i know i should respond to the meat of this meta (hahaha, anagrams) but i'm not sure what to say.
except that, the bigger question to me is: why can't it be awesome that she's a gaymo? i mean, people seem SUPER JAZZED at the idea that the coop might be (shame shame out magazine, but yeah, we all see it). hell, i read one piece of anderson cooper/rahm emanuel fic that was better than pretty much any porn i've ever watched in terms of HOTTfactor.
so shouldn't we be excited that there's somebody else there who doesn't seem to be straight? aren't we tired of more of the same, of television not reflecting the world we actually live in, where 5 or 10 or 20 percent of people are GLBTQ (and many, many more are questioning)? aren't we ready for a change? and when that change comes, shouldn't we be excited to take advantage of it?
or is it that she's a chick, and we're "not ignoring the female characters, we just think it's hotter/more subversive/whatever to write about the boys"? is it that she's a lesbian which is just too close to home (whether you're a lesbian - which may mean it's boringly close to your actual life - or a hetero - which may mean it's just a little too close to a personal squick for you to handle)?
but aHA. we ARE writing about her. AND... well, taking away one of the things that makes her awesome and trailblazing and brave and wonderful. sexual orientation is important and it shapes how we live our lives, how people talk to us and look at us and feel about us. for christ's sake, she's an OUT LESBIAN telling us the REGULAR OLD NEWS and PEOPLE ARE OKAY WITH IT. that is shocking. that is ground breaking. only a couple years after elizabeth vargas was shafted out of an anchor position at ABC news because she was a woman and pregnant. after katie couric became the first solo female anchor, and was forced to do cozy little sit downs because, apparently, that's what women DO. so we let rachel maddow tell it like it IS. this is HUGE, people.
and the first thing we do is take that away from her?
except that, the bigger question to me is: why can't it be awesome that she's a gaymo? i mean, people seem SUPER JAZZED at the idea that the coop might be (shame shame out magazine, but yeah, we all see it). hell, i read one piece of anderson cooper/rahm emanuel fic that was better than pretty much any porn i've ever watched in terms of HOTTfactor.
so shouldn't we be excited that there's somebody else there who doesn't seem to be straight? aren't we tired of more of the same, of television not reflecting the world we actually live in, where 5 or 10 or 20 percent of people are GLBTQ (and many, many more are questioning)? aren't we ready for a change? and when that change comes, shouldn't we be excited to take advantage of it?
or is it that she's a chick, and we're "not ignoring the female characters, we just think it's hotter/more subversive/whatever to write about the boys"? is it that she's a lesbian which is just too close to home (whether you're a lesbian - which may mean it's boringly close to your actual life - or a hetero - which may mean it's just a little too close to a personal squick for you to handle)?
but aHA. we ARE writing about her. AND... well, taking away one of the things that makes her awesome and trailblazing and brave and wonderful. sexual orientation is important and it shapes how we live our lives, how people talk to us and look at us and feel about us. for christ's sake, she's an OUT LESBIAN telling us the REGULAR OLD NEWS and PEOPLE ARE OKAY WITH IT. that is shocking. that is ground breaking. only a couple years after elizabeth vargas was shafted out of an anchor position at ABC news because she was a woman and pregnant. after katie couric became the first solo female anchor, and was forced to do cozy little sit downs because, apparently, that's what women DO. so we let rachel maddow tell it like it IS. this is HUGE, people.
and the first thing we do is take that away from her?
Reply
Leave a comment