There were photos of Jack with men, too; people were speculating as to whether they were former Torchwood employees, or Jack's former partners, or both.
they therefore have to be Man-Hating Lesbian Minxes whose relationship seems not to exist for their own benefit, but for the sole purpose of taunting Jack.
So visible lesbianism (take the man-hating as read) is something that exists for male titillation and male sexual frustration. I gotta thank RTD for reinforcing the societal default that women's bodies are public domain, and that their desires should coincide with what men want for them. But only the men whom other men have elected are good guys, of course. Lesbianism is opposed to the forces of freedom and right and good, because it's inherently fascist to be uninterested in making yourself / your body available to Jack and his magic penis. The logical continuum between lesbianism and repeatedly torturing and killing innocent people (including that petty-criminal blowfish) in the name of the British Empire is crystal clear now!
in the strawberry-picking world of television and media, I think that it's not only hard to be non-discriminatory but not colorblind, it's often dangerous.
As lenadances commented in a different post, what's more dangerous is driving along with a blind spot and not doing something about it—by, say, getting other opinions from different people (who may have blind spots, but in different places). Together, get a better picture of what's going on out there and successfully navigate around most of those mailboxes, bumps, potholes, giant fissures filled with lava, and—oh yeah—fellow vehicles on the road.
Yes, what's more dangerous is the default, complacency. If a person were driving with that problem, not realizing or admitting it, she would continue to have wrecks and close calls until she grasped the issue and adjusted her actions to account for it (for example, having another passenger in the car with a better view check before changing lanes). If she were driving with that problem and refused to change her actions, her insurance would shoot up and eventually her license would be pulled, because she would be operating within the context of a community where a member's actions really can and do hurt other people, and where as part of civil society she's expected to have learned important things about how to interact with and treat others before getting behind the wheel.
Maybe it feels less risky, easier, less uncomfortable to go with the (heterosexist, sexist, racist) flow. Maybe it's less painful for someone to shield himself from scrutiny before he promotes and releases a product, and to deny his blind spot and dismiss the concerns of others after it's out. It's my experience that some of the worst offenses occur when the people who are hurt aren't even allowed to be angry or offended, when a dominant group suppresses the pain of others.
I've been meaning to post about oppression and intersectionality with respect to a group of articles that address these issues and others with particular eloquence, but until then, some excerpts from here (http://problemchylde.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/beside-my-sister-facing-the-enemy-legal-theory-out-of-coalition-mari-j-matsuda/):
I have heard people say of Professor Trask, “She would be much more effective if she weren’t so angry,” as though they expect a Native Hawaiian feminist to work in coalition without anger. There is a politics of anger: who is allowed to get angry, whose anger goes unseen, and who seems angry when they are not.
Once, when I intended to compliment an African-American woman on a powerful speech she had made, I said: “I admire your ability to express anger.” She looked at me coolly and replied, “I was not angry. If I were angry I would not be speaking here.” Another African-American friend of mine jumped into the conversation. “I’m disappointed in you,” she said. “This is what always happens to us when a Black woman speaks her mind. Someone calls us angry.”
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Representation, oppression, intersectionality part 1
Date: 2008-05-20 01:26 am (UTC)There were photos of Jack with men, too; people were speculating as to whether they were former Torchwood employees, or Jack's former partners, or both.
they therefore have to be Man-Hating Lesbian Minxes whose relationship seems not to exist for their own benefit, but for the sole purpose of taunting Jack.
So visible lesbianism (take the man-hating as read) is something that exists for male titillation and male sexual frustration. I gotta thank RTD for reinforcing the societal default that women's bodies are public domain, and that their desires should coincide with what men want for them. But only the men whom other men have elected are good guys, of course. Lesbianism is opposed to the forces of freedom and right and good, because it's inherently fascist to be uninterested in making yourself / your body available to Jack and his magic penis. The logical continuum between lesbianism and repeatedly torturing and killing innocent people (including that petty-criminal blowfish) in the name of the British Empire is crystal clear now!
in the strawberry-picking world of television and media, I think that it's not only hard to be non-discriminatory but not colorblind, it's often dangerous.
As lenadances commented in a different post, what's more dangerous is driving along with a blind spot and not doing something about it—by, say, getting other opinions from different people (who may have blind spots, but in different places). Together, get a better picture of what's going on out there and successfully navigate around most of those mailboxes, bumps, potholes, giant fissures filled with lava, and—oh yeah—fellow vehicles on the road.
Yes, what's more dangerous is the default, complacency. If a person were driving with that problem, not realizing or admitting it, she would continue to have wrecks and close calls until she grasped the issue and adjusted her actions to account for it (for example, having another passenger in the car with a better view check before changing lanes). If she were driving with that problem and refused to change her actions, her insurance would shoot up and eventually her license would be pulled, because she would be operating within the context of a community where a member's actions really can and do hurt other people, and where as part of civil society she's expected to have learned important things about how to interact with and treat others before getting behind the wheel.
Maybe it feels less risky, easier, less uncomfortable to go with the (heterosexist, sexist, racist) flow. Maybe it's less painful for someone to shield himself from scrutiny before he promotes and releases a product, and to deny his blind spot and dismiss the concerns of others after it's out. It's my experience that some of the worst offenses occur when the people who are hurt aren't even allowed to be angry or offended, when a dominant group suppresses the pain of others.
I've been meaning to post about oppression and intersectionality with respect to a group of articles that address these issues and others with particular eloquence, but until then, some excerpts from here (http://problemchylde.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/beside-my-sister-facing-the-enemy-legal-theory-out-of-coalition-mari-j-matsuda/):
I have heard people say of Professor Trask, “She would be much more effective if she weren’t so angry,” as though they expect a Native Hawaiian feminist to work in coalition without anger. There is a politics of anger: who is allowed to get angry, whose anger goes unseen, and who seems angry when they are not.
Once, when I intended to compliment an African-American woman on a powerful speech she had made, I said: “I admire your ability to express anger.” She looked at me coolly and replied, “I was not angry. If I were angry I would not be speaking here.” Another African-American friend of mine jumped into the conversation. “I’m disappointed in you,” she said. “This is what always happens to us when a Black woman speaks her mind. Someone calls us angry.”