(no subject)

[solitary_summer]

I'm not all that comfortable posting this, because while I generally follow the big fandom ---!fail debates, most of the time I'm too scared to offend someone or make a fool of myself to speak up, but between aviv_b's (now locked) RTD-finds-out-about-homophobia story, and the recent debate about (straight) women writing m/m fiction I have this sort of theory why TW fandom blew up so spectacularly after CoE, and it has a lot to do with this slightly uneasy alliance between gay people and the straight part of slash fandom, since both want the same thing, more gay storylines, and there's strength in numbers, and numbers count when it comes to TV. On the other hand that common interest doesn't mean that gay people (fans as well as those involved in the creation, especially in the age of the internet and fandom becoming increasingly mainstream and public) aren't aware of the more problematic aspects of slash fandom (fetishisation/appropriation), or that straight fandom doesn't tend to forget that for gay people it's also very much a matter of identification and representation, and not just, and that's putting it as politely and generally as possible, of fanish squee. (Cf. the 'But It's not about gay men, it's about female sexuality' argument.)

And for the straight side it all worked rather well ('Yay! Canon slash!'), and I'd hazard a guess that even after Ianto's death the greater part of TW fandom would probably have got over it after a while, if RTD hadn't spoken up about what he thought was problematic about—straight, beecause 'people picking up gay rights as an issue' clearly doesn't refer to gay fans—fandom, and suddenly it wasn't one happy family any longer.

So, yes, the 'hysterical women' comment was sexist and misogynist, everyone can agree on that, but after six months fandom can maybe start to look beyond that, and realise this was also coming from somewhere, namely a gay writer thinking he wasn't just dealing with straight women fetishising homosexuality and making judgements about what gay relationships were supposed to be like, but straight women now explaining homophobia to him. Now clearly the situation was more complex than that, clearly there were gay people as well as straight people who disliked CoE for a wide variety of reasons, but I think this was the main impression that came across, and I doubt anyone involved in TW fandom can honestly say that it was wholly unfounded in reality.

And considering that he stated this very explicitly more than once (here and here and probably elsewhere, too, but I wasn't following media that religiously and only picked up what was generally linked in fandom) I find it a bit worrying how this got swept aside almost unanimously by the straight part of fandom. Admittedly emotions were running high all round, and no one was thinking very clearly at the time, but after half a year maybe it's time to acknowledge that among other things there was also a lot of hurt privilege and entitlement in the post-CoE fallout. Because when straight people are gleefully writing RPF subjecting RTD to homophobia they honestly believe he doesn't know about, and are convinced they're doing it in the name of gay rights and karma I think this is a problem that isn't just limited to one writer, but symptomatic of the wider state of TW fandom.


*breathes* Okay. Now everyone tell me how hard I've failed.



[Obligatory disclaimer: I don't consider myself straight, but I'm also too not-much-of-anything-sexual to feel justified claiming any kind of queer label.

Obligatory disclaimer the second, for those who aren't on my friendslist and don't know me. Yes, I cried. Yes, I cared. Click the tag.]


ETA: I'll be at my sister's for the afternoon, so if I'm not replying to comments it's not that I'm ignoring anyone.

ETA2: Addendum, sort of.

More ETA, since my brain is slow and some things only untangled themselves in my head replying to the comments. If I wrote that post now, I'd phrase it a bit differently, because even while I thought I was being clear, different issues did in fact get jumbled together. The 'hysterical women' comment— and while we're at it, I was getting curious and looked for the exact source, and now I'm left wondering, was this ever said more publicly than (possibly off the record?) to the AfterElton writer who put it into his editor's note without giving the context or even a full quote? In any case, that comment is one thing, and I'm not going to tell anyone they can't be offended by its sexism, even if personally I can't bring myself to be very outraged, given the context, situation and the fact that we're all human and fuck up occasionally.

OTOH, the two interviews I've linked where he is clearly pissed off about straight people lecturing a gay man about gay rights and homophobia—that's a separate issue and a legitimate concern about what was happening in TW fandom, and something I don't think straight fans should immediately react to with outrage and discard as nothing but hurt vanity. It's an issue that deserves consideration, whether or not someone is willing to forgive killing Ianto or the 'nine hysterical women'.

The one is about male privilege and prejudice, the other very much about straight privilege, as is using the sexism as an excuse to ignore the anger, lumping it all together; and they don't cancel each other out. This is essentially what I should have made clearer from the start. And I'll really shut up now; but on some level I keep naively hoping that attempting to untangle this whole mess might also eventually help a little bit towards making TW fandom a less toxic place again. I know, I know. *sigh*

Comments

[solitary-summer.livejournal.com]

I think Ianto's arc suffered from two things mainly; S1 was very experimental, and, I think carefully testing how audiences would react to a SF show with a bisexual male protagonist in a gay relationship. The problem with S2 was that RTD yanked Ianto from the bier practically at the very last moment, and apparently there wasn't enough time to write a new arc for them for the second half of the season.

For this reason, Ianto's storyline is not under his own agency, but under Jack's, in a way it wouldn't have been had they not been involved.

I do think he does have a bit more agency than that (embarrassingly long post (http://solitary-summer.livejournal.com/454974.html) about their relationship, in case you're interested), but yes. Jack is the protagonist, and CoE is his story; there's no arguing about that, either way.

COE is supposed to take place a year after Exit Wounds and they're still at undefined 'dabbling' for all we could see.

I wonder, though, if the majority of the viewers is considering this kind of timeline. To many people it might have seemed odder if there was a lot of development presumed to have happened off-stage, and the situation suddenly radically different. And from a writer's perspective development and conflict are the interesting parts of a relationship...

[starbrow.livejournal.com]

I do think he does have a bit more agency than that (embarrassingly long post about their relationship

While that's a very interesting post, I'm not sure it persuades me that Ianto has much in the way of agency, particularly in COE, where he was almost literally reduced to (part of) his sexuality with Clem's comment.

Maybe it's an effect of the, as you put it, yanking him from the bier in Series 2, but the more Jack and Ianto were seen to be together in a sexual sense, the less and less Ianto was his own person. The last flash of it we see, really, is in Adrift, and even then, there are no consequences for that which we see, which gives the impression that it caused no problems between them.

One of the tropes of bisexuality is the invisible bisexual - the person who, no matter who they are in a relationship with, is defined as either straight or gay, not as bisexual. That certainly happens to Ianto. It happens to me in real life too - people assume that because I'm in a relationship with someone of the opposite sex that I'm straight.

Jack fulfills another trope of bisexuality, of course, the one who sleeps with literally anything, sleeps around a lot, and can't commit. The fact that he's from the future where they do that has not exactly helped with the assumptions people make about my bisexuality, however. People have drawn exact parallels - 'so you're like Captain Jack off Doctor Who, you'll sleep with anyone, anytime, anywhere??' Err, no.

So we're now two for two on the negative tropes of bisexuality before COE even started, but it could still have been redeemed if Ianto had come out as bisexual not 'it's just Jack'. If Jack had decided to make a commitment to Ianto (it would have countered the 'sleeps around, sleeps with anything, can't commit' trope). If they had an ending that if not happy, was at least neutral in terms of sexuality and wasn't mired down in issues of commitment and unrequited/unconfessed love. I would have been perfectly satisfied if Ianto had lived and Jack had still left because Ianto wasn't enough to keep him on Earth after killing his grandson. I would have even been happy had they, following this, not been in a relationship again - if Ianto and Jack had both moved on in Series 4.

But I cannot be happy with that death. It was unheroic, cheap, exploitative, and just felt like a decision RTD made far too easily - he's confessed to not killing off the kid in the first draft, but Ianto's death was apparently always on the cards.

And of course RTD's comments were a viciously painful slap in the face, after that.

[yehnica.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry for butting in, and I don't want to start an argument or anything, but I just want to contest one point. The 'sleep with anyone, anywhere, any time' is only a negative trope if it's portrayed in a negative way. This is because there's nothing inherently wrong with it. I am 'one of those people' like Jack, who I would characterise more as queer than bisexual, because even now on earth there's more than the gender binary to choose from. And I take issue with the fact that Jack (and by extension myself) being open to sleeping with a large variety of people and remaining unconvinced by monogamy casts a bad light on all bisexuals.

I'm aware of the 'all bisexuals are sluts' trope on tv. I dislike it as much as you do, but that's only because it's usually shown as a bad thing. Other than some hand-slapping by the Doctor, who is a bit of a prude anyway, I don't see where that's happened in TW. Again, not trying to start an argument, just saying that there's more than one way to see things. You don't like being likened to Jack, and it's within your rights to set people straight (hah pun not intended). I, on the other hand, don't mind it at all. Variety is the spice of life.

[starbrow.livejournal.com]

And I take issue with the fact that Jack (and by extension myself) being open to sleeping with a large variety of people and remaining unconvinced by monogamy casts a bad light on all bisexuals.

I'm hardly 'convinced' by monogamy myself, as I proudly identify as poly, albeit I'm currently in a monogamous relationship. However, I have no problems with commitment - polyamoury and commitment are not mutually exclusive!

And while I might be open to sleeping with a large variety of people, I always reserve the right to choose who that will be - I would not ever, even if I were perfectly free to do so, be willing to suspend my right to pick my partners based on my criteria. Sleeping with 'anyone, anywhere, anytime' effectively states that I use no judgement in picking sexual partners and would happily sleep with literally anyone at all who was willing to.

I don't like being likened to that trope, which is now associated with Jack, mainly because I find it very offensive that an inability to commit and a desire to sleep with anyone at all is automatically associated with being bisexual. It's simply not true that all bisexuals are like this, in fact I would say very very few are.

[solitary-summer.livejournal.com]

and even then, there are no consequences for that which we see, which gives the impression that it caused no problems between them.

Maybe it didn't cause any, because Jack knew perfectly well he'd been acting like an idiot and should have told Gwen in the first place.

Ianto is very much his own character in Fragments, and while he didn't have a lot of screen time there, also in Exit Wounds. In the end Ianto simply wasn't a major character until CoE, and besides his work for Torchwood, which clearly was very important to him, a major part of his function was being Jack's love interest and walking Jack through his relationship angst.

'so you're like Captain Jack off Doctor Who, you'll sleep with anyone, anytime, anywhere??' Err, no.

I'm really sorry that this is happening to you, but that's more the hype surrounding the show than the show itself. Jack had all kinds of intimacy and commitment issues, but he wasn't sleeping around while he was with Ianto. Flirting, yes, kissing a couple of people, but not sleeping around. He still loved and grieved over Estelle after all these years, and he was married once.

I do think Ianto did effectively come out as bisexual, he just doesn't use the word. Being in love with Jack is clearly a big enough emotional muddle for him; maybe he hasn't really thought about whether he'll want other men in the future. Maybe Ianto is one of the people for whom it's really all about the people he loves. It happens.


But I cannot be happy with that death. It was unheroic, cheap, exploitative, and just felt like a decision RTD made far too easily - he's confessed to not killing off the kid in the first draft, but Ianto's death was apparently always on the cards.

No one expects you to be happy about Ianto's death, I certainly don't, although I don't think it was cheap, and most definitely not unheroic. But why would you assume the decision was made too easily? And in terms of TV conventions killing children is simply more problematic than killing adult characters.

[phaetonschariot.livejournal.com]

But to a lot of people, the situation was shown as radically different - where they seemed to be in CoE was actually less developed than it had become in season two, I thought, even if the development in season two was subtle hints. Then again, for me pretty much all canon after Adrift suffered from "we should have done this ages ago, oops" syndrome.

[solitary-summer.livejournal.com]

But to a lot of people, the situation was shown as radically different - where they seemed to be in CoE was actually less developed than it had become in season two, I thought, even if the development in season two was subtle hints.

I've read people saying that that, but didn't see it myself. Maybe because I always felt that there were so many issues to be addressed that at one point they'd have to sit down and actually talk about it, with words, before you could call it a relationship.