Mary Sue site's article on DS9 and Queerness

[Bry_Sinclair]

Spoiler: Spoiler for Downton Abbey TV show

I'm watching Downton Abbey. There's one gay character. However, the show writers seem to have gone out of their way to make him unpleasant. Mean to the other servants, trying to sabatoge other servants if he sees a chance of getting ahead, in WW got himself shot in the hand in order to get sent home, stole from the family who employed him, I could go on. Really too bad the one semi-out gay character was so unsympathetic. And Downton Abbey was made from 2010 to 2015.

Never watched Downtown Abbey, but I'm very happy with this depiction of a gay man, just like Max Blum in "Happy Endings", as it shows that LGBT+ people are just people with different personalities and flaws and issues and aren't solely defined by their sexuality. There's nothing wrong with having a gay man be very aggressive and adversarial, a lesbian being thoroughly unpleasant and unlikable, etc, it makes them all more believable and gives there character more depth.

 

[DonIago]

I agree in theory, but I also wonder whether we're still in a place where we could use more positive depictions of non-heterosexuals in popular culture.

I'll give the 'better late than never' award to Stamets and Culber.

 

[publiusr]

^ I always like to think all Trek characters are pansexual, seeing how frequently they get it on with aliens.

When I first heard of Jadzia being a Trill, I thought that might be explored.

Odo came across very gruff—not at all like Pie o pah from Imajica.

Instead, Odo and Garak were more like myself.

“You don’t want me...I’d just drag you down.”

Things have changed in just a few years. Elon’s satellite modification must be working

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

I agree in theory, but I also wonder whether we're still in a place where we could use more positive depictions of non-heterosexuals in popular culture.

So long as LGBT+ characters aren't depicted as using their orientation or gender identity in insidious ways then I'm all for showing them in different guises, it beats stereotypes (one of the reasons I watched Happy Endings was because it depicted a gay man much like myself, not with the gymbod, who isn't immaculately turned out every time he leaves the house, who was just "normal", it was refreshing).

 

[Bad Thoughts]

The segment of the population that is still homophobic (at least adamantly so) is probably beyond reach. Now that there are as many as six LGBT characters, there are no reasons for the writers not to do what they want, letting the reaction of actual fans inform them if their portrayals are damaging to the community.

 

[DonIago]

So long as LGBT+ characters aren't depicted as using their orientation or gender identity in insidious ways then I'm all for showing them in different guises, it beats stereotypes (one of the reasons I watched Happy Endings was because it depicted a gay man much like myself, not with the gymbod, who isn't immaculately turned out every time he leaves the house, who was just "normal", it was refreshing).

My concern is that there are still going to be people who see a non-heterosexual person do something unsavory and link that to their non-heterosexuality even if whatever it is could be done just as (or perhaps more) easily by a heterosexual. Because that's how prejudice works.

I'm pretty sure it's nowhere near as bad as it was (I remember a hilarious-ish (and potential spoof) PSA about "the dangers of the lurking homosexual"), but I also feel as though some traction may have been lost between 2016 and the present. I almost wish there was some stipulation that for every negative depiction of an LGBT+ individual there had to be an offsetting positive depiction (not on the same show), even though I know that's impractical and perhaps tacky.

I agree that stereotypes in general are unfortunate, though part of me tends to believe that stereotypes are stereotypes precisely because they do reflect reality to some degree. The problem being that when that's all that's shown some people assume that's all there is.

 

[HugeLobes]

I almost wish there was some stipulation that for every negative depiction of an LGBT+ individual there had to be an offsetting positive depiction (not on the same show), even though I know that's impractical and perhaps tacky.

The Academy Awards is listening.

 

[DonIago]

I knew I was important, but I had no idea I was that important.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

I'm pretty sure it's nowhere near as bad as it was (I remember a hilarious-ish (and potential spoof) PSA about "the dangers of the lurking homosexual"), but I also feel as though some traction may have been lost between 2016 and the present. I almost wish there was some stipulation that for every negative depiction of an LGBT+ individual there had to be an offsetting positive depiction (not on the same show), even though I know that's impractical and perhaps tacky.

Those who are complaining now, particularly the "menacing" ones, will be triggered simply by the presence of minority characters and actors of any type, and they will do so reflexively. There is no moving them. There is no need to cater to them. Let the producers and writers create stories without attending to those who criticize the franchise in bad faith.

 

[borgboy]

My concern is that there are still going to be people who see a non-heterosexual person do something unsavory and link that to their non-heterosexuality even if whatever it is could be done just as (or perhaps more) easily by a heterosexual. Because that's how prejudice works.

I'm pretty sure it's nowhere near as bad as it was (I remember a hilarious-ish (and potential spoof) PSA about "the dangers of the lurking homosexual"), but I also feel as though some traction may have been lost between 2016 and the present. I almost wish there was some stipulation that for every negative depiction of an LGBT+ individual there had to be an offsetting positive depiction (not on the same show), even though I know that's impractical and perhaps tacky.

I agree that stereotypes in general are unfortunate, though part of me tends to believe that stereotypes are stereotypes precisely because they do reflect reality to some degree. The problem being that when that's all that's shown some people assume that's all there is.

I think the trick with that is you need enough LGBT representation so that no one character is seen to carry the whole community on their shoulders. I think we're getting there.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

The tendency of people to assume others' sexual orientations based solely on secondary evidence (why not just ask the person?) remains a point of amusement and frustration for me in equal measure.

Kirk was obviously straight! Look at how many women he hooked up with!!!

Because bisexuality doesn't exist?

You also see people coming to it from the opposite end: "Look at how close Kirk and Spock are! How can they NOT be a couple?"

Because close heterosexual male friendships don't exist?

 

[DonIago]

I'm not even sure that I'd characterize the closeness of Kirk and Spock's friendshp as particularly unusual. The greatest sacrifice Spock made wasn't just to Kirk but to everyone on the ship. Spock lied to or withheld information from Kirk that would have been useful on several occasions.

It may be more that Kirk's feelings toward Spock were somewhat unusual, but I don't know that there's an objective way to classify a friendship in that manner.

Anyway, if they were knocking boots in their off-hours, good for them. It doesn't seem to have adversely affected their professional lives.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

I'm not even sure that I'd characterize the closeness of Kirk and Spock's friendshp as particularly unusual. The greatest sacrifice Spock made wasn't just to Kirk but to everyone on the ship. Spock lied to or withheld information from Kirk that would have been useful on several occasions.

It may be more that Kirk's feelings toward Spock were somewhat unusual, but I don't know that there's an objective way to classify a friendship in that manner.

Anyway, if they were knocking boots in their off-hours, good for them. It doesn't seem to have adversely affected their professional lives.

To paraphrase Shakespeare, "The fault is not in our Star Trek, but in our selves."

My own interpretation of the Kirk/Spock literature is that homophobia made friendships between men so much of a problem, that almost any portrayal of a close friendship had the potential for being understood in terms of queerness. To some extent (probably large), the friendship between Kirk and Spock would be a fruitful arena in which to disect how masculinity was constructed, including how it affected all relationships between men, amorous and otherwise. Subsequently, I am always of two minds when it comes to things like slash fic. On the one hand, LGBT people need places in which to explore themes and ideas in literature and art from times in which they were almost invisible in public and in art. (Some of it had nothing to do with the LGBT community, but reflected individual fantasies, as David Gerrold once complained.) On the other, there is a plain meaning to the stories than cannot be overturned without great thought and caution. Now that we have so many different representations of queer experiences in Star Trek, I'm not sure why there would need to be any more focus on a relationship between Kirk and Spock that was not deliberately portrayed (or Bashir/Garak or Bashir/O'Brien, for that matter). Behr et al admit that they dropped the ball. Coulda, shoulda, but didn't. Stamets and Culber are far more interesting in my opinion. I would rather see more attention to relationships that are deliberately romantic than constant "shipping."

 

[JonnyQuest037]

On the one hand, LGBT people need places in which to explore themes and ideas in literature and art from times in which they were almost invisible in public and in art. (Some of it had nothing to do with the LGBT community, but reflected individual fantasies, as David Gerrold once complained.)

"What you Star Trek writers don't understand about Star Trek is that Kirk secretly wants to be raped by Spock."

https://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/80972831.html

Now that we have so many different representations of queer experiences in Star Trek, I'm not sure why there would need to be any more focus on a relationship between Kirk and Spock that was not deliberately portrayed (or Bashir/Garak or Bashir/O'Brien, for that matter). Behr et al admit that they dropped the ball. Coulda, shoulda, but didn't. Stamets and Culber are far more interesting in my opinion. I would rather see more attention to relationships that are deliberately romantic than constant "shipping."

Agreed. I would much rather see new characters introduced who were created to be LGBT, rather than constantly trying to retrofit in older characters to fit today's paradigm.

Marvel Comics recently decided that Iceman has really been gay all of these years, largely because he's historically had several failed relationships and been awkward around women. Because apparently secretly being gay is the only possible reason that those things could ever happen. I don't object to the them introducing a gay character into the X-Men, but I really wish they'd done it with a new character instead of so completely changing one who'd been around since 1963.

 

[kkt]

Just for the record, I'm a white male over 40 and I'm a progressive.

I wrote over 40. I'm being deliberately vague about my age.

 

[kkt]

Never watched Downtown Abbey, but I'm very happy with this depiction of a gay man, just like Max Blum in "Happy Endings", as it shows that LGBT+ people are just people with different personalities and flaws and issues and aren't solely defined by their sexuality. There's nothing wrong with having a gay man be very aggressive and adversarial, a lesbian being thoroughly unpleasant and unlikable, etc, it makes them all more believable and gives there character more depth.

The character in Downton Abbey was unpleasant and unlikeable, but also went beyond that into criminal (and not just because homosexual behavior was criminal then. Theft, slander against other employees.)

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

The character in Downton Abbey was unpleasant and unlikeable, but also went beyond that into criminal (and not just because homosexual behavior was criminal then. Theft, slander against other employees.)

Scandalous. I might actually have to see if I can find it on a streaming service I'm signed up to

 

[kkt]

I think I like science fiction and historical dramas for a lot of the same reasons. Storytelling in a world that's different from ours but still recognizable.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

The character in Downton Abbey was unpleasant and unlikeable, but also went beyond that into criminal (and not just because homosexual behavior was criminal then. Theft, slander against other employees.)

Scandalous. I might actually have to see if I can find it on a streaming service I'm signed up to

I completely understand how KKT has characterized Barrow, but I don't entirely agree. Indeed, this characterization is almost entirely true for the first season. However, I don't feel it applies in subsequent seasons. Reaction to Barrow covers a wide range, many reacting like KKT, others seeing him as being tragic, others seeing him as being redeemed. There are other gay character, all generally less interesting than Barrow, but than are less morally challenged. Overall, the main characters model tolerance, to one extent or other, that is probably well above what people of the era would have exibited.

One thing that does irk me is that as the series went on--as it became much more "upstairs" than "downstairs"--stories like Barrow's became shallower and less insightful. There just isn't enough attention to the servants of the house.

 

[HugeLobes]

Overall, the main characters model tolerance, to one extent or other, that is probably well above what people of the era would have exibited.

Ridiculously above. Chances are the servants would have been treated like subhumans and given very little time to themselves. I do think Downton Abbey was good for the first couple of seasons, but it's pretty horrible that so many people think that's what things were like. One of my least favourite things in any historical show or movie is when the good guys inexplicably harbour and express extremely progressive views. See The Patriot for some of the worst of it.

One thing that does irk me is that as the series went on--as it became much more "upstairs" than "downstairs"--stories like Barrow's became shallower and less insightful. There just isn't enough attention to the servants of the house.

I think this is mostly just down to the show getting progressively worse. Pretty sure I remember reading somewhere that Julian Fellows pitched it as a one season show that would end just before the First World War, then it obviously took off and they went ahead with more.