Really, though...

[tencrush]

That Colin guy from Merlin is one of the fugliest people on the telly at the mo. That's not a subjective opinion on my part, that's like scientific fact or something. He's one of the two reasons I don't watch Merlin, the other one being that it's about fucking wizards. See also: more fucking wizards (Harry Potter), fucking trolls (Lord of the Rings) and fucking blue fairy people (Avatar). Do not be telling me I should be watching any of this shit, I cannot take it seriously.

I voted Neil Patrick Harris in the Big Gay Battle on After Elton. John Barrowman is just too gay to be allowed to win these sorts of things. I'm joking, of course (not about voting, I did vote NPH), there's no such thing as TOO GAY, but if there were, I'm pretty sure JB would qualify. But no, I purposefully voted against JB. For reasons I explained like a year and a half ago, I don't think he's the greatest candidate for big gay role model. Neither is NPH, probably (Man, he only came out like 3 years ago, dudes, really? Weird, I thought it was longer ago.), but there you go.

Comments

(frozen)

[aviv-b.livejournal.com]

Ok, let me first say that I am not trying to start a shit-storm here. Really.

A year ago I would have voted for JB. But since CoE, I can't. Unfair, probably. But somewhere inside of me, I would have expected an openly gay male with the stature of JB to say something about some of the homophobic remarks in CoE.

Yes, I know, not everyone thinks the remarks are such. I can only judge by my gut reaction and the reaction of my gay male co-workers and friends (not to mention the reaction on After Elton).

If I inserted a racial or religious minority in the line "so you're a bender, you take it up the ass" (may not be an exact quote), with, so you're black, you collect welfare?, or so you're a Jew, your cheap right?, I think its obvious how offensive the line is.

Now I'm not so sure about the face scar and other things, but that line coupled with Andy's interest in Ianto's sexuality when he's going to speak to Rhiannon (is he gay? Uh, Andy, he's frickin' DEAD) made me extremely uncomfortable. Ditto for my gay friends.

Now maybe JB did say something about it, who knows. But unlike GDL, he can afford to take some risks and confront these issues. But to sit by silently while the gay male community fumes, does not make for a Gay Man of the Decade IMHO.

And while I understand that you don't want to piss a lot of people off, if he and RTD were such good buddies, he should have been able to take him aside and say, 'Rusty, don't go there.' And if he did, and RTD being the genius that he is, didn't care, then I think JB should have issued his own statement after the shit hit the fan.

But apparently JB has been too busy at conventions trying to sell CJ with a new boyfriend, that I think he's lost site of the importance that gay characters take on to the gay (and larger) community. To paraphrase one poster on After Elton, "Oh good, now we're confirming for the general public that gays really can't sustain relationships and are only interested in the next one to come along."

And at least here in the US where state after state is specifically prohibiting gays from marrying, claiming the bodies of their deceased partners because they are NOT married, being denied the right to adopt or be foster parents, being prohibited from visiting a partner in the hospital, then yes, the manner in which gay men are portrayed on television matters.

(frozen)

[phaetonschariot.livejournal.com]

Personally I find the idea that showing homophobia on tv is inherently homophobic offensive. It wasn't as though they treated it as though it was a completely normal and okay thing to say - it played out exactly the same as in Cyberwoman when Dr Tanizaki was fondling Lisa. Ianto was clearly uncomfortable, and this was one of the core reasons people were upset that part of the line got cut in America - the US release simply has Johnny saying "Hey gay boy!" so that it looks as though Ianto is upset about being called gay, rather than the specific assumption that he takes it up the arse.

Whether killing Ianto or not is homophobic is an entirely different debate and one I don't really have a solid opinion on, but many people saw the scene with Johnny as an acknowledgment that homophobia exists and it's not okay, including gay people (for reference, I'm politically queer and asexual in practice - if I had an interest in sex, it would be with women). I honestly would have been upset if they'd had no real reaction from outsiders to Ianto and Jack's relationship, so I really liked Johnny and Andy's reactions. There is almost nothing that's universally offensive to all people of a minority.

Also, it would be incredibly stupid of JB's handlers to let him say publically "I wanted this line out but Russell left it in, but I don't like it." He has to tow the party line, no matter how famous he is. That's part of being an actor.

(frozen)

[radiant-pip.livejournal.com]

My problem with Andy's reaction to Jack and Ianto is that there was no reason for it. Jack and Ianto weren't there for him to react to. What was there was the knowledge that he was accompanying Gwen on her way to tell Ianto's sister that he was DEAD. It just seemed inappropriate for Andy's curiosity to be rearing its head then. It in no way seemed like an endearing Andy moment to me.

As for Johnny, I didn't have a problem with his teasing of Ianto. I didn't appreciate him being more worried about his car than his dead brother-in-law while he was comforting his wife. But then again, maybe these endearing character moments are just lost on me.

(frozen)

[aviv-b.livejournal.com]

I'm confused about your distinction between the version with 'taking it up the arse' and the one without. Can you clarify?

I respect your opinion and I know that there are a variety of views on this. But in the end, I have to give strongest weight to how it struck me and my circle of friends. I'm not sure what politically queer means, but since you state it as such, I am going to assume that you don't identify yourself as male gay to the world at large. (If I am incorrect in this assumption, my sincere apologies).

That is not to say that people of any minority status can't misunderstand something but ultimately the group has a right to say that something is offensive. Maybe it wasn't meant that way, but that's the way it came across to many people gay and straight. Of my 11 gay male friends, only one would agree with your interpretation of the Johnny and Andy lines. This doesn't mean that you are wrong, but it does say that given the sensitivity of this issue that the writers and producers should have been very careful to make sure that the intent of these comments was clearly understood. And if it was misunderstood then it needed to be explained.

As for JB, I totally understand your point. I wasn't expecting him to say what you suggested, but perhaps something along the lines of that he didn't believe the writers were intentionally being insensitive, explaining what they were trying to depict (assuming your interpretation or similar is correct) and that he was sorry if it was perceived this way.

Actually that's what RTD should have said, but I think JB could have said that without pissing off anyone.

Sitting silently while your own community feels insulted and maligned are not the qualities of the Gay Man of the Decade, IMHO. So, no I don't think JB is a horrible, evil, person, just not worthy of the title.

(frozen)

[phaetonschariot.livejournal.com]

Clarification - upset at being called gay implies that he's uncomfortable with his sexuality itself. Upset about the assumption that he takes it up the arse implies that he's uncomfortable with the assumption that simply because he's dating a man, he must be engaging in a specific sexual practice that is often associated with being the "girly" partner of a gay couple. Many, many homophobic insults relate to anal sex, like fudgepacker or shirtlifter, and there are even (utterly bizarre) groups of men who advocate having sex with other men but TOTALLY AREN'T GAY OMG because they don't do any of that ICKY anal sex stuff. Incidentally, a comparable number of gay couples and straight couples engage in anal sex. Basically, in one version he's uncomfortable about dating Jack, and in the other he's uncomfortable about people thinking he's the woman in a faux-heterosexual relationship.

Personal identification - I'm female, I normally identify as asexual but in situations where I don't feel like explaining that 'yes, it is possible to not be interested in sex, really, I'm not doing it wrong, I don't need you to show me how, please leave me alone', I identify as lesbian. I have no attraction to men whatsoever. Gay men and gay women do face quite different kinds of discrimination, but also some quite similar ones.

I suspect my comment overall had different implications than I meant - I totally agree with anyone's right to be offended by things, I just wanted to point out that in some cases the offensive thing is quite a grey area. There are certain things that are just out and out offensive and you'd have to be pretty uninvolved to argue otherwise, and others where it's all subtext and inference and personal experience and whether you're personally offended or not are equally valid, and in those cases I do, personally, find it difficult to.... not condemn, that's too strong a word for what I mean, but maybe to think less of people involved for not addressing the concerns of those who are offended - of course it would be best if they did, absolutely, but JB in particular has never exactly been known as a paragon of tact and social politics about anything, let alone LGBT issues, which can be considered part of his charm. (The same can be said about RTD, but in his case it's rather not part of his charm.)

I think most people can agree that there's a lot of batshit in this fandom so it can be hard to figure out who has really extreme views and who is open to reasonable discussion and compromise. :P

(frozen)

[aviv-b.livejournal.com]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I probably should have mentioned that my circle of friends in the US all downloaded CoE long before it was shown in the US. So we all saw the 'uncut' version - which could explain the strong negative reaction, especially to the taking it up arse remark.

And as several others have said the Andy thing was more of a WTF moment. Why would this be important to telling Rhiannon that her brother had died? Now if he asked whether his sister knew that he worked for TW, that would have made some sense. It was so out of place that its easy to assume a negative sub-text running through it.

I appreciate your candor about your own personal identification. This does help me to understand where you are coming from. Being an 'other' regardless of what kind in an other-unfriendly world is not easy.

You are right on the money about JB and RTD and tact or lack thereof, LOL.

US LBGT's (and their friends and families) are under political attack here in the US. It's truly frightening. So perhaps this explains why something that is in that gray area (for the sake of argument) would be so hurtful. When you are already being treated as sub-human, deviant and criminal by many, you hope at least prominent members of your own community won't be seen as helping the enemy.

Bat-shit crazy - yeah, about that. I take no extreme views. Don't want Ianto's back, not mailing coffee to anyone. The reason I'm opposed to Gwack is not because I only want J/I pairing - its because I think Rhys is the real catch and I don't want Gwen to lose this or to have him killed off as well. I read bastard!Jack fics and domestic Janto fics, its all good (except MPREG which I just can't deal with) as long as its well written and makes sense in the context in which its written.

I only go bat-shit crazy when 'serious' stories by 'professional' writers don't hold together, where characters don't act consistently episode to episode let alone between series, when its boring or derivative or just over the top. Uh, like The last two years of DW and a fair amount of TW.

I appreciate your comments - you've given me much to think about.

(frozen)

[(Anonymous)]

Hi! I couldn't decide whether to reply to you or aviv_b, but I decided to reply to your reply because you both said interesting things I'd like to comment on... the only problem now is where to start! :-)

Let's go first with the PC Andy comment on day 5. It put me in mind of a docu-drama(?) I'd seen about Alan Turing. In it, he's having problems with the police because he's gay and he says, basically, that he thought what he did during the war was the most important thing he'd done in his life, but he could now see that he was wrong: It was what he'd done in bed that was apparently most important. I think that's the message of day 5: It's doesn't matter as much what Ianto (or, by extension, LGBT people) accomplishes in his life because the biggest thing others will be concerned with is his (their) sexuality. Ianto helped to save the world. Why talk about that when hey, we can speculate about whether he was gay! A lovely coda to a lovely story, isn't it? [/sarcasm]

Another thing I wanted to comment on was about showing homophobia on TV being homophobic. Aviv_b, I've said similar things on AfterElton to what you quoted. However, I also understand (and agree in principle with) PhaetonsChariot's objection to my implying that it's wrong to show homophobia on TV. I do think CoE's anti-GLBT issues were offensive, though. One reason is that Torchwood does not take place in our universe, where such attitudes exist, but in the Whoniverse as I have heard it called. RTD has worked to portray it, in Doctor Who and Torchwood prior to CoE, as a very tolerant world [examples on request]. All of a sudden in CoE the universe wasn't tolerant! It was such a departure from its norm that it felt like showing the homophobia in this case was being homophobic.

Another reason ties in with the harm that is possibly done when RTD says the show is not homophobic and JB stays quiet. Specifically, it makes CoE's hurtful, wrong generalizations (such as, say, gays recruit partners from the straight population) seem more true. If the points were wrong, RTD, who makes a point of highlighting that he is a gay man, would say so, right? Maybe even JB, the out and otherwise quite talkative gay lead actor would say so (even in an oblique way, like "showing these attitudes doesn't condone them; it show the wrongness, the evil, bleak, corruption of the world that the 456 came to." without, of course, mentioning that it is totally, inexplicably different from the world the show previously inhabited.) I'm afraid their statements (or lack of them) reinforce the opinions the majority of folks in the US apparently have, when they deny equal rights to LGBT people. So, again, in this case, showing CoE's homophobia felt ... homophobic.

Sorry this was so long! It started out because I wanted to chime in on day 5, and as I read more, it grew. It was a good thoughtful conversation to read, and I hope I've added to it.

(frozen)

[phaetonschariot.livejournal.com]

I think a lot about CoE was different to the world of the first two seasons of Torchwood, which is the largest part of my problems with it. It really feels like CoE was a social political drama shoe-horned into the Torchwood universe, and if you look at it from that perspective then perhaps the commentary on how people view sexuality is part of the CoE story - but it shouldn't be part of the Torchwood story. (Granted I now actively avoid listening to anything RTD has to say - so I hadn't heard that he said it wasn't homophobic. The man really needs a PR agent.)

Aviv said that part of the offensiveness may be a geographical thing and I definitely agree with that - where I live, we have "everything but name" civil unions and openly gay and transgender politicians. There is still prejudice and will be for quite a long time, probably, but on the whole it seems to be far safer to be gay here than it is in America. I have faced some bullying, etc, as well as the more common casual comments and ignorance and such, but I've never really felt unsafe because of my sexuality, which provides a huge difference in perspective. I've also been trained in literature and the exploration of themes so I'm possibly more likely to look at something from that viewpoint because it's what I often do in my own writing as well.

(frozen)

[coldwater1010.livejournal.com]

I agree that the problem with COE isn't that they decided to acknowledge that homophobia exists, but that their treatment of sexuality and homophobia in COE is a radical departure to what went on before and the argument that "they're outside the hub now" doesn't really explain because the tolerance in the previous seasons extended beyond that. When Mary kisses Tosh in the cafe apparently no-one even bats an eyelash and then you have Jack not only dancing with, but kissing a man in front of people in 1941 when homophobia would have been a lot more prevalent again apparently without any real repercussions. Everyone's sexuality is treated as fluid and no-one really feels the need to comment on it. Despite the fact that Ianto basically goes from being with Lisa to hooking up with Jack and that being Jack's boyfriend is pretty much his main function on the show at no point is he defined by his sexuality. It's never an issue. It's just a part of who he is and yet in COE it suddenly becomes pretty much his only defining quality to the point that people can apparently smell it on him. Ianto didn't die because of anything related to his 'gayness' so why does Andy even need to bring it up except to further reinforce the idea that Ianto's characterisation has basically become the sum total of his sexuality. These episodes and seasons aren't supposed to exist in a vacuum in relation to one another. They're supposed to flow from a consistent narrative so of course it's going to raise eyebrows when the world view in which these characters live in is suddenly altered. It gave the impression that COE existed in a separate universe to previous Torchwood episodes.

(frozen)

[phaetonschariot.livejournal.com]

...that Ianto's characterisation has basically become the sum total of his sexuality.

Further reinforced by the revelation that every piece of information about his background we had was made up.

(frozen)

[coldwater1010.livejournal.com]

Well that wasn't really hard to do considering his father being a tailor was pretty much the only family background they gave us on him in two seasons. heh!

(frozen)

[phaetonschariot.livejournal.com]

That and that they went to the Electro when he was a kid. TWO PIECES. It pissed me off more than his death though - his death was killing him, but retconning the meagre amount of canon was like they were trying to erase him as well.

(frozen)

[aviv-b.livejournal.com]

That's its exactly. I'm going to digress but its to make a point. I recently went to see the movie A Serious Man with two friends. We are all Jewish. I'm in my early 50s. One friend is 13 years older than I am (less 1 week), the other is 12 years younger.

I thought it was a warm-hearted look at a Jewish family/neighborhood almost identical to where I grew up (especially the Hebrew school and the different styles of Rabbis).

My older friend thought it was appalling - making fun of the Jewish community, showing it in a bad light. My younger friend thought the whole thing was silly.

And we all agree on why we felt the way we did. Older friend's father is a Holocaust survivor and grew up in a small town and experience a lot of anti-semitism growing up. Much like my parents, she believes that Jews 'shouldn't wash their dirty laundry in public.' And she is constantly viewing the world through her father's experience.

I grew up in a suburb that was 50% Jewish -the public schools closed on the Jewish holidays because not enough kids came to school. I experienced almost no prejudice growing up, but even though I've a had a few unpleasant experiences as an adult, I don't feel at all insecure about my place in America. But I do work hard with groups that support minority civil rights (gays, blacks, immigrants) because I'm worried that we are starting on a trend toward taking people's rights away.

My younger friend's view is "antisemitism, what antisemitism?" She also is very involved with minority rights issues but from the perspective of making sure other groups get the freedoms that Jews have.

So yes, age and geography make for my group, but for gays who are still being openly targeted by ministers, politicians, skinheads, etc, the opinion about CoE spanned all age groups. My dream is to wake up in ten years and hear a 20 member of the GLBT community say, 'gaybashing, what gaybashing.' Sigh, yeah I know, but its a dream.

(frozen)

[(Anonymous)]

I think PhaetonsChariot has a point about geography making a big difference in point of view. I also agree, aviv_b, that age doesn't seem to in this case (I'm about your age).

To be fair, RTD has only commented, as far as I know, about whether Ianto's death was homophobic (answer: no) and whether he was pressured to de-gay Torchwood (answer: ambiguous). I don't know whether he was ever asked about issues in CoE other than Ianto's death.

I wasn't at ComicCon, but I heard he said things similar to what he said in this interview on AfterElton (http://www.afterelton.com/TV/2009/7/russeltdavies?page=0,3) when he was asked about Ianto's death being yet another dead queer. He said it wasn't, but that "...please don’t get on your high horse about Ianto Jones, for f*ck’s sake, who is fictional. Go do some good work in the real world where you can actually save some people’s lives." Right: Don't bother you about CoE and the death of a character in a same-sex relationship, because we can't both complain about your show and work for equal rights in the real world. Gotcha. And after all, TV is not at all influential to how people view the world...

Another was whether he felt pressured (http://www.thepostgameshow.com/?cat=185) to de-gay Torchwood. He said, "I think you can forget about people picking up gay rights as an issue. It’s rather like children picking up nursery blocks and waving them in the air but having no idea what it entails. We’re talking about issues in my entire life here, not just one small television program..." It doesn't answer yes or no, but does let you know that (1) Russell thinks that even if he is being homophobic, people won't care enough to make a lot of noise, and (2) he is, as they say, "the only gay in the village" and the rest of us (independent of sexual orientation, apparently) simply cannot understand well enough to even be able to reasonably question him about such things!

The sad thing is, he's right about (1), it seems. CoE is being lauded left and right as great drama. People don't seem to care about the homophobia (or notice it in some cases, maybe since it's so ingrained in our society?). I guess I'm out of step.

(frozen)

[(Anonymous)]

Ooops, sorry about the odd look of what were supposed to be links. They were hotlinks, and were not bold, in the preview.

(frozen)

[phaetonschariot.livejournal.com]

I don't say this often, but RTD can fuck off and die.

(frozen)

[aviv-b.livejournal.com]

I agree with PhaetonsChariot on geography making a difference as well.

RTD's statement about Ianto is a straw man arguement as you point out. As if caring about one thing precludes caring about something else. Pretty common retort when people don't have a logical comeback to a charge or statement. Used by children, the not very bright and by folks who really care about nothing. A grade school debate team knows better than to use that type of argument.

And I guess all my male gay friends are just children with nursury blocks (or are they hysterical womenz, I get sooo confused). Again, its a playground taunt, not really becoming of a theoretical adult. Note I say theoretical.

Wealth and priviledge has provided RTD with protection. He knows nothing about what the life of a not famous gay person is like (especially in the US). But considering he's living in the California where the voters repealed a court's decision to allow gay marriage he might just get on the clue train.

And for me, maybe that's the crux of it. I try (don't always succeed) to see other people's points of view and respect those who I don't agree with...on big issues like human rights or immigration as well as little issues (should Jack hook up with Gwen).

RTD apparently has no respect for anyone who isn't in 100% agreement with his genius. He's dismissive, insulting and juvenille. Needless to say, I won't be voting for him as gay man of the decade either, LOL.

(frozen)

[coldwater1010.livejournal.com]

Isn't that a bit like saying only woman are allowed to be involved and have an opinion when it comes to women's rights?

To be honest I don't think Ianto was killed off because he was "queer" despite them laying it on a bit thick. I just think RTD ran out of people to kill after the quick succession demises of Tosh and Owen. He couldn't kill off Jack and he was never going to kill off Gwen.Plus while he may have had bit of a thing for GDL I don't think he felt much investment in his character so he was easily expendable.

(frozen)

[fide-et-spe.livejournal.com]

Thing is, I don't see Johnny as homophobic. He is a type indeed, but a type from that part of Wales, who would say something like that and it isn't meant to be offensive at all. Ianto doesn't care about it, he just raises his eyebrows and hugs Johnny. As James Masters said, he was shocked at the insulting things that GDL and his friends say to each other all the time, he kept thinking that they would be upset and didn't understand it at all.

However I do think that the Clem thing was a bit dodgy, and personally I was horrified by the Andy scene, it really was unnecessary. I think the scene with Ianto's family was probably OK as it was very realistic, but then they went on and rubbed it in too much.

(frozen)

[phaetonschariot.livejournal.com]

Oh god yes I hated Clem "smelling" the gay on him. I asked Mr Moran about it after that episode aired and he said IIRC that it would be explained but it never was. IMO that definitely went too far (though "OI! IT'S NOT 1965 ANYMORE!" is totally a meme now), it was just utterly ridiculous.

And yeah I agree that Johnny isn't actively homophobic - it's more an example of the casual, often ignorance-based prejudice that just sort of seeps in, where you don't really mean any harm, you just haven't necessarily thought about it. Particularly since they do have that family relationship and it's often taken for granted that when you're connected to someone in that way you can say shit and they won't get too upset about it. I think Ianto's reaction was actually partly that Rhiannon had just said she wouldn't tell anyone and a little bit "why do you assume I'm the girl?", particularly because it's highly likely that they switch it up.

(frozen)

[fide-et-spe.livejournal.com]

Thing is, it's a comment Rhys or his friends would make, you could totally imagine Banana Boat saying it. The "taking it up the arse" bit is meaningless, it's just a way of saying I hear you are gay. Ianto didn't care about it, he raised his brows because Rhiannon promised she hadn't told anyone, also you got the feeling he had that long suffering thing with his brother in law. I can see that they censored it in the US because people would take it literally, whereas here they mostly wouldn't, unless very niave. It's just taking the piss. As you say, family and close friends can get away with those things. If an aquaintance or stranger said it, then that would be different and yes, quite possibly offensive.

The Clem bit and the Andy bit were inexcusable I thought, and it did start to feel like they were really wanting to have Ianto as the "queer" character, and they did really leave Jack out of that as well, it was all very odd and one of the many things I dislike about CoE

(frozen)

[radiant-pip.livejournal.com]

"The Clem bit and the Andy bit were inexcusable I thought, and it did start to feel like they were really wanting to have Ianto as the "queer" character, and they did really leave Jack out of that as well, it was all very odd and one of the many things I dislike about CoE."

Yes, I would really like to know why they felt the need to go this way with Ianto's character (and then proceed to do it poorly IMO). Like he had nothing else to contribute? And why Jack was immune even though it takes two to tango... (I guess Clem was too busy being scared of "the man" to notice the eau de Ianto on him...or maybe the cement bath helped A LOT. Ugh.)

(frozen)

[phaetonschariot.livejournal.com]

Because Ianto's the girl in the relationship (note he has the same role as Rose in Doctor/Rose) and only girls get slut-shamed!!!

/cynical and not entirely serious

(frozen)

[radiant-pip.livejournal.com]

"I asked Mr Moran about it after that episode aired and he said IIRC that it would be explained but it never was."

:( An explanation would've been nice. It seems they changed a lot of stuff with regards to Jack and Ianto. Too bad they left the stuff in that made Ianto seem nothing more than a plot device or a symbol of something they couldn't bother to really expound upon. I really thought there were going to be three main characters in Torchwood: Children of Earth. Silly me.

For all the time they had to work on this script and with the writers supposedly working together, you would think some things that made it into the shooting script would've made more sense.