fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #1901 ]

[ SECRET POST #1901 ]

⌈ Secret Post #1901 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

16.

__________________________________________________

17.

__________________________________________________

18.

__________________________________________________

19.

__________________________________________________

20.

__________________________________________________

21.

__________________________________________________

22.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 06 pages, 150 secrets from Secret Submission Post #272.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 2 - broken links ], [ 1 2 3 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeats ]
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Okay, so I can't read. But in my lacking comprehension, "Why don't they just admit it? No one cares if they're gay or not." reads as why won't gay people (poofs, sorry, that's the correct term) in Hollywood just come out of the closet, it's not like anyone cares anyway. Not me. Except that they should come out. If no one cares, why should they come out at all?

And "someone has to be the first in the firing line"? No they fucking well do not. Yes, there are some people in the media who are openly homosexual and that does not greatly affect their work, what kind of offers they get or how well they do. There are also those whose work it does affect. For whom, yeah, it means that you're not as hot in the box office. If it was all for ~art~, then it wouldn't matter, but entertainment is a business most of all, so no, I don't think that anyone should have to "be first in the firing line" and come publicly out of the closet unless that's what they personally want.

Also, even if it did not affect their work, there are plenty of gay people who are in the closet for personal reasons. Possibly their family wouldn't accept it. Perhaps they've grown up in a hostile environment. Perhaps they're just very private people. I find it very curious that he both thinks that no one will care that you're gay (I want to live in that world as well, and not have a great political candidate lose the race because he's openly homosexual and therefore clearly unsuitable for the job.) and still refers to coming out in the entertainment industry as a firing line. There's a curious dichotomy, I find.

In general, I find it very distasteful that a heterosexual person who has never had the experience of coming out of the closet, whether privately or in the public eye, feels that they have the right to comment on coming out, especially making light of it. I get that he isn't purposefully negative, but I think these comments are very ignorant.

But please do point out my failures and give me the correct reading of this, be so kind.

Unfortunately with the way society is today, someone does have "to be the first in the firing line". Is it fair? Of course not. Does everyone have the personal support system in place or the financial autonomy to actually be that first? Again, a sad no.

But just as Martin Freeman brought up with the suffrage movement, in order to enact change someone (hopefully more than a singular someone) has to "stand up and be counted".

In an ideal world (the one he is encouraging), if every closeted homosexual decided to come out all at once, the business end of Hollywood would be forced to accept them without discrimination or collapse in on itself. As it stands, whoever decides to come out is going to have potshots taken at them. The dichotomy being the difference between idealism and realism.

I'm sorry your find his views distasteful. I find them heartening, if only for the fact that I know that his views as a white heterosexual man will reach and might be able to influence a certain demographic that no other group might manage. I mean really, what preteen boy is going to listen to what their weird old babysitter says, but if 'Bilbo Baggins' agrees then it may be worth thinking over.

"Unfortunately with the way society is today, someone does have "to be the first in the firing line". Is it fair? Of course not. Does everyone have the personal support system in place or the financial autonomy to actually be that first? Again, a sad no."

This. In an imperfect world sometimes the best solutions are the really unfair ones. It's sad, but true.

True, but the one saying that someone should get in the firing line shouldn't really be a person who never has to go near it. It would be different if it was an LGBTQ person saying, "I know this will have it's repercussions but someone has to be the first, so it might as well be me." or that someone members of the group in question have felt that it would be necessary. It's very different when it's someone removed from the group pointing out what the group/individuals in it are doing wrong. It's just not his place.

I can agree with that. I just don't agree that his comments are homophobic. Stupid? Sure, but not homophobic.

I don't think they're homophobic, either. Just ignorant and poorly worded.

I don't know. I sure as hell would be more likely to do something scary/brave if I knew that there were others who would support me and what I stood for because they knew it was the right thing to do whether or not they knew me personally or not. That way, god forbid, something happened to my support structure, I wouldn't be completely on my own. Especially if their perspective was different from my own. Maybe it's the scientist in me, but I like when my results can be backed up by multiple experiments.

Calling for change, calling for action against an injustice no matter your personal situation, I think is admirable. As soon as he steps over the line and starts outing people in order to get things rolling or if it comes out that he was personally pressuring a friend to become a figurehead, I'll be with you 1000%. That is an example of privilege overriding the minority voice.

It's very different when it's someone removed from the group pointing out what the group/individuals in it are doing wrong. It's just not his place.

Sorry, but this right here hurts in more ways than one.

And at the risk of a metaphor that doesn't even begin to encompass the seriousness of the issue, I fucking hate it when my art professor tells me I'm doing it wrong. I mean, I'm the one who came up with the idea right? It's my form, my function, my interpretation. What right does he have telling me it's wrong? Only, the point of the art is to get my ideas across (whatever they may be at the time), and that critique is going to come up with ideas and techniques I've never thought of before. If what I produce isn't getting my point across, then I want some outsider perspective from every angle in order to help me make it right.

I'm queer, in the closet and I gain no courage from someone who has never been in a similar situation telling that I (or someone like me) should be the first in the firing line, and simultaneously saying that no one cares whether you're gay or not. That is just so far-removed from my situation and what I've seen with others. I'm not saying he's a homophobe or saying that he intends harm, but I'm saying that he's ignorant and I find his comments problematic and to an extent, hurtful.

"Calling for action against an injustice"

What is the injustice here? Is it that those - and I quote - "poofs" in Hollywood aren't coming out of the closet? That they're afraid for the sake of box office revenues and don't want to step in "the firing line"?

And I really really don't want to touch that metaphor. Just. No. No. "I fucking hate it when my art professor tells me I'm doing it wrong." Are you trying to say that closeted homosexuals are "doing it wrong"? You've seriously put me on the verge of tears. I'm doing it wrong because I don't want my strained familial relationships get even more strained and get bullied for yet another thing? Thanks so much, really. I need critique on how I handle my sexuality from people with a different perspective (=non-queer people)? Please don't ever use a metaphor like that again. You can't possibly begin to imagine how hurtful it is.

Okay, but you're really making me cry, so I'm done with this discussion. Have a lovely day. (I genuinely mean that.)

I'm sorry if you thought otherwise but the injustice I was speaking of was that so many must hide who they are. I am not actually advocating one solution over another.

Also, the only reason I used the phrase 'doing it wrong' was in direct parallel to your use of it in the comment before. Barring violence in all it's forms (mental, physical, emotional), I don't think there is a wrong solution. Just ones that will bring about change faster or slower. In that particular metaphor, 'doing it right' = 'getting the results you want in the time frame you want' therefore 'doing it wrong' = 'not getting what you want'. And honestly, I don't know what you consider to be an acceptable rate of change. I don't know if you think society is doing well in that regard.

I am sorry I hurt you and I am sorry there was a miscommunication.

Edited 2012-03-18 02:41 (UTC)

Not the same anon as above, but all I'm hearing here are excuses and a poor defence of a bad metaphor. The whole point anon was bringing up was that Martin made a lot of blanket statements regarding what is the "right" or "best" way for homosexuals to handle their sexuality without actually being informed of what that situation is like. Gays in the closet aren't staunching social change just because they're not ready to come out.

Also, for the record, if you're paying for an education in art, maybe it might be helpful to listen to what your professors are telling you instead of getting pissed off because they don't see how special of a snowflake you are.

The injustice here is that there isn't a more adequate support system for queer people as a whole. That people can't feel safe in being themselves.

I would say that Freeman never said anything about anyone being "the first in the firing line". In the context it's being talked about, that hurdle is long past. It was an ill-thought comment, considering that people stay closeted for lots of reasons. Plus, if legitimately the only reason actors are still closeted is the box ofice, there's the chance they're being coerced into it by studios or contractual obligations, which is a whole other field of injustice.

I can only speak for my own experience, but...being closeted was hell for me. And, honestly, it was ignorant comments like this from people close to me that gave me the courage to come out. Sure, they were problematic; but, at the same time, this person I care about spoke out to support people like me, without knowing they were supporting people like me. I'm not saying that we should be greatful for any little scrap of positive sentiment; we deserve more than that, and we shouldn't be satisfied with less. But even stupid, ignorant, borderline-offensive comments like this can give some people a little hope.

People outside the gay community not talking about things like this is a dangerous situation. Silence can hide bigotry just as easily as it can hide supporters who think it's "not their place" to speak. Coming out is terrifying enough when you do know that person isn't consciously homophobic.

The bad metaphor is...I'm not touching that. If you can't be told, as a ally, by LGBTQ* individuals (or any minority), that what you're saying is hurtful, offensive, badly worded, and generally in one way or another the wrong way to provide support? Then you have no right to call yourself an ally, because you've just shown you don't give a fuck about the people you're trying to help. I am very much hoping that person just got so carried away with their arty metaphor that they forgot what they were likening it to.

I really hope you're okay, for what it's worth, and I hope everything goes well for you, whether you choose to come out or not.

Problem there is that *one* person 'supporting' you isn't enough to make sure you've still got a job, nor will it protect you from the harassment that might very well come from it. As far as 'multiple experiments' go - it wouldn't be an experiment. It would be your *life*, and that's not something you get a 're-do' on.

It may be admirable, but at the same time, he suffers no consequences from anything that happens because of it. It's not his life, livelihood, or anything else that would be under fire as a result of anything that happened. So it would have, basically, been like a white person in the 1960's [at least in the US] telling blacks 'You should totally do your movement this way, and screw the consequences!' from the sidelines. Would it be admirable that they believed in civil rights? Sure. But that doesn't mean that they're in any position to be telling anyone how it should be handled - or that they should ignore what's probably going to come from it, seeing as they wouldn't be effected either way.

Sorry, but that metaphor doesn't work. Coming out isn't 'art'. It's something that is highly personal, and no one should be able to tell someone 'You should come out, because [I as a straight person] say no one cares!" It doesn't work like that. How would he know who would, or wouldn't care? He's not in a position where he'd have to deal with homophobic reactions. This is a scenario where the 'outside perspective' ends up missing a lot of information.

Note: I'm not saying he's homophobic - but his comments were pretty badly worded and ignorant.

Note: I'm not saying he's homophobic - but his comments were pretty badly worded and ignorant.

The whole article was handled badly, both sides of it. I'm not fighting that, and I realize no one else seems to be either.

True, one person isn't going to do much good, but one person stands up and it's a little bit easier for the next person and the next person...

As for my metaphors, maybe if I draw them out as diagrams, there won't be as much confusion next time. Obviously my wording is flawed.

Each 'experiment' equates to a person with a background different from mine (colored, male, bi or white, female, trans etc.). If my views on any particular subject are also shared by a wide variety of people and backgrounds then I will feel reasonable secure in my stance. I realize it is speculation but as humans, I thought some others might have similar feelings.

With regard to art, I'm not talking college level general requirements class. I mean this-is-my-lifeblood-on-a-canvas-there-is-nothing-else-I-can-do-with-my-life art. That is highly emotional and highly personal. No it doesn't have the same threat of physical consequences (unless you count the literal starving part) but it does have a lot of similar degradations. And if you say art is a choice, I can find you a lot of people who will say otherwise. But really, not the point.

I think my whole point in this is just to point out that it's really counter productive to dismiss someone's ideas just because they don't know exactly where you are coming from. Take their word as law? Hell no. But take their ideas, internalize them, see if any bits of theirs fit in with bits of yours.

But just as it would be in extremely bad form for him to get angry if you offered up a different viewpoint based on your own experiences with life, I find it equally in bad form for the opposite.

No. It really wouldn't work better as 'diagrams'. Using the very term 'experiments' is insulting. It takes away the humanity from the people you're referring too.

Just because a view is widely held, doesn't mean that it is right or humane. For example, in the ancient world, slavery was viewed as acceptable, and even preferred means of labor in most, if not all societies. Does that make slavery any more humane? No. The same could be said for several views that are still held today by large groups of people...so using 'SO MANY PEOPLE AGREE WITH ME!' when it comes to societal views doesn't automatically justify that view as 'right' or 'humane'.

As for the art metaphor - like another anon said. No. Just no. Art doesn't end with threats of rape or violence, or someone actually carrying those threats through. It rarely leads to parents disowning their children, and, as far as I know, there are few, if any countries, that prohibit someone from marrying because of their art. Society doesn't condemn you, or make you feel 'wrong' or as if you need to be 'fixed' because you produce art.

So that metaphor in, and of itself, is insulting.

The issue with what he said is that, at the end of the day, he's talking about a situation he doesn't seem to understand - and is telling people that they should come out based on those false notions. And, doing so in manner that rubs people very much the wrong way - and for reasons that I, at least, can't disagree with.

Stop with the art metaphor. Just stop. It's not okay and it will never be okay. You can compare art to another great passion, but you can't compare it to anyone's sexuality or coming out. Please, please, please stop trying to. You're being extremely thoughtless and hurtful.

And here come the anonymous personal attacks...

Though, to be fair, the pic is kinda funny.

Edited 2012-03-18 23:23 (UTC)

No. One person posted a picture that could be taken that way. Out of the three in this 'branch' of responses, you ignored the two that were explaining to you why what you said was both wrong, and hurtful - and neither used any 'personal' attacks to get their response across.

True enough about the other branches, though I was only responding to the pic.

The other two posts were not ignored, but they didn't mention anything that hadn't already been covered in earlier posts. Since my metaphor was in question, I explained my point plainly in the last two paragraphs of the previous post. If someone had asked me a pointed question or to explain my reasoning better, I would have obliged.

I've apologized to the original anon for upsetting them. That was not my intent. But I will not apologize for the metaphors since by definition metaphors are imperfect comparisons used to prove a point. And I had not only noticed the imperfection but mentioned it when I first posted it.

Edited 2012-03-19 03:52 (UTC)

The thing is, most of the LGBTQ* groups in the UK are encouraging exactly the same thing. They're pushing for more people in the public view to come out as part of the effort to combat homophobia in the public perception. It's a message that every pro-LGBTQ* source over here is pushing for - "Hey, people are gay, it's not a big deal". It's pretty easy for an unthinking or ignorant ally to coopt the same message.

There's this assumption that, because there are so many gay people in film and TV that activism has done it's work there, when really it hasn't. It's easy to create a seemingly hostile environment, even if nobody has any problem with such things, if nobody talks about it. If we start attacking people for things being "not his place", we risk encouraging a "don't say gay" mentality, where the only support for queer individuals comes from the gay community itself. While the community is great, it's not an adequate enough support network to make everyone feel safe to come out to the people they care about.

Freeman's kinda proved a number of times that he's blunt and doesn't think before he says something. I know intent isn't magical, but (while he deserves a kick in the shins for his wording), I'm not going to attack him for a supportive sentiment?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #1901 ]

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject