Gender and Sexuality Representation in OOTS

[Cerlis]

Spoiler

Show

And in defence of slacktivism, change generally follows these steps;
1) The brave pioneers of the movement step forward.
2) The slacktivists like what they're doing and tag along on a smaller scale.
3) Progress.

Progress needs the silent lazy majority . Better a slacktivist than a... nontivist.

I'm not sure about this whole Slacktivist thing. I spend 12 hours a day at work 5 days a week and hopefully 8 hours sleeping every day.

Just cus i spend my one and a half days off recovering from work and using a handful of hours to have fun and enjoy my life, I cant voice my opinions on the internet?

Not sure how you got that. I've never denied that LGBTQ+ groups can happen, just that they're unlikely to form (at least before the Internet). ShadowKnight's experiences does not disprove me, because I've never claimed that they can't happen, just that they're rare.

Also, no they are not. Just like how when a republican meets another republican, a nerd meets a nerd, or a gay person meets another gay person (usually completely accidental) they tend to at least attempt to latch on to at least remain aquaintence status.

So i'm pretty sure that (with evidence being basically every single openly or semi openly gay person i've EVER met) they are not rare. Every single person has a high chance of forming a permanent connection with someone when they meet em. And then when you know someone you often meet the people they know.

This Literally. yes Literally, not figuratively means that there is a very high chance that if you know 2 or 3 gay people in my city, and you mention another and describe them well enough or use their full name, that they might know them.

That is the power of the social circle.

Comment i wrote before the Mod came spoilered ;)

--------------

I just wanted to say that i really liked the fact that the cop who said "sorry, i'm gay" was probably 30s to 40s, with a mustache and pretty rugged looking.

[lio45]

Can you actually name a single author that this has happened to? Not someone who sparked a wave of outrage; there are plenty of those. One whose career was actually ruined by being "painted as a hater."

FWIW, in those cases (if any) where an author's career was ruined,
we the public almost certainly never got to hear about him/her, precisely for that very reason...

(If a teenage sports player has been identified as having the potential to reach the major leagues and be one of the best of the best, but a stupid accident nips their (future) career in the bud at that point, that person will forever remain unknown of 99%+ the watching public of that sport. Same thing here.)

[Carry2]

FWIW, in those cases (if any) where an author's career was ruined,
we the public almost certainly never got to hear about him/her, precisely for that very reason...

It's very difficult to distinguish things-that-don't-leave-evidence-for-themselves from things-that-don't-exist, but the latter explanation is usually simpler.

[hamishspence]

FWIW, in those cases (if any) where an author's career was ruined,
we the public almost certainly never got to hear about him/her, precisely for that very reason...

I suppose a case could be made that Karen Traviss's career as a Star Wars writer ended up being ruined by her being painted as a "Jedi-hater".

[Yellow]

{scrubbed}

[Themrys]

4. It's also worth pointing out that many/most differences in gender roles are not really based on these physical differences anyway (in any immediate or proximate sense), but on long-term cultural mores and political realities. Maybe (probably?) these had their earliest roots in physical difference, but they quickly evolve to have little discernible connection with differences in capability.

This.
No society, ever, has kept women out of danger. Oh, certainly out of the way of danger where death would earn you fame, such as the military.
But dangerous work has always been done by women. Only upperclass women were ever considered fragile flowers, and their men didn't do that much hard work either.


Even in a non gender-equal society, semi-criminal freelance adventurers such as Haley are often women. There were quite a lot of female pirates.

And I somehow doubt that a halfling such as Belkar would, if he existed in real life, have even as much upper body strength as a human woman. He certainly wouldn't be stronger.

[Carry2]

And I somehow doubt that a halfling such as Belkar would, if he existed in real life, have even as much upper body strength as a human woman. He certainly wouldn't be stronger.

To be fair, halflings do get a STR penalty. I don't disagree about the idea of cultural mores persisting long past the point of usefulness, but I'm curious about the specific dangerous professions where women were equally represented. I mean, stereotypically, wouldn't fishing villages or mining towns have tended to keep the women at home?

EDIT: To be clear, that's not to say women got lighter or healthier work, but they did seem to be underrepresented- or more than usually so- in careers with a higher rate of fatal accidents. Most articles I can find seem to be behind paywalls, but there's an economic analysis on the subject of gender-based labour divisions here (including the points where they cease to make sense.) here's the short version.

[jere7my]

FWIW, in those cases (if any) where an author's career was ruined, we the public almost certainly never got to hear about him/her, precisely for that very reason...

I'm not sure this actually makes sense. First of all, it concedes the point that no established writer has ever had their career ruined by trying to include LGBT people, and I'm guessing that the LGBT community wouldn't mind timid writers waiting until their third or fourth story to start taking such "risks." Second, I thought we were talking about outcries from the LGBT community, not secret decisions by LGBT-sympathetic editors; by their nature, such things are public. Third, even unknown writers have blogs, and I haven't heard of any uproars from rejected writers. Finally, even if an unpublished writer were to claim that their career was stifled because of some LGBT crackdown, I would take that with a grain of salt; rejected authors are rarely given detailed reasons for the rejection, so some of them come up with paranoid explanations. ("You won't publish me because I know the truth about JFK!" Seriously.)

I know a few editors and publishers, and I've never heard one say they rejected a story because the author tried to include LGBT characters. They might reject a story because they did it badly, but they might reject a story because anything is done badly. There's no secret blacklist of authors who ham-handedly handle LGBT issues. Submitting a homophobic rant might get you remembered in the bad way, but that's not what we're talking about here.

I understand the fear. I do. Fledgling authors are afraid that the wrong font size or paper weight will get their story rejected; it's even scarier to deal with politically sensitive issues. Even well-intentioned errors might be met with a storm of internet outrage—but if you listen to the criticism, sincerely apologize, and improve, nobody's going to blacklist you or boycott you. If someone still storms off in a huff, well, someone else will be pleased you made the attempt.

It takes courage to put your work in front of people, whatever you're writing about.

[lio45]

In life, the average male human is stronger, faster, and has a lower body-fat content than the average female human.

Sure, but that's not something we can say in this thread any more. (The post you were replying to was made before the subject was declared off-limits.)

Regarding the points you made, they've already been made and countered, to the point that there's probably nothing new to say on that particular subtopic. This is a discussion forum and you're quoting me in your post, so I'm really sorry that I can't engage in a friendly discussion with you to expand on those four points, but there has been a clear line drawn in the sand already by the sandbox owner.

This.
No society, ever, has kept women out of danger. Oh, certainly out of the way of danger where death would earn you fame, such as the military.
But dangerous work has always been done by women. Only upperclass women were ever considered fragile flowers, and their men didn't do that much hard work either.

What type of work can possibly be as dangerous as military work? You're basically conceding our point, there...

[jere7my]

What type of work can possibly be as dangerous as military work? You're basically conceding our point, there...

Childbirth.

[lio45]

First of all, it concedes the point that no established writer has ever had their career ruined by trying to include LGBT people...

Of course it does; if we knew a documented case, it would have been mentioned already. (Hence the reason I explicitely said "if any".)

[blauregen]

Yes, but that's not really the main problem. The main problem is that such depictions are the ONLY depictions we get. Whenever you see two gay guys or two lesbians in a form of media, they're always stereotyped to hell and back, and their relationship is always portrayed heteronormatively.

It may be my perception bias, but I see stereotypes quite often subverted or balanced. Leaving aside the rather unconspicious portrayals like the guys in Brokeback Mountain or Jack Harkness in Torchwood, and focusing on characters with stereotypical traits, that aren't just one-off-jokes, memorable examples would be this Detective in Boondock Saints, who despite playing around with a pink feather boa and infiltrating in drag, subverts this trope easily in dialogue and behavior otherwise. Or Loras Tyrell in A Song of Ice and Fire, who despite flaming all over the place, happens to be not only one of the best fighters in the whole book, but also as competently scheming and manipulative as all the others engaging in the local power play. Or to switch to transgender-comedy, Bernadette from Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, who somehow over all the HRT, SRS and passing, didn't forget how to drink someone under the table or throw a punch. If I remember my stereotypes right, they should have been distressed damsels and wait for some dude to rescue them.

But ok, couples: Jack and Ianto? Renly and Loras? Willow and Tara? Mitchell and Cameron? I really don't see much heteronormative stereotyping there.

I'm not saying that gay characters can't be like this or like that. What I'm saying is that there is very little interest in people actually learning what's "the real deal" in these sort of circumstances. Authors, instead of doing their proper research, they go by stereotypes and heteronormativity. Sure, there are plenty of couples that are heteronormative to some degree or another, but there are just as many that aren't heteronormative at all.

Of couse, heteronormativity is a big part of our socialisation. I am a good example myself. If I put on my shipping goggles, part of my consideration is always who of the prospective couple would be more likely to be in the lead in areas of equal expertise, who would be more likely to be protective and who would have an easier time and more fun to submit. So, in terms of heteronormative genderroles, you could construe this as actually asking who would be the girl.

But I am not sure whether this is unrealistic or even that harmful, because fluctuating power dynamics are important in fiction as in life, and unless someone writes a lame TPE-scenario, they will fluctuate, and carry imbalances (which are often important to plot points. ) I imagine it would be quiet difficult to write a completely balanced relationship and keep it interresting.

Good characters ( and most people in real life ) are multifacetted. Roy Greenhilt is not just a fighter, he has an MBA, which puts a twist on his strategies that defy the stereotype. Haley is not simply a stereotypical rogue, she not only has trust issues, she is also deeply caring about her dad, to the point that she blatantly lies to make him less unhappy. And depending on the situation different facets come to the front, and the power balance shifts. Similarly a well written gay character, even if he follows some stereotype wouldn't be defined solely by those. Unless of course the point of the exercise was to write a character who is obsessed with being a gay stereotype.

It's still a topic of third-wave feminism, though not focused from the same lense. I frequent some feminist blogs, and they're all livid with rage at 50 Shades for romanticising and supporting misogyny, abuse and rape, despite the fact that it was a "romance" book written by a woman, and aimed primarily at women.

Still? I thought it was a rather shortlived controversy whether it was sex-positive or demeaning, but I admittedly don't read feminist blogs.

The problem with doing so is that it becomes universal and normative even when it's not outwardly stated to be so. If almost every story portrays same-sex relationships the same way, it becomes a silently stated universal norm.

I just do not see this problem outside of erotica in the last decade or so. Neither with gay nor with straight couples.

[Carry2]

What type of work can possibly be as dangerous as military work? You're basically conceding our point, there...

Childbirth.

I think I covered this a few posts back, but I should mention that hunter-gatherer societies often have adult male mortality rates of 15-to-60%, due primarily to hunting, warfare, or internal disputes. Childbirth is risky, but not that risky.

EDIT: I'm getting sidetracked again. Uh... this may have something to do with Boris Vallejo.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Locked for review.