|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:23 pm
One thing I really, really hope for this time around is some LGBTQ+ representation. Avatar was so good at seamlessly and masterfully handling strong female characters, non-white characters, and disabled characters. I'd really love for Bryke to turn that expertise into giving a little representation to the LGBTQ+ community, especially with this older cast.
For example: Bisexual!Bolin would be just perfect.
Bolin does already seem to like girls. He has a habit of bringing fangirls back stage before matches after all. But Bolin getting an adorable boy-crush on some other dude would just be like…too much for me to handle. <3
And Korra would be all “wait, I thought you…uh….liked…your fangirls and stuff?” And Bolin would jut shrug and be like “I just like people, ya know? I like the candy, regardless of the wrapper,” and then do a big cheesy eyebrow wiggle.
…. I want this. I want it a lot.
I also really like the idea of Asami being a lesbian or bisexual and have a crush on Korra. Or maybe Lin. Like, Lin could have a super sweet, femme, but kick a** wife, who is kind of spazzy but empathetic and really provides the Yin to Lins Yang
The LGBTQ+ community is systematically ignored by mainstream media. We have almost no representation, no presence, and as such, no role models for young LGBTQ kids.
We are told that our inclusion is somehow inappropriate. That we are somehow incapable of being protagonists, of being even side kicks most of the time, of even existing. And that sucks. It really, really, really sucks to grow up surrounded by media all the time, and yet never see a character that is like YOU. It can be very alienating.
Avatar has always been good an including characters that are typically ignored. The female characters are incredible strong, diverse, and interesting. Their characters of color are the same way. Their characters with disabilities are given REAL protagonist roles in Teo and Toph, rather than the standard “very special episode” fare.
And now, with an older cast, I think it would be really ground breaking to have an openly LGBTQ+ character. I don’t think that’s too much to ask for.
I think Nick could pull it off, I really do. Korra is there most profitable show. Would this kick up a little controversy? Sure, maybe. But I say bring it on. Change doesn't happen without action.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:04 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:06 pm
LGBTQ+ = Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transexual Questioning Plus (and the Plus includes everything from asexual to pansexual. Basically any orientation that isn't heterosexual, and isn't already included in the initialism is + )
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:08 pm
[Ren The Ryoko] LGBTQ+ = Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transexual Questioning Plus (and the Plus includes everything from asexual to pansexual. Basically any orientation that isn't heterosexual, and isn't already included in the initialism is + ) Yeah I knew what LGBT was... I just never ever seen anyone use Q+ before...
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:10 pm
Qyp [Ren The Ryoko] LGBTQ+ = Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transexual Questioning Plus (and the Plus includes everything from asexual to pansexual. Basically any orientation that isn't heterosexual, and isn't already included in the initialism is + ) Yeah I knew what LGBT was... I just never ever seen anyone use Q+ before... Well, the Queer community is always trying to be as inclusive as possible, ya know? Plenty of people identify as non-heterosexual, but not as Lesbian, Gay, Bi, or Trans either.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:21 pm
[Ren The Ryoko] Qyp [Ren The Ryoko] LGBTQ+ = Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transexual Questioning Plus (and the Plus includes everything from asexual to pansexual. Basically any orientation that isn't heterosexual, and isn't already included in the initialism is + ) Yeah I knew what LGBT was... I just never ever seen anyone use Q+ before... Well, the Queer community is always trying to be as inclusive as possible, ya know? Plenty of people identify as non-heterosexual, but not as Lesbian, Gay, Bi, or Trans either. I see...
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:22 pm
Qyp [Ren The Ryoko] Qyp [Ren The Ryoko] LGBTQ+ = Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transexual Questioning Plus (and the Plus includes everything from asexual to pansexual. Basically any orientation that isn't heterosexual, and isn't already included in the initialism is + ) Yeah I knew what LGBT was... I just never ever seen anyone use Q+ before... Well, the Queer community is always trying to be as inclusive as possible, ya know? Plenty of people identify as non-heterosexual, but not as Lesbian, Gay, Bi, or Trans either. I see... It's just an effort to include everyone in the queer community. I rather like it.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:28 pm
Yep. Uh-huh. I totally see where you're going with this. You're absolutely right. There should be support for the LGBTQ+ Community, especially in this show. It's all about balance and peace, isn't it? Plus, Bolin would be the PERFECT candidate for this role. Since, you know, he just has that vibe.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 7:01 am
I certainly hope they would, but I doubt they will ever have the guts to do it confused The problem is the biased, unaccepting, anti-gay people. There are about 40% of people in the US who are against LGBTQs. That's a big percentage considering there aren't many who are openly against women, minority races, or diasbled people =/ I think it'd be too much of a controversy for even Nick to pull off, as they'd likely lose a lot of viewers.
I wish they would, but I highly doubt it'll happen.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:23 am
Captain Syrus Haley I certainly hope they would, but I doubt they will ever have the guts to do it confused The problem is the biased, unaccepting, anti-gay people. There are about 40% of people in the US who are against LGBTQs. That's a big percentage considering there aren't many who are openly against women, minority races, or diasbled people =/ I think it'd be too much of a controversy for even Nick to pull off, as they'd likely lose a lot of viewers. I wish they would, but I highly doubt it'll happen. I don't think that it's ethical to censor our entertainment for bigots though. First of all, any hoo-haw people kicked up wouldn’t affect any profits unless advertisers decided to bail because of it. And it doesn’t look good to cave in to homophobes on a business plan. Sure, you might loose a few advertisers here and there, but the internet age has made counter-boycotts (going out and extra-supporting companies who are facing backlash from assholes) become a fairly common thing. It happened with Starbucks, for example. Bowing down to bigotry is shitty business. Press is product placement, right? Get people talking, get people watching. I just think that: 1) It’s absurd to maintain the status quo of unequal representation because of bigots and 2) the affects that those really dedicated bigots have is often grossly over-estimated.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:53 am
Yes... they are siding with the bigots to not put a LGBT character is a kids show... /sarcasm
rolleyes This is just ridiculous. This conversation is way to serious for a KIDS SHOW. Yah know... I am cool with SERIOUS education of LGBT to kids, but doing it through a kids show would be IDIOTIC. It's not bigotry stopping them, it's bloody common sense. There is no need for it, you know why? Because I believe sex would be mention, and many other things.
This show is for 6-12 year olds... Honestly, I would prefer not to have kids find out about sexuality through a kids show... if you do... that is sick. They need to learn it from their parents, and no other person. School is wrong to have sex education, because kids never take it seriously. Same with TV...
This is stupid, I never seen any kids show having LGBT, because its wrong to teach kids through a cartoon what homosexuality and everything else is...
If you do not agree, that is fine... but to me, it's not bigotry that is stopping Nick, it's common sense not to teach CHILDREN about sexuality, sex, etc through a cartoon.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:10 am
Qyp Yes... they are siding with the bigots to not put a LGBT character is a kids show... /sarcasm rolleyes This is just ridiculous. This conversation is way to serious for a KIDS SHOW. Yah know... I am cool with SERIOUS education of LGBT to kids, but doing it through a kids show would be IDIOTIC. It's not bigotry stopping them, it's bloody common sense. There is no need for it, you know why? Because I believe sex would be mention, and many other things. This show is for 6-12 year olds... Honestly, I would prefer not to have kids find out about sexuality through a kids show... if you do... that is sick. They need to learn it from their parents, and no other person. School is wrong to have sex education, because kids never take it seriously. Same with TV... This is stupid, I never seen any kids show having LGBT, because its wrong to teach kids through a cartoon what homosexuality and everything else is... If you do not agree, that is fine... but to me, it's not bigotry that is stopping Nick, it's common sense not to teach CHILDREN about sexuality, sex, etc through a cartoon. I'm not saying that not including LGBTQ+ characters is inherently indicative of bigotry. I'm saying that ONLY excluding them because of fear of backlash is catering to bigots. And no one is saying that Korra needs to be an educational experience about sex. What I'm asking for is just representation. Just a presence, that can mean to much to an LBGTQ+ kid. Take it from one who has personal experience. Spending most of your adolescence surrounded by stories by, for, and about only straight people, sometimes it's hard not to feel really, horribly alienated. That people like ME, people who like girls AND boys, can't be a hero. We can't even be a love interest. Or a side kick. Most of the time, we don't even exist at all. Having a boy character who likes boys, and having a girl character who likes girls is no more "teaching about sex" than having a girl character like a boy, or having a boy character like a girl. LOVE and RELATIONSHIPS doesn't mean that we're going to sit down ten year olds and teach them about preforming a**l. My grandmother is a lesbian. But that doesn't mean that my parents sat me down when I was little and told me how Mama Jo and Oma "do it." That's ******** stupid. The entire idea that the EXISTENCE of queer characters is offensive completely erases the experiences of queer children, and children with queer parents, queer siblings, teachers, babysitters, friends.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:04 am
[Ren The Ryoko] Qyp Yes... they are siding with the bigots to not put a LGBT character is a kids show... /sarcasm rolleyes This is just ridiculous. This conversation is way to serious for a KIDS SHOW. Yah know... I am cool with SERIOUS education of LGBT to kids, but doing it through a kids show would be IDIOTIC. It's not bigotry stopping them, it's bloody common sense. There is no need for it, you know why? Because I believe sex would be mention, and many other things. This show is for 6-12 year olds... Honestly, I would prefer not to have kids find out about sexuality through a kids show... if you do... that is sick. They need to learn it from their parents, and no other person. School is wrong to have sex education, because kids never take it seriously. Same with TV... This is stupid, I never seen any kids show having LGBT, because its wrong to teach kids through a cartoon what homosexuality and everything else is... If you do not agree, that is fine... but to me, it's not bigotry that is stopping Nick, it's common sense not to teach CHILDREN about sexuality, sex, etc through a cartoon. I'm not saying that not including LGBTQ+ characters is inherently indicative of bigotry. I'm saying that ONLY excluding them because of fear of backlash is catering to bigots. And no one is saying that Korra needs to be an educational experience about sex. What I'm asking for is just representation. Just a presence, that can mean to much to an LBGTQ+ kid. Take it from one who has personal experience. Spending most of your adolescence surrounded by stories by, for, and about only straight people, sometimes it's hard not to feel really, horribly alienated. That people like ME, people who like girls AND boys, can't be a hero. We can't even be a love interest. Or a side kick. Most of the time, we don't even exist at all. Having a boy character who likes boys, and having a girl character who likes girls is no more "teaching about sex" than having a girl character like a boy, or having a boy character like a girl. LOVE and RELATIONSHIPS doesn't mean that we're going to sit down ten year olds and teach them about preforming a**l. My grandmother is a lesbian. But that doesn't mean that my parents sat me down when I was little and told me how Mama Jo and Oma "do it." That's ******** stupid. The entire idea that the EXISTENCE of queer characters is offensive completely erases the experiences of queer children, and children with queer parents, queer siblings, teachers, babysitters, friends. I know Love and Relationships can be put in without mentioning sex... If you did find that because some story books didn't have homosexual relationships, or what ever because the writer chose not to, and you see that as not fitting in... I personally think it;s the own person's problem. If you take it personally that writers of Legend of Korra, or anything else chose not to have LGBT... that is just sad... They are not giving into bigots, they are doing what THEY want to do. If they do not see it fitting, they won't do it. Heck, if Korra's time is based on the early 1900s, it definitely won't fit into the story. It's already bad enough they have one kind of discrimination in the show, anti-benders, and all that. I think the story is about discrimination already, so if the end is showing that people should accept that others are different, then I suppose kids will learn that accepting people who are different isn't wrong. That in itself, is a good enough step.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:38 pm
Qyp [Ren The Ryoko] Qyp Yes... they are siding with the bigots to not put a LGBT character is a kids show... /sarcasm rolleyes This is just ridiculous. This conversation is way to serious for a KIDS SHOW. Yah know... I am cool with SERIOUS education of LGBT to kids, but doing it through a kids show would be IDIOTIC. It's not bigotry stopping them, it's bloody common sense. There is no need for it, you know why? Because I believe sex would be mention, and many other things. This show is for 6-12 year olds... Honestly, I would prefer not to have kids find out about sexuality through a kids show... if you do... that is sick. They need to learn it from their parents, and no other person. School is wrong to have sex education, because kids never take it seriously. Same with TV... This is stupid, I never seen any kids show having LGBT, because its wrong to teach kids through a cartoon what homosexuality and everything else is... If you do not agree, that is fine... but to me, it's not bigotry that is stopping Nick, it's common sense not to teach CHILDREN about sexuality, sex, etc through a cartoon. I'm not saying that not including LGBTQ+ characters is inherently indicative of bigotry. I'm saying that ONLY excluding them because of fear of backlash is catering to bigots. And no one is saying that Korra needs to be an educational experience about sex. What I'm asking for is just representation. Just a presence, that can mean to much to an LBGTQ+ kid. Take it from one who has personal experience. Spending most of your adolescence surrounded by stories by, for, and about only straight people, sometimes it's hard not to feel really, horribly alienated. That people like ME, people who like girls AND boys, can't be a hero. We can't even be a love interest. Or a side kick. Most of the time, we don't even exist at all. Having a boy character who likes boys, and having a girl character who likes girls is no more "teaching about sex" than having a girl character like a boy, or having a boy character like a girl. LOVE and RELATIONSHIPS doesn't mean that we're going to sit down ten year olds and teach them about preforming a**l. My grandmother is a lesbian. But that doesn't mean that my parents sat me down when I was little and told me how Mama Jo and Oma "do it." That's ******** stupid. The entire idea that the EXISTENCE of queer characters is offensive completely erases the experiences of queer children, and children with queer parents, queer siblings, teachers, babysitters, friends. I know Love and Relationships can be put in without mentioning sex... If you did find that because some story books didn't have homosexual relationships, or what ever because the writer chose not to, and you see that as not fitting in... I personally think it;s the own person's problem. If you take it personally that writers of Legend of Korra, or anything else chose not to have LGBT... that is just sad... They are not giving into bigots, they are doing what THEY want to do. If they do not see it fitting, they won't do it. Heck, if Korra's time is based on the early 1900s, it definitely won't fit into the story. It's already bad enough they have one kind of discrimination in the show, anti-benders, and all that. I think the story is about discrimination already, so if the end is showing that people should accept that others are different, then I suppose kids will learn that accepting people who are different isn't wrong. That in itself, is a good enough step. Wait, wait, wait. Are you saying that children who are of minority status are at fault that the media gives them little to no representation? Like...really? Do you not realize that's....a stupid thing to say? Like, ok, imagine for a moment that you are African American. Imagine that you live in a world that has no black cartoon characters. Not in story books. Not in cartoons. Not in anything. No black barbie dolls, or baby dolls, or action figures. No Black super heroes. And if they exist, they are hidden away in the "adult" section, because it's inappropriate for children. And now, it's YOUR fault for not having access to them. Sadly, people of color DO suffer from lack of media representation. But not as much as LGBTQ+ people do. Our media representation is utter crap. Laughable and deplorable at the same time. I'm not saying that Bryke MUST put an LGBTQ+ character in their show. I'm not saying that not having one would make them bigots. All I'm saying is that it would be really, really awesome if they did. And that the people who would be OFFENDED at the presence of an LGBTQ+ character, enough to protest, IS a bigot. I'm don't think it would really work for homophobia to take center stage in the show. The presence of People of Color doesn't mean the show has to focus on racism, and the presence of characters with disabilities didn't mean the show had to address ableism. LGBTQ+ characters can exist in a setting where the central focus isn't homophobia, ya know.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 1:01 pm
That's true. Saying they have to put a bisexual person in there or something isn't what she's going at. Heck, they don't even have to do that completely. There are ways to support the LGBTQ+ Community without actually putting a gay or bisexual or some other sexuality into the show, especially if they're worried about viewers dropping out. They could do something like they did with the Cabbage Merchant. Something that says its there and it's not going away. He was almost in every episode, though he wasn't a main character. Doing something like that for the LGBTQ+ Community would be saying, "Hey. We're here, and we're not leaving."
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|