The LGBT Gamer Community Thread.


Gamer Life General Discussion

8,101 to 8,150 of 17,745 << first < prev | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Fergie wrote:
Would you say that your town is unusual or that that is just the way things are all over that region?

My town is unusual in that it's very much a liberal bastion, amid much more conservative rural areas. However, social conservatism isn't as big a thing even in the rural areas of New York State. There are pockets of religious batsh!ttery, but its not really a big thing. Here, gun rights and tax policy are the big GOP hot-button issues. The "social issues" like abortion and suppressing gay rights not so much.

Not that there isn't homophobia, but the homophobes tend not to be open about their hatred. Using homophobic slurs openly is not socially acceptable in general around here, and people using them will usually get called on it.


Seattle is awesome :P I live out on Capitol Hill :P

Shadow Lodge

Freehold DM wrote:
Lissa Guillet wrote:
Fergie wrote:

Again, not saying this is some kind of magical wonderland of freedom, but I guess it's all relative.

One of the great things about Seattle as well. King County is super liberal and accepting. It was great to escape Oklahoma. I still miss it sometimes but it's pretty regressive there. Safety was a large part of why I left.
stuff like that pisses me off to no end. I can see someone being bigoted or just intolerant. But to take it so far as to physically attack someone is beyond belief.

There is a reason that exactly one person in my home town knows that I'm bi. Getting my ass kicked anytime I want to visit family just doesn't appeal to me. And I come from a state in the Midwest that voted for Obama.


Freehold DM wrote:
Lissa Guillet wrote:
Fergie wrote:

Again, not saying this is some kind of magical wonderland of freedom, but I guess it's all relative.

One of the great things about Seattle as well. King County is super liberal and accepting. It was great to escape Oklahoma. I still miss it sometimes but it's pretty regressive there. Safety was a large part of why I left.
stuff like that pisses me off to no end. I can see someone being bigoted or just intolerant. But to take it so far as to physically attack someone is beyond belief.

Yup it's like that in certain areas of the world. I haven't been home in a decade, it isn't super safe back home, and my family when never be happy with me.

Grand Lodge

PIXIE DUST wrote:
Seattle is awesome :P I live out on Capitol Hill :P

I'm moving to Seattle in a month! So excited to leave West Virginia.


BennActive wrote:
PIXIE DUST wrote:
Seattle is awesome :P I live out on Capitol Hill :P
I'm moving to Seattle in a month! So excited to leave West Virginia.

Seattle is actually pretty Rad. You have to check out the EMP museum lol

Shadow Lodge

Very good article in Cracked:
I was transgender but didn't know it - 6 weird realities

By Robert Evans, and Christina Hitchens


So last night Netflix recommended me Sense8 and I watched the first few episodes. Its a modern sci-fi series about a group of 8 people who have gained the ability to share eachother's senses. One of them is a gay man in the closet and another is a MtF transgender lesbian. Massive trigger warning for the treatment of her after the first episode, she does not get along with her mom at all.

Silver Crusade System Administrator

Caineach wrote:
So last night Netflix recommended me Sense8 and I watched the first few episodes. Its a modern sci-fi series about a group of 8 people who have gained the ability to share eachother's senses. One of them is a gay man in the closet and another is a MtF transgender lesbian. Massive trigger warning for the treatment of her after the first episode, she does not get along with her mom at all.

Yeah, that has been super triggering for us.


Have any of you seen a TV series set in Ireland called "Hit and Miss".

It is about a pre-operative trans woman named Mia who is trying to raise a family while working as a hit woman.

The idea sounds totally ****ed in the head, to me at least, but its actually really good. I am curious to see what trans people think about it.


I am curious to see what transpeople think about it myself


3 people marked this as a favorite.

What I think about when I hear the words "gay agenda..."

Silver Crusade System Administrator

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joynt Jezebel wrote:

Have any of you seen a TV series set in Ireland called "Hit and Miss".

It is about a pre-operative trans woman named Mia who is trying to raise a family while working as a hit woman.

The idea sounds totally ****ed in the head, to me at least, but its actually really good. I am curious to see what trans people think about it.

I was not a fan, there was this big weird stupid thing that happened in the middle that made me scream WTF at the TV and then walk away before I put my fist through it. Also, I would rather we get some nice nuanced mostly good person trans characters before we start showing obviously mentally ill borderline psychotic trans characters. Because that is a thing we have to deal with people thinking and accusing us of. On the upside, she wore a particular color of nail polish I tried to find for naught for a few weeks.

Paizo Employee Senior Editor

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Lilith wrote:
What I think about when I hear the words "gay agenda..."

*checks list* Laundry, sweep deck, weeding, cook food for the week...


Lissa- I am not sure I saw the event you refer to, I haven't seen the whole series.

I can see what you mean about not wanting Mia representing the trans community. Trans women are presented in the media as killers, it started with "Silence of the Lambs" as far as I know, quite often. I don't know of even a single instance of this happening in real life. There probably is one or two, but as for trans people being inclined to serious crime... certainly not.

From what I saw, Mia wasn't obviously mentally ill, or not as I saw it. Had a lot to deal with yes.

Silver Crusade System Administrator

It was in episode 2. Kinda hard to miss.

Liberty's Edge

Caineach wrote:
So last night Netflix recommended me Sense8 and I watched the first few episodes. Its a modern sci-fi series about a group of 8 people who have gained the ability to share eachother's senses. One of them is a gay man in the closet and another is a MtF transgender lesbian. Massive trigger warning for the treatment of her after the first episode, she does not get along with her mom at all.

Sense8 does feature a really positive portrayal of a trans character, though, along with several quite positive portrayals of gay characters. Which is cool. Her mother is never portrayed as anything but utterly terrible for her attitude.

It's also a really fun show, IMO.

Joynt Jezebel wrote:
Trans women are presented in the media as killers, it started with "Silence of the Lambs" as far as I know, quite often. I don't know of even a single instance of this happening in real life. There probably is one or two, but as for trans people being inclined to serious crime... certainly not.

In fairness, it's explicitly noted in Silence of the Lambs that Buffalo Bill is not actually trans. People often miss that, and it certainly doesn't help at all with there not being sympathetic trans portrayals in media, but there was specific and explicit reference to that fact, so at least they put in some effort to combat that particular idea.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Joynt Jezebel wrote:
Trans women are presented in the media as killers, it started with "Silence of the Lambs" as far as I know, quite often. I don't know of even a single instance of this happening in real life. There probably is one or two, but as for trans people being inclined to serious crime... certainly not.
In fairness, it's explicitly noted in Silence of the Lambs that Buffalo Bill is not actually trans. People often miss that, and it certainly doesn't help at all with there not being sympathetic trans portrayals in media, but there was specific and explicit reference to that fact, so at least they put in some effort to combat that particular idea.

If I remember correctly the book is much more clear on it than the movie, though.

Liberty's Edge

Drejk wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Joynt Jezebel wrote:
Trans women are presented in the media as killers, it started with "Silence of the Lambs" as far as I know, quite often. I don't know of even a single instance of this happening in real life. There probably is one or two, but as for trans people being inclined to serious crime... certainly not.
In fairness, it's explicitly noted in Silence of the Lambs that Buffalo Bill is not actually trans. People often miss that, and it certainly doesn't help at all with there not being sympathetic trans portrayals in media, but there was specific and explicit reference to that fact, so at least they put in some effort to combat that particular idea.
If I remember correctly the book is much more clear on it than the movie, though.

To some degree, but even in the movie, Clarice says something like "But transsexuals aren't violent." followed by Lecter saying "Billy's not a real transsexual, though he thinks he is. His pathology is infinitely more savage." and goes on to describe his pathology in detail.

It's really pretty explicit.

It does also call (at least by implication) being trans a pathology, and that's unfortunate, but that has to do with the book and movie's age, and is hard to blame them for (given that it was considered a pathology in the psychological community at the time, and thus that's what Lecter would've referred to it as).


Nomi's mom is a b%~%&.


Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber

*Kermit flail*

Warning - Tweet is in Swedish.


Something about homophobia and an initiative from the vatican?


Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber

I was mainly referring to the concluding tweet: "It's going quite bad for the homophobes right now."


Ahh ok
I was just looking for words I could make out :)


Deadmanwalking wrote:

To some degree, but even in the movie, Clarice says something like "But transsexuals aren't violent." followed by Lecter saying "Billy's not a real transsexual, though he thinks he is. His pathology is infinitely more savage." and goes on to describe his pathology in detail.

It's really pretty explicit.

It does also call (at least by implication) being trans a pathology, and that's unfortunate, but that has to do with the book and movie's age, and is hard to blame them for (given that it was considered a pathology in the psychological community at the time, and thus that's what Lecter would've referred to it as).

Hannibal Lector isn't exactly someone who's pronouncements should be taken as gospel anyway.

Which brings me to a soapbox issue of mine, serial killers as genius. They are not, not even close. They are smart for criminals, but the average IQ of the prison population is 80. Australia's worst serial killer, Ivan Milat, was found with possessions of his victims all over his and his family's houses. This is more indicative of being a total moron than a criminal genius.

[Rants extensively and incoherently while beginning to froth at the mouth].

Contributor

Joynt Jezebel wrote:

Which brings me to a soapbox issue of mine, serial killers as genius. They are not, not even close. They are smart for criminals, but the average IQ of the prison population is 80. Australia's worst serial killer, Ivan Milat, was found with possessions of his victims all over his and his family's houses. This is more indicative of being a total moron than a criminal genius.

Interesting topic.

It's also possible I suppose that the population being looked at is skewed, with more intelligent criminals being much more likely to avoid being caught for their crimes than a less intelligent criminal. I suspect that a lot of higher IQ sociopaths either don't get caught or choose not to kill if they have that compulsion because of the risk/benefit ratio being unfavorable.

But yeah, there's a thing for glamorizing intelligent, dangerous serial killers in fiction which doesn't really reflect the population in prison for those crimes.

Liberty's Edge

Joynt Jezebel wrote:
Hannibal Lector isn't exactly someone who's pronouncements should be taken as gospel anyway.

In regards to other people's psychoses? Yes he is, that's sorta the whole point of him as a character in some ways. He's a monster, but he's very seldom wrong about that sort of thing.

And besides, it's Clarice who notes trans people as not violent. Lecter just agrees.

Joynt Jezebel wrote:

Which brings me to a soapbox issue of mine, serial killers as genius. They are not, not even close. They are smart for criminals, but the average IQ of the prison population is 80. Australia's worst serial killer, Ivan Milat, was found with possessions of his victims all over his and his family's houses. This is more indicative of being a total moron than a criminal genius.

[Rants extensively and incoherently while beginning to froth at the mouth].

This is completely true, and a real problem with current media involving serial killers. I'm a Psych student, and I actually had a class on serial killers and their presentation in media specifically. Very interesting class.

It's weird looking at media's evolution of serial killers from pitiable and pathetic creatures (see the classic film M, for example) to the omnicompetence of Hannibal Lecter, Jigsaw, and similar characters.

It's also a terrible trend in media because the primary motivation of serial killers is power. They're people who feel so utterly powerless in their day to day lives, or at least did when younger (having been abused as a child is pretty much universal among them), that they seek power over someone by killing them, and then become addicted to the rush it grants. They're usually pretty pathetic in a lot of ways, really.

But as we make serial killers more and more into some kind of superhuman monsters in media, the more becoming one almost has to appeal to people already inclined in that direction. This might be one reason that, while violent crime in the US has been going down for a long time, serial killers have been actually becoming more common. There obviously haven't been any detailed studies on this possible linkage specifically, but given the studies there have been on media's ability to create changes in behavior, the predominance of superhuman serial killers in media is deeply worrying.


When you say serial killers have become more common, do you mean in media or in real life? If the former, then that's kinda creepy.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Icyshadow wrote:
When you say serial killers have become more common, do you mean in media or in real life? If the former, then that's kinda creepy.

The former? I would think the latter would be more disturbing...


Todd Stewart wrote:
It's also possible I suppose that the population being looked at is skewed, with more intelligent criminals being much more likely to avoid being caught for their crimes than a less intelligent criminal.

That has been put forward as an explanation for serial criminals being intelligent for criminals. By a psychiatrist who has testified in court about serial killers and wrote a book I have read.

The ones who are too stupid, or dysfunctional in other ways, get caught before they get to meet the definition of a serial killer.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Joynt Jezebel wrote:

Which brings me to a soapbox issue of mine, serial killers as genius. They are not, not even close. They are smart for criminals, but the average IQ of the prison population is 80. Australia's worst serial killer, Ivan Milat, was found with possessions of his victims all over his and his family's houses. This is more indicative of being a total moron than a criminal genius.

[Rants extensively and incoherently while beginning to froth at the mouth].

This is completely true, and a real problem with current media involving serial killers. I'm a Psych student, and I actually had a class on serial killers and their presentation in media specifically. Very interesting class.

It's weird looking at media's evolution of serial killers from pitiable and pathetic creatures (see the classic film M, for example) to the omnicompetence of Hannibal Lecter, Jigsaw, and similar characters.

It's also a terrible trend in media because the primary motivation of serial killers is power.

That does sound like a most interesting course Deadmanwalking. You got time to share more of its content?

In the media the causes and indications of being a serial killer are settled and everyone familiar with crime TV knows them. If you actually read the science its much more clouded. The childhood trio of setting fires, torturing animals and bed wetting I think is pretty true, beyond that... experts differ.

Of course you don't want to turn serial killers into attractive figures. And if you watch crime TV you would think there was one on every street corner. Serial Killers are rare, even in the US where I believe they are more common. If you are killed by a criminal its thousands of times more likely to be an idiot or drunk driver than a serial killer. But that does not make good TV [television, though it probably would not make a good transvestite either.


Kalindlara wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
When you say serial killers have become more common, do you mean in media or in real life? If the former, then that's kinda creepy.
The former? I would think the latter would be more disturbing...

Oops, I screwed up with the phrasing. And it's too late to go back and edit.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Icyshadow wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
When you say serial killers have become more common, do you mean in media or in real life? If the former, then that's kinda creepy.
The former? I would think the latter would be more disturbing...
Oops, I screwed up with the phrasing. And it's too late to go back and edit.

I figured as much. ^_^

Liberty's Edge

Icyshadow wrote:
When you say serial killers have become more common, do you mean in media or in real life? If the former, then that's kinda creepy.

I meant the latter, though I suspect both are true. And yes, the fact that they're becoming more common per capita is deeply worrying.

Joynt Jezebel wrote:
That does sound like a most interesting course Deadmanwalking. You got time to share more of its content?

Sure. Though we're getting a bit off-topic here...

Joynt Jezebel wrote:
In the media the causes and indications of being a serial killer are settled and everyone familiar with crime TV knows them. If you actually read the science its much more clouded. The childhood trio of setting fires, torturing animals and bed wetting I think is pretty true, beyond that... experts differ.

This is very true. Even the so-called 'homicidal triad' you mention isn't by any means set in stone. Most have at least one of those things, but that's as far as it goes with many. A history of being abused as a child is pretty close to universal, though.

Joynt Jezebel wrote:
Of course you don't want to turn serial killers into attractive figures. And if you watch crime TV you would think there was one on every street corner. Serial Killers are rare, even in the US where I believe they are more common. If you are killed by a criminal its thousands of times more likely to be an idiot or drunk driver than a serial killer. But that does not make good TV [television, though it probably would not make a good transvestite either.

Yeah, they're really rare comparatively. I think the fascination mostly comes from the 'Why?' If someone kills someone else for money, or by accident, or in a fit of rage, or out of jealousy, people mostly understand why. Serial killer motivations are a bit trickier.


The most intelligent of criminals never get caught, because we are smart enough to know that even though we are criminals, we will not gain anything from breaking the law.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Terquem wrote:
The most intelligent of criminals never get caught, because we are smart enough to know that even though we are criminals, we will not gain anything from breaking the law.

"We"? *Eyes Terquem nervously*


Off topic.

Interesting though.

Silver Crusade System Administrator

Yes, lets get this back on topic please.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

The bravest knight

Isn't it about time to stop teaching people that boys and men are the heroes and girls and women are the helpless objects or the rewards?

The ending is very nice, but that doesn't make the beginning any more fun for people who are sick of being told that girls are only good for being cheerleaders or victims.


Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber

I'd rather say that it's time to stop telling girls and women they can't be the hero (and in all honesty, I also think we're doing much better at that than we did when I was a kid during the 80:s). Telling men and boys to be heroic is not something I have a problem with - as long as we also teach them not to horn in on somebody else's heroic journey, and that sometimes it's okay if you're the one being rescued.


Kajehase wrote:
I'd rather say that it's time to stop telling girls and women they can't be the hero (and in all honesty, I also think we're doing much better at that than we did when I was a kid during the 80:s). Telling men and boys to be heroic is not something I have a problem with - as long as we also teach them not to horn in on somebody else's heroic journey, and that sometimes it's okay if you're the one being rescued.

Using princesses as the default for "helpless object to be rescued + marriage reward for the hero" is a pretty tired stereotype, aside from being hurtful.

I think it makes more sense to have a boy, a prince, a puppy or a baby in the "needs rescuing by strong hero" role. Especially in this story. Also leaving out the lame bits about how the princesses exist only to cheer on the hero or offer to marry the hero.

It's cool to have stories with a male hero, and extra cool if he isn't white, cisgendered or heterosexual. I just wish writers didn't keep abusing the tired old stereotypes about girls always having to be the helpless victims and/or the offered reward. Whether or not it even makes sense for them to WANT to be with the hero of their own volition.


TanithT wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

The bravest knight

Isn't it about time to stop teaching people that boys and men are the heroes and girls and women are the helpless objects or the rewards?

The ending is very nice, but that doesn't make the beginning any more fun for people who are sick of being told that girls are only good for being cheerleaders or victims.

If you think you can write or even find a coherent, engaging story that won't propagate any negative messages to any viewers I would be interested in seeing it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
If you think you can write or even find a coherent, engaging story that won't propagate any negative messages to any viewers I would be interested in seeing it.

Super easy with only minor tweaks. When this story needs a cheerleader who recognizes and approves of the hero's deeds, no problem - that cheerleader can be a mother or father giving their approval, a strong warrior of either sex, or a mixed group of cheering bystanders. Use your imagination rather than going with the "helpless simpering female" stereotype that is tired and outdated.

When the story needs a helpless victim to be saved, that helpless victim can be a boy, a puppy, a kitten, a toddler, am injured or handicapped person, or an elderly person of either gender. An able bodied young female of the same age as the hero should not be assumed to be helpless for no better reason than her gender. If there is a reason that a princess character has to be helpless, show the reason. Don't just use "princess" or "young female" as storytelling shorthand for "helpless" by default. If she needs saving, then show the reasons why it is beyond her ability to save herself.

The princess who offers to marry the hero for no better reason than to be a reward for his brave deeds is difficult to replace in this story for plot reasons. However, she could easily be shown to have developed a liking for the hero on her own rather than offering for no reason other than a princess being the designated hero reward.

Telling a story that doesn't hurt and insult people is actually pretty easy. It's about respecting your characters and showing that they are real people with ability and decision making agency. Unless they have actual reason to lack ability or agency other than hurtful race or gender stereotypes. Showing those reasons and building those characters adds to the story rather than detracting from it.

Consider what this story would look like if every African-American character in it was shown as helpless or as lacking decision making agency for no better reason than their skin color. It would look pretty bad, because the storyteller is using race as shorthand for "useless and/or stupid". That actually was done quite a bit in storytelling and entertainment from a certain period in our history. This is why blackface is not funny or acceptable. Also it is lousy storytelling. We can do better, and we should.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TanithT wrote:
Super easy with only minor tweaks

Name a story then.

This can work for ONE set of implications against one group. But all of them? Case in point...

Quote:
When the story needs a helpless victim to be saved, that helpless victim can be a boy, a puppy, a kitten, a toddler, am injured or handicapped person, or an elderly person of either gender.

And what kind of message does that send to the handicapped? Wait for someone to save you instead of solving your own problems? You can't save yourself, you need someone to do it for you?

Quote:
An able bodied young female of the same age as the hero should not be assumed to be helpless for no better reason than her gender. If there is a reason that a princess character has to be helpless, show the reason. Don't just use "princess" or "young female" as storytelling shorthand for "helpless" by default. If she needs saving, then show the reasons why it is beyond her ability to save herself.

A prince and princess were both caught by the dragon. This problem was already addressed.

Quote:
However, she could easily be shown to have developed a liking for the hero on her own rather than offering for no reason other than a princess being the designated hero reward.

... did you even watch the video? This is exactly what happened.

Quote:
Also it is lousy storytelling. We can do better, and we should.

Criticism like this makes me sympathize with those that say that there's no point in trying.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
TanithT wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
If you think you can write or even find a coherent, engaging story that won't propagate any negative messages to any viewers I would be interested in seeing it.

Super easy with only minor tweaks. When this story needs a cheerleader who recognizes and approves of the hero's deeds, no problem - that cheerleader can be a mother or father giving their approval, a strong warrior of either sex, or a mixed group of cheering bystanders. Use your imagination rather than going with the "helpless simpering female" stereotype that is tired and outdated.

When the story needs a helpless victim to be saved, that helpless victim can be a boy, a puppy, a kitten, a toddler, am injured or handicapped person, or an elderly person of either gender. An able bodied young female of the same age as the hero should not be assumed to be helpless for no better reason than her gender. If there is a reason that a princess character has to be helpless, show the reason. Don't just use "princess" or "young female" as storytelling shorthand for "helpless" by default. If she needs saving, then show the reasons why it is beyond her ability to save herself.

The princess who offers to marry the hero for no better reason than to be a reward for his brave deeds is difficult to replace in this story for plot reasons. However, she could easily be shown to have developed a liking for the hero on her own rather than offering for no reason other than a princess being the designated hero reward.

Telling a story that doesn't hurt and insult people is actually pretty easy. It's about respecting your characters and showing that they are real people with ability and decision making agency. Unless they have actual reason to lack ability or agency other than hurtful race or gender stereotypes. Showing those reasons and building those characters adds to the story rather than detracting from it.

Consider what this story would look like if every African-American character in it was shown as helpless or as lacking...

I think Wolf is alluding to the idea that interpretations of media can be so varied that you can reach almost any conclusion you wish by focusing on certain aspects.

A large part of how a reader interprets the intentions of the author or the message of their work is subject to the initial biases of the reader. In the same vein that, I myself as an amateur writer might give the writer the benefit of doubt in why they described a character in a certain way because I'm aware of how difficult characterization can be, I can also suddenly grow a distaste for a story once I'm more aware author as an individual, such as with Ender's Game.

An equally valid interpretation of the stereotype of rescuing a "princess" is the idea that royalty are generally seen as foppish, or in a more negative sense incompetent. In an interpretation such as this, the gender is irrelevant to the station of the princess, that of a noble politician.

I'd disagree that writing a completely inoffensive story is easy, especially if one favors brevity. A principal reason real people have depth is because they have an entire lifetime of experiences. Now you can either replicate this reality by telling us a lot about a character, or you can try to evoke an experience from the reader that they can they apply to the character themselves.

I could simply call Vinny the Biker a scumbag, I can tell his story in more detail, or I can briefly describe how he mistreats the custodial staff at the drive-in. They'd demand different amounts of time and attention to tell. Now imagine that your audience is full of children, and your trying to keep their attention. Or imagine if either Vinny or the custodian is a minority, how might that effect how a reader reflects on the situation?

Certainly, works can be offensive, and diversity in the presentation of media is a good thing. However, I'd disagree that aspects of media that are open to interpretation are mainly indicative of issues that we find important today in society, as I also find the intentions of the author and the overall message of the story to be important in how I reflect upon it. Nor would I agree that every story has to be "written well", or that they should be.

And I quite enjoyed the story, I think it made its point well.
Apologies for being both off-topic and long-winded.


Hmm, well, I think if we want stories of a different sort and caliber, they need to be written today in modern times.

Take Disney for example, many of their movies are based on fairy tales written in an age where what they stated (if you disregard all the magic and stuff) was more realistic for the time. The only way FOR a character like Cinderella to get out of her situation was to have some prince come (and to tell the truth, Cinderella actually is the hero of the story still)...but even the prince wasn't enough (in the original story prince is stupider then a bag of rocks and has eyesite that is worse than 20/10000) and magic is necessary on top of that.

It was created in a time period where there was very little equality and the stories reflect that.

If anyone is going to tell modern stories of heroic women and minority champions, we are the ones that will need to write those stories and tell them.

Disney today is tweaking their formula somewhat (such as with Frozen, and with Malificent, though I personally didn't really care for that movie...especially with them making the three good fairy's nitwits that cause child endangerment around every corner), with their modern films, there's no reason others (like us on these boards) can't do more and create the stories and tales ourselves.

PS: No, I did not watch or follow the link that spurred the conversation, but the ideas of modern stories reflecting modern values I think must come from modern individuals. I personally don't think we should try to change history to match the current view because then we come up with a false history and future generations learn nothing from history and then are bound to repeat it.


CosmicKirby wrote:
TanithT wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
If you think you can write or even find a coherent, engaging story that won't propagate any negative messages to any viewers I would be interested in seeing it.

Super easy with only minor tweaks. When this story needs a cheerleader who recognizes and approves of the hero's deeds, no problem - that cheerleader can be a mother or father giving their approval, a strong warrior of either sex, or a mixed group of cheering bystanders. Use your imagination rather than going with the "helpless simpering female" stereotype that is tired and outdated.

When the story needs a helpless victim to be saved, that helpless victim can be a boy, a puppy, a kitten, a toddler, am injured or handicapped person, or an elderly person of either gender. An able bodied young female of the same age as the hero should not be assumed to be helpless for no better reason than her gender. If there is a reason that a princess character has to be helpless, show the reason. Don't just use "princess" or "young female" as storytelling shorthand for "helpless" by default. If she needs saving, then show the reasons why it is beyond her ability to save herself.

The princess who offers to marry the hero for no better reason than to be a reward for his brave deeds is difficult to replace in this story for plot reasons. However, she could easily be shown to have developed a liking for the hero on her own rather than offering for no reason other than a princess being the designated hero reward.

Telling a story that doesn't hurt and insult people is actually pretty easy. It's about respecting your characters and showing that they are real people with ability and decision making agency. Unless they have actual reason to lack ability or agency other than hurtful race or gender stereotypes. Showing those reasons and building those characters adds to the story rather than detracting from it.

Consider what this story would look like if every African-American character in it was shown as

...

agreed. Sometimes there's no winning, and in situations where someone has to be saved,there's a slim chance of agency for the person in peril. Not nonexistent, mind, but slim.


I like stories where the person who needs to be saved,

is the hero of the story

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Terquem wrote:

I like stories where the person who needs to be saved,

is the hero of the story

That sounds very interesting. Could you give examples, please?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
CosmicKirby wrote:
An equally valid interpretation of the stereotype of rescuing a "princess" is the idea that royalty are generally seen as foppish, or in a more negative sense incompetent. In an interpretation such as this, the gender is irrelevant to the station of the princess, that of a noble politician.

That argument only holds water if "prince" isn't lazy storytelling shorthand for "brave, strong hero" while "princess" is lazy storytelling shorthand for "helpless reward for the brave hero who saves her".

Which it is. It still boils down to gender. The stereotypical prince is the bold, brave hero. It is the villain who is likely to be depicted as a swishy fop who challenges gender roles. The punishment for his gender transgression is usually death.

8,101 to 8,150 of 17,745 << first < prev | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / The LGBT Gamer Community Thread. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.