiment, but applesarefuckinghealthy is right that “autism doesn’t affect her personality” deserves a big huge WTF. Also while I know “disorder” is the standard language for autism and related conditions, and plenty of people in the autistic community accept that term, there are also plenty more who don’t like autism to be viewed as a “disorder,” or at least not a disability in the sense that, say, being paralyzed would be. You might want to do some research on neurodiversity, FYI (or the deaf community, which has a similar stance).yeah and the fat princess is definitely not fat.
And another thing [warning, long rant ahead]:what the goddamn hell, y’all. Can we please get over this “beauty” thing? I seem to remember a time when the message was, “physical beauty doesn’t matter, what matters is what’s on the inside,” but nowadays the only message I’m hearing is “everyone is beautiful, no matter what they look like!”Um, I’m sorry, but no. Not everyone is beautiful, and no one is beautiful all the time. And you know what? THAT IS STILL OKAY. IT IS OKAY TO BE UGLY. THERE IS NO REASON WHY THAT SHOULD NOT BE OKAY. Somehow the backlash to our society’s obsession with judging people’s worth by their physical appearance has morphed into this weird hysterical denial that anyone ever in any situation is physically unattractive. And honestly, that is not any better.Now, I understand that it’s about empowering people in a beauty-obsessed culture to find worth in themselves, and I’m totally cool with that! Fat acceptance, body positivity, and similar movements are great, and no one should be excluded from feeling sexy and/or beautiful because of societal standards of beauty. No one should be able to tell anyone else that they aren’t beautiful, because if I feel beautiful right now, I’m fucking beautiful, and you can go stuff it. But if what we’re really about is freeing people from having their self-worth judged by their physical appearance, this does not address the root of the problem. Anyone should be able to feel beautiful and sexy, but people should ALSO be able to feel ugly and non-sexy and still feel good about themselves as people. And just expanding the definition of beauty to the point of meaninglessness is NOT going to do that.
Even the most stunningly gorgeous people have days where they feel like a mess. We all do. And there’s no reason why we should have to walk around on those days stewing in self-loathing because we don’t happen to feel beautiful that day.
And you know what else? You can still love your body even when you don’t feel beautiful. Your body is an awesome machine, the vehicle that moves you through the world, and you can appreciate it and love how you feel in it and take care of it without believing that it adheres to some vague and mystical standard of aesthetics.
And if you’re about to jump up and say, “but that’s what we mean by beauty! feeling good about yourself and your body no matter what you look like! we’re reclaiming the word!” well then sit right the fuck back down. Because, as many of the people I follow are fond of saying, words mean things. And the word “beauty” is WAY too tangled up now with damaging cultural trends and complicated, negative bullshit to be repurposed so casually. We’re not helping things by reclaiming “beauty,” we’re just muddying the waters, mixing up a lot of really good ideas and really great sentiments with a lot of really awful ones, and I think we’re rapidly losing sight of where the good stuff ends and the bad stuff begins. And I think that needs to stop.
So can we just drop the whole beauty thing now?](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxkns33nQz1qdf376o1_r1_500.jpg)
Progressive Princesses
So, mostly due to Feminist Disney, I decided to sketch up some princesses that are needed in the Disney lineup. Not necessarily these girls, specifically, but the concept. Now, I realize I missed many issues that are important. These things, for one reason or another, I believed were unrealistic of me to expect from Disney.
Princesses teach a lot for young kids. Marketing of princesses is advertised towards girls from a very young age, and they are introduced to these role models through immensely popular Disney movies. Disney is getting more progressive with their inclusion of many different races, but much more can be done. It is important to have a large variety of princesses to make an impact on children’s lives and on their tolerance of other people.
As a note, I am not a professional artist by any sense of the word, so my anatomy leaves a lot to be desired. They all have very similar faces, which is also the fault of my flawed style. Sorry!
The princesses, listed in colours from left to right -
Indigo
Country: Brazil
Why she’s progressive: She is disabled.
A beautiful girl gets into an accident and ends up in a wheelchair. She learns that having a physical or mental disability doesn’t change who you are or make you any less beautiful, which teaches young kids a similar lesson.Orange
Country: Kenya
Why she’s progressive: She faces discrimination because of the colour of her skin. While Disney has done similar things before, it was never the centre of the story. A coming-of-age story for a princess is rare, and would help kids understand why racial bias is nonsense.Pink
Country: America (Sioux)
Why she’s progressive: She’s overweight, bombarded by the media’s messages that she is fat. Within her realization that she is a beautiful person inside and outside, it teaches kids that everyone is beautiful, and that people come in all shapes and sizes. Being fat doesn’t make you any less beautiful.Red
Country: Norway
Why she’s progressive: She has alopecia totalis, or the lack of any body hair. Children with no hair for whatever reason can learn that not having any hair doesn’t make you any less beautiful, as this princess learns to shed her wig and love herself for who she is.Light blue
Country: America
Why she’s progressive: She is a feminist in a time of rampant misogyny. Trying to defy gender roles while telling young kids that not all feminists are crazy man-haters who run around and burn bras.Purple
Country: Ireland
Why she’s progressive: She is autistic. While she finds out who she is and learns that her autism doesn’t affect her personality, children learn that disorders aren’t anything to be afraid or embarrassed about.Green
Country: Laos
Why she’s progressive: She is a lesbian. While she grows up and finds her friends love to talk about boys, she is worried about being unable to relate. She begins to realize that she likes girls. And as she learns that being attracted to the same sex isn’t something to be ashamed of, kids are comforted knowing that whoever you are/aren’t attracted to, your real friends will always love you for who you are.word, I like such a list! The only thing I would probably change in my own personal lineup, if I were to make one, is that I wouldn’t want the movies to focus on their “progressiveness” so much. Or maybe I would want a double list where all of this happens, and then all of it also happens with the focus just being on the storyline that is independent of their progressiveness. For example, “She learns that having a physical or mental disability doesn’t change who you are or make you any less beautiful.” It’s a good teaching moment but I feel like so many times that disabled characters appear in tv or in movies, it’s usually because someone wants to give us a teaching moment about real beauty- like the character isn’t allowed to exist unless it’s teaching us more abled people a lesson about life. I’d like one disabled princess to never doubt from the beginning that she is beautiful and disabled, and have doubts about something else. :)
yes, what feministdisney said. progressive disney princesses movies should have them have adventures whilst just happening to be poc, queer, disabled, etc. if your whole movie revolves around how they’re not *normal* you are still positioning them as the Other. and that is. not. progress.
also, i’m sorry, but all of your princesses are white as fuck. your kenyan princess looks white. that is not okay.
next: a feminist in the time of rampant misogyny? do you mean, like, NOW? i love me some movies about feminists from history but i feel like having a film like that risks giving off an idea that it’s all in the past. that women fought that battle and won and feminism is not needed anymore. obviously, not true.
also, autism ‘doesn’t affect your personality’? yes, it does, in very important ways. it looks like you haven’t educated yourself on this point at all, and that’s a shame. if you’re going to talk about something, you should first know what the hell you’re talking about, don’t you think?
finally, i know that compared to what disney princesses normally look like, your pink princess looks progressive, but honestly? i wouldn’t say she’s fat at all. she looks (ugh i hate using it but for lack of a better word) average. her cheeks and chin are thin, so are her arms. her waist is not big nor are her hips. she has a flat stomach. her breasts are small. i want an actual fat princess.
YES. Ditto the above. “children learn that disorders aren’t anything to be afraid or embarrassed about” is a nice enough sentiment, but applesarefuckinghealthy is right that “autism doesn’t affect her personality” deserves a big huge WTF. Also while I know “disorder” is the standard language for autism and related conditions, and plenty of people in the autistic community accept that term, there are also plenty more who don’t like autism to be viewed as a “disorder,” or at least not a disability in the sense that, say, being paralyzed would be. You might want to do some research on neurodiversity, FYI (or the deaf community, which has a similar stance).
yeah and the fat princess is definitely not fat.
And another thing [warning, long rant ahead]:
what the goddamn hell, y’all. Can we please get over this “beauty” thing? I seem to remember a time when the message was, “physical beauty doesn’t matter, what matters is what’s on the inside,” but nowadays the only message I’m hearing is “everyone is beautiful, no matter what they look like!”
Um, I’m sorry, but no. Not everyone is beautiful, and no one is beautiful all the time. And you know what? THAT IS STILL OKAY. IT IS OKAY TO BE UGLY. THERE IS NO REASON WHY THAT SHOULD NOT BE OKAY. Somehow the backlash to our society’s obsession with judging people’s worth by their physical appearance has morphed into this weird hysterical denial that anyone ever in any situation is physically unattractive. And honestly, that is not any better.
Now, I understand that it’s about empowering people in a beauty-obsessed culture to find worth in themselves, and I’m totally cool with that! Fat acceptance, body positivity, and similar movements are great, and no one should be excluded from feeling sexy and/or beautiful because of societal standards of beauty. No one should be able to tell anyone else that they aren’t beautiful, because if I feel beautiful right now, I’m fucking beautiful, and you can go stuff it.
But if what we’re really about is freeing people from having their self-worth judged by their physical appearance, this does not address the root of the problem.
Anyone should be able to feel beautiful and sexy, but people should ALSO be able to feel ugly and non-sexy and still feel good about themselves as people. And just expanding the definition of beauty to the point of meaninglessness is NOT going to do that.
Even the most stunningly gorgeous people have days where they feel like a mess. We all do. And there’s no reason why we should have to walk around on those days stewing in self-loathing because we don’t happen to feel beautiful that day.
And you know what else? You can still love your body even when you don’t feel beautiful. Your body is an awesome machine, the vehicle that moves you through the world, and you can appreciate it and love how you feel in it and take care of it without believing that it adheres to some vague and mystical standard of aesthetics.
And if you’re about to jump up and say, “but that’s what we mean by beauty! feeling good about yourself and your body no matter what you look like! we’re reclaiming the word!” well then sit right the fuck back down. Because, as many of the people I follow are fond of saying, words mean things. And the word “beauty” is WAY too tangled up now with damaging cultural trends and complicated, negative bullshit to be repurposed so casually. We’re not helping things by reclaiming “beauty,” we’re just muddying the waters, mixing up a lot of really good ideas and really great sentiments with a lot of really awful ones, and I think we’re rapidly losing sight of where the good stuff ends and the bad stuff begins. And I think that needs to stop.
So can we just drop the whole beauty thing now?
(Source: peppermintdemon)
