Femslash Friday: The Women of Sense8

All I'm going to say here is that in Season 1 of Sense8, this happened:

I'd ship it.

Which, fine. That's cool. Nomi gets all the guys in the hot tub.

So, um, when is our companion scene with Nomi and the rest of women? Season 2, I hope.

Just once? It's only fair.

Preferred quad: Nomi/Sun/Kala/Riley

Femslash February Friday: A Classic

Welp, Femslash February is just about over, which is sad.

The good news, however, is that Femslash Friday will continue. It is an election year, and I'm not sure we will make it through the news cycle and political bullshit without additional femslash in our lives.

Today, in honor of the month, I bring you a classic. This one's a Xena/Gabrielle fan video to the tune of "Holding Out for a Hero."

Because aren't we all, in these desperate times?

Content note: If you watch it. you will officially become more lesbian for doing so. No, I mean, even if you're not a lesbian, because I know there are those of you who read here who aren't lesbians, and I certainly don't want to erase you!

I truly believe we can all be united in harmony here in Fannie's Room around a shared appreciation for femslash. High fives all around!

And, I have to say, it makes me especially happy that some of my potential bigot readers might become more lesbian.

But seriously, it's just that it's scientifically proven that watching a fan video that was at one time a Xena Convention Winner will result in slight shifts in one's place on the Kinsey Scale.

(Hey, people have claimed homosexuality is "caused" by worse things, yeah?)

Femslash February Friday: Antiheros

The antihero, the dictionary tells us, is "a central character in a story, movie, or drama who lacks conventional heroic attributes."  Wikipedia currently tells us that conventional heroic attributes include "idealism, courage, and morality." TV Tropes tell us the antihero leans toward the cynical side of the so-called "Sliding Scale of Idealism Versus Cynicism."

I like that.

However, the truth is, however we define them, I'm of the opinion that the line between hero and antihero is a thin, subjective one. Is there any hero who is the perfect archetype of hero?   Every hero has their weakness, their lapse in judgment, their mistakes.

To me, I know an antihero when I get the feeling (a) they might be, at any given moment, on the verge of going rogue; and (b) they engage in questionably-moral actions for what is perhaps a noble purpose.

Mostly, I appreciate the antihero because they remind us that good v. bad is not always (or even often?) clear cut. That is not to say that all morals are relative, just that life is fucking complicated.

Perhaps because I too gravitate toward cynicism and have a strong appreciation for dark humor, antiheroes are some of my favorite characters in TV/Film.  I especially appreciate the female antihero as contrasted with the female character whose responsibility is to be perky, upbeat, and a moral compass of the show, however that is defined in the particular 'verse. It is a real life trope for women, as men's "opposite," to be morally responsible for keeping others, men especially, in line. The female antihero subverts that. She keeps no one in line. She barely keeps herself in line.

And, relevant to the Femslash February Friday theme, people, and by people I mean me, also love shipping the antihero.  Specifically, the damaged, cynical, brooding antihero with a more traditionally-noble hero.

Here are some of my favorites:

• Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer): 

Faith was, in some ways, Buffy's shadow character.  Buffy had a Scooby Gang who supported her survival and kept her sane. Faith was a loner.  Bitter and alienated, she was a legit villain at times. Even as a slayer, seemed to genuinely enjoy killing foes in a way that Buffy did not.

But, I'm a sucker for a redemption story, and Whedon a company delivered it in the final season. Faith continued to have questionable judgment, of course, but ultimately joined forces with Buffy in defeating the final big bad. 

Did you know that Faith/Buffy femslash is one of the top pairings at A03 in the Buffy fanfic archives? It is second in femslash pairings in the Buffyverse only to Willow/Tara.  Also, people are super into Xander/Spike, another antihero pairing.  

All of that is five by five with me.

• Tamsin (Lost Girl)

When Tamsin entered the Lost Girl 'verse in Season 3, I assumed she was being brought in as a competing love interest for Dyson, one of the main male characters. I was pleasantly surprised to find that  she was actually more interested in competing for Bo's interest, with Dyson and Lauren being her competitors.

Like many an antihero, Tamsin lends the appearance of giving zero fucks about most things or people while in reality her sensitive feelings are covered under a thick veneer of acting rude, carefree, and smart-assy.  She's the woman who'll tell someone to "eat a sack of tits" one day, and then the next wrap herself in a bow and give herself to someone for their birthday.

(Let's just re-imagine that scene for a moment, shall we? Or better yet, re-watch it):

Preferred ships include: Tamsin/Bo (#Doccubus) and (even better, in my opinion) Tamsin/Lauren (#CopDoc).

• Indra (The 100)

Now, I've watched The 100 since the beginning of the series and, I have to admit, until around mid-Season 2, I mostly thought of it as "teeny-bopper."  However, (Spoiler Alert), shit got legitimately real when Clarke killed Finn, the characters started making a ton of morally-questionable choices, and queerness became maintext.

Indra stands out to me as antihero for her decision to (Spoiler Alert) follow Lexa in abandoning their previous commitment to Clarke and the Sky People near the end of Season 2.  She was faced with an unenviable moral choice of (a) obeying her commander and breaking a promise versus (b) disobeying her commander and keeping a promise.

Perhaps we are all the antihero when faced with such choices. Perhaps I exaggerate.

Nonetheless, preferred pairing: Indra/Octavia.

• Jessica Jones (Jessica Jones)

Simply put, if an archetype exists for antihero, she is Jessica Jones.  She drinks too much, swears too much, and will legit smack a dude down if he barks at her to "smile" (and can we all watch when that happens?)  

Unlike (ahem) some male superheroes, there are no playboy mansions, butlers, or batmobiles. It's just Jessica, living in a hovel, not giving a bag of dicks what kinky shit other people are into as long as they're into it quietly.

Preferred Femslash Pairing: Jessica/Trish for the bad/good dynamic. Jessica/Hogarth for the bad/bad.

Add more antiheroes in the comments!

Transparent - Beyond the Supreme Court Test Plaintiffs

Are people watching Transparent?

I largely enjoyed Season 2, in particular.  I am also aware of, and sympathetic to, critiques within the trans community regarding the casting of cis male actor Jeffrey Tambor as Maura, a trans woman - and of trans stories in general not being told by trans people.

Perhaps to her credit, creator Jill Soloway has publicly discussed her hiring of trans actors, consultants, and at least one trans writer to help with the production of the show. Is that enough? I'd say that's not my call, as a cis person.

Today I want to highlight the less-frequently discussed character, Tammy (Melora Hardin).

BAM!

Tammy is, to me, hot.  Like, HAF*.

*(I recently learned that's what the kids are saying for "hot as fuck." I also say fuck on this blog now on the regular, apparently.)

Lesbian and bisexual women's portrayal in TV and film is increasing, but butch women, butch queer women, being portrayed is still incredibly rare. It's as though queer women can be depicted, but they can't actually look like how many queer women actually look in real life.

Which, I guess is sort of an ongoing general rule for women in TV/film in general, yeah?

Men, I would argue moreso than women, can be fat, ugly, bald, frumpy, and old and still get acting roles - as they should! Women, however, have to constantly worry about their, in Amy Schumer's words, Last Fuckable Day - the day when the media decides that an actress is no longer believably "fuckable." So, like a woman reaches the age of 40 and from then on she's only fit for roles where she's, say, Tom Hanks' mom.

I would extend that further and note that even for women portraying queer characters, these characters often have to meet the standards of what's commonly thought of as the Hetero Male Gaze. Even The L Word, which was entirely about lesbian and bisexual women, showed approximately 3 butch women ever over the course of 5 seasons. (That might be an exaggeration. Was Shane butch? Debatable).

And, as a lesbian myself, I find many women appealing who do fall into those conventional beauty standards - but, my standards are also much broader.  I like women, like Tammy, who swagger.  I like women who give no fucks about whether men think they're nice, cool, or hot. I like women who are over 40 and are still portrayed as sexual beings. I find many women attractive who are, by media standards, fat (or who call themselves fat).

I like women are stereotypically feminine, androgynous, and yes, I like women who are butch.

So, back to Tammy. She is, in many ways, a mess. She's at times an asshole and, in Season 2, has a cringe-worthy public meltdown. (there, there, Tammy, there, there......sigh.....I'm sorry, what were we talking about?)

Oh yeah, but at the same time, isn't basically every character on Transparent a mess in their own unique way?

Some (ahem, Rod Dreher) who maybe have never seen the show, perhaps fantasize that Transparent is a propagandistic promotion of gender and sexual nonconformity that presents deviance as both desirable and superior than conventionality.

(which it is, obvs)

BUT, the power of Transparent, to me, is not that it depicts fantastical versions of people outside the norm. For one, it doesn't.  On the contrary, I feel drawn to the characters because they are imperfect, because they make bad decisions, and because they act jerky sometimes.  And, they're allowed to, even though they're queer, trans, and gender-nonconforming (and even if they have weird hairstyles - Season 2 Ali, what is going on?).

The show takes us beyond the point where queer characters must be pretty, gender conforming, and acceptably "safe" for a conservative, heterosexual audience (looking at you, Jenny's Wedding). We are invited to care about these characters despite their flaws. They are not the Supreme Court ideal handpicked, sainted, and prepped "test" plaintiffs for LGBT rights.

The show argues, instead, these people - we-  matter and are deserving of dignity, even if not immediately appealing to the mainstream. And that, I think, is progress.

Femslash Friday: And I Think I'm Kinda Gay

I always loved Buffy episodes with Vampire Willow.  She was so badass, blunt, and ... licky.
Now, sure, you might be saying, "Fannie, Vampire Willow was evil."  And yes. Yes, that is true.  But to that I say, she couldn't help what she had become, cut her some slack!

And, I suppose if one was being honest, one might also say that Vampire Willow displays a fair amount of sexual confusion.  Not so much about her sexual orientation but more about the above business with her alternate universe self.

Relatedly, you might be thinking that, technically, "femslash" requires a pairing, hence the "slash." So some of you might be wondering who the related pairing is today. As in, Vampire Willow/Regular Willow, or ..... Vampire Willow/Glory (hmmmmm, let that one marinate).

Here I would suggest that the real question is not who would Vampire Willow be paired with, but who wouldn't be, really?

See also, this tribute fan video.

There may or may not come a day when I talk about serious things in Fannie's Room again.  I mean, it only took me 9 years of blogging to realize I don't have to engage with shitheads if I don't want to.

Welp, This Happened

This one's from The Fall, featuring Stella Gibson (Gillian Anderson) and Dr. Tanya Reed Smith (Archie Panjabi). To set the stage, the two characters, who are just friends/colleagues at this point, have agreed to meet for drinks. Dr. Smith is waiting at a table by herself, when a man walks up.

Then, Stella enters, and helps a friend out:

 

It is a scene to launch a thousand fanfics, as lesbian/bisexual fandom collectively thinks: "Turn baaaack! You've made a huge mistake!"

I kid.  For, in all seriousness, Stella is cool, chill, and knows how to take "no" for answer.  She made her move and if Dr. Smith isn't comfortable with the one-night-stand, that's fine, She's Stella freaking Gibson. There will be no cajoling.

Anyway, I hope you all have a safe and fabulous New Year's!

Peace out, 2015.

So, Rod Dreher Seems Nice

Here, Dreher, the Christian conservative writes:

"The 'Status Update' episode of of This American Life was one I almost didn’t listen to. Why? Because the first segment is a discussion of among the most annoying people on the planet — young teenage girls — talking about the most boring subject on the planet: their social media habits."

Oy. Adults bullying teen girls as a class is not a good look on anyone, least of all a middle-aged male blogger with a relatively large following. Petty.

Then here, Dreher has a bee in his bonnet about the TV show Transparent (a) existing at all, and (b) being featured in The New York Times. He hyperventilates:

"A political response is necessary, but a political response alone is radically insufficient, in part because it’s nothing but a delaying action. This Weimar America madness has to run its course. We religious conservatives had all better do everything we can to protect our institutions and our families from it. It’s not going to be easy, but it’s not going to get any easier as the years go by, no matter who sits in the White House, and we had better prepare ourselves."

In comments, Dreher explains his Nazi allusion "Weimar America": it's "shorthand for an unstable and decadent state and culture marked by left and right extremism, in which the center could not and did not hold."

The suggestion seems to be that Transparent is a herald of the US turning into a Nazi-like state in which the rounding up and murdering of conservative Christians like him is imminent.

I chose both quotes to highlight here because, to me, they demonstrate the Christian Persecution Complex well in its current post-marriage-equality incarnation.

Out of one side of his mouth, Dreher and his people are victims, he claims. Yet, out of the other side of his mouth, he uses his voice to belittle teenage girls. "Transgenders." College kids. Black Lives Matters activists. Take your pick at the Dreher blog. When people such as these advocate for themselves, it is "decadence." They are being whiny "titty-babies."  Yet, take away a religious school's "right" to discriminate against gays, let a show featuring trans people be featured in a major newspaper, and watch out everyone it's a human rights violation of the first order.

The problem with Christians such as this is not that they are being persecuted in any meaningful sense of the word. It's both that previously-excluded groups are gaining platforms and visibility while conservative Christians are losing their previously-privileged standing and disproportionate power in US society, law, and culture.  It is akin to Men's Rights Activists (MRAs) who interpret gains for women as the sexism/oppression of men.

There is literally no threat to anti-LGBT Christians in the US right now that merits comparisons to either Nazi Germany or its precursor conditions.

As I noted back in June, when Dreher was given space in Time (because.... ummm?) to share his histrionics about the SCOTUS ruling, "The chief harm to opponents of equality is not that it impacts their own rights or liberty, but that the state no longer officially agrees with their moral and/or religious views about the matter. The state not being a Christian one is framed, not as neutrality, but as aggression and unfairness."

Yet, unfortunately, to paraphrase a quote, when God is a man, some men see themselves as God.

Many white Christian men are used to being authoritative overlords - indeed grow up with their scriptures affirming that status for them. They have it ingrained in them that their - our - voices don't matter, that our voices are, say, "the most annoying on the planet," unworthy of listening to, dangerous, a beginning to the end times.

In a recent essay, Rebecca Solnit makes an observation about that peculiar group of white guys who, because of the way society has long centered them and their voices, now demand constant coddling (while of course claiming it's others who need to be coddled):

"A group of black college students doesn’t like something and they ask for something different in a fairly civil way and they’re accused of needing coddling as though it’s needing nuclear arms. A group of white male gamers doesn’t like what a woman cultural critic says about misogyny in gaming and they spend a year or so persecuting her with an unending torrent of rape threats, death threats, bomb threats, doxxing, and eventually a threat of a massacre that cites Marc LePine, the Montreal misogynist who murdered 14 women in 1989, as a role model. I’m speaking, of course, about the case of Anita Sarkeesian and Gamergate. You could call those guys coddled. We should. And seriously, did they feel they were owed a world in which everyone thought everything they did and liked and made was awesome or just remained silent? Maybe, because they had it for a long time.

And so it goes. When men like Dreher are offended by, say, Transparent, we are to take it as a valid, serious, important concern. His delicate sensibilities - the priggish way he talks about trans people and "SJWs" -  demand coddling. Other people's sensibilities are seen as political correctness gone too far.

In all, it's a profound failure of empathy.

In her essay, Solnit goes on to note that, indeed, art can be dangerous. It can change the world. It can make us or break us.  It can elevate other voices. And, in the case of something like Transparent, can shift the female gaze from the margin to the center, and tell the previously-untold stories of people who have previously been marginal to the white male protagonist's story.

Only under the mindset that one particular group's story is the only one worth centering can the telling of other people's stories be framed as "decadent."  I mean, let's really take a step back and examine the self-absorption inherent in that claim: telling stories that center trans and female individuals is a sign of decadence, it is a luxury and sign of decline; unlike say the telling of cisgender white male stories, which is a social necessity, and a social good.

Perhaps to a conservative white Christian man with such a mindset, the celebration of other stories, perspectives, lifestyles feels akin to - for him - genocide.  If in metaphor only.

Make no mistake, though, it's not.

What a world.