I did a thing!
I find it difficult to feel remorse for people who die of drug overdoses. I understand that there’s an element of mental illness involved, and that should be taken seriously, but ultimately we’re all responsible for our own actions and should seek the treatment we need. Nobody is going to make the decision to get better but you.
That’s all I have to say on that matter.
How I feel about the wafts of hypocritical bullshit i have had the displeasure of smelling over the past few days.
Victim blaming ✓
"You’re just as bad as the people who oppress you" ✓
"Be the better person" ✓
"Hatred toward cis people is an epidemic on Tumblr" ✓
"You can’t fight fire with fire" ✓
"Hate breeds hate" ✓
"Be nice to your oppressors" ✓
Brushing over the source of the hatred (hint: cissexist assholes) ✓
Wow it’s literally every recycled cishit argument all rolled up into one shitty comic.
Maaaan this really started out looking like it was gonna be a parody comic.
And then it wasn’t.
Or is it? I can’t even tell anymore.
I think you are missing the message, friends. I dislike getting hate and discrimination for being the way that I am, but to “fight back” the same way the oppressors do won’t solve the problem.
Except it’s not the same sort of “fighting” when we choose to fight back. It’s defensive. It’s being aggressive so cishits don’t fuck with us.
Can we please stop pretending like hatred of trans/nb people & hatred of oppressors are the same kind of hate? We have the right to be just as mean & just as vicious as they are toward us.
Its not victim blaming if all the person was basically saying was that two wrongs don’t make a right.
This person is literally saying that fighting back makes you pathetic. This person literally said “they aren’t going to stop until you do,” which is literally telling victims to stop fighting back in hopes that their oppressors will do the same.
We have to be the ones to turn that hatred and bigotry into equality and peace not just throw back the same kind of discrimination.
Um how about fuck that? Again, this is not the “same kind of discrimination.” Cishits who hate trans/nb people do so out of pure, baseless hatred of people who are different.
Trans/nb people who hate cishits do so out bcos they are tired of being treated like shit.
How about you address the source of the problem? How about cishits are the ones to stop being hateful bigots?
Lumping all cis people together as bigoted assholes doesn’t sound any different to me than saying that all lesbians are butch or all blacks are ghetto.
Nobody hates cis people for being cis people. Nobody is saying that they are all bigoted assholes ffs.
Fuck this false equivalency.
Two wrongs don’t make a right and although it is hard, we have to help bring about positive change through education, love, and peace.
HOW ABOUT WE STOP TELLING MARGINALIZED PEOPLES THAT REACTING AGGRESSIVELY TOWARD THE PEOPLE WHO HURT THEM IS WRONG.
I don’t see how creating a derogatory name for a group of people is any less than what those accused do to the cis community.
To be quite frank, from a complete outsiders perspective, this is how I imagine racist people must think against whatever race they despise.
Now I know it’s not racism, I’m not saying it is, and it definitely isn’t doing as much damage as racism did and I doubt it will EVER be that bad,…but if you’re looking for respect from a certain group of people, if you’re looking to make a point that you truly believe is important, would you really address them with such a vulgar name?
Teachers don’t go to school and call you assholes because they’re looking to show you important lessons and keys to success. Maybe instead of treating people like oppressors and “shits” you could start treating them like students who have a thing or two to learn about a life they know nothing of?
and we might care about that, if our job was to educate cishets. but it isnt. we are not obligate to justify ourselves to our oppressors. we are here, and we want respect. some of us care enough about the opinions of cishet people to educate them, but that is not a requirement. we are people, and we have no obligation to explain ourselves. if i am angry at cishet people, i should not have to worry about being attacked because they do not understand my anger. i should have my feelings respected without having to explain them.
unfortunately, we do not have the privilege of having people respect our feelings simply because they exist. sometimes, i try to explain. other times, i just dont care. sometimes i just want to scream at the people who have hurt me and i dont fucking care if they understand my anger.
That’s the thing about oppression though, it comes from a lack of knowledge, a lack of respect, and a lack of empathy. I know that sometimes what feels best seems right, but it takes a bigger person to get a message across, or to have an impact.
To me, it seems like blatant disregard for the cis community comes out of a lack of empathy. That could change someday, with good people willing to educate.
what if i dont care about that?
why do i have to be the one to give the message?
i am here. i am a person. i exist. why do i have to justify my existence?
on some days, im like ok yeah i can explain that to you
and on some days im like
i am not your search engine. i am not an encyclopedia on queer issues. i am not your resource for understanding oppression. it is my right to decide whether or not i want to educate you. if you ask me to explain something, it is my right to withhold that explanation. i do not owe the world anything for existing. if you choose to not help because i do not explain myself to you, fine. if your assistance requires me to explain every detail you are interested in knowing about, i dont want it. i should not have to explain myself to have respect. i am a person. i am here. being oppressed does not obligate me to explain my viewpoint to my oppressors and you have no right to assume that i will give you anything. my oppressors do not deserve to understand. they do not have any reason to expect i will give them anything other than their own entitledness.
I’ve pretty much regurgitated trans shit more than I ever done for any class. I’m literally repeating myself every time I talk to a Cis person. I hate to have to continue with this constant repeat, but tumblr has am unusually high amount of queer people I’m general, and especially trans people, there’s no way we won’t vent here, since every space for trans people ever is often taken over by Cis people, and so I can’t vent about why the fuck Cisgender people’s opinions matter more on transgender issues than transgender people. This comic is pretty much telling me to stop expressing my anger towards the fact that I’ve been followed into bathrooms because I’m trans and therefore I don’t belong, I shouldn’t exist in that space. I am being told right now that my anger towards my oppressors is pathetic. It’s like someone telling me to smile every time I get sexually assaulted for being trans, because at least they find me attractive enough to overlook my trans ness to sexually assault me, sexually harass me or even rape me. It invalidates my struggles and my feelings as a person who is trans. Maybe instead if whining about how people are starting to talk about these experiences, you actually read about why we are angry, and ask yourself if you do that, and if you do resolve to stop being so ignorant and oppressive. If you aren’t willing to do that, then you can just leave tumblr. Go find some Cis space on the internet… It’s not that hard, as a trans person I can’t even read a news article without Cis opinions shoved down my throat.
This is actually a lot harder for me than it sounds, since the first three things I read regarded the topic I posted about.
I’m definitely not one for oppressing an opinion, I just feel that education is important in matters like this, and as someone who is generally trying to reach out and understand an issue, I’m not getting much help from any community on the subject at hand.
This isn’t the place to be educated about basics. Tumblr is nothing more than a vent site. There are lot of blogs that you can follow, and there are YouTube collab channels. There are a lot of stuff out there for education. If I spent time educating Cis people every time they asked me a question, I wouldn’t be able to get my college work done. I wouldn’t have time for therapy or hanging with friends, and do other things than just trans stuff, I wouldn’t have time for jobs, or for music. I would be spending so much time answering questions, mostly the same old ones for hours upon hours, for the eat of my life.
No, you see, there’s different kinds of hate. you know? there’s the “wrong” kind (hate the “oppressors” use and feel._ Then there’s the “right” kind of hate (The hate faggots, trannies, blacks, mexicans, minorities, etc. feel towards their “oppressors”) It’s only wrong to have emotions and opinions if you’re Cis. This isn’t spiteful at all! Whatchoo talkin’ about, Willis? Hate is what equality is made of, it’s when the oppressed are the “winners” that you can have true equality! This wont turn into a vicious circle at all! =D
And people wonder why Hitler felt compelled to use genocide to get his shitty message across.
I bought myself some Christmas presents.
If someone wore an “I <3 misogyny” shirt while drinking from a “trans tears” mug would you be upset?
Let’s find out…
Kill This Man
i hope ur mama finds ur “i <3 misogyny” tshirt on the floor in ur room underneath the crushed doritos + socks filled with dried sperm and doesnt let u go to the big D&D tournament u been talking about for months
If someone wore an “I <3 misogyny” shirt while drinking from a “trans tears”mug would you be upset?
Let’s find out…
I cant believe you missed that part as in THIS WAS A FUCKING TEST THAT WAS FUCKING IN YOUR FACE AND THEY FELL FOR IT
this site is the breeding ground for idiots i’ll tell yah
~the black one is laughing her ass off
There it is folks, here is the experiment we, undoubtedly, were all looking for! You wear something that says Misandry and no one bats an eye, but turn that word to misogyny and everything goes to hell. The hypocrisy physically hurts me.
Hahaha, this website never ceases to simultaneously amaze and disappoint me, I feel like I’m OP’s parents.
or, you know, teach people not to rape other people…
Sadly, even if you teach people not to rape, they’ll do it anyway if they really want to, so these are still helpful in the event of rape, OR assault.
These self defense tips are not here to tell a person not to get raped, they are here to tell a person what to do in the event where someone is attempting to rape or assault them.
We do need to teach people not to rape, but we do not yet live in a world where rape and assault does not happen, and until we do, it’s important that we know how to protect ourselves in the event that it does happen.
Also these things can do FAR more than just help prevent rape. Any violent crime or unwanted attention.
It’s easy for feminist radicals to say “no, it can’t be women’s responsibility to defend themselves. They need to be off limits! There can be no responsibility put on women in this regard!”
Listen, ladies. Raping people is wrong. I wouldn’t engage in such a behavior, and to be honest, these defense techniques wouldn’t be useful in the common rape situations; (you’re rarely raped by an attacker. It’s more common a loved one. Be they a family member, or very close friend) BUT: I believe women need options to in some way feel safe…which to me seems more like a fantasy, but if these defense techniques are going to save even 1% of potential rape victims, then that is a victory. And if that’s not good enough for you, then how can you call yourself anti-rape!?
I’m not sure how we can truly teach people to not take things they lust for, be it a watch, or something as extreme as taking a woman sexually. And before the victimization crowd comes by to complain that I am comparing raping a woman to stealing a watch, I’m not. I’m using both because they’re both illegal. Not because they’re equal, you dense wastes of carbon.
Assault, in any form, is not a fun experience, and these techniques can help prevent some assaults. That is a good thing, and if you don’t want people to use them, then you’re creating victims. Creating victims is fostering the problem to continue.
While it’s perfectly fine to desire to live in a world where you don’t have to do these techniques, where you wouldn’t need to have knowledge of these moves to keep yourself safe.
But we do. So you can either adapt and survive, or sit back and try to keep yourself from adapting, and be victims. You can fight any steps forward and try to keep people from moving forward at all under the guise f trying to make a difference, but you’re perverting progress, and you’re part of the problem.
NOW UPDATED TO INCLUDE SERIES 3
So I mentioned in my video on shipping that Sherlock utilises a lot of the conventions of the romance genre in such a way that subliminally encourages the audience to view the relationship between Sherlock & John in a romantic light, which is one of the reasons I thought it rather unfair that certain people involved acted as if they were shocked that anyone thought Johnlock might ever have become canon. For those of you who haven’t studied media, I thought I’d put this together, illustrating what these conventions are and the effect they have on audiences.
Romantic & sexual iconography
Iconography, for those of you who don’t know, is the use of images with genre associations. For instance, if you see a broken doll, you think ‘horror’. Sherlock utilises a lot of romantic and sexual iconography in relation to the Holmes/Watson relationship.
The candle. As Angelo says himself, ‘nice and romantic’. Although John protests that he’s ‘not [Sherlock’s] date’, the inclusion of the candle subliminally suggests romantic undertones, and affects the lighting of the scene, making it soft and rose-tinted (which is also seen in A Study in Pink), which is perhaps the lighting most associated with the romance genre.
The wink. An excellent example of a cultural code, i.e. something that holds a particular meaning within a particular society. In the Western world, the wink has heavy sexual undertones.
The glass of wine. Another example of cultural coding, a glass of wine with dinner is frequently used to suggest romantic feelings or intentions.
A trope is (amongst other things), something that arises again and again within a genre, and hence comes to signify it.
The moonlit silhouette. One of the oldest tropes of the romance genre, this has been used for hundreds of years in books before being introduced to film and TV. For more on this trope, see the section entitled ‘The Male Gaze & homoeroticism’.
The damsel in distress. Even older than the moonlit silhouette, the damsel in distress was, until the rise of feminism, a staple feature of almost every romance story. Even today, this trope is still utilised, and, we can see here, our modern damsels aren’t always women.The trope is strengthened in this instance by music intended to build tension, and the evident fear that Benedict Cumberbatch portrays through a shaking hand and clearly nervous expression. And of course, the damsel in distress is saved by…
The knight in shining armour. Ideas surrounding heroism and what it is to be a hero are a running theme throughout Sherlock, and John is strongly characterised as a war hero, far more than he was in the original stories. His characterisation as such really begins with how Sherlock describes his saviour prior to realising that it was John, noting his ‘nerves of steel’ and ‘strong moral principles’. John is the perfect example of a modern day knight in shining armour (or in his case, knitted jumpers).
The love triangle. While these examples of the love triangle are rather atypical, they both contain definite elements of it: a third party being introduced to a partnership in such a way that causes disruption and jealousy. And on that note…
The jealous lover. I think this shot is really the best example of romantic undertones in the entire programme. The cut aways between a slow motion shot of Irene kissing Sherlock’s cheek and of John slamming his mug onto the table spells one thing: jealousy. In fact, the entire episode was littered with instances of John behaving like a jealous lover, such as counting how many texts Sherlock received from Irene.
The exception. A common trope in romance stories that involve ‘the icicle’ - a character who behaves in a cold and emotionless manner - is a declaration of exception - that the other half of the primary romantic couple is exempt from their cold outlook on the world. Sherlock’s little speech in The Hounds of Baskerville - ‘I don’t have friends. I’ve just got one.’ - is very similar to this.
The dying request. Few romantic tragedies are without one of these.
The mutual death. Whether two characters literally die together or, in this case, figuratively, with the living partner shown to be left empty and, in the second shot, framed in such a way that includes them in the death of the other, this is again very frequently seen in romantic tragedies.
As anyone who has lived on this planet for a moderate amount of time will know that certain activities are associated with dating, one of the most common is eating out together. This is commonly seen in Sherlock.
What is particularly significant about this is that the term ‘date’ and the concept of dating is frequently used in verbal instances of homoromantic suggestion within Sherlock - ‘I’m not his date!’; ‘I’ve got a date.’ ‘What?’ ‘It’s where two people who like each other go out and have fun.’ ‘That’s what I was suggesting.’
Touch-a touch-a touch-a touch me!
Something that I’ve discussed a lot in the past is that while it is perfectly socially acceptable for heterosexual women to display physical affection for their friends, such is not the case with men, and men touching one another is, strangely, considered far more intimate. With that in mind, Sherlock and John touch one another with surprising frequency for a programme that features two male leads who are not explicitly written as homosexual or bisexual.
The Male Gaze & homoeroticism
The Male Gaze theory is one described by feminist media critic Laura Mulvey, and refers to the fact that in almost every film and television show, we view the world through the eyes of a man, regardless of our actual gender. This often leads to women being objectified, forcing a heterosexual male perspective on the audience. However, in some cases, it also leads to homoerotic shots, which is often the case with Sherlock. Sherlock is very much a programme about observation, and our view of the programme is almost always the point of view of a character. Usually, that character is John. We often view the world, and Sherlock himself, from John’s perspective.
Here we have the reaction shot following the one of Sherlock silhouetted by the moon. The rose-tinted lighting and slightly curled lip, frequently used to suggest sexual attraction, is an excellent example of the homoerotic Male Gaze. Interestingly, Steven Moffat said in an interview said that he was the only person who liked the sequence, hence why it was cut from A Study in Pink.
The homoerotic Male Gaze is particularly prevalent in this shot, as the shot quite literally involves two men looking at one another. Their proximity and the fact that John very briefly looks at Sherlock’s lips (an action which carries heavy sexual undertones) adds to the homoeroticism.
This is the moment in which Sherlock realises that it was John who saved his life, and their eyes meet across the carpark. Another common romantic trope in which something positively alters the dynamic between the protagonists, Sherlock’s parted lips also add to homoerotic undertones.
If you’re not convinced yet, this is all you need. A male character scrutinizing another male character’s crotch in order to determine whether or not he is wearing underwear is practically the definition of the homoerotic Male Gaze.
Again, excellent examples of the homoerotic Male Gaze: a male character being brought to a state of near-nakedness in the presence of three other men (all of which are included, if only partially, in both shots). I don’t see you averting your eyes, either, Dr. Watson.
And with that, I draw this to a close. I must note that I am not trying to prove that Johnlock is canon, because it isn’t. What I am trying to prove is that it is heavily suggested, not only through verbal references but also through the technical construction of the programme and the utilisation of romantic conventions, and while some of these may be incidental, that is rarely the case with something as carefully constructed as a TV drama. So can we stop with the whole ‘Johnlock shippers are just delusional fangirls’ argument now, please?
Okay, time for a post-series 3 update! As one might expect, there has been a LOT of discussion about the John/Sherlock subtext in response to the new material, so I’ll try not to just regurgitate what others have said, but rather build on some of these existing subheadings, as well as exploring some new areas.
I think the first thing we ought to discuss is the love triangle. This has played a major role in the subtext of series 3, with both Sherlock and John taking the ‘third wheel’ role.
Sherlock’s role as the third wheel of course comes from John’s marriage to Mary. The audience is presented with several instances in which John exhibits upset or jealousy over this.
In The Sign of Three, prior to the wedding, Mrs Hudson visits and tells Sherlock about her relationship with her best friend after her wedding, and how they hardly saw each other. Sherlock repeatedly attempts to change the subject, and when he has Mrs Hudson leave, we see him clench his jaw, then rather mournfully eyeing Sherlock’s empty armchair (a series of shots accompanied by equally mournful music).
As Mrs Hudson said of her best friend, Sherlock does, of course, leave John’s wedding early, after appearing visibly upset upon saying “you’re hardly going to need me around now you’ve got a real baby on the way”.
Of course, this can be played off as a man mourning what he feels is the loss of his best friend, but if Sherlock were female, do you think that’s all it would be seen as by the majority? I don’t.
Then there’s this:
This moment has no narrative significance - we have already seen Mary actually shoot Sherlock - nor is there any narrative-based reason for her to be in her wedding dress. The symbolic implications are, of course, that this is a physical representation of the pain Sherlock felt at watching John marry Mary, confirmed, of course, by Mycroft - “Remember Redbeard? Don’t get involved” (“Remember the last time you loved and lost? Don’t let that happen to you again”).
John, too, has his fair share of third wheel moments. He hounds Sherlock over his ‘relationship’ with Janine, and even after Sherlock begins to discuss Appledore - something which John would usually be very interested in - he asks about her again. Of course, this may be put down to shock that Sherlock, of all people, is in a (very touchy-feely) relationship, but let’s also take a look at his expression upon Sherlock’s proposal:
Again, were John female, would that be seen as nothing but surprise by the majority? I doubt it.
In this series, John also moves away from his former “not gay” mantra. We see him defend his heterosexuality just once in this series, in The Empty Hearse, yet in His Last Vow (which, we must remember, begins around seven months after the beginning of The Empty Hearse), John is searched by one of Magnussen’s men, and, upon his tire lever being discovered, he says “Doesn’t mean I’m not pleased to see you” (which is, for the innuendo-challenged, an erection joke). Would John have made a joke about being sexually aroused by another man prior to series 3? I doubt it.
Sherlock and John also orbit one another rather a lot in this series, particularly in His Last Vow. John wakes up from dreaming about Sherlock:
and immediately puts himself in danger. Truly “an addict in need of a fix”.
Then there’s this dialogue:
JOHN: “Is it Sherlock Holmes you want? Because I haven’t seen him in ages.”
MARY: “About a month.”
You’re newly married, not long back from your honeymoon, your wife is pregnant and you’re dreaming about your best friend and considering a month’s absence ‘ages’?
As to Sherlock, he pivots John even more. Near the end of the episode, he sacrifices his career, freedom and life to protect John, taking on the knight in shining armour role in a parallel of John’s actions at the end of A Study in Pink. This is particularly notable in that Magnussen refers to John as his “damsel in distress” and Mycroft refers to Sherlock as a “dragon slayer” - the fairytale connection is no longer subtext.
It is also the thought of John that saves Sherlock from death (and he really had died - his heart had stopped and the surgeons had moved away). He quite literally struggles back to life to save John - “…And John will cry buckets and buckets. It’s him I worry about the most. That wife! You’re letting him down, Sherlock. John Watson is definitely in danger.” - which is perhaps one of the most cliche (though very freshly handled, in this case) romantic tropes there is.
The architecture of his mind palace, too, is structured around John, both the corridors:
and the stairs:
These are, of course, locations from Sherlock and John’s first case as a team. There are subtle differences - the shots are lighter and the banister in His Last Vow is more intricate - but these in themselves speak volumes of John’s significance to John: his mind palace is more beautiful than reality. A glorification of John Watson, perhaps. This entire scene does play out, after all, over John’s theme.
In fact, music plays a major role in the subtext of series 3. When Sherlock and John reunite, the music in the background is Donde Estas, Yolanda by Pink Martini, a song about losing someone you were passionately in love with. Nothing in media is a coincidence; everything is carefully selected, remember.
As to physical touching, there’s plenty more of that, too:
(Here John even says “I don’t mind” - again, no more incessant “no homo”.)
Of course, they are drunk in half of these, and intoxication alters behaviour, but bear in mind that one way in which it does so is in releasing people from their ordinary inhibitions.
As to verbal references, again, there are too many to list, and many of them exist (unfortunately) for comedic purposes. The only one I will discuss is this little moment at the end of His Last Vow:
"John, there’s something… I should say- I’ve meant to say, always, and I never have… Since it’s unlikely we’ll ever meet again I might as well say it now…"
Pause. Reaction shot from John.
"Sherlock is actually a girl’s name." John laughs. Sherlock smiles sadly with tears in his eyes.
With the mournful, rather romantic music, this was clearly set up to build the audience’s expectation of an “I love you.” Plenty of people thought it. Even my dad, who has absolutely no interest in shipping whatsoever (and actually thinks it’s silly, despite my protestations), called me up afterwards to tell me that he thought he was going to say “I love you.” There are tears in Sherlock’s eyes when he’s on the plane, too, presumably watching John disappear.
Look how you care about John Watson.
That last scene (along with much of series 3) even mirrors Casablanca, one of the most famous romance films of all time.
John and Sherlock also, of course, quite literally verbally express affection for one another:
JOHN: “I want to be up there with the two people that I love and care about most in the world. … Mary Morstan… and… you.”
SHERLOCK: “So know this, today you sit between the woman you have made your wife and the man you have saved, in short the two people who love you most in all this world.”
Again, I am not claiming that Johnlock is canon - it isn’t. What I am claiming is that shippers are certainly not plucking the ship from thin air.
And it’s useless, pointless crap. Also irl shipping is creepy and will never be acceptable.
Writers bate “ships” because it makes money. Look at the shows’ success and popularity,. it’s not completely a mistake, you know.