- This topic has 68 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
At the same time I’d love to see some Native representation on the show.
Honestly, they could have cast Inuit actors for the Frozen crew and it would have been awesome. But they didn’t. Bleh.
I remember around the time of Frozen people posted links to Inuit-made films about their own folklore, and they were meant to be really good. It’s not as if good minority actors don’t exist and it’s kinda racist when people pull the “best person for the job thing”. Remember minorities have to be extra competetive anyway.
[adrotate group="5"]I don't cause commotions, I am one.
At the same time I’d love to see some Native representation on the show. Honestly, they could have cast Inuit actors for the Frozen crew and it would have been awesome. But they didn’t. Bleh. I remember around the time of Frozen people posted links to Inuit-made films about their own folklore, and they were meant to be really good. It’s not as if good minority actors don’t exist and it’s kinda racist when people pull the “best person for the job thing”. Remember minorities have to be extra competetive anyway.
Probably because Arendelle is specifically based on Norwegian culture, and they wanted to stay true to the Frozen characters. Also, Arendelle is not covered in ice and snow year-round. It was Elsa that threatened the kingdom an eternal winter, after all.
At the same time I’d love to see some Native representation on the show.
Bit OT but I’d love to have any other racial representation (and have them not be evil and survive past one episode)
But yeah, Pocahontas is hard because she married an Englishman.
I mentioned two Valkyries a page or so back–what do we think about that one?
Anything from African mythology–not my area so I can’t think of anyone outside of Anasazi.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"At the same time I’d love to see some Native representation on the show.
Bit OT but I’d love to have any other racial representation (and have them not be evil and survive past one episode)
But yeah, Pocahontas is hard because she married an Englishman.
I mentioned two Valkyries a page or so back–what do we think about that one?
Anything from African mythology–not my area so I can’t think of anyone outside of Anasazi.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Technically at least some of the characters from Frozen should be Saami especially if they’re using the new character to tie it to the original Snow Queen tale(which is a good idea IMO and the only other valid reason to do Frozen aside from exploring Elsa as lesbian or asexual). Saami and Inuits share a common genetic lineage and some cultural similarities. It’s actually white washing to cast all white characters for the Frozen characters anyway, as Kristoff is clearly based off a Saami Reindeer herder(though somewhat offensively) and word of god is that he is.
I don't cause commotions, I am one.
Hmn…. So hows about we just move on? Like RG said, this exact conversation is what got the other queery tale thread shut down >> lets learn from our mistakes, dearies. Moving on. WHO ELSE DO YOU GUYS THINK WOULD MAKE A NICE QUEER PAIRING IN SB?
A sudden thought…. Edna Mode and Cruella De Ville. Think about it.
That Gif is strangely hypnotic LOL.
As for other queer pairings, What about Archie and Roger from 101 Dalmations? Archie already has Pongo, Roger could have Perdita?
Your saying it’s wrong to assume a character is straight unless shown otherwise, but isn’t it equally wrong to assume a character is gay unless shown otherwise? For example:
I think the overall point is don’t assume anything about a character–straight, gay, bi, pan…
Nobody questions a character’s sexuality until topics like this come up which makes people question a character’s sexuality. You don’t watch scenes with Archie and wonder about his sexuality but on topics such as “who would make a good queer pairing” then obviously you’re going to start looking for characters that can fit that criteria.
Can we just stop using the heteronormative label. You don’t like the crack label, I don’t like the heteronormative label.
No. It describes a valid social phenomenon that oppresses a marginalised group.
And Crack is used to describe a ship that isn’t canon. It’s a valid term within the fandom. SwanQueen is a crackship. CharmingWolf is a crack ship. FrankenWolf is a crackship, etc etc.
And please do not tell queer people what language they can use to describe their issues.
Please don’t tell me what language to use to describe non-canon ships.
It’s not to do with my personal disagreement with you and you’re making light of the oppression faced by LGBTQ people to make this about you or pull a false equivalence where potentially homophobic ones are held on the same level as inclusive ones. If you’re reading this, pick out the term “Homophobic” and immediately get reactionary and say “I’m not homophobic! How dare you!” – stop, listen, and rethink. That’s not what’s being said and even if it was, some people ARE homophobic or say homophobic things, and need to be called out on them.
You’ve contradicted yourself here.
Just because you have an image of yourself as perfectly tolerant does not make it so. It was incredibly homophobic of you for example to wish there was no queer ship in OUAT just to spite Swanqueen, i.e. Queer shippers. It was hateful towards a subset of queer people. It was plainly homophobic.
Just because you have an image of yourself as unfairly treated does not make it so. You need to take the shipper goggles off. You’re trying to make out that I have a thing against “queer people”. That’s not true. That post which you blew out of proportion and out of context was criticising a group of FANS about how they were treating the actors and actresses of Once. It had NOTHING to do with whether those fans were queer or not. YOU are the one who made a big deal about it by seeing it as a generalisation then criticised others for not agreeing with your view.
Also you seem to be associating SQ with queer shippers. What about the shippers who ship SQ that aren’t queer or the queer shippers that don’t ship SQ? Being against SwanQueen doesn’t make you against queer shippers.
When you get upset over accusations like this, you are basically saying my personal discomfort at being called out on being oppressive is vastly more important than actual oppression. The needs and difficulties of queer people should take a backseat to my having of a clean image. When someone accuses you of being homophobic, racist or otherwise oppressive – you listen, acknowledge, and apologise.
Being accused of being something you’re not is something worth getting upset over. It’s defamation of character. You don’t apologise to someone trying to paint a false negative image of you. Mud sticks, you don’t want to be associated with negative connotations.
But you can’t demand an oppressed group view you as a good person when you refuse to act like one.
You wish for the label to be dropped because you do not wish for a negative label to assigned for you. I would suggest instead you look at it this way – I am not queer, I do not have much experience talking about these issues. What if, due to a lack of first hand experience of information, I could be mistaken, and there is a bias in my thinking that needs correcting?
I would suggest you get off your soapbox and actually try and have a civil conversation with people instead of constantly patronising them.
These labels exist to describe real issues. Asking for us not to use it because it vaguely bothers you, when the lack of the word would mean we can’t describe a form of oppression experienced by homo/bisexual people is extremely privileged. The term heteronormativity is not an attack on you personally anymore than “patriarchy” is an attack on all men. It describes a system where straight is the assumed default and an unreasonable burden of effort is placed on homosexual depictions to even get a foot in.
When every response is basically answered with “no you’re wrong, you’re just being heteronormative” then that label is being used negatively. You’re not using it to describe a form of oppression or a system, you’re using it to basically say “you’re wrong, I’m right, so there”. How would you feel if instead of someone using “heteronormative” at you, they use “SQ shipper”. For example, things like:
“you’re just being an SQ shipper”
“Your view is very SQ shipper”
“You should do this, this and this, because at the moment you’re being very SQ shipper”
“You’re wrong, I’m right because you’re thinking is SQ shipper”One thing I’d ask is that non-LGBTQ people respect the terminology being used by LGBTQ people. This is a big part of ending oppression. I am not attacking anyone with this. I’m just calling out things that are being said, which are hurtful and oppressive towards a group that is still far from full equality. Please respect that.
Please respect the fact that other people have different views and opinions than yours and that assigning negative labels to them just because they don’t agree with you is in no way justified.
As for assuming a character is straight unless shown otherwise, why can’t we think of a character however we want until shown evidence to the contrary? There is nothing wrong with that. People have their own views and opinions that are just as valid as someone else’s. Neither opinion is wrong until evidence is presented otherwise.
But you do not require evidence to assume for example, Regina and Emma are straight. Yet someone this is used to rule out Swanqueen constantly.
It’s only brought up because the two characters have history of dating men and the question is would Emma and Regina get together romantically.
It is heteronormativity and the reason you are sick of hearing that is that you don’t want to rethink your argument and how it affects others. It’s wrong, and I’d ask you to please consider changing your perspective. And please stop pushing the false equality of “just as valid”. Queer shippers do not get the same voice in the fandom(or society) that you guys do. You’re making the assumption there’s a level playing field. There’s not. Pretending everyone’s equal doesn’t fix that. You need to acknowledge that some form of oppression of oppression/exclusion/erasure is taking place and give queer people the space to talk about it. Many people have this idea that not seeing sexuality, not seeing race etc. and not bringing it up is the only way to be equal. This is completely incorrect and extremely historically ignorant. It’s what people say when they don’t want to think about being part of an oppressive institution. It’s rarely someone like me that says it.
So what you’re saying is that that the opinion of people who don’t agree with you isn’t as valid as your opinion?
It shouldn’t be a case of “that person is LGBT therefore their opinion is much more important than a non-LGBT person” Likewise, it shouldn’t be a case of “that person is non-LGBT therefore their opinion is much more important than a LGBT person”. The same goes for race, gender, etc. EVERYONE’S opinion is just as valid as everybody else’s. Everyone is equal regardless of their sexuality, gender, race, etc.
We’ve seen Ruby showing an interest in men so it’s reasonable to say she probably likes men. That’s not to say she can’t like women.
Then stop demanding evidence that she is. There is something wrong with “assuming” characters are straight because the practice of straight until proven otherwise is a big part of why queer people have been utterly erased or silenced in certain sections of the media.
Nobody is assuming. Ruby has been shown to show an interest in men. That’s a fact. As I said in the above quote That’s not to say she can’t like women. When the question is Who would be a good queer pairing? then you start trying to find characters that are more likely to be taken down that route. So for example, Snow wouldn’t likely be taken down that route because for the past 3 seasons she’s been shown to be in a loving relationship with Charming.
It would be wrong to assume Archie is straight just because he hasn’t been seen with a man romantically. It would be EQUALLY wrong to assume Archie is gay just because he hasn’t been seen with a woman romantically.
Demanding that queer people prove their case to you is gross and oppressive and taking offence to being called out on it is wrong. I’m just telling you, nicely, as a queer person who has a lot of knowledge on this subject, the way you’re going about this is hurtful, and reminding you that you speak as a position of privilege. If you get upset about this argument, you can walk away from it. If people decide to get tone policey, we can’t have this discussion at all while you can go back to your CaptainSwan or OutlawQueen thread. We cannot walk away from a lack of representation in the media and how OUAT has failed minorities pretty badly. We cannot enjoy the show in the same way you do. Please respect that and you will be shown respect in kind.
I’m not “demanding” anything, you are. If you feel so strongly about this issue, why don’t you tweet A&E on Twitter or any of the writers. Why don’t you write a letter to your local politician about the lack of representation on TV if you want to take it beyond Once.
Also you are not telling me “nicely”. You are being exceptionally patronising.
All magic comes with a price!
Keeper of FelixRedirection of thread:
More LGBTQ couples you’d like to see on ONCE, using characters already established or not established–Disney or otherwise. Also, what sort of stories would you write for them?
Tinkerbell and Mulan would be an interesting couple. They both lived in male dominated environments for a while (Tink in Neverland and Mulan in the army), they both know a person close to Rumple (Mulan knew Belle from the Outsider, Tink knew Baelfire from Neverland). They both have similar attitudes in wanting to help those that need help.
All magic comes with a price!
Keeper of Felix[Mod]
Alright, this thread is going sour very quickly. I hesitate to to do this because I do like the overall conversation. I think it’s an important one for the show and for society at large. But this is the second time now we’ve tried this, and the second time where it’s gotten a bit too personal attack-like. I’m going to go ahead and close for now while Daniel, Matt and I try to figure out where to go from here
[Mod]
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Everyone presented some legitimate points worth discussing, but it’s no longer on Crystal Princess’s original topic. RumplesGirl is right that this seemed like a creative conversation that could have continued, but I have decided that we need to close it in order to keep things civil.
However, I have decided that this thread will remain visible and readable for the benefit of anyone seeking other ideas and perspectives on these points.
The topic ‘So, chances of queer romance in S4, and with who?’ is closed to new replies.