Then she needs to brush up on her Fascism 101. Targeting marginalized groups to oppress and blame problems on is standard operating procedure.
If Republicans had their way, she’d be making the men in her party sandwiches and otherwise staying silent.
Women, racial minorities, and log cabin Republicans are a special kind of “do you know who you’re standing with?” oddity.
But then again Jews for Nazism(Association of German National Jews) were a thing too, until they’d outlived their usefulness as misleading tokens and it was their turn for a train ride and suddenly they weren’t.
If the Republicans had their way she’d be dead.
Nah, they need brood mares. Once they come for the other scapegoat groups in order of size from smallest to largest, then they’ll take the women’s autonomy, demote their tokens back to nothing, and make women second class citizens again, treated as children under the “care” of their fathers, husbands, and brothers.
That’s the fascist playbook, you don’t start with half the population, too much pushback. You pick off any potential resistance in order of the weakest, smallest groups first. It warms up their lynch mob and gets them into “git em” training with those that mob is least likely to have an “well I know some good ones I’m out” reaction.
But they don’t even see her as a woman.
Not just “see her as.” I’ve never heard of a transwoman giving birth. I’m a huge fan of niche edge cases though and I’ve heard of one accidental finding of an XY, assigned female at birth person giving natural birth. This case was mentioned in research that was studying a family that had women that were experiencing hirsutism.
And there are also plenty of cis women who can’t give birth.
I knew they were insane; I knew it was even worse than I thought when I saw Megyn Kelly saying it was maybe her #1 issue…the qons have gone completely around the bend on this.
They needed an “other” to reunify the fundamentalist Christian bloc against, since abortion isn’t seen by them as much of an issue these days to motivate their voters.
And since they lost the battle of the 80s, 90s, and 00s against openly gay people and society is rapidly becoming more accepting of gay marriage, they had to shift their targets. Trans folks are an easy target because they seem so different and hard to understand. Surgeries, hormone treatments, bathrooms… Obviously interfering with ‘gods biological plan’ for themselves etc etc.
It’s sickening. And once society manages to begin clearing the trans hurdle they will find another minority to target.
They, really, desperately, want to be able to roll back any gay rights. I think they are using trans (and “but the children!” arguments) as a wedge to do so.
I think what gets them so very spun up is that culture changed, at least in their view. And by that, I mean that Hollywood seems to place something related to lgbtq in nearly every show, and so “culture” here means tv/movies/games. I sometimes wonder at the thinking behind this, it doesn’t seem to be helping them financially. It certainly seems to be building up a LOT of resentment and it shows up in our politics. Sure, maybe some of these big companies lose money on it in big ways with gigantic flops, but they can make it up elsewhere. I don’t know if the motivation is to annoy a large percentage of the country, knowing full well there is really nothing they can do about it, or if the motivation is worse than that, and if some of the big money wants to annoy enough deplorables that they’ll come out and vote for the likes of donvict, because it’s not like these deplorables have the power to change the content of movies/tv/games, and man, do some of them really, really resent that. It’s kind of bizarre because they blame Hollywood for having certain attitudes that they hate, but really, Hollywood doesn’t have nearly as much power as they seem to think…
And by that, I mean that Hollywood seems to place something related to lgbtq in nearly every show, and so “culture” here means tv/movies/games
LGBT people are something like 10-20% of the population. It would be insane for them to not be in a movie that has more than a handful of cast members. Why do you want your movies to show some weird unrealistic version of reality, one where queer people are just mysteriously absent? That’s pretty fucked up.
I mean, sure, I could maybe see the argument for a period piece. Maybe it’s not too realistic to have a bunch of out queer characters in a drama set in Elizabethan England. But in something modern? Again, one in ten to one in five people is queer to some degree or another. Statistically speaking, if you select a cast at random of anything other than a handful of people, you’re going to have some queer people in that sample.
Why do you want your movies/games to be less diverse than reality? Do you really need to live out some straight fetishistic fantasy that badly?
The reason studios put LGBT content in movies and games is that a lot of people in the real world, aka their customers, are LGBT. If a studio rarely if ever did so, they would quickly and rightfully be labeled as “that bigoted studio that likes to pretend queer people don’t exist.”
Hollywood
In Ancient myth: Zeus, Apollo, Asclepius, Athena, Dionysis, Hephaestus, Hermes, Orpheus, Pan, Tantalus, Theseus, Ganymede, Callisto…
In lit: Edward Albee, WH Auden, Francis Bacon, Balzac, Aphra Behn, Judith Butler, Byron, Truman Capote, Catullus, Jean Cocteau, Noel Coward, Emily Dickenson, Daphne du Maurier, Foucault, Ginsberg, Gogol…
Like pick a year, find a queer.
LGBT people are something like 10-20% of the population.
It appears to be 5.5% of the population.
The reason studios put LGBT content in movies and games is that a lot of people in the real world, aka their customers, are LGBT.
If their population were small, disproportionate representation can still have a positive impact for awareness. That being said, I think a big reason for the representation is the percentage of people in the arts that is LGBT is greater than the general population. It would be tough making content and looking in the eyes of so many creatives while not including characters like them in stories.
Side note:
Maybe it’s not too realistic to have a bunch of out queer characters in a drama set in Elizabethan England.
All the recent period pieces I’ve seen have LGBT characters. I’m going to use this as a moment to advertise My Lady Jane. It’s not an entirely accurate depiction of the story of Lady Jane Grey (for obvious reasons), but it was an entertaining show.
But on the other hand, over half my friends are queer and it rarely comes up. Maybe if your movie is a romance it would be relevant who is fucking who, but if you wouldn’t make it relevant for a straight person, why focus on it for a gay person? Like, gay James Bond would have to be fucking hot dudes left and right, obviously. But gay
Robin HooderrIndiana JoneserrShrekerrBarry B. Benson… Why the fuck do they all have romantic plotlines??Every movie nowadays has a shitty romance subplot tossed into it
I think you missed what I was saying. Go back and re-read. I personally could care less. There are certainly instances I’ve seen where something just seemed to be done…let’s say, performatively and for a very small audience. To the point where it’s really breaking the fourth wall and stretches all credulity. I, personally, might roll my eyes, but I move on with it and I’m so unbothered by it.
What I’m saying is that not all of America is at that point in this, and they clearly ARE very, very agitated by it. And they vent this anger onto the political scene. It also shows up in big losses for some of these companies, too. One cannot help but wonder what they are trying to accomplish. Some of the backlash they are creating seems to be almost deliberately done.
I don’t want this to come of as me having the answers to what kind of representation should or should not be done in movies/tv/games etc…I’m just noting what is clearly playing out.
They needed an “other” to reunify the fundamentalist Christian bloc against, since abortion isn’t seen by them as much of an issue these days to motivate their voters.
Winning can be the worst thing that happens to fascists. They defeated that enemy, and if they don’t find another, they may have to solve actual problems for a change.
And since they lost the battle of the 80s, 90s, and 00s against openly gay people and society is rapidly becoming more accepting of gay marriage, they had to shift their targets
And if you lived through those fights and were paying attention, you can hear the exact same arguments again, just with the details filed off.
Suuuuure, and next you’re going to tell me the Nazis killed Jews and water is wet.
The Nazis also killed trans/queer people, but that fact always gets glossed over for some reason
It was glossed over because after WW2 being LGBT was still illegal so they transferred any survivors from concentration camps to prisons instead.
It’s glossed over because the entire LGBTQ+ community weren’t seen as valid to the Christian anglosphere, and neither were the gypsies or disabled really. This is at the time when sodomy was illegal in most of the west — you could be fired or arrested for being presumed gay — immigrants, the disabled, and poor were all completely ignored, and the majority couldn’t have cared less.
Not a whole lot has really changed sadly.
They also killed ill and disabled people
Gypsies waving their hands.
