The Cutprice Guignol

The Ninth Year: The Haunting of Swill House

Category: Discussion

May 15, 2015

“I Don’t Like Labels!”: TV’s Problem with the Word “Bisexual”

TV, we need to talk. Because, between my job (which involves writing about you) and my hobbies (which involve watching far more than the daily recommended allowance of you), you’re a big part of my life. And you’ve started getting me pretty pissed in the last few months.

Ever since I wrote a blog post coming out as bisexual to the internet (which responded with a shrugging “huh” as I put the Scissor Sisters on an endless loop and filled my flat with rainbow confetti), the way I look at my sexuality has changed. I feel confident identifying myself as LGBT, even though I used to shy away from the label; I’ve had long, productive discussions with people from all bits of the sexuality spectrum about sexuality, gender, and attraction; for probably the first time, I’m confident in challenging people on their insidious biphobia, and I’m 100% certain in yes, this is what I am, and it’s great and it makes me happy that the people close to me recognise that.

So TV, I came to you with my rainbow patches sewn on to my messenger bag(s), and I was finally on the lookout for bisexual characters on TV. And I was disappointed. I’ve written about bi-erasure in TV and movies before, but it was watching an episode of Arrow that really hammered home for me a particular bugbear in the way we depict and talk about apparently bisexual people on TV.

I’ve been dipping in and out of Arrow since season one, but I’m back on board now, and I discovered, to my delight, that one of their major characters-the original Black Canary- had been in a relationship with a woman, and had also had romantic entanglements with men. “Great!” thought I, “an intelligent, powerful, cool character who isn’t a) a vampire (seriously, so many vampires are bisexual that I think I might well be a blood-sucking minion of the undead myself) or b) outlandishly promiscuous, and identifies as bisexual!”.

But, then, of course, I had to go ruin it by looking up what the people behind this revelation had said about her sexuality. The producers had this to say on the matter:

“…we really wanted to approach it like not be salacious, and be sensitive, and be realistic. We actually specifically avoid using the term ‘bisexual.’ We didn’t want to label her at all. Let her be her own person. If the audience wants to label, fine, but we wanted to not make it like it’s that specific.”

Aside from the irritating re-iteration of the “my characters are out of my hands” trope (if you’re creating them, then no, you are entirely accountable for their actions), and the fact that they, inadvertently or not, described bisexuality as “salacious”, I finally managed to put my finger on why this bothered me so much: it’s the “We don’t like labels” line.

Now, let me be clear: if you’re a person who exists in real life and prefers not to label your sexuality, that’s great. I don’t deny that you exist, and you’re welcome to define your sexuality however you see fit.  The reason this really gets under my skin is because, time and time again, I see characters acting in an explicitly bisexual way- ie, having romantic and/or sexual relationships with both genders- only to be described as simply “not liking labels”. Take Brittany in Glee- described as “fluid” or “queer” throughout the show’s run, the writers continually use bisexual as a stand-in for a confused gay person (see also: this rant). Then there’s the straight/gay characters who have a dalliance with people/persons not of their preferred gender, with the word “bisexual” not even whispered in the next room. Sex and the City’s Samantha has an intense emotional and sexual relationship with a woman after consistently sleeping with men, and that part of her life is simply referred to as “When I was a lesbian…”. In Sherlock, Irene Adler is described solely as a lesbian, even though she admits to having strong feelings for the titular character (then, maybe we’ve got Mark “I think a lot of people who say they are bisexual aren’t” Gatiss to thank for that). The Buffyverse has a handful of examples where someone seems like they could be bisexual, only for the option to not even be considered (Willow, and, later, Buffy, to name a couple). Maybe the most prominent bisexual character on TV, Piper, from Orange is the New Black, is only referred to as bisexual one in the show’s whole run, with characters generally just outright calling her straight or gay. Fox nixed an arc for Marissa in The OC where she came out as bisexual, after one fling with a woman. Then, of course, you’ve got the people who experimented in college, but are now firmly straight and only look at it as a phase; you’ve got the Sweeps Week Lesbian Kiss, you’ve got more tropes than you could count where people act in a way that seems to fit with the term “bisexual” but continually skate around the term.  I could go on and on and on and on and on here: if you don’t believe me, take a look at TV Tropes page for No Bisexuals. 

I’m not demanding that every person who has a single flirtation with both genders must instantly be embroidered with a scarlet “B”. I know people who’ve had relationships with both genders, who define themselves as gay or straight, and that’s cool. And I know people who’ve had relationships with both genders, who do identify as bisexual, and, like me, a lot of them are flapping their arms around going “where am I?” when they watch television. We choose to identify ourselves as something, then being blasted by pop culture which tells us that no, we’re just straight and lying or gay and lying. It’s a weird thing, to watch someone who acts like you act, who is attracted to the same spectrum of people you’re attracted too, and then be told time and time again “no, this isn’t you, and if you think it is, you’re wrong”. Considering the number of people who do happily identify as bisexual, constantly skirting the use of using that word is to deny the existence of that community to some extent.  When even the National LGBTQ Taskforce is publishing articles- on Bisexual Pride Day, no less!- encouraging bi-identifying people to drop that label and go with queer instead, it would be nice to have somewhere that embraced the word for what it was- a way of identifying and naming a common sexuality, a word that many people use to describe themselves. And it’s not just bisexuals: pansexuals, asexuals, basically anyone who falls outside of the mono-sexual binary basically doesn’t exist on TV.

So what the hell is TV’s problem with the word “bisexual”? They’ve obviously got no issue calling people straight or gay when they act in a way that stereotypically fits what we define as “straight” or “gay”. And I wouldn’t mind the odd character having a dalliance with someone outside their preferred gender, only to decide it’s not for them. But when it comes to “not liking labels”, the only label that TV writers seem to have a real problem with is bisexual.

If you like my work, please consider supporting me on Patreon!

2 Comments
April 27, 2015

Let’s Talk About Rape on TV

Right, before I begin, I’m going to put a big fat Trigger Warning here for discussions or rape and sexual assault. Last chance to bail.

Right, okay, so I was catching up on the new series of Orphan Black last night, and I was enjoying it for being the stridently feminist, utterly ridiculous slice of sci-fi entertainment that I love so much. Then, at the beginning of the second episode, a sexual assault happened. I don’t want to give spoilers as this episode’s pretty recent, but suffice to say that a situation where consensual sex was happening was very quickly turned into one where one party had not agreed to the acts being initiated, and her lack of consent was ignored and caused further violence. The episode cuts to the next day, where the woman has reported her assault to the police and ducks into a cab, never to be seen again.

I’ve had huge, huge problems with the way that television portrays rape and sexual assault for a long time now, because so many shows have no clue as to how to depict them in a respectful way. For example, like the Orphan Black example above, The victim asks if she can have some kind of police protection, voicing her concern that the perpetrators will return and attempt to attack her again, then her violent assault basically is forgotten about so that the characters can focus on how her assault affects their story. The modestly feminist teen show Reign- about Mary, Queen of Scots- did it too, with the writer claiming that having her lead character get violently raped would lead to interesting character development for….Mary’s husband. Vikings has done it, when of their lead cast members was shown violently raping a woman to underline how bad he was. The Walking Dead rounded off last season with a domestic abuse storyline that was there to push forward Rick’s plot. Game of Thrones did it several times in the three seasons that I watched before ragequitting. These are just a few examples, and I’m sure you can think of many more off the top of your head.

And then, of course, you’ve got the other side of portraying rape; when a powerful female character is disempowered through rape or sexually assault. Game of Thrones did this with Cercei (and, more disturbingly, were reluctant to acknowledge that a scene in which a person says “no” to sex was actually rape); Sons of Anarchy did it with Gemma. Elizabeth in The Americans, Robin in Top of the Lake, Clare in House of Cards, even, arguably, Lagertha in Vikings, who is an immensley powerful character, is sexually assaulted. I’ve never quite got my head around why this is such a persistent trope- that when a strong, well-written, powerful female character gets a couple of series in, she’s often the victim of rape or assault. There’s a lot of arguments to be made for the reasons behind it, whether it’s an attempt to soften the hard edges of strong women to make them more palatable and pliable to viewers, that rape presents a shorthand for an interesting, emotional plot that is bizarrely specific to women (and therefore also erasing male assault and rape victims), that it’s a quick way to get across the fact that your show is edgy and adult. Whatever the reason, what I’m trying to say is that television- even television with great female characters- has real trouble depicting sexual assault and rape. Not just because they often seem to be employing it for the wrong reasons, but because they often refuse to acknowledge the effect that kind of event can have on someone’s life- rape, after all, can have a devastating impact on the lives of victims, as well as the nightmare many victims face trying to get justice.

So, television is bad at portraying rape and sexual assault. Television’s not meant to be real, so it’s no big deal, right? The problem is that we, as a society, have no fucking clue how to address rape and sexual assault. Whatever the gender of the victim, tacit victim blaming (what were you wearing? Had you been drinking? Were you leading them on? How much do you masturbate?) is a classic feature of the way we treat survivors of crimes like these. And that’s utter bullshit, and it makes me so angry that I can’t think straight. Every time a show fails to realistically portray rape and the impact it has on it’s victims, it’s missing out on the chance to fix something that the media is catastrophically failing at- whether it’s a Fox News anchor mourning the “poor boys” who had been convicted of the gang rape of an unconscious girl, or a talk show guest explaining the difference between date rape and, y’know, “real” rape. Television is pushing boundaries all over the place, taking on things that the rest of the media wouldn’t go near, and has some of the most grown-up, respectful, and interesting stories and characters you’ll find anywhere in fiction. But writers and directors are still flinching coming out of the gate in the way they portray rape- by othering it, by making it something that wouldn’t happen to someone like you, by refusing to show the impact it has on the lives of survivors. Come on, TV, don’t fail me now- you can do this, and more importantly, you should.

Leave a comment
April 16, 2015

I Don’t Care If You’re A Feminist

You know something that really pisses me off? The whole “Do you believe in gender equality? Then you’re a feminist” angle. Now, I’m a feminist myself, and I reckon we need to re-evaluate the way we define feminists, and why we feel the need to put that label on them.

I have friends who are feminists and I have friends who are not. And I understand fully why people might not want to associate with feminism, especially now, with a toxic mush of Twitter screenshots and appallingly handled rape reportage feeding into the idea that feminism wants to make women victims and men villains, to strip women of any responsibility for their actions and cast every single man as a potential rapist. Even as a feminist myself, I look at what some of the bigger feminists (such as Jessica Valenti or Laura Bates) are saying, and don’t always agree with it. I can openly admit that sometimes feminists will target small issues, like someone wearing a slightly misjudged shirt, and hold them up as indicative or a larger problem, and that I don’t think that’s the best way to tackle the issue. But I associate myself with feminism because there are a large number of feminists I seriously respect- everyone from my own mother to Ruth Bader Ginsberg to the feminist collective who spearheaded the changing of rape laws in America to include male rape. By calling myself a feminist, I accept that I am both associating myself with the good side of the movement, and of the often more publicised bad side. And I’m happy with that.

But I’m also in no rush to force the label on anyone else. If you’re an egalitarian, fantastic. If you want to focus your efforts on dealing with gender-based problems that affect men, great. As long as you are actively working towards gender equality, and doing so with activism in the areas that mean most to you, you go for it. If you fight for the causes that mean most to you (and are not getting in the way of genuine gender equality by doing so), I’ve got no reason to try and foist the label that I’ve decided to go with on you. In fact, I’d go as far to say that it’s important that we encourage anyone passionate about gender equality to work alongside feminism, even if they don’t want to directly identify with it themselves, because by excluding people who do not go for the feminist moniker we’re cutting out the opportunity to absorb new experiences, new information, and new issues that help move towards gender equality into the movement.

I know a lot of people who are not feminists, but who are equally as passionate about gender equality as I am. They’ve come to an informed decision about what they choose to term themselves, and that’s fine by me. Proving the legitimacy of feminism doesn’t come down to how many people we can browbeat into actually calling themselves feminists; it comes down to how we as a movement can make steps towards gender equality, and how we can work with other people aiming for the same goal. And that’s the last I have to say on the matter.

Leave a comment
April 10, 2015

“It’s Just a Book!”: Examining the Influence of Fifty Shades of Grey and After

So, my apologies for the lack of posting in the last week- I’ve been snowed under with university stuff and computer problems, so the blog had to take a back foot while I caught myself up. But I’m back, bitches, and this week’s Friday discussion is about the classic defence for problematic literature- “It’s just a book!”

I was thinking about this earlier today when I came across the #SuspendAnnaTodd hashtag on Twitter. For those who don’t know, Anna Todd published a wildly successful One Direction fanfiction on Wattpad, which was later purchased by Simon and Schuester and turned into a real-life book series. Sound familiar? Yeah, that’s pretty much the same path as that EL James wound up on when she published Fifty Shades of Grey. And that’s not the only thing the books have in common- they both depict seriously abusive relationship, presented to the reader as romance. You only have to jump on Twitter to see the scores of fans starry-eyed over the thought of their favourite romantic hero, with hundreds of tweets about how they want their own Christian Grey, or how they envy and want the relationship depicted in After.

Let’s make it clear: I’ve already done numerous breakdowns on the abuse in Fifty Shades, and read the first book of After, in which Hardin Styles terrorises heroine Tessa with his violent posessiveness, bargaining with her virginity, and dangerous levels of jealousy. These are the kind of relationships which would be undeniably abusive if they existed in real life, the kind of relationships you hope no-one you know ever ends up in.

But it’s okay, though, because they’re just fiction, right? And the defence that gets thrown my way more than any other? “It’s just a book.” “It’s just a book.” “IT’S JUST A BOOK”. And on the surface, that’s a pretty good defence; after all, I watch the Saw and Human Centipede movies, but it doesn’t mean that I’m more likely to go rip someone’s head open in a bear trap or sew someone’s mouth to someone’s, um, moving on.

But the difference between violent media and books like After and Fifty Shades is that they’re not being sold as romance. These novels are being marketed as books depicting an enviable, if fantastical, romantic relationship. Here, we’re encouraging readers to read these books and go “yeah, that’s something I want for myself!”. We’re training them to see obvious signs of abuse as signals that someone loves you, which is fine in the world of the story where a writer makes it so the heroine comes to no real harm. In these books, the author has it so when the heroine loves the hero as passionately and meaningfully as they can, the hero loves them back (often not actually changing their abusive behaviour) and they all live happily ever after. Anna Todd and EL James direct the action from behind the scenes, making sure Ana and Tessa don’t end up getting physically assaulted or killed; in real life, where two women in Britain are killed per week by a partner or ex-partner, we’re not so lucky.

It’s reflective of the society we’re in that books like these could achieve such astronomical fame and fortune. And the thing is, I’m not saying that they should be censored or banned or that everyone who likes them MUST STOP READING IMMEDIATELY. The problem is that these books are fantasy being sold as reality. You’ve probably heard a lot about the romanticizing of abuse in books like these, and that might sound like a lot of hot air; after all, most people are smart enough to tell the difference between what they enjoy reading on the page and what they want in real life. But when you’re being screamed at from all sides that this book will save your marriage, fix your sex life, sweep you away on a romantic journey-by publishers, film companies, and every scrap of advertising that has leapt on these books (which includes, lest we forget, washing powder)– that line can get blurred. So it’s important that we keep shouting about the problematic elements these books have from the rooftops, not because people shouldn’t be reading them, but because we’re living in society where emotional and verbal abuse is swept under the carpet with a “well, he/she should have just left”.

It’s not just a book. They’re books so popular that they begin to influence marketing decisions, popular culture, and, yes, real people. Books like these, whose stains seep into every corner of the media (lest we forget, Fifty Shades of Grey is the fastest selling book of all time), start to instill the idea that if we or someone we know is being treated like the heroines in this book, then they’re lucky. If someone stalks us, acquires personal information about us, lies to us, manipulates us, ignores our boundaries and deliberately makes us uncomfortable, that’s love. The effects of abuse, whether emotional, physical, sexual, or an combination of the above, are long-reaching and sometimes devastating- and if we can convince just one less person that that’s the way they should expect to be treated by someone they love, then we’ve succeeded.

 

Leave a comment
March 21, 2015

TERF Wars: Trans Exclusionary Radicals and Feminism

This article originally appeared on Witty Bitches, so head over there to join in the debate and support a cool new feminist website.

I think it’s time that we talked about TERFs. Anyone involved in the feminism movement in any kind of way will probably have encountered this phrase a few times before- whether spitefully thrown out as a way to dismiss someone’s opinions (“ignore her TERF trolling”) or as a disclaimer (“feminist, not a TERF”) but what exactly that acronym means- and what kind of implications it has for feminists in the broader sense- is a factor that’s often obscured. So let’s take a closer look.

First off, what is a TERF when it comes down to it? Like all political ideologies, there are a bunch of sub-sections that bicker beneath the main banner, but those letters stand for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist (and also spawned a million “TERF war” pun headlines whenever they clashed with the more mainstream movement). That sounds pretty self- explanatory-but there’s a lot of confusion about what precisely a TERF is. For a lot of people, it’s just a radical feminist who believes that trans people (specifically transwomen) should not benefit from or partake in the feminist movement, and should be denied access to women-only spaces (like bathrooms and refuges). And I’m not going to come right out and sweep everyone who identifies with this group under the transmysoginist or transphobic carpet, because I’ve read some interesting pieces by TERFs who vehemently argue against those terms, but I will say that a rotten bunch of people who DO identify as TERFs have been involved in pretty nasty behaviour. By which I mean, repeatedly and apparently deliberately misgendering transpeople, outrightly denying their gender, suggesting that lesbian transwomen cannot actually be lesbian, and saying some pretty repulsive stuff about the bodies of transpeople. Which is all pretty grim and unacceptable to most sane people, and most feminists.

But the real problem I have with it is suggesting that feminism is a girl’s club-specifically, a cisgender woman’s club. And I’m certain there will be TERFs who disagree with this interpretation of it, but that’s the way I see it. Sure, the majority of feminists who I’ve met during my lifetime have been women, but I also know personally (and know of, more broadly) a good number of non-cisgender women who are feminists. And that’s a pretty vital thing about feminism. Even if the movement is broadly focused on women’s issues because women suffer from the most systematic gender inequalities, it doesn’t mean that feminism is a movement for women’s power. It’s a movement for gender equality. Let me repeat that: IT’S A MOVEMENT FOR GENDER EQUALITY. As soon as you start excluding people from feminism on the basis of gender, sexual orientation or, well, anything other than the fact that their ideology just blatantly doesn’t sit well with feminism, the ground upon which feminism is built shatters. It’s vital that we call out those people who come up with tenuous reasons to try and stop people from supporting feminism, because by not doing so we’re tacitly agreeing that feminism is something that only applies to cisgender women. And that only they can participate. And that only they can benefit. And that’s bullshit, and I don’t like that idea at all.

Look, when it comes down to it, I just feminism to stop being such a dirty word. I want to throw window open and invite everyone to come and join the feminist party. Gender equality requires input from all genders, including those outside the gender binaries. If you can’t handle the thought of your little feminist clique being blown open to anyone who wants to join a long and drawn-out battle to end discrimination based on gender- whatever that gender is- than I’ve got some bad news for you: you might not be as feminist as you think.

12 Comments
March 13, 2015

Why Feminists Should Watch Sexist TV

I spend my entire life hunched in front of a screen, and that isn’t something I’m ashamed to admit. I work as a freelance writer, and most of my money comes from reviewing TV shows, movies, and various other little offshoots of pop culture. And that was all well and good, until I became a feminist.

Last year, I had my big feminist awakening, which began with a few quiet mumblings about the representation of women on TV and grew into an all-encompassing ideology that permeates every part of my life, and, for the most part, I love that. But it’s made my job- which essentially amounts to pointing and laughing at bad TV, and screaming the praises of Hannibal from the rooftops- that much harder. Because sexism of TV kind of comes with the territory, and it’s impossible to turn off those feminist spidey-senses that start tingling whenever there’s a sexist representation or stupid trope or annoyingly retro stereotype on display onscreen. So, can you enjoy the shows you love and still get your feminist card punched? Well, I certainly think so- in fact, I think that it’s important for feminists to engage with sexist television.

With so much casual sexism at play on TV, it’s basically impossible to find a TV which has spotless feminist credentials (for my money, Sleepy Hollow is one of the few shows that pulls the elusive mix off). But that doesn’t mean you’re not allowed to enjoy sexist TV .  The issue here is balancing the critical part of your brain with the one that just wants to be entertained, and it doesn’t mean that you have to wave goodbye to America’s Next Top Model, The Big Bang Theory, or The Bachelor in the process.

It can be difficult, in an era where being a feminist has become a loaded weapon of an ideology that spurs vitriol whenever it’s brought up, to accept that we live in a very sexist society. So sexist that most major forms of entertainment are going to be sexist in some way. Is that okay? Of course not, but millions of us all over the world engage with pop culture, and that makes keeping impeccable feminist mindsets almost impossible. And that’s why many of us, rather than speak out about the sexism in the shows we love, choose to shun them into a “guilty pleasure” corner, which gives creators further free rein to produce content that reinforces damaging stereotypes because hey, no-one’s taking this stuff seriously, are they?

So, how do you engage with sexist TV without letting it get the better of you? The balance that I’ve come to terms with in my head is being able to acknowledge sexism, and identify why it’s bad- which is always a useful little defence mechanism when someone demands that you explain why Game of Thrones is sexist (because, well, duh). I’ve honed down the innate ability to separate sexism from what I enjoy within TV shows, and appreciate that the people behind these productions aren’t necessarily raging sexists by proxy, but just misinformed and probably relying of stereotypes because they’re a quick way to get a character across in a limited timeframe. You can get pissed off that Penny in The Big Bang Theory goes to college so she can be smart enough to date her boyfriend, and still find Sheldon utterly hilarious. You don’t have to boycott shows that subscribe to sexist stereotypes, as long as you’re confident in calling out the casual sexism that’s rife on television screens today. It’s important that we take television shows seriously, as they can bring together people from all over the world and stimulate fascinating conversations about the nature of the characters and the way the show is created. And by admitting that hey, I like X crappy sexist TV show too, we can start dialogues with over fans about sexism and feminism on TV. Pop culture is something that almost everyone in the world has access to on some level, and that makes it a perfect place to start conversations about innate sexism in our culture.

For me, it boils down to that irritating chant of “if you don’t like it, don’t watch it” that’s directed at people who point out sexism in popular entertainment. If I decided to boycott every single show that depicted sexism in some way or another, there would be a lot less reason for me to have Netflix.  A show can still be really entertaining, or well-made, or interesting, or thought-provoking, while still tapping into stupid sexist stereotypes that would rile up any feminist. Maintaining my job as a critic hasn’t required me to switch off my feminist side when I watch sexist TV, but rather to engage it even more than usual. Because it’s vital that we keep watching, critiquing, and reporting on sexism in pop culture, and the only way we can do that is by understanding the universe the show has created and looking at it from an authentic fan perspective. So, don’t be afraid to stick with your guilty-pleasure sexist TV shows- just be prepared to bring the small screen to account when it needs it.

1 Comment
March 3, 2015

Blog Blog Blogging: Updates

Well, I’m sick as that proverbial dog today, so I thought I’d update the blog with a bunch of stuff I’ve been thinking about lately.

Firstly,  this blog has been around for well over two and a half years now, and the number of people coming to the blog has gone up inexplicably and hugely over the last month or so: thanks to everyone who’s reading, commenting, or sharing these articles.

Secondly, you might have noticed a “contact me” tab at the top of the page: I mean it. If you want to write for the blog,  suggest a TV that’s so amazing/terrible you want to see it reviewed, suggest article ideas, write a rebuttal about why I’m wrong about Fifty Shades of Grey (seriously, I want this so much), just drop me a message or a tweet. I want to write things that you want to read, and being pointed in the write direction never hurts. Doooo ittttt.

Thirdly, in future, I’m going to be sticking to a sort-of schedule to try and regulate the kind of stuff I’m getting up on the blog. Starting this week, Monday will be Fifty Shades Recaps day (God rest my soul), Wednesday will be A Wanker’s Literary Reaction day (where I’ll essentially review whatever crap/amazing thing I’ve been watching this week, because this TV blog doesn’t actually review TV any more), and Friday will just be a general chat day- the next couple of weeks will involve a snarky analysis of the new Thunderbirds reboot, and a look into how self-harm is represented on TV, so expect anything that’s been playing in my brain for the past week. I’ll also try and get a film review done every now and then, and there might occasionally be a rant or grumpy shout about whatever I’ve seen on the news/Twitter this week.

In short: thank you for reading, and I hope you enjoy the new schedule.

Leave a comment
February 27, 2015

In Two Minds: Bisexuality and Pop Culture

Last year, during the New York Pride Week preparations, three people- Johnathan Groff, Laverne Cox, and Lea Carey- were announced as representatives. And it wasn’t until Faith Cheltenham, prominent bisexual activist, wrote an op-ed and pushed forward a petition that everyone noticed a disturbing oversight- there were no bisexual representatives selected as part of Pride 2014.

And NYC Pride isn’t the only place where bisexuals have found themselves pushed to the sidelines. Earlier this year, the Williams institute released a paper identifying around 1454824 (0.6%) members of the adult population of the USA as bisexual. Despite these numbers, the representation of bisexual people in the media remains at a depressing low.

To clear something up: I’d be trying to be exactly like Catherine Trammel whether or not she was bisexual. Because those LEGS.

While lesbian and gay characters have slowly but surely gained a place amongst the casts of mainstream television shows and in movies, bisexual characters remain thin on the ground. While many characters will find themselves attracted to more than one character throughout the course of their screentime, many will simply identify as gay or straight, as opposed to considering the possibility of bisexuality- take landmark LGBT character Willow Rosenburg from Buffy. Initially shown to be romantically attracted to men, she engages in an important relationship with another woman, and from then on describes herself as a lesbian- even though the admits to still finding men attractive. There’s no problem with her and her partner Tara being gay, but it seems odd that this possibility wasn’t even considered by any characters on the show.

Really, this post is an excuse to have lots of lovely pictures of men kissing men. Incidentally, this was the best and most realistic first kiss Glee has done in it’s entire run so far.

When a prominent gay character on Glee, Blaine, considered the possibility that he might be bisexual after enjoying a kiss with a woman, he is told that “Bisexual is a lie gay guys tell in high school to hold hands with girls in the corridor so they can feel normal for a change” (I wrote a whole, massive article on the biphobia and transphobia Glee was guilty of in it’s early seasons; read it here). Sex and the City, considered a vital part of the definition of the modern sexual woman in the media, had their lead character admitting that she didn’t believe bisexuality even existed, describing it as a “layover on the way to gaytown” when she encountered a bisexual guy. Finding any kind of representation of bisexual characters is difficult enough, when even sex-positive and progressive shows continually wave it away with jokes, mistruths, and shaming.

Fuck you, Bradshaw.

But there are indeed bisexual characters on television. Even bisexual characters who openly call themselves bisexual. But their representation is often problematic. Cult pop culture website TV Tropes- which archives thousands of clichés in film, television, and across other mediums- does a great line in identifying the irritating number of negative platitudes often attached to bisexual characters- promiscuous, evil, manipulative, sociopathic, dishonest, or any combination of the above. Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct played a serial-killing, promiscuous vixen who used sex as a way to get what she wanted, while any number of American teen soaps have female characters indulging in what TV Tropes affectionately refers to as a Sweeps Week Lesbian Kiss to pull in more viewers. And bisexual men are one of the most woefully under-represented groups on television. If they exist at all, it’s often as characters totally removed from anything resembling a modern, vaguely realistic world- take Ragnar Lothbrok from Vikings, the vampire Eric Northman from True Blood, or Oberyn Martell from Game of Thrones, all of whom exist in the vacumn of either fantasy or history. Some male bisexual characters do make it through, but they’re rarely too groundbreaking- Captain Jack Harkness from Torchwood (below, with loves interest Ianto Jones) is an alien who actually identifies as “omnisexual”, while Frank Underwood from House of Cards is a cruel psychopath. It seems that bisexual characters can either be lavicious fantasies or manipulative sociopaths- and those that do exist as strong, nuanced characters rarely do so in anything resembling our world.

The name for this ship is “Janto Jorkness”, which thrills me almost as much as this sexy as fuck picture.

So, we’ve established that bisexual characters don’t earn great representation in pop culture Why? There’s a term, bierasure, that puts the lack of bisexual representation in the media and beyond down to the fact that they uncomfortably straddle two groups who are often positioned at odds with each other- that is, gay people and straight people. They often find themselves placed outside both groups and treated with suspicion by both- not straight enough to be straight and not gay enough to be gay, they find themselves landed with monikers like “greedy”, “in denial”, or “lying”. That’s why it’s important for the media to reflect the truth of bisexuality-that it does not define anything other than who that particular person is attracted to.

Man, I need to re-watch The L Word.

Too often, bisexuality on TV and in film is shown as a choice, as a dalliance, as a fantasy. It’s the “safe” way to portray gay characters- writers and directors can pat themselves on the back for LGBT representation, and then land their character of choice with a member of the opposite sex and have them forget about that silly phase almost immediately. There’s an apparent reluctance to identify bisexuals as characters who exist outside of their sexuality (The L Word, which featured confidently bisexual character Alice Piezecki, had her describing bisexuality as “gross” by the end of the show),
as people who’s only separation from other characters is the fact that they’re attracted to men and women. The only thing that the label of bisexuality confirms is that the subject is, believe it or not, bisexual- not that they’re more likely to be be evil, promiscous, or cheat on their partners (whatever gender they might be). There’s a temptation to focus on a bisexual character’s sexuality over anything else because so few of them exist on television, but the best thing that the media could do is to create interesting, layered, prominent  characters who’s sexuality is an aspect, and not the focus, of their existence

Leave a comment
February 24, 2015

Should Television Have Trigger Warnings?

So, I’ve  been catching up on The Walking Dead  recently (specifically,  to write satirical scripts for this awesome site, which are crazy-fun  to write  and hopefully slightly entertaining to everyone else, please check it out). And I was watching the second-to-most recent episode yesterday,  when a certain scene made me cock  my head a little. Without spoiling anything, a character who has suffered a recent loss feels numb, and pushes a lit cigarette into their hand in reasonably graphic detail. My first reaction – after a series of “URGH-WHA-EEUGH-SHHHUU” – was to pause the video and go and play with my cat for a few minutes. Why? Because I found it a little bit triggering. I’ve written about my continuing struggle with self-harm on this blog and, while this scene didn’t actually cause me to do anything untoward, it did make a small bit of my brain to go “hey, we haven’t done that for a while, maybe we should-” until I could shut it up by making my kitten chase after the string on my pocketwatch. And it got me thinking: should TV come with a trigger warning?

I’m filling this post with pictures of adorable kittens to counteract any potentially upsetting material! Look at this wee fucker!

Firstly, what the hell is a trigger warning? Basically, it’s a bit of netiquette that’s arisen for use in online articles, blog posts, and various other outlets to let potential viewers know that what they’re going to see or read might cause them to relive some painful or difficult emotions (the most common are for rape, sexual abuse, depression, suicide, and other mental health problems). In a lot of ways, it makes perfect sense: my Mum doesn’t like really violent films (unless Scorcese directed them), so showing her The Texas Chainsaw Massacre without first telling her that there’s loads of graphic violence in it would probably make her pretty upset (by which I mean, furious). Unfortunately, until there’s a trigger warning for Ben Affleck movies, my needs go unmet, but surely there’s no harm in flagging up topics that some people might not want to think about or be reminded of?

But there are a lot of people who think that trigger warnings actually patronise those who might be upset by the content their watching. And I can see that side too: I’d be really annoyed if someone told me that I shouldn’t watch something because I might find it triggering, because no-one except me has any idea what I find triggering (Christ, the most triggered I’ve ever been was watching an episode of Glee that depicted someone preparing for a suicide attempt, and not their cover of MCR like you might imagine). But I’ve discouraged close friends from watching certain films and TV shows because they reflect things that I know they would rather not be reminded of. There’s a very thin line between dictating what someone can and can’t cope with, and suggesting that certain people avoid certain films, movies, books, or articles because they might put them in a seriously upsetting place that they have no control over.

I just Googled “kittens cute as fuck” and this little charmer came up. Look at his tiny little face! Look at it!

So, where do TV shows fit into all of this? How do you warn people, in this age where spoilers are the ultimate crime, that there might be triggering material in this episode? As most shows that depict graphic rape, self-harm, or in-depth explorations of mental health are aimed at adults, some people argue that those who don’t want to risk getting triggered should either suck it up or avoid these shows altogether. And I can see why: we’re all grown-ups here, and if that means I have to sit in the bathroom and cry for twenty minutes before I carry on with this immensely upsetting episode of American Horror Story, that’s my choice. Nobody is holding me at gunpoint and making me watch this stuff, and, if I find it upsetting, I can always check out and watch something lighter. Watching adult TV means dealing with adult themes, and if those themes- like rape and suicide- are dealt with in a mature, honest, and emotionally resonant way, then I think there would be something a bit wrong with me if I wasn’t a bit discomforted by it.

LOOK AT THIS ONE’S GRUMPY LITTLE FACE I WANT IT I WANT IT SO MUCH

But I think the problem arises from shows which sneak up behind you and spring something potentially disturbing, like The Walking Dead. That might sound ridiculous considering the constant light drizzle of blood spatters and emotional character deaths, but these are things I’ve come to expect from the show having watched it for five seasons (despite a suicide attempt in season two, which-and I hate to admit this- had no affect on me at all because I had no emotional attachment to the character and her motivations so differed from anything I had experienced). I didn’t expect to see a pretty graphic depiction of self-harm thrown at me out of nowhere, committed by a character I like very much and whose reasoning I could relate to, and it triggered me.

So, should television have trigger warnings? It’s a tough question, because there’s a danger of every Hannibal episode starting with a disclaimer that states “DON’T. JUST DON’T”, or otherwise coddling audiences in a way that removes any trust in their own abilities to handle disturbing things in an adult way. But I think that yeah, from time to time, shows that are showing potentially distressing material that’s outwith what they’d normally broadcast could do worse than to give their audiences a chance to prepare themselves and make a decision that they’re comfortable with.

Wonderful; I’ll take a thousand please.

Oh, and this post should probably have come with a trigger warning.

Leave a comment
February 22, 2015

Bitter, Bitter Oscar Predictions

Another year of film floats by, another excuse for me to bitterly rant about the Oscars because I still haven’t been sworn on to the official selection panel (those arrogant pricks). Neil Patrick Harris will host the awards tonight, and if he doesn’t do something at least as good as or better than his opening for the 2013 Tony Awards-

– Then we’ll have final proof that musical theatre is ultimately a more worthwhile medium than film. But anyway, I have a big fuckton of OPINIONS to drop on your heads, so let’s take a look at what’s going to happen at the Oscars tonight, versus what I actually want to happen.

Best Picture

American Sniper

Birdman

Boyhood

The Grand Budapest Hotel

The Imitation Game

Selma

The Theory of Everything

Whiplash

Notes: It’s really odd that Selma has appeared in the best picture category but not been nominated for actor, actress, screenplay, or director. Surely you can’t be the best movie without having the best something else too? Who cares, it’s the only one of this list directed by a woman (Represent, Ava DuVernay).

THEY USED A SPEECH FROM MACBETH IN THIS MOVIE THAT I HAVE TACKED TO MY BEDROOM MIRROR AAAAEEEUUUUURRRRGGGHHH

What should win: Birdman. There’s no question that Birdman is the most original, zeitgeist-riding, ambitious and intelligent movie on this list, and I cannot implore you enough to see it. It’s skewering of the industry, however, might not go down so well, and I’d settle for Grand Budapest Hotel if not, because there’s lots going on under the surface of the seemingly straightforward caper.

What will win: Boyhood. In something I’ve dubbed The Scorcese Effect, directors and actors receive worship from the Academy just because the Academy realized they should have worshipped them long before now (because if you really think The Departed- which Scorcese got his Oscar for- was better than Goodfellas you can go back and snuggle down in front of your My Little Pojny DVDs). Linklater probably does deserve an Oscar for this, but I find the very thought of this movie enough to send me into a comatose state. I am horrified to consider the thought that American Sniper might get this, though.

Best Director

Wes Anderson, The Grand Budapest Hotel

Alejandro G Inarritu, Birdman

Richard Linklater, Boyhood

Bennett Miller, Foxcatcher

Morten Tyldum, The Imitation Game

Notes: I feel like Grand Budapest was out at least ten years ago.

Go and watch Innaritu’s transcendent Amores Perros though. DO IT.

What should win: Probably Inarritu, because his direction was stridently, seriously stylish and Hitchcockian in it’s ingeniousness. I think it’s going to be all or nothing for Birdman, so if this doesn’t get best picture I’ll pick out Bennet Miller for the stunning, slow-burning Foxcatcher.

What will win: Richard Linklater. See above. I’ve got to add that I’m stunned to see the wildly average The Imitation Game and Theory of Everything nominated for so much, and I sincerely hope they don’t do that well in the face of some genuinely boundary-pushing cinema.

Best Actor

Steve Carell, Foxcatcher

Bradley Cooper, American Sniper

Benedict Cumberbatch, The Imitation Game

Michael Keaton, Birdman

Eddie Redmayne, The Theory of Everything

Notes: If Bradley Cooper wins this- and I say this as a sworn-in Bradley Cooper enthusiast- I’m going to be somewhere between thoroughly unimpressed and fully murderous, depending on how far this comes into the ceremony and how much wine has been drunk.

I’ll admit that the first time he walked on screen in Nightcrawler my heart exploded. Because pretty>evil. Because I am a flawed person.

Who should win: Jake Gyllenhal. BECAUSE NIGHTCRAWLER WAS A SENSATIONAL PERFORMANCE AND WHOEVER MADE THE DESICION TO COMPLETELY IGNORE IT IN FAVOUR OF THE THEORY OF NOTHING AND THE IMITATION OF A GOOD MOVIE CAN ROT IN AN OVERWROUGHT, OVER-DRAMATIC VERSION OF HELL URGH FUCK THE ACADEMY. Would also be okay seeing Keaton win, typecast as he was- it was a screen-dominating performance. Steve Carrel would be fine too, but he’s got plenty more movies in him to pick up an award yet.

Who will win: Eddie Remayne. He was decent, don’t get me wrong, but the whole movie was just a bit above average and his performance was just okay. It seems that people got confused over Stephen Hawking being a fascinating, compellingly interesting man and a film about him being good by default.

Best Actress

Marion Cotillard, Two Days, One Night

Felicity Jones, The Theory of Everything

Julianne Moore, Still Alice

Rosamund Pike, Gone Girl

Reese Witherspoon, Wild

Notes: I went to high school with Felicity Jones’ half-sister.

If looks could kill, I’d be going down on Rosamund Pike right now. Wait, what?

Who should win: ROSAMUND PIKE, BECAUSE FEMALE VILLAINS ARE EXCELLENT TOO. Next.

Who will win: Julianne Moore, as per the Scorcese Effect (although I have no doubt she was brilliant in a movie that I find to profoundly upsetting to think about seeing).

Best Supporting Actor

Robert Duvall, The Judge

Ethan Hawke, Boyhood

Edward Norton, Birdman

Mark Ruffalo, Foxcatcher

JK Simmons, Whiplash

Notes: Hold the fuck up, Robert Duvall was nominated for an Oscar?!

This look like a publicity shot from a shit new sitcom to anyone else?

Who should win: Again, although he was typecast as a moody, difficult character actor, Ed Norton did an amazing job in Birdman. Mark Ruffalo was also great in Foxcatcher, though it seems like the kind of role he could do in his sleep.

Who will win: JK Simmons. Yeah, alright- he probably deserves this by now.

Best Supporting Actress

Patricia Arquette, Boyhood

Laura Dern, Wild

Keira Knightley, The Imitation Game

Emma Stone, Birdman

Meryl Streep, Into the Woods

Notes:  I’d be surprised and unsurprised to see Meryl Streep win, partly because I think the Academy is contractually obliged to nominate for something every single year. I guarantee she’s been up for editing and sound design a few times, just to hold up their end of the bargain.

Rene Russo withers the testicles of the Academy with one glance.

Who should win: Rene Russo for Nightcrawler. HOW DARE YOU OVERLOOK SUCH A POWERFUL AND MATURE PERFORMANCE ACADEMY YOU WOULDN’T KNOW REAL ART IF IT CAME UP AND KNEED YOU IN THE BALLS AS HARD AS I’M PLANNING TO DO YOU PIECES OF SH-

Who will win: Ech, probably Laura Dern. Nice to see Emma Stone get a nomination, but there were better supporting actresses in that movie.

Best Original Screenplay

American Sniper

The Imitation Game

Inherent Vice

The Theory of Everything

Whiplash

I mean I just don’t get the fuss about this movie.

What should win: Whiplash. Just tight and well-written in this pretty bad-to-average lot of movies.

What will win: Urgh, probably The Theory of Everything Wrong with Academy-Baiting Movies.

Best Original Screenplay

Birdman

Boyhood

Foxcatcher

The Grand Budapest Hotel

Not enough actual crawling through the night for the literal-minded Academy.

What should win: NIGHTCRAWLER NIGHTCRAWLER NIGHTCRAWLER NIGHTCRAWLER NIGHTCRAWLER NIGHTCR-

What will win: Honestly, this is a good bunch. Out of the favourites I’m pulling for Birdman, but Boyhood is more ambitious and far more worthy.

Best Animated Feature

Big Hero 6

The Boxtrolls

How to Train Your Dragon 2

Song of the Sea

The Tale of Princess Kaguya

The Lego Movie, or “This Is Still Better Than the Last Three Films Liam Neeson Starred In”

What should win: What in the name of all that is good and chesty is The Lego Movie not doing here? Hilarious, touching, exciting, and innovatively animated, it’s beyond a disgrace that this hasn’t even had a nod.

What will win: Big Hero 6. No notes. It’s a great film. There’s just no Lego Batman in it.

And that’s me at the end of the list of things I can legitimately have an opinion on. Join me on Twitter tonight for a live-tweet of the ceremony as long as I can be fucked to stay awake, and again the next morning for copious drinking/rending of garments over the results. Be there, or be anywhere else. Send an ambulance if American Sniper wins.

Leave a comment