babilu

INSERT HUGE RANT ABOUT ETHNOCENTRISM. I lost the will for it half-way between all the comments.

I am still planning a huge post about heteronormativity and m/m in fandom, primarily LJ. SOB, IT WILL TAKE FOREVER. Someone would like to help, y/n? :>

P.S. An anon pointed out to me one of my tags was "next exit: fucktardistan." Sorry for being a jackhole, guys. You learn and keep going.

So! I have new friends, and obviously, this is a great excuse to post pictures about my little babies. Especially since I regret deleting posts about them when they are were first born. ...which makes it sound like I have children. I do; they are just...very furry. And have tails.



That picture does not accurately show how many rats I have. Let me tell you: thirteen. I adore each and every one but alas, even a mother is prone to favoritism...

Anyway, the number of rats I have was a complete accident (I swear it — don't listen to my mom); I bought two females from a pet store — surprise! One was pregnant; she gave birth to eleven alien-looking, hairless children. One, Toffee, died very young, and I still do not know the sex or cause of death. My favorite, Toulouse, was the runt of the litter; he died of a brain infection.

I'm sure some whiz kids are realizing the math is wrong here. My mother and step-dad in all their GENIUS bought two more female rats about sevenish months later ("because it's not that much more money to our budget"). They are, affectionately, known as the evil step-children; one of them had a biting problem (she bit her owner, a handler, and a little girl in the pet store; apparently, the latter of these aggressions resulted in a lot of blood). Had, being the key word. She, also, bit me the first time I attempted to handle her; it took me a while to come around, but she is actually one of my favorites now.

Okay, I'll shut up, so everyone can gawk at rats as pets. Or just the number of how many I have.

( Ratty tatty pics! )

AKA CUT THE SHIT, STRAIGHT PEOPLE

Once upon a time, a post was linked on metafandom because there are always posts being linked on metafandom. Now, metafandom is a Land of Plenty and Kingdom of Good — fairies and sparkles. Unicorns, too! In this Kingdom of Good, metafandom citizens are kind and good people; they believe in equality, and that includes LGBTQA (Lesbian Gay Bi Trans Queer Asexual) representation.

But sometimes, metafandom is invaded by evil. One of these horrible evils was promoting LGBTQA representation through fanon OTPs. But, how you ask, can that be horrible and evil! How? It is exploitative; that's how. By promoting representation through your OTP, you are seeking your romantic and or sexual fantasy be catered to you — not that people be seen as equal, normal, and well-represented.

"But but but —!" you begin. You're only seeking to argue that a work is heteronormative or even homophobic because it refuses to see the same subtext as you. How is that exploitative? "Arguing heteronormativity is good, O Wise Storyteller!" you shout.

Of course it is! But it is not good when you use two persons, that when in a non-canon relationship, titillate your personal fancies. For one, they are titillating you, and you are seeking that they canonly titillate you; that is not fair or right to the LGBTQA, who simply want to see themselves and their sexuality (their sexuality which is not unnatural, wrong, and too "adult" for children) represented. Secondly, there are many modern and recent works that are at your fingertips to argue heteronormativity and homophobia. Here, let this Wise Storyteller give you an argument:

Many of you are familiar with House; it's common to argue that, by not making House/Wilson a canon pairing, the writers are heteronormative and homophobic. Really now? Regardless of how you may see House's and Wilson's sexuality, there are many things that take place in series for you to analyze and, thus, use to argue heteronormativity and homophobia.

Let's start with the fourth episode of season one, "Maternity." Several newborn infants are suffering from an unknown illness; notably, a couple is two women. Lesbians? Bisexuals? Either? Maybe one is asexual, even! Who knows — the point is there is a same-sex couple representing. That is fantastic; what is not fantastic is their son is one of two infants used as an experiment, and which infant dies as a result from this experiment? Yes, the infant that belongs to a same-sex couple. Oh, even better! They should be happy their son saved other infants' lives — as if that softens the blow and eases the grieving process of two parents. As if a noble death makes stuffing a same-sex couple's infant into the fridge okay.

Am I not convincing you yet? Let's try "Hunting," the first episode of season two. The patient is a gay man. Hurray! No, wait — hold onto that. He is suffering AIDs (a legitimate concern for men that sleep with other men but possibly stereotypical these days), but as a result of his AIDs, he lives up life, partying and doing drugs; he swears he's happy with his life, even though the writers are forcing his character to fit into a neat, little box labeled STEREOTYPE. Even better? He is a liar — he is a miserable, little boy. Because if you are a man that enjoys sleeping with other men (as well as attending parties)? There is no way you are happy.

Oh, how about the eighteenth episode of the season two? Yet again, we are graced another same-sex couple (out of how many opposite-sex couples so far?). The patient of this couple is ill with the Bubonic Plague and as a result, has acute liver failure. Her partner, lovingly, offers she be the donor to save her dying girlfriend. But wait! This isn't simply love; this is manipulation for love — as in, an unhealthy turn for this relationship. She is donating her liver to guilt her partner into staying in the relationship, as she is aware her partner was going to leave her.

And these examples? Were long before the fourth season, which gave us Dr. Remy "Thirteen" Hadley. How is she an example, you ask? After all, she is bisexual, and we see her in bed with men and women. That is representation, is it not? Naturally, it is!

But there is a problem with Remy's sexual encounters with the same sex, which illustrate her preferences to us. You see, the writers bestow Remy with her own character arc; in that arc, she discovers she is positive for Huntington's Disease and is, understandably, upset. So upset in fact, she becomes self-destructive: she parties and does, of course, drugs. (Does this sound familiar? It should; it is a common stereotype, too, for bisexuals.) On top of this, she has one night stands with other women; it is possible there are, too, men — but we never see her sleep with men.

Why is that? Well, a large part of heteronormativity (and homophobia) traces back to sexism. See, Remy sleeps with only women (or is shown sleeping with only women) in one night stands because women, by society's standards, are disposable. Therefore, why should she seek one night stands with men? They aren't the disposable sex — and besides, if she sleeps with men, too? Well then, she's just a dirty slut that has stopped being atheistically pleasing to other men. We have two sexist thoughts there: one, a woman that sleeps with many men is a slut; and two, women having sex with other women is pure, aesthetically beautiful, and mostly, are for men to enjoy at.

Not only do we have these sexist mentalities being applied to Remy but there is another closed-minded opinion at work here: (women) bisexuals are not really bisexual. Sometimes, this means they only sleep with women to say they do, to please men, and in Remy's case, only sleeps with women for short (and normally) unhealthy relationships. The writers' interpretation of Remy's bisexuality means, as far as ~carnal pleasure~ is concerned, yes, she is bisexual — but, romantically, she is not.

After she is mentally and emotionally better, she begins a relationship with her coworker, Dr. Eric Foreman. This relationship is happy and healthy; obviously, bisexual women can only be in long-term, healthy relationships with men. Oh, and even better? We are shown, in season six, she describes her same sex encounters to her boyfriend to make him feel better, to sexually please him; obviously, women sleeping with other women is for men, not for those women sleeping together.

Now, then. Do you really want to use House/Wilson as your proof? Have you learned, now, to use actual heteornormative and homophobic characterization?