Voltron, Sex & Gender... A Thought Experiment.

The new Voltron Force TV show is great... it exists (roughly) within the same continuity as the original series, it simplifies the cast (or more specifically, their uniforms) to make it more obvious which pilot controls which giant robot Lion, slim-lines and individualizes the Lions for a more satisfying aesthetic, and introduces the very cool gimmick of having the Lions each take turns as the torso of the titular Voltron robot. Two of the new characters, cadets Vince and Daniel, are from minority racial groups, Black and Asian respectively, without any sort of fuss being made about the fact, and Vince especially proves himself to be at the heart of the new show and not just the ‘token’ Black (although it would still be nice to see a few more skin tones represented, but it’s a step in the right direction). Pidge is no longer the incredibly annoying character he once was, and in fact he sorta sets my gaydar pinging... I find myself wondering if this will be a Thing in the show (it’d be great if Voltron Force broke that particular new ground). To top it all off, we have environmental awareness entering the narrative, and not in some preachy, over-the-top way, but just as a part of the team’s regular code of practice. It’s a cool, slick and timely production that I’m sure kids are going to love. I sure as hell do.


And yet there’s one thing that still kinda gets my goat. Despite the show’s overall awesomeness, the sex-ratio is still definitely askew. In a regular cast of thirteen, we have only three female characters, and one of these was killed off/turned into a monster-of-the-week in what - the third episode? Leaving us with two girls, Princess Allura and her niece Larmina. New Allura is a HUGE improvement over Original Allura, whereas before the Princess of Planet Arus was your stereotypical pretty princess in pink, insecure, naive and a bit weak (although admittedly, she did take to piloting one of the five Lions after Sven, the original pilot, was injured), now she’s strong, rational, confident, capable of looking after herself and rescuing the boys, the very heart and soul of the team. I think I’m in love with a cartoon character, is what I’m saying. Her niece Larmina is another Strong Female Character, though in an altogether different way, and one that seems calculated to contrast with the weak and fragile depiction of women in the original cartoon. Larmina is physically strong, a much better fighter than the other two cadets, she’s the fiery redhead with the smack-talkin’ and sarcasm... a little less interesting than her aunt, in other words, kinda cliché. She was obviously written in to include the girls in the audience, to say ‘Hey! Girls can be badass too!’



But the fact remains that there are only two major female characters, and with such a paucity of females in the cast each has to be more a statement of female capability and strength than an actual character. It’s also worth noting that both Allura and Larmina are attractive, slim, White girls. Now, if it had been up to me, I’d have dispensed wit the annoying Cadet Daniel completely, or better yet, replaced him with another female character to try and balance those sex-scales a bit more, that would have given us a 4:9 ratio instead of a 3:10, which while better than the original show is still less than ideal.

Now, there are bound to be some of you out there who think I’m making a big deal out of nothing, and others who will have never given this sort of thing a second thought. The problem is, it happens ALL THE TIME... females are marginalised in pop culture, so much so that in any five-man-band in movies and TV, if there’s even a girl on the team at all she will be The Chick - her sex will be her defining characteristic. But why should girls be forced to identify with male role-models? Why should women be excluded from Action/Adventure stories like this? To me, it smells like ‘putting women in their place’ or just good old fashioned sexism - meaning that women and girls just aren’t ‘real’ people. So, as a thought experiment, I decided to reverse the sexes in Voltron Force, just to show what the Voltron universe might look like if men weren’t the ones hogging the limelight. To do this, I’ve taken the Premise and Opening Voice-Over from Voltron Force’s Wikipedia page and the character profiles from the combined Voltron/Voltron Force List of Characters page and changed all the names and personal pronouns. So, without further ado:

Premise

The exact relationship of Voltrix Force to the original 1980s Voltrix series is unspecified, as there are several visual and character inconsistencies (most notably, Prince Adonis having a teenage nephew who has lived "a lifetime on Arus" even though Adonis is unmarried and has no siblings), but the characters are five to seven years older than those in the original series, and the general concept of the original series is mostly accepted as back-story. Continuing the back-story, Princess Lotus was killed when Voltrix destroyed Doom Castle. Voltrix is being celebrated on Earth for the destruction of Queen Zarkis along with her forces (led by Lotus). However, due to the actions of Sky Marshall Warde, a corrupt official in the Galaxy Alliance, the Robot Lionesses go haywire and virtually destroy a city during the festivities. The Lionesses are immediately condemned, stripped of their duty as Defenders of the Universe and separated, with the Black Lioness locked away in Galaxy Alliance HQ and the other Lionesses sealed away on the planet Arus, the home of Prince Adonis. Though officially disbanded, the Voltrix Force secretly act to get the Black Lioness back while gathering three cadets (Danielle, Val, and Adonis’ nephew Lawrence) to train them to become future Force members and Lioness pilots. With the cadets by their side, the reunited Voltrix Force are needed once more not only to combat a resurrected Lotus and a new form of energy from another old enemy of theirs, but also to expose Warde's criminal actions.

Opening

The series intro is narrated by Danielle:

“Evil is back. The Drule Queen Lotus has returned with a dark energy that can destroy the galaxy. Our only hope, the Voltrix Force: a team of five heroic pilots that control five awesome robot Lionesses. When Lotus's Robeasts attack, Lionesses come together to form...Voltrix, Defender of the Universe.”

Characters

Commander Kelly: Commander and leader of the Voltrix Force, who pilots the Black Lioness that forms the bulk and head of Voltrix. Kelly wears a red uniform in the original series, and a black uniform in the new series. Kelly is a quiet individual who spends much of her time pondering her decisions, thinking up new strategies, and simply being a leader. She also has a hobby of reading books and can often be found doing so either in the pilot's lounge, or in her room. She seemingly cherishes Prince Adonis and is thought to be somewhat protective of him; her worst fear is that he would be forced to marry the evil Princess Lotus.

Lois: Second-in-command of Voltrix, who pilots the Red Lioness that forms the right arm of Voltrix. Lois wears a blue uniform in the original series, and a red uniform in the new series. She is a tall woman, both wiry and wily, and is always cracking jokes and teasing others whenever she gets the chance. She is the only one in the group who contests any of Kelly's commands. She is a flirt and a great pilot, though reckless at times.

Penny: Penny is the youngest, smartest, and smallest of the group; she pilots the Green Lioness that forms the left arm of Voltrix, and wears a green uniform. Her home planet Balto was destroyed by nuclear missiles from Queen Zarkis. Penny graduated from the academy at a young age, and her specialty is science. Like the others, she is well-trained in martial arts, and uses her size and agility to her advantage. Penny is not afraid to speak her mind, especially to the villains. Her heart is often in her words.

Svana: Svana, a Norwegian pilot, was the original second-in-command. She piloted the Blue Lioness and wore a black uniform at the very beginning of the original series. In Episode 6, she was badly injured during an attack by the sorcerer Hagar, and was sent away to the planet Ebb for medical treatment. Ebb was attacked and raided by Lotus' forces, and Svana was captured. The prison ship on which she was transferred accidentally crashed on Planet Doom and Svana went into hiding, becoming a hermit within the caves. She eventually encountered Adonis’ cousin from the Planet Pollux, Prince Roman, who had been sent to the slave mines after he rejected Lotus’ advances. During Svana's time on Planet Doom she witnessed Zarkis and Lotus' cruelty to their slaves, which drove her to the point of madness. She recovered thanks to Roman's emotional support and helped him escape Doom. Svana was later reassigned to the Planet Pollux with Roman and his sister Princess Banda. Svana eventually fell in love with Roman, though she was reluctant to pursue her feelings because she felt he was unworthy of him. She was always very quiet and reserved, and spoke only when she had something important to say. Though she may not show it, she is a very emotional person, and her heart is always leading her mind in any decision. Although Svana no longer pilots the Blue Lioness on a regular basis after Episode 6, she continued to be featured as a pilot for the Voltrix Force in the opening credits of the series while Adonis appears in the closing sequence. However, Svana piloted the Blue Lioness into combat on one more occasion, during the second season episode "Who's Flyin' Blue Lioness," and quickly demonstrated that her time away had not diminished her formidable combat piloting skills.

Prince Adonis: Prince Adonis of the planet Arus is the ruler of the Kingdom of Altair, as well as de facto ruler of the entire planet, and is also the object of Lotus’ affections. Son of the late Queen Alfin, Adonis inherited his mother’s authority on her death and is commander in chief and head of state for the planet Arus, and thus Commander Kelly’s superior. However, later he takes over for Svana as the pilot of the Blue Lioness that forms Voltrix's right leg, and defers to Kelly during operational engagements. Adonis wears a pink uniform in the original series, and a blue uniform in the new series. Though a bit naïve, especially with matters of romance, Adonis is a strong-willed person, and is very capable of ruling his planet, though some like Royal Advisor Corrine tend to doubt this ability. He is capable of invoking the dead, particularly his mother, the late Queen Alfin.

Hetty: Hetty is the strong-woman of the group, piloting the Yellow Lioness that forms Voltrix's left leg. She is shown wearing an orange uniform in the original series, and a yellow uniform in the new series. She may look tough and mean, but she has a soft heart, especially when it comes to children and puppies. She is never late for a meal. Though her friends tease her about her appetite, most of Hetty’s bulk is muscle. It is revealed that she eats "'Fruit Loops' (almost) every morning".

Cadets

Danielle: Exclusive to Voltrix Force, she is one of three new cadets for the Voltrix team. She and Val were once cadets for the Galaxy Alliance, but were selected to be cadets for the Voltrix Force due to their piloting skills. She also has a liking for going fast. She’s kind of impulsive, always getting into trouble; though sometimes her antics are beneficial to the success of Voltrix Force. She sometimes gets jealous of Val and Lawrence because of their connections to Voltrix, and tends to feel left out of the group.

Val: Exclusive to Voltrix Force, she is one of three new cadets for the Voltrix team. She and Danielle were once cadets for the Galaxy Alliance, but were selected to be cadets for the Voltrix Force due to their piloting skills. She also has impressive technical skills and appears to have some kind of power that links her to Voltrix. The reason of why Val has it is currently unknown, but recently it has been revealed that the Voltrix Lionesses have programming that enables them to use Val’s power as a "Key" to allow Voltrix to accomplish special functions when the situation calls for it, particularly to make new formations of Voltrix with new powers by reconfiguring with a different Lioness forming the main body while having the Black Lioness form a limb. This explains the true nature of Val’s power, particularly why it tends to act on its own. Val can use her power under her own will, but it takes a lot of concentration and effort.

Lawrence: Exclusive to Voltrix Force, he is one of three new cadets for the Voltron team. He is highly skilled in hand-to-hand combat and is Adonis’ nephew. While Adonis is unmarried and an only child, the original Voltrix series twice featured Adonis’ surviving Uncle. It is possible that this man is Lawrence’s father, with 'Uncle' being a title of respect to an elder cousin.


See? Male characters not only dominate pop culture, but they’re much more fleshed out than female characters, on the whole. By switching the sexes, we get a great variety of female characters with different body shapes and sizes, skills, interests and preferences (I’ve NEVER seen a female character on TV or in a movie being individualized to the extent of having a favourite food - have you?) It just goes to show, doesn’t it?

Now you can make fun of the names I chose if you like, I’m not committed to them I was just trying to prove a point, and that point required changing the obviously or implicitly male names to obviously female ones. I tried to keep them as similar as I could, but honestly, sometimes it was hard to think of a substitute. There is no female version of ‘hunk’ that starts with an ‘H’, and ‘Pidge’ isn’t even a real name. On the other hand, ‘Svana’ is, funny enough, an actual Norwegian girl’s name, so I was pleased with that one. And changing ‘Daniel’ to ‘Danielle’ was just obvious. ‘Voltrix’ sounds a bit silly, but I figured the gender of the robot had to change as well, because Voltron is male by default (Incidentally, turning all or even just four of the Voltron Lions into Lionesses makes a lot of sense, because in a pride of real lions, the lionesses not only outnumber the males, but they do the ‘lion’s share’ of the work, too. Just sayin’). I chose to change Allura’s name to ‘Adonis’ because her name emphasizes her attractiveness, she may as well have been called ‘Generic Pretty Princess,’ in fact. If that’s acceptable to do to girls, it should be acceptable to do to guys too, and the name of the mythical Greek character ‘Adonis’ has basically come to mean ‘handsome man’ in contemporary use. As for not changing the characters’ uniform colours... whoever said girls had to wear pink in the first place? Who said guys can’t? When I’ve asked my female friends their favourite colours, none of them have answered pink. Girls’ colour preferences are as varied as boys’. And besides, in this adaptation, where women make up the majority of the cast, colour-coding girls as pink is kind of meaningless. Happily, my lone male pilot ends up in the blue Lioness, so the same basic gender-coding effect is achieved :)



"You can tell I'm a girl because I wear pink tee-hee!"

The Ticking Clock

The modern Doctor Who has perhaps the most thrilling soundtrack of any television series I've ever watched, it's one of the main reasons I love the show so much. This track's called This is Gallifrey, Our Childhood, Our Home, and it's probably my favourite piece from the new series. Murray Gold's done some fantastic stuff, but I think this is probably one of his more evocative pieces. I just love that ticking in the background.



My thanks to youtube's dannyboy2k6, from whom I stole this. Check it out at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idQRiLZukG0&feature=related

Doctor Who Season 5 - What I'm Hoping For

What I've seen evidence for so far (and what it means?):

The TARDIS is looking new again, back to it's 1960s look.

> Maybe D11 crossed his own timeline and stole an earlier incarnation's TARDIS?


We know that River Song will be back, very likely in the in the wake of the crash of the Byzantium that she referred to in Silence in the Library. We see two versions of her - one in military attire, handcuffed, and one dressed to the nines behind some smoke.

> I think the smoky, dressed up River is a message from the future.
> D11 and Amy Pond meet the army-uniformed River, and D11 recognises her, but she doesn't know who he is, an exact reversal of their previous meeting (from his perspective), at the end of her life. Perhaps he introduces himself as the Doctor, but she doesn't believe him, having met and perhaps begun a relationship of sorts with an older incarnation (in Silence she said D10 was the youngest she'd ever seen him and D11 is even younger), perhaps she doesn't know about regeneration yet? I think she'll have faith and help him somehow, and will be subsequently arrested.


We know D11 meets Winston Churchill and some British Daleks, painted in British Army colours.

> I hope that the Daleks are being sneaky, perhaps working with both the Germans and the British, manipulating the outcome of the war while pretending to serve both sides. I hope there are only a handful of Daleks, because they are robbed of their menace by having huge invasion forces wiped out instantly over and over again - they're just too easily defeated! Let them escape to scheme again, rather than be destroyed... please!

>> On the subject of Daleks, I'd like to see them in just ONE story per season, mid-way through rather than at the end, manipulating events rather than going all-out to invade, occasionally being outside of their casings and killing people just as they are. Bring back the Supreme Dalek! Make the ordinary Daleks grey again!


Other hopes:

More emphasis on the weird nature of time-travel -- don't just treat it like a plane trip to another country!

Get rid of Torchwood!

Get rid of the Slitheen - FOREVER!!

Retain some Bad Wolf hints! (though this is pretty unlikely).

Have the Cybermen from this universe come into conflict with the Cybus Cybermen from the alternate universe?

Show UNIT being arrogant and dodgy!

Retain musical motifs from RTD years!

Redeem the Sontarans - make them look less gay!

Make Amy Pond dodgy or criminal!

Cos I Can't Actually Be Bothered Writing Anything...

Cracker Lilo found this very good post about the Gay Generation Gap...

The Gay Generation Gap
Forty years after Stonewall, the gay movement has never been more united. So why do older gay men and younger ones often seem so far apart?
From http://nymag.com/guides/summer/2009/57467/
By Mark Harris Published Jun 21, 2009

This week, tens of thousands of gay people will converge on New York City for Pride Week, and tens of thousands of residents will come out to play as well. Some of us will indulge in clubbing and dancing, and some of us will bond over our ineptitude at both. Some of us will be in drag and some of us will roll our eyes at drag. We will rehash arguments so old that they’ve become a Pride Week staple; for instance, is the parade a joyous expression of liberation, or a counterproductive freak show dominated by needy exhibitionists and gawking news cameras? Other debates will be more freshly minted: Is President Obama’s procrastinatory approach to gay-rights issues an all-out betrayal, or just pragmatic incrementalism? We’ll have a good, long, energizing intra-family bull session about same-sex marriage and the New York State Senate, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, Project Runway and Adam Lambert.

And at some point, a group of gay men in their forties or fifties will find themselves occupying the same bar or park or restaurant or subway car or patch of pavement as a group of gay men in their twenties. We will look at them. They will look at us. We will realize that we have absolutely nothing to say to one another.

And the gay generation gap will widen.

You hear the tone of brusque dismissiveness in private conversations, often fueled by a couple of drinks, and you see the irritation become combustible when it’s protected by Internet anonymity. On the well-trafficked chat site DataLounge, a self-described repository of “gay gossip, news, and pointless bitchery,” there’s no topic, from politics to locker-room etiquette to the proper locations for wearing cargo pants and flip-flops, that cannot quickly devolve into “What are you, 17?”–“What are you, some Stonewall-era relic?” sniping. And some not entirely dissimilar rhetoric is showing up in loftier media. In April, a 25-year-old right-of-center gay journalist argued in a Washington Post op-ed that many gay-rights groups are starting to outlive their purpose, and chided older activists for being stuck in “a mind-set that sees the plight of gay people as one of perpetual struggle … their life’s work depends on the notion that we are always and everywhere oppressed.” The scathing message-board replies pounded him at least as hard for his age as for his politics. “You twentysomething gays seem to think being out equals acceptance … Don’t be so quick to dissolve the organizations that made it possible for you to be so naïve,” wrote one reader. Another, blunter response: “Forgive me for not falling all over myself to do exactly what an inexperienced 25-year-old decrees … Don’t waltz in and start barking orders, little boy.”

Public infighting is a big minority-group taboo—it’s called taking your business out in the street. And it may seem strange to note this phenomenon at a juncture that, largely because of the fight for gay marriage, has been marked by impressive solidarity. But let’s have a look. Here’s the awful stuff, the deeply unfair (but maybe a little true) things that many middle-aged gay men say about their younger counterparts: They’re shallow. They’re silly. They reek of entitlement. They haven’t had to work for anything and therefore aren’t interested in anything that takes work. They’re profoundly ungrateful for the political and social gains we spent our own youth striving to obtain for them. They’re so sexually careless that you’d think a deadly worldwide epidemic was just an abstraction. They think old-fashioned What do we want! When do we want it! activism is icky and noisy. They toss around terms like “post-gay” without caring how hard we fought just to get all the way to “gay.”

And here’s the awful stuff they throw back at us—at 45, I write the word “us” from the graying side of the divide—a completely vicious slander (except that some of us are a little like this): We’re terminally depressed. We’re horrible scolds. We gas on about AIDS the way our parents or grandparents couldn’t stop talking about World War II. We act like we invented political action, and think the only way to accomplish something is by expressions of fury. We say we want change, but really what we want is to get off on our own victimhood. We’re made uncomfortable, or even jealous, by their easygoing confidence. We’re grim, prim, strident, self-ghettoizing, doctrinaire bores who think that if you’re not gloomy, you’re not worth taking seriously. Also, we’re probably cruising them.

To some extent, a generation gap in any subgroup with a history of struggle is good news, because it’s a sign of arrival. If you have to spend every minute fighting against social opprobrium, religious hatred, and governmental indifference, taking the time to grumble about generational issues would be a ridiculously off-mission luxury; there are no ageists in foxholes. But today, with the tide of history and public opinion finally (albeit fitfully) moving our way, we can afford to step back and exercise the same disrespect for our elders (or our juniors) as heterosexuals do. That’s progress, of a kind.

These unnuanced generalizations, as everyone who makes them quickly notes, do a gross injustice to both groups. The gay community—or more accurately, communities—is hardly monolithic, and its divisions, not just of age but of race, gender, region, and income, are too complex to paint with a broad brush. And Pride Week—which this year falls on the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Inn riots—is a reminder that we have always been able to unite when faced with either a common cause or a common enemy. It’s when we’re not on the front lines that tensions flare. “On its simplest level,” says Jon Barrett, 40, the editor-in-chief of the 42-year-old gay magazine The Advocate, “we think they’re naïve. And they think we’re old.”

Even on those front lines, it’s a complex moment. Last November, eight days after the election, I found myself marching with thousands of gay men, lesbians, and friends of the cause from Lincoln Center to Columbus Circle to protest the passage of Proposition 8 in California. The air was charged; many of us were eager to call out the enemy—a well-organized, well-financed coalition of conservatives who were using churches as political-action bases designed to roll back civil rights for gay Americans. And our response was anger. We held up signs with slogans like TAX THIS CHURCH! We yelled ourselves hoarse.

But the demeanor of many of the young attendees felt unfamiliar to older protesters. They were smiling more than seething, and I noticed that many of their picket signs—LET ME GET MARRIED, LOVE ISN’T PREJUDICED, NYC LOVES GAY MARRIAGE—were more like let-the-sunshine-in expressions than clenched fists. Shouting did not come as naturally to them.


“There’s nothing duller than a young gay man whose curiosity about the world doesn’t appear to extend past his iPod.”


Activism is an unlikely realm in which to spot a generation gap; by definition, a rally attracts people who identify themselves by a shared goal. But it’s sometimes an uneasy union; the march marked an encounter between age groups that, although part of the same community, had previously spent little time together. And a difference in outlook was unmistakable. “After Prop 8 passed, a tremendous number of young people who had never been to a protest before wanted to release that energy,” says Corey Johnson, the event’s 27-year-old organizer. “And that night was a great example of the two generations being bridged in a productive way. But my impression is that there is a difference. Young people are, I think, upset, but it’s not with the level of anger that a lot of older folks feel, and perhaps there’s more hopefulness involved.”

To many young gay people, the passage of Prop 8 was shocking but not alarming; it has jolted them into action, but one suspects it’s out of a Milk-fed belief that identity-politics activism can be ennobling and cool. What doesn’t seem to be driving them is fear; their cheerful conviction that history is going their way seems unshakable compared to ours. That can lead to callousness on both sides; we patronizingly warn them that their optimism is dangerous; they patronizingly tell us that we’re too embittered by our own past struggles to see the big picture.

The notion that anger no longer has a primary place in the gay-rights movement can feel awfully uninformed to anyone raised on the protests of the late eighties, when say-it-loud outrage was one of the movement’s only effective weapons. To some of those whose identities as both homosexuals and activists were forged in the early years of the AIDS epidemic, this new aura of serenity is way too “Kumbaya.” It’s hard to overstate the centrality of the AIDS crisis in any gay generation gap (the divide between those who are currently 45 and their elders once yawned at least as wide). If you want to know where you stand in gay history, ask yourself where you were in 1982, when the disease took hold in public consciousness. If you were already sexually active by then and you’re still here to read this, you are someone who surely knows that fury has its uses. If you were in your teens, wondering how to take even your first steps into life as a gay man in a world in which a single encounter could become a death sentence, you understand fear, and its warping effects down through the decades. And if you were a kid, you grew up seeing AIDS as an unhappy fact of life.

But what about the ever-growing cohort of gay men who weren’t even born in 1982? For most of them, AIDS is not their past but the past. No wonder some of us feel frustrated; when we complain that young gay men don’t know their history, what we’re really saying is that they don’t know our history—that once again, we feel invisible, this time within our own ranks.

Were we that uninterested when we were that young? Actually, no, we weren’t; we were thirsty to acquire the vast range of knowledge, tastes, and encoded references that seemed to derive from some mysterious User’s Guide to Homosexuality, because even if we then rejected them, they still constituted a lingua franca (in an era well before LGBT studies programs or even many books on gay history made that kind of information easily accessible). Now, a familiarity with those movies, those plays, and those books will likely get you branded an “old queen” by people for whom “old” is by far the worse of those two epithets (unfortunately, a morbid fear of aging is one of the few ideas we seem to have done a good job instilling in the young).

For gay men who came of age 25 years ago in a tougher environment, knowing your (sub)cultural iconography was not only a way of connecting to past generations but a means of defiantly reorganizing the world, of asserting your right to literally see, hear, and perceive things differently. The need to hide yourself was thus transformed into the privilege of joining a private club with a private language. But to many younger gay men who grew up with gay public figures, fictional characters, and references, it’s a dead language—a calcified gallery of Judy Garland references and All About Eve bon mots that excludes them as much as it does the straight world.

So they react, as they react to many things, with a pose of bored indifference. Which is, of course, infuriating: There’s nothing duller than a young gay man who ornaments his ignorance with attitude and whose curiosity about the world doesn’t appear to extend past his iPod, certain that anything not already within his firsthand experience is by definition antiquated. But once we start blaming gay twentysomethings for not having gone through what we did, we turn into sour old reactionaries telling ourselves self-flattering lies about how misery builds character. Worse, we may in fact be doing damage. According to a 2005 report by the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, our “emphasis on suffering reflects not the current reality of many LGBT adolescents so much as recollections of previous generations’ own ‘horror’ … LGBT adults’ residual fears and pain may be acting to magnify the real difficulties of LGBT teens.” Put simply, we talk too much, telling nightmare stories about AIDS and the Reagan administration when we should be listening—and then we get angry that they’re not listening to us.

“We’re just like our parents,” says a colleague of mine who came out right after college, in the mid-eighties. “We fought really hard so that our children would have things easier than we did, and now we resent them for it and sit around complaining that they lack character because they had everything too easy.”

That parent-child analogy also points to a larger cultural change, one that helped breed the hurt feelings that created the gay generation gap, which is that young gay men are, by and large, not our kids, even symbolically. The last twenty years—thanks to political progress, activism, education, the dying-off of a lot of homophobes, the Internet, and the mighty guiding arm of popular entertainment—have brought about a remarkable growth in straight America’s acceptance of homosexuality. Without forgetting that for too many gay kids, coming out is still hell, we’re also witnessing the rise of a parallel generation of gay kids with unflinchingly supportive parents, buddies who cheer their comings-out on Facebook, high schools with gay-straight alliances—in other words, kids who have grown up in a world that’s finally beginning, in a few places, to look like the one we wanted to create for them, or for ourselves.

And it would be dishonest to suggest that those kids—brash, at ease in their own skin, exuberant, happy—are being greeted by older gay men with nothing but uncomplicated joy. We can’t help but wonder how our lives might have been different if things had been easier for us, too. Some envy, some wistfulness, even some resentment is only human. And to add one further injury: Those kids don’t seem to need us anymore. For decades, gay men functioned as unofficial surrogate parents to the newly out and/or newly outcast. They’d offer reassurance that being gay didn’t mean being lonely. It was a bond that linked many generations of gay men across the age spectrum and created a real emotional connection, even if what necessitated it was pervasive prejudice. Today, though, the notion of quasi-parental gay mentorship feels ancient, a trope out of Tales of the City.

Unlike heterosexuals, most gay kids don’t grow up around adults who are like them, and gay adults in their forties, fifties, and sixties don’t have many occasions for routine, ordinary contact with a younger group of gay people. One of the benefits of Pride Week is that, however artificially, it breaks that barrier down and restarts the conversation. That’s appropriate for an occasion that’s meant to be steeped not just in optimism but in an awareness of history—a history that, by the way, includes a generation gap of its own. As author David Carter reminds us in his excellent 2004 book Stonewall, back in 1969, gay New York was deeply factionalized. Gay older men “passing” in coat-and-tie jobs on Madison and Park Avenues and then discreetly meeting each other in Turtle Bay bars had contempt for long-haired, sideburned Village hippies, and the reverse was also rudely, robustly the case. Even though gay Americans seem to have lived a century of tumult and progress since then, it’s good to know we still have something in common with our ancestral brothers-in-arms.



Comments:

I am a 29-year-old queer male and it is my belief that gay 20-somethings with no interest in the culture that gave birth to their own luxurious insularity are not so much a symbol of a generational gap as they are a reminder that LGBTQ History has been successfully marginalized in the education system -- despite the proliferation of Queer Studies as a tokenized academic discipline. LGBTQ Studies have been effectively relegated to a self-selecting minority of queer youth. From a pedagogical standpoint, the best course of action is to ensure the inclusion of the LGBTQ struggle for equality (and the slices of surrounding cultures that informed, inspired & supported those movements) within a broader framework of a living civil rights history. Trying to overturn Prop 8 is a noble and necessary stepping stone, but we won't bridge any gaps within or beyond our own movement until _all_ youth are educated that everyone is entitled to equal rights and treatment under the law (however far behind legislation is in making this a reality), and that all movements of oppressed groups are connected in that they all must struggle against bigoted policy. Our voices (angry or...gay) are important at a protest, yes, but perhaps not as paradigm-shifting as they are in history books.
By jorkane on 06/26/2009 at 2:14 pm


I'm 63. I came out during the Stonewall era. I feel enormously proud of what my gay brothers and sisters have accomplished over the last 40 years.
I feel proud every time I see how matter-of-factly kids say they don't think it's any big deal to be gay. It's only natural that they have a different point of view, and, in fact, we wanted them to feel the way they do.
But, if you're 25, it's unlikely you know how hard it was to get to this place. And, in a way, I'm glad you don't. But at the very least you should be aware that every gay man and woman who came out in the Stonewall era made social, financial, familial, and personal sacrifices to live openly and freely. And so did everybody else who came out after us.
If you're 25 and want to know what we were up against back then, take a trip to Saudi Arabia, or Nigeria, and live openly gay in those societies. Think I'm kidding?
When you're at the parade and see somebody my age, ask them what it was like. They'll appreciate being asked, and you might be surprised by what you hear. Don't assume we disdain who you are. We love who you are.
By ekeby on 06/25/2009 at 6:05 pm

Doctor WHO, OverVIEW :)

Anyone who knows me knows I'm a bit of a Scifi nut, and that of the many Scifi franchises out there, none have caused me to obsess and nerd out as much as Doctor Who.

I always enjoyed DW, it gave me nightmares as a kid but there was just something about it that kept me coming back. I couldn't put my finger on it at the time, of course, but now that I'm a bit older I recognise the crucial element. it's originality. First, the very premise is quite unique, how many other shows are there where a man travels through space and time in a small blue box? Then there's its other most recognisable elements, nobody really knows who the man is, he changes his face all the time, he's always interfering in history and causing mayhem... if any other show did any of this it would be a blatant rip-off because DW not only did it first, it did it in such a way as to be instantly recognisable. And it's been doing it for longer than any other show around.

DW has also come up with some of the most distinctive villains in Scifi, sure, they've had plenty of men in rubber masks over the years, what Scifi show hasn't? but what other show has had centurions made out of volcanic rock, or a woman so obsessed with plastic surgery that she ends up as little more than a trampoline made out of skin? What other show has had a Repeating Meme, a stone angel, or a carnivorous shadow? Or an Abzobaloff, or thousands of little aliens made out of human fat? Not to mention the Daleks, perhaps the most easily recognised Scifi villains of the lot, and certainly the most popular. And don't forget that 30 years before Star Trek's Borg was were wandering around space turning people into cyborgs, DW's Cybermen were doing that very thing.

I'm really loving the series since it was revived in 2005 after 9 years off the air. Yes, Christopher Eccleston, David Tennant, Catherine Tate and the rest are amazing actors, and yes, the special effects are increasingly superb, but what really makes me love the series is the writing, both the wider story arcs that Head Writer and producer Russell T. Davies has constructed, and also the writing for each episode. DW shows that script and story are of paramount importance, you can have all the CGI you want but if you can't tell a story about people, you're not going to get far(Star Trek: Enterprise, anyone?). So without further ado, here are my impressions of the new Who.

The 2005 season paved the way for a big budget reimagining of the DW universe (which, it has been suggested, is the same universe as Douglas Adam's Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy). Rose was a great introduction to the new series, showing what happens to an ordinary girl when a fairly extraordinary man walks into her life. The following episode, The End of the World was a powerful story set in the distant future, I particularly love the scene when Rose and the Doctor stand watching the remains of the shattered Earth drifting in space and Rose makes the comment that “nobody even noticed.” Hard-hitting, topical stuff, and what a great way to start a series, with the point at which most Scifi franchises finish! It seems every Scifi show and its dog these days is trying to blow up the Earth for their grand finale, well, all I can say is this is a refreshing change!!

The next episode, The Unquiet Dead was brilliantly creepy, the following two-parter Aliens of London/World War Three was a bit of a let-down, I loathed the Slitheen, butit wasn't all bad, I really thought the characterisation and dialogue between the cast was fantastic. Father’s Day was great but those Reapers were a little cheesy, however the storytelling and acting more than make up for it. Dalek is very nearly the best episode of the entire revived series, but I hardly need to mention that as it’s consistently rated among the top episodes.

The Long Game was good fun and I loved seeing Simon Pegg as a villain, and ‘Max’ was a very cool monster of the week. Stephen Moffat’s The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances is, needless to say, utterly enthralling, sweet but horrific and fantastic fun. Unfortunately the following episode, Boom Town, is a little disappointing, though I do have to give it some credit for making the awful Slitheen a little less irritating, and for showing the ongoing development of Rose’s relationships with Mickey and the Doctor.

And then we come to Bad Wolf/The Parting of the Ways, which finish the season in a fantastic way. I have to say, Bad Wolf is possibly my absolute favourite episode of the entire series, it’s fun and silly and sweet, but it captures the menace of the Daleks, it first introduces and then dispatches the Controller, which is quite tragic, we get to know sweet little ‘Lynda with a Y’ (whose death went a long way to reinstating the Daleks as the ultimate bad guys in the universe), Jack kisses both Rose and the Doctor, and both Rose and the Doctor get their Crowning Moment of Awesome – “Rose, I’m coming to get you” and “You are tiny; I see every atom of your existence, and I divide them.” Serious Wow.

The following Christmas special, The Christmas Invasion, was pretty good, as David Tennant’s introduction it couldn’t have been much better. But the following episode and official opening of the second seasonis far more heartwarming and funny. New Earth is good silly fun, and it’s great seeing Rose and the Doctor ‘on a date’ as it were. Matron Casp is the perfect cat person, the Face of Boe makes a welcome return, and Cassandra’s double entendre on possessing the Doctor’s body, that it’s ‘hardly been used’ is classic. What really won me over with this episode, however, was the tragedy of Cassandra/Chip. I cried. New Earth is a much stronger opening than Rose, and would have to be one of my favourite episodes. This is followed by the visually impressive but ultimately forgettable monster of the week story, Tooth and Claw.

School Reunion was a good follow-up, and it was great to see classic series regular Sarah Jane Smith return. The Girl in the Fireplace was also a wonderful episode, the clockwork creations were pretty horrifying and I’m damn sure that if I’d seen that episode as a child it would have haunted me for the rest of my life. But these two episodes are utterly outclassed by the sheer badassery that is Rise of the Cybermen/The Age of Steel. The alternate London, the re-imagined Cybermen, the ‘ear-pods’ and the long trek through the dark within arm’s reach of slumbering Cybermen, it all adds up to a really exciting story, it could totally have been a series finale. It also felt a lot like the Doctor Who I remember from the 80s, so this two-parter stands out as a highlight of the show’s second season.

The Idiot’s Lantern was another great episode, a little piece of history spiced up with some cheap horror. It was a bit of a breather before the traumatic ordeal that is The Impossible Planet/The Satan Pit. This double episode is definitely Nightmare Fuel, but it also makes explicit Rose and the Doctor’s feelings for each other in a powerful and moving way. The next episode however, Love and Monsters, is kind of cute but utterly forgettable.

The season’s penultimate story, Fear Her, should be excised from the narrative, I’m sorry but it’s just awful. It's followed by the Army of Ghosts/Doomsday story arc, which is right up there among the best, we get the two ultimate Who enemies squaring off and insulting each other before engaging in all-out war; it’s hilarious and exciting, frightening and bitter-sweet. Rose’s departure is heartbreaking. And I just love that the season finishes with the unexpected and ludicrous introduction of a bride in full wedding regalia into the TARDIS, to the Doctor’s utter dismay. Classic.

This of course leads us into what is, for me, the defining moment of the new Who, the second Christmas Special, The Runaway Bride. It’s fast paced, bombastic, thrilling, funny, charming and utterly absurd, and I absolutely love it. Catherine Tate rocks my world. Seriously.

Then we have the introduction of Martha Jones in Smith and Jones, the first episode of the third season, and the first Who episode to feature a recurring black companion. It’s a strong start, and a great introduction for the character, she’s smart and beautiful, sensible and strong. Sadly, the third season was the weakest in the revived series, and she didn’t often get much of a chance to shine. The Shakespeare Code, Gridlock, Daleks in Manhattan/Evolution of the Daleks, The Lazarus Experiment, and 42 are all either terrible or completely forgettable.

The series only finally starts to live up to its potential in the stunning Human Nature/The Family of Blood two-parter. This story saved Season Three from mediocrity, I for one would have liked to have seen it strung out over several more episodes. It’s moving and mature, frightening and exciting. It’s followed by the indescribably good Stephen Moffat story Blink (often picked by fans as THE best Who episode, like, EVER), notable for its unusual storytelling and strong horror element, and then by the series finale in three instalments.

The first of these, Utopia, is a great set-up for the final two episodes, the Master’s introduction is enthralling, wonderful and tragic and quite satisfying. It’s like watching a train crash, it feels disturbingly real. The second act, The Sound of Drums is delightfully manic and satisfyingly apocalyptic. What a shame, then, that the trilogy is concluded with the deux ex machina ending of Last of the Time Lords. Nevertheless, Martha Jones endeared herself to me forever by walking out on the Doctor with her head held high. All up, after a promising beginning, Season Three at first failed to deliver, and only recaptured my interest in its second half. Even the by-now traditional surprise season ending, this time a collision with the Titanic broaching the TARDIS hull, failed to deliver.

It turns out that the Titanic that we see smashing a hole in the TARDIS at the conclusion of the third season is not the Titanic that we expect, but a jumbo-sized space-going replica. Voyage of the Damned subjects us to the horror that is Kylie Minogue’s acting, inflicts upon us an irritating cast of stereotypes and smacks us across the face with messianic imagery. Oddly enough, the emotional heart of the tale belongs not to the officially recognised Companion, but to two older gentlemen in minor roles, the first being the amazing Bernard Cribbins as Wilfred Mott, the second being a fraudulent professor who would have made a wonderful Companion.

Wilf’s appearance provides a nice bridge between seasons three and four, as it is revealed in the first episode of the season that he is in fact the Bride’s grandfather, and that the two share a special and close relationship. Donna’s reappearance is one of the funniest moments in the entire series, and makes Partners in Crime one of the most watchable season openings of the new Who.

Season Four goes from strength to strength, fans voted it their favourite season and it is hardly surprising. After the strong first episode we get another historical adventure in The Fires of Pompeii, and a reminder of why the Doctor needs someone with him, and why Donna fits the bill so perfectly. We’re also given a taste of what’s to come; Donna will do a whole lot of crying over the course of this season, and as it turns out, so will we. Case in point: the following episode, Planet of the Ood, picking up on some of the subtler aspects of Season Two’s The Impossible Planet/The Satan Pit. This is hands-down the most beautiful and uplifting instalment of the whole of the revived series, and ranks as one of my ultimate favourite episodes. On an emotional level, it would be hard to top, and the following three episodes, The Sontaran Stratagem/The Poison Sky and The Doctor’s Daughter wisely don’t even try, opting instead for military manoeuvres and fast paced action.

The return of Martha Jones in those three episodes is something of a disappointment, she displays none of her customary strength and genius, and instead ends up crying pathetically in a puddle on some alien planet, but this is more than made up for by the enjoyable exchanges between the Doctor and Donna. I’m struck by the thought that perhaps it was necessary to bring Martha back and show her failings to underline the suitability of Donna as the Doctor’s long-term companion. In any case, the season progresses strongly, continuing with the charming and more than slightly ridiculous The Unicorn and the Wasp, replete with comic moments and subtle meta-fictional references.

What follows is what I can only describe as Stephen Moffat’s big sales pitch for where he will take the series when he takes the top job after the departure of Russell T. Davies. Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead return to the Moff’s favourite themes of horror, mystery and romance, with beautiful sets, impressive special effects and fantastic casting choices. The Doctor and Donna get no happy resolution this time, but their close companionship is once again highlighted, setting us up nicely for the next two instalments, in which they’re mostly kept apart.

The first of these is Midnight, featuring the Doctor going off on his own for a spell, and I would argue that this episode is a strong contender for ‘Best New Who Episode.’ There’s only one set for the duration of the adventure, and the special effects are kept to a minimum, but this the most tightly scripted and tense show of the season, and I would say the series as a whole. It’s stressful and nerve-wrecking, cleverly written and brilliantly acted, showing what RTD can do with not much.

It’s followed by Catherine Tate’s powerhouse performance in Turn Left, another strong contender for best episode. Donna wanders off and gets in trouble, and we get some nice continuity touches but more importantly a glimpse at what might have been and a greater understanding of Donna and her potential and bravery, a leap of faith and a whole lot of emotion, from despair and depression to horror and bewilderment, hope and happiness. Watching it, you feel as if they couldn't possibly have packed any more emotion in, and it could be too much of an ordeal if they had somehow managed to.

The episode dovetails nicely with Season Four’s grand finale, The Stolen Earth/Journey’s End, bringing together all the threads from the various stories, demonstrating how the Doctor sows the seeds of destruction everywhere he goes and providing fan service and more than a few surprises along the way. It has often been noted that the science of this double episode makes absolutely no sense, but it almost seems intentional, it’s as if RTD is simply saying “Who cares? The story’s the thing,” and certainly he manages to juice every last drop of emotion out of fans and puts poor Donna through the wringer. The story is huge and dramatic, fast-paced and exciting, and ultimately tragic. The ending is heartbreaking, thanks to some brilliant writing, but also to the considerable talents of David Tennant, Catherine Tate and Wilfred Mott.

We’re left broken and miserable, which is exactly how the Doctor is supposedly feeling, and so the Doctors elated mood at the beginning of the Christmas special that follows, The Next Doctor, is somewhat refreshing, although given the title of the episode we may be apprehensive. But the title is intentionally misleading, what we end up with is far and away the best Christmas Special of the series thus far.

While The Runaway Bride might have uproariously good fun, this Christmas Special follows the more threatening feel of The Unquiet Dead, Rise of the Cybermen, and Utopia , perhaps appropriately given the recent loss of Bride's star. The result is captivating, and David Morrissey brings real depth and gravitas to his role. Finally, however, we see the Doctor accept the invitation to spend Christmas with friends, providing some relief from the increasingly gloomy turn of events in the show.

Planet of the Dead, the show’s first Easter Special and most recent instalment, continues in this vein, being a light and frothy adventure with some impressive CGI and a return to the Doctor’s more cheerful, manic behaviour of days past. RTD promises, however, that this will be the last respite, and that the final three episodes featuring David Tennant as the Doctor and Russell T. Davies as Head Writer and producer will be frightening, depressing and traumatic. The first of these, The Waters of Mars, will go to air in November, and the concluding two-part story will play over Christmas and New Years.

I'm looking forward to it :)

Wrap Your Sexy Rope Around Me

(Stolen, with much respect and admiration, from http://rosephase.blogspot.com/2009/06/random-poly_08.html)

Times Online

“In those heady, pre-internet days, when fetishes were buried deep, mainstream comic-books artists already provided a service of sorts to those who liked their sex lives spiced up with high heels and corsets. Wonder Woman not only had the requisite sexy shoes and bountiful bust, she also had a penchant for tying up her, usually male, adversaries in her magical lasso, rendering them powerless and unable to lie. She was created by the psychiatrist William Moulton Marston, who further defied convention by living happily in a polygamous and poly-amorous relationship with two women. How many young boys growing up in the 1940s and 1950s must have longed to have Wonder Woman fly into their bedrooms in her invisible plane, wrap her sexy rope around them and force them to admit what it was they really, really, wanted?”

Appreciation Stations!!

I sent off an email the other day to Chris Neale in the UK, owner of the amazing ChrisNeale-Creative website (which I highly recommend any self-respecting sci-fi geek visit). He has created some extraordinary CG renders of Doctor Who and Star Trek icons, and provides details of how he went about creating them.

I was pleasantly surprised when he wrote back to me, taking the time to offer a few inspiring words, so without further ado, here’s my initial email and his response…


Hi Chris,

My name's Danny and I live across the other side of the world in little ol' New Zealand. I stumbled across your site and I just really wanted to say I love your work, the attention to detail is incredible... I'm a bit of a nerd so your renders of the Daleks and Star Trek are faves.

I wish I had your talent!! But I don't, so I will just continue to appreciate what you put together. And because I'm a cheeky beggar, I took one of your pics and changed it just a teeny bit in Paint (yeah, I really do know nothing about CG imaging techniques!!).

Not that your work isn't perfect, it totally is, and it's awesome to see the Renegade Daleks looking like they're not about to fall apart!! But I wanted to see what one of your pics would look like with the larger indicator 'ears' that I'm so fond of (cos I love the old movie Daleks). I also took out the eyespot cos I'm not so keen on that, I always felt it made the Daleks look less threatening and alien - that's why the original Daleks are the best!! Really looking forward to your Super Dalek, too :)

And I TOTALLY agree with you re: Shatner and the Enterprise. Can't wait to see your finished pics!! What did you think about the new movie?

Anyway, you're a busy man, so I'll quit bugging you, and I don't expect a reply, but your work totally rocks, keep it up!!

Danny in NZ




Hi Danny in New Zealand....

I appreciate your taking the time to write, firstly I don't make money from my work, so it is there purely for people to enjoy. I still get email from people who own one of my Challenger paintings (more than twenty years after it was painted) telling me how it has pride of place in their home. The fact that something I have done has made a small difference to someone else's life means far more to me than any amount of financial reward I could have received for my efforts!

Secondly, the fact that you have an imagination and you are interested in science fiction DOES NOT make you "a nerd". Men like Marconi and John Logi Baird imagined that they could contact the Spirit World with a machine... and accidentally invented radio and television respectively, while attempting to do so (something that is little known to this day)! Men went to the Moon firstly because they dared to imagine how it could be done. The idea was a fanciful one that had only ever been written about in science fiction books. It took a great leader with vision, Kennedy... to imagine the effect that it would have on his nation and it advanced the whole world in ways that most to this day still do not realise.

Sadly, the world is seriously lacking in imagination or great men of vision... when you consider that in 2009, two thirds of the population remain in poverty. The nerds... are the men in suits that exploit this fact in order to make more and more obscene amounts of money. They are the leaders who despite knowing that we have reached the point of no return... whereby the Earth's resources needed to maintain energy production are no longer sustainable... they refuse to accept the fact. The nerds won't let them develop new forms of energy production... because they'll stop making money out of the old ones. The nerds won't invest their cash either... because there's no guaranteed short term return on the investment required.

In short, the nerds are responsible for the dire state in which we now find ourselves... from the collapse of the global financial system to the decimation of the Earth's resources! They are the only ones that have benefited from it and they will either die with it or find themselves surplus to requirement when men of vision not only dare to imagine a better world... but begin to do something about it!

So Danny... keep on dreaming and if you have children, encourage them to be excited by the endless possibilities that currently can only be imagined in science fiction! Maybe one of them will turn out to be someone that saved the world... from the nerds!

Take care, thanks for your interest.
Regards,
Chris Neale

Whatever Happened To... The Power Rangers??

Ok, well I knew that Jason the Red Power Ranger became a gay porn actor called Austin St John, but this really surprised me:

One of the guys on the original Power Rangers Show was just sentenced to death:
Actor SKYLAR DELEON has been sentenced to death for murdering Arizona couple TOM and JACKIE HAWKS. The former child star and Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers regular has been convicted of chaining the couple to the anchor of the luxury yacht they were trying to sell him and throwing them overboard in 2004. Their bodies have never been found. Deleon then claimed the boat as his own. His lawyer pleaded for a life sentence, but the jury chose to serve up the most severe penalty. Orange County Superior Court Judge Frank F. Fasel imposed the death sentence recommended on Friday (10Apr09). DeLeon was also convicted in the 2003 killing of John Jarvi.

http://niketalk.yuku.com/topic/168488

Bisexuality and homosexuality in Japan

Here's a great article on a blog I've been following lately detailing the prevalence of bisexuality in Japanese culture, which makes note of the public perception of male homosexuals as effeminate "women-haters."

This of course has its parallel in Western society, somewhat less so now than in past decades, yet I'm inclined to think that while the stereotype has declined somewhat, the idea persists that at least one of the men in any homosexual coupling will essentially be a girl-in-a-male-body, and that such a feminine man will inevitably partner with a more rugged, 'manly' man, thus imitating and affirming the heterosexual norm*.

Now, this stereotype seems to be promulgated by television, I'm thinking of shows like Desperate Housewives in particular, and I guess by presenting homosexual couples as emulating the heterosexual model, tv writers and executives have done some good in increasing public acceptance of homosexual relationships. And it has certainly weakened the deeply entrenched belief that all gay men are weak and gender confused. But unless the Queer community continues to push for diverse representation, I'm afraid that is where it will stop, and we will have failed to really make significant change.

It's a foot in the door, but we cannot be happy with simply supporting status quo. Too often, gay men make some headway in advancing their personal liberties only to abandon those in the queer community less numerous and powerful than themselves.

Let's not be complacent, then, let's continue to make a noise for the sake of those who are seldom heard.


* Lesbian couples don't seem to be tarred with this same brush - tv land is quite happy to depict both women in a same-sex relationship as feminine because it titillates and panders to male fancy. In fact, it would seem that lesbians have the opposite problem - Dykes and butches are virtually non-existant on tv, the implication being that they're not real women.

What is going ON??!!??

Sometimes I wake up and I panic, because something feels deeply, deeply wrong.

I lie there and think about it, trying to pinpoint what exactly it is that's out of place, sometimes I can, sometimes I can't. It's usually pretty subtle, sometimes it's that something I've seen on TV has been mixed into my dreams, changing the way the world is, and I wake knowing that it's wrong.

Other times I wake up knowing - just knowing - that the world is not as it appears to be, that there are things going on beneath that surface that I do not understand and am not privy to. It's a kind of paranoia I guess.

This morning was one of those mornings, I woke up an hour or so ago and sat down to get on with my work and I still don't know what exactly it is that feels so out of place.

It's probably nothing...

Who's the Queerest Of Them All? -- Deviant, Chaff 7 2009

It used to be that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people only made it into TV shows as freaks and perverts. We were stuck in the hell that is daytime and late-night talk-shows like Ricki Lake and Jerry Springer, put on display as immoral deviants, predators, home-wreckers. In other programming we were invisible except to be pitied, feared or laughed at. But something’s changed, these days you can’t turn on the TV without seeing a couple of token Queers (unless you’re a Star Trek fan – 40 years homo-free and counting!!). It’s even made it into Coronation Street. My god, my mum is avidly watching gay romance on The Street. But it’s not always a good thing. Just how are we being portrayed, and by which shows?? Of course I can’t cover everything here, but even a brief survey is revealing.

We do pretty well in comedy. Perhaps the best illustration of this new mainstream acceptance of gays and lesbians is the rising star of Ellen Degeneres. She made history with her show Ellen, when her character (and she herself in real-life) came out. Of course the show was axed not long after but she’s back with a talk-show that rivals Oprah in popularity, and she was even chosen to host the 79th Academy Awards in 2007. Seems everyone loves Ellen now. And let’s not forget Will & Grace, the first show in history to have a gay male lead. The show was popular from the outset, though probably more for stereotypically flamboyant and bitchy supporting characters Jack and Karen than for the title characters. It’s like the mainstream likes us best when we’re not just gay, but really gay. Will was played by a straight guy, too. Still, a big step towards equality.

AfterElton.com recently named Scrubs the “gayest show on television,” but I have to disagree, it doesn’t have any lesbian or gay characters, just the sexually ambiguous ‘The Todd’ and the ‘bromance’ between straight male leads Turk and JD. In my mind, Scrubs is outshone by the much gayer Ugly Betty, which has hot trannie chick Alex in one of the main emotional story-arcs, as well as Betty’s camp little nephew Justin, and the hilariously bitchy, obviously gay Marc. Then there’s The Sarah Silverman Program, featuring lazy, scruffy Brian and Steve, two sloppy, overweight Ginga stoners who sit at home playing computer games all day, showing that not all gays are prissy queens, that we can be just as ordinary and slovenly as anyone else.

Family Guy often shows main character Peter as a bit camp, and occasionally hints that evil baby Stewie is gay, but it’s all for giggles and neither is actually a homo according to show creators, so it’s another one where there’s no regular Queer character. The Simpsons is (a bit) better: closet homo Waylon Smithers has been a firm fixture in the cast from the show’s earliest days, Marge’s sister Patty came out as a lesbian and married her girlfriend, and the show once devoted an entire episode to the stupidity of ‘Homer’s Phobia’ toward obviously gay John (winning the show an Emmy), but after that episode John was never seen again.

I would argue that South Park is actually more gay-friendly than The Simpsons and Family Guy, despite its frequent use of the words ‘gay’ and ‘faggot’ as insults. Sure, it’s over-the-top, obnoxious and crude, but South Park is like that to everyone and everything, it’s an equal-opportunity mud-slinger, so it’s actually a more inclusive show than most. And it’s jam-packed with Queers. Cartman’s mother is a hermaphrodite. Saddam Hussein and Satan are lovers. Big Gay Al and Mister Slave get married, and the boys’ teacher Mr. Garrison becomes Ms. Garrison, experiments with lesbianism and switches back to being a man. Butters is sent to Bi-Curious camp to be ‘cured,’ and ends up showing that obsessing over other people’s sexuality actually causes them more confusion and harm than just leaving them alone. South Park rocks.

And of course British comedy has always been full of gay jokes, in fact I can’t think
of a single exception. Probably the gayest of the lot is Little Britain, for a start most of the women are actually men in drag, then there’s Daffyd, the ‘Only Gay In The Village,’ the Prime Minister’s love-sick aide Sebastian, a bickering divorced couple who are actually both gay, closet-homo and Minister of Parliament Norman Fry, and ‘Emily,’ she of the Victorian frocks and constant protests of “I’m a Lady!” All ridiculously stereotypical, but the show’s success has put Queer people firmly in the limelight.

So comedy’s crowded with Queers. Turning to action and sci-fi, though, we find a very different story. If you look at big syndicated shows like Lost, 24, Heroes, Stargate, and the like, you’ll find that LGBT people are either completely absent/invisible or, overwhelmingly, weak and/or evil. Take Lost. Here’s a show with a huge cast that ticks practically every demographic box, and yet there is not one gay, lesbian, transgendered or bisexual character. Or how about 24, where homosexuality either gets you killed or directly results in the U.S. being attacked by terrorists? In fact the only exception I can think of here is Doctor Who spin-off Torchwood, which has bisexual protagonist Captain Jack and pretty much everyone on the show snogging or screwing someone of the same gender at one point or another.

We do (somewhat) better in drama, in at least being visible. ER had a number of lesbian stories over the years but to no one’s great surprise they involved little actual romance or sexuality, and when they did it always ended in bitter disappointments and loneliness. Six Feet Under and Brothers and Sisters also feature gay people and their romantic and sexual lives but again these are shown to be dysfunctional and basically unfulfilling. Similarly, British soaps like Emmerdale and EastEnders have had gay characters for years, but of course they’re always miserable or shocking stories, because in drama and soap-land, no one gets to be happy for long. It’s kind of the whole point. For example, Coronation Street made young Todd’s homosexuality directly responsible for his girlfriend’s miscarriage. Coro’s kind of made up for it though with the first transsexual character in a British soap, Hayley, who is one of the show’s more likeable characters, and now uber-gay Sean, a regular character with a hunky boyfriend. So not all bad there.

Our own Shortland Street has featured gay characters and storylines since it’s beginning, but I’m sorry to say it hasn’t exactly painted a rosy picture. Gay males are inevitably screwed up and go out of their way to hurt people or are killed off pretty quickly. The girls don’t fare much better – they last longer, but it seems they always end up murdering somebody. And where are the transsexuals, the fa’afafine and takataapui people? Still, we do have Gerald, Shorty’s femmy asexual receptionist, and writers did make a brief attempt to play out the implications of this identity for his life and relationships. They could probably try harder though.

It’s nice to see more Queer people on the Telly, but it’s be nice to see more of them in serious lead roles that address their issues without getting too morbid, or that show them defeating the bad guy instead of being the bad guy. I guess for now I’ll just have to stick to animated shorts like Rick and Steve: The Happiest Gay Couple In The World, or watch Queer as Folk on dvd over and over. Or I could take up watching Coro with my mum.

DannyR

Nerding Out

I loved LOST from the outset, the opening scenes of the pilot caught my imagination and I've been hooked ever since. The whole pilot episode, aptly titled 'Pilot', with monsters in the jungle (a bit like the Guardian from The Boy From Andromeda from my childhood), hatches buried in the ground (reminiscent of Stephen King's The Tommyknockers), mysterious radio transmissions saying 'it' killed them all... How could I not love it?

My interest did wane a little with the whole pushing the button thing, but everytime we get to see the Black Rock, the sonic barrier fence, the Monster, Otherville or some other such mystery (... yes, even that stupid four-toed statue) I get addicted all over again. I have to say, I mostly watch it for the Others, though. LOST's Juliet is the most interesting character on TV. She's so complicated, so completely unreadable. I love that Sawyer recognises she'd kill in a heartbeat, and yet she seems genuinely moved when revealing that Sun's motherhood will mean her death. I love her tense relationships with Kate, Jack and Ben. Juliet rocks!

Thinking more on my LOST addiction, I have come to realise something about myself, and after all, that's essentially what I hope to do with this blog, to explore my feelings and understand patterns of behaviour. I have realised that it's not just the content of the show that has captured my interest, the survivors stranded on an island, having to forge bonds and work together to survive while they wait for rescue, but the storytelling. I'm not watching it for the character development, in fact, aside from the few true originals like Hurley, Juliet and Locke I don't really care about the character's back-stories, least of all Desmond's, even though his is important to the story. The episodes that dwell excessively on characterisation usually just piss me off, I like the plot-driven stuff much better.

And that's where we get down to the nitty-gritty of it. LOST is a mystery story, a puzzle, and a wonderfully complex one at that. It has ensnared me, caught my imagination, as have other mysteries in the past. I love Agatha Christie and Georgette Heyer novels, when I pick one up I can't put it down. Harry Potter, much to my embarrassment, has had a hold on me since I first read the Prisoner of Azkaban in 2004. I got hooked on The Pretender, wondering just how Jared knew so much about Miss Parker, and I always used to read the Famous Five and other kids mystery books. Even Ecco the Dolphin has a strong Mystery Genre thread through it. There are clues to uncover, hidden agendas and things going on behind the scenes. This sort of addiction has happened for me before, it's going to happen again with something else. There will always be a LOST for me, in one form or another, and it looks like I'm not the only one so fanatically obsessed with it. There are hundreds of LOST fansites on the Internet.

This gets my social psychological machinery starting up. This obsessive devotion - where does it come from? Why do books like Harry Potter and shows such as LOST and Star Trek generate such fanaticism? I think it is because we delight in having the rug pulled out from under us in the safety of our own living rooms or reading chairs. They keep us guessing. That's the crucial point - they KEEP us guessing. Star Trek's been going over 40 years now, there's always been Trek on TV or in the movies, and with such a long run it's generated a Bible's worth of intricate plotting, scheming and technology/character development.

You can completely lose yourself in the Trek universe, it's ever expanding. It gave an interesting premise, and has been constantly elaborating that premise, it's become so complex that a resolution or conclusion is now impossible, there are too many loose ends to tie up, so it can never really finish. It may fizzle somewhat, once they finish producing TV episodes and feature films, but the fans have been able to become involved in the story, and so they will continue it, with fanfiction, artwork and debate, for quite some time yet. Star Trek has been a success.

Harry Potter, after it's inital, quite brilliant first installment, has led readers on a twisted, convoluted chase through Rowling's bizarre world, introducing villains and heroes, promising answers then snatching them away as we think we have them, balancing mysteries within each installment with those that span the length of the greater story. Rowling is a genius mystery writer, and her books generate almost hysterical fervour among fans, old and young alike. But I wonder what will become of Potter fandom, when this last installment is released in July, and the series wraps up? If she is clever, and I think she is, she will leave a number of questions unanswered, not the main ones, but those that are perhaps tertiary, and this will ensure that people continue to buy her books and argue about them for years to come.

Which brings me back to LOST. It is the fact that the story is unfinished, that there is much that we cannot know or guess at, that is at the heart of its success. It asks questions, doesn't give answers immediately, and introduces new questions when answering old ones, and so we're kept guessing, and we as fans can live vicariously through the characters, as if we ourselves were in danger, having to exercise our wits to survive, all in the comfort of our armchairs.

When the story comes to a close in 2010, what will become of LOST fandom? Will there still be questions left to answer? I think there will be, as in the case of the Potter franchise they won't be the main questions, but there'll be some fodder for the obsessive, and perhaps there will be ongoing podcasts from the producers, occasionally throwing fans a bone to reignite debate. It's TV, it's all about the money. Or maybe it's leading up to a big movie finish... who knows? Given that the actors will be nearly ten years older in 2010 than when the series began, and that they're supposed to have been on the island less than a year, I think that's unlikely, but I expect there will be some ongoing fan involvement.

And then the next thing will come along, and we'll all become ensnared again...