• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Jun 17, 2019
2,182
This is a hard topic to talk about because there's a lot to unpack here. And many have already said a lot of things. That being said, one thing we haven't discussed here is partly the issue of straight women basically causing issues here and being a very loud group that also ends up causing harassment to the actors and the creators of the story. While yes a portion of the shippers of the pairings are queer, some are not, and they tend to be the ones that cause issues for everyone inside and outside of the fandom. I have a feeling Mackie is talking more about them then actual queer fans in general, and there is part of the issue. These "fans" will use queer representation, or the desire for it, so they can have their "boys love" pairing.

Just look at the situation with Steve and Bucky. While, yes there were a lot of queer fans of Stucky (the ship name) there were more female non queer fans that would go out of their way to cause issues on social media to the point where some team members of the staff for the movies were harassed and bullied over the ship "Not being Cannon" and then some of these moved over to the Bucky and Sam ship.

This also leads into the issue of how this plays into Real person Shipping and the harassing of the actors. I mean, hell the book Ship It covers this whole issue of a fictionalized event that happened. The book has it where the lead ends up basically outing a gay actor by having him kiss his co-star before the public and basically forcing her ship to become cannon because she's the biggest fan of the show, or something. The whole thing was based on a situation from, I think it was Comic Con, where Jenson Ackles told a teen girl that he didn't see Dean as being into a relationship with either Sam or Castiel. This lead to the girl crying and Social Media piling on him.

Part of the issue that I think Mackie is trying to get at is this weird thing where fans, again mostly straight women, are using these ships as a means of getting their romance fix and this weird, and yes exploitation I would say is a good word for it, of queer relationships as a means of doing that, as they find two guys together hot. On top of that it dives into Real life shipping and has, no joke ruined, friendships in real life because "Men can't be friends, they can only be fuck buddies if they show they like each other." This isn't limited to just male friendships, it's hurt female friendships with singers and actors as well, and even some opposite sex friendships because actors and singers tend to wonder if their friend is actually feeling things for them. This is sadly true more of younger people in their teens and the like. Off the top of my head One Direction, and one girls group (I think Fifth Harmony) had this issue, and just take a look on Social media and you'll find tons of people speculating about the sexual exploits of various actors and actresses based on the pairing of them in a show.

I mean, even if you want to just stick to examples from Marvel there are a whole bunch of examples of platonic male friendship. Tony and Bruce, Tony and Rhodes, Steve and Bucky, Steve and Sam, Bucky and Sam, Peter and Ned. The stories aren't necessarily about these relationships but they get to exist in a way that Queer people don't in the Marvel universe. So, yeah I don't think there is any meaningful argument to be made that platonic male friendships are even close to being as rare as homosexual relationships in popular media.

And each and every one of these friendships has obsessed fans that ship these pairings, some are not so bad, others though are toxic as hell and end up causing issues for the actors. Disagree with this, most male friendships in movies tend to factor around pissing contests, or other issues. Let's look at the ones you listed.

Tony and Bruce, is less a friendship more a working relationship with some hints of Tony using Bruce at times. I would say at most they respect each other, could go for a drink, but Tony would never discuss his issues of being Iron man with Bruce and Bruce I don't think could with Tony.

Tony and Rhodey on the other hand is the closest we've come to seeing Tony show actual maybe some vulnerability too another male person outside of Steve and I think that's more because of his issues with his dad, and even then it's mostly when he's in a bad spot (drunk) or Rhodey is hurt.

Steve and Bucky are the closest we've seen to that platonic close friendship that you can see female characters share with one another. But because, again, of some straight female shippers who a heavily think they are having sex or must be because of how close they are and how much they physically touch one another, it can put a huge damper on how much visibility that closeness can be shown without being called, by these same shippers as baiting. (Put a pin in that physicality factor.)

Steve and Sam get some moments but nothing as close to Steve and Bucky, and it's a close friendship but there's not as much as there should be there. Steve is more the person that shows a, I use the term loving, feeling for his friends, but doesn't get to convey it as much as he should.

Bucky and Sam, we get some fun moments with them but a lot are peppered early with them not getting along as per the typical, two dudes have to be at each other's throats/rivals before they can even start to become buddies and I'm at least glad they're showing more of a close bond between them.

Peter and Ned, could be like Bucky and Steve, but we don't get to see it enough, and it's more worded than physical. Also you would think that Peter would give him a hug, has he ever physically hugged Ned, trying to honestly remember if he has. The only hug I can think of is with his Aunt and Tony and that's more on the family side of things.

As I said about the putting a pin in it. Name any of those relationships at any time where the two male characters did the following:

Hug each other? (Maybe Tony and Rhodey? Maybe Steve and Bucky? But in both cases I think one person was hurt at the time.)

Talk about any form of feelings or their relationship as friends? (In most movies and shows men that talk: Sports, women, their jobs, their issues with women, the food, their pets) You'll see more physicality with an animal than a person, and when they do hug it's the patting on the back kind of hug.

Say they love the other, or say words that imply they care deeply for the other?

It's, as others have said, Toxic masculinity that is held up in media, but a lot of that is also perpetuated by the type of shipper that I mentioned above.

As someone who has been called and assumed to be gay when not, and assumed my male friends must be my partners my whole life I see what he means.

he said it terribly, but yea guys should just be able to be close friends without it automatically making them gay. I think it supports toxic masculinity to say "oh they are like this so they must be gay", because that would assume they must be masculine or "act straight"(whatever that is) to be straight.

Probably happens more than you think. One time me and my best friend were at a bar drinking and a woman came and sat next to us and asked if we were a gay couple. We were just sitting down and drinking and talking. Also sorta related but one of his exes thought we were at bare minimum having sex with each other. I'm bi but I don't tell everybody, I haven't even told him, and as far as I know he's straight. Her reasoning was that we spend too much time together.

This.

Throwing in my own issue here. Two of my students(males) are best friends and another student(female) in the same college started to call them a couple and at one point offered money to get a picture of them making out. They wouldn't and subsequently told me they would not like to come to the Student Union where she was frequenting.

I've read essays by queer men (and women) who have to deal with this because it's become, I don't know the right term for it, seen as a positive, to assume that two people of the same sex together are a couple. Like they're showing that they're allies for assuming this, or something. I do not get it at all, but it's becoming more common in some cases, or so I've read, at places like conventions or bars, and in some cases it happens to actors out with their friends. (Mackie may have had a situation like this at a con for all we know.)

My contention is that I don't think close male friendships are actually that rare in Media. If anything, it's the default state in almost every huge media franchise. Marvel and Star Wars both probably have more close friendships between men then they have female characters, and the Lord of the Rings is basically dedicated to the idea of close male friendship. Hell, even the Fast and Furious movies as silly and testosterone filled as they can be, often go out of their way to emphasis that these dudes really care about each other and consider themselves 'family.'

So yeah, I disagree with the idea that intimate friendships between men is actually rare in media, if anything it's the status quo. Which is why it feels kind of like a bad faith argument to me when people like Mackie here go 'well why can't they just be friends' as though male friendships in media don't outnumber M/M relationships by about a billion to one. It also feels especially silly because someone writing Sam/Bucky fanfiction on AO3 isn't going to somehow impact the original show's depiction of their friendship.

Male friendships themselves are not rare in media no. But the type of friendship like you can see with two female characters on screen does not happen as often. Again most of the time it's talking about women, or sports, or work or something else. You'll see the male lead likely talking more openly with their sibling, and typically it's a sister, or maybe a gay best friend or something. It's never fully feels the same because male characters aren't really allowed to show weakness or vulnerabilities the same way female characters are, and that's, as others have pointed out, a thing that has grown out of the 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century to build up the "Manly man".

I do think there needs to be way more LGBTQ+ rep in these movies and shows, but at the same time I do think we need to have more stories where male characters are given the chance to be in friendships as close platonically as female characters get to have. I want to see Sam hug Bucky and not have someone assume canonically that they are in a romantic relationship, just as I was glad that Natasha and Steve were able to hang out without ever feeling the need to see them make out. We need these sorts of friendships in media so that people can maybe learn it's okay to be vulnerable with someone that you're close to, and not think 'hey these characters need to hop into bed because it's hot' all the damn time.

TLDR: Some straight Female Shippers of M/M pairings can be incredibly invasive, toxic and down right terrible to creators and use Queer representation in media as a means of self inserts and harass and bother creators on social media, and IRL over these ships and become vocal in toxic ways causing the actors to become uncomfortable and put in weird positions that they are damned if they do damned if they don't, and use queer ships as a means of pushing their own desires for an actor or character onto the story and the creators just so they can say "They won" in some cases.
 
Last edited:

toastyToast

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,326
He winged himself into a shoot on this one and stumbled on some very loaded words in the process. I think he was trying to point out the way platonic relationship ships that are known to not go any further are used as a carrot on a stick for people hankering for some kind of representation by studios. That's a form of exploitation I guess.

Shippers gonna ship though. They'll ship people who haven't directly interacted, or even between media. Falcon and Bucky might as well be married. They literally need nothing to even read into. They're also not necessarily the same audience that just wants to see different types of relationships be represented.
 

blame space

Resettlement Advisor
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
15,420
User Banned (3 Days): Dismissive Commentary
once you've made a pet name for your made up relationship between two fictional characters i think you're past the point of being a fan.
 

seroun

Member
Oct 25, 2018
4,464
My general take on this as a queer dude myself is: we need more stories of emotionally open and considerate male friendships that can actually contain love and compassion and vulnerability, and this show is a strong story in that vein. And it's more than fair to stand by your work as a story about close friendship and a non-romantic connection between men that can be emotionally honest and caring. But I would gently ask that Mackie try to find better ways of verbalizing it, as the phrasing (despite what I believe are good intention) lays a weird sense of blame on queer people for hoping/fantasizing about gay relationships in a media landscape that woefully underrepresents us to this day.

This. It wouldn't have been a problem to say "You know, I don't see them that way". But pointing at the "exploitation of homosexuality by gay people".. the fuck you are talking about you homophobic fork?

I bet if this was Sam and uhm, I don't know, "Rachel", 2 mega best friends doing super hero things, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Also, Sam, you don't want fans to be writing m/m about you and Bucky? Then step on Disney and ask them for better LGBTQ+ representation.

I don't agree with the comments about Sam and Bucky being queerbaity though, I thought Cap and Bucky had way more undertones of queerbait than the story of TFATWS.

Anyways, as I said, if people don't want others to ship m/m characters (and some people do get intense with the shipping for some reason), I sure do hope they are strongly vouching for queer representation in the MCU and other media. That way queer people can have their canonical, on-screen representation and we can also have deep friendships that debunk toxic behaviours.
 
Last edited:

Surakian

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
10,872
once you've made a pet name for your made up relationship between two fictional characters i think you're past the point of being a fan.
That is a weird thing to say considering it's just the nature of people to give things quirky, easy-to-say names. People shorten the names of franchises the same way. It's just a language shortcut.
 

OhMoveOver

Member
Oct 5, 2018
197
I do not understand at all how what Anthony said could be seen as negative here? As a gay man, how I read what he was saying is that he doesn't want to exploit the gay community by titillating them with the suggestion of a gay relationship when there isn't one. At the same time hammering home how important it is for him to be able to present a sensitive, caring character that is straight. I think honestly a lot of media still pushes masculinity in a dangerous way.
 

Surakian

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
10,872
I do not understand at all how what Anthony said could be seen as negative here? As a gay man, how I read what he was saying is that he doesn't want to exploit the gay community by titillating them with the suggestion of a gay relationship when there isn't one. At the same time hammering home how important it is for him to be able to present a sensitive, caring character that is straight. I think honestly a lot of media still pushes masculinity in a dangerous way.
That would have been nice had he actually said that very clearly. The problem is that he fumbled his words and intentions and pointed at the wrong thing to be bothered by, which left people with a muddled message.
 

Orayn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,973
yeah I think I'm in the "he was trying to make a reasonable point but completely beefed it" camp on this one
There was a good Twitter thread about how he was basically put on the spot to acknowledge but not agree with a major fandom thing in a strictly brand friendly way. Obviously he could have done better but it's also a circumstance where it's easy to fumble.
 

nonoriri

Member
Apr 30, 2020
4,241
Well I think it's like how Disney has all these supposedly gay characters in their movie just to be able to say they're supportive of homosexual relationships, but they never actually commit to them. Or they have characters like Valkyrie in Thor Ragnarok who is canoncially a lesbian, and even the actress said as much, but the film doesn't ever mention it. But again, that's just my interpretation. It was a pretty confusingly worded statement


So "homosocial" is basically equivalent to "platonic between people of the same gender", just wrapped into a single word?
I hate to be cynical but I just feel kinda doubtful about that. Like... in my experience, most people outside of fandom are totally unaware of the concept of queerbaiting and tend to think Disney's pathetic throws to the queer community are legit. I'd also be surprised that he even intended to call out Disney at all. To me it really reads at him coming at the fans while trying to be like "I've played gay roles so I can't be homophobic." Like once again, I'm not trying read him badly intentionally, it just doesn't come off as critical to anything but shippers to me which is tone deaf IMO.
 

Disclaimer

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,532
I do think there needs to be way more LGBTQ+ rep in these movies and shows, but

You're rather burying the lede here, huh? How many paragraphs did it take to reach this acknowledgement?

It's not all about straight women. Yes, there's a vocal and in various cases problematic subsect of straight women shippers who cause all these issues you lay out, and toxic masculinity's influence on cultural norms is an important topic,, but the crux of the issue for queer folks—who make up more of this shipping than you're letting on—is that there is almost literally no representation anywhere in these Hollywood blockbusters (let alone a diverse breadth of representation), and those frustrations boil over.

Disney has been engaging in flagrant queerbaiting and patting themselves on the back for trivial inclusions ("Look at those two extras who were totally kissing in the background for half a frame! We're so progressive."), all the while utterly capitulating to outside pressure and refusing to ever allow a main character to be visibly confirmed queer, let alone in a relationship with another main character of the same sex, let alone if either of them are masculine (because we can't be making the straight men uncomfortable by identifying with or admiring a gay dude).
 

Justin Bailey

BackOnline
Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,480
I'm not sure what the "exploiting" part means, but he's got a point that you should be able to have close straight male friendships without people assuming they're gay. That's basically just combating toxic masculinity
Yeah I think this is what he was aiming at. He just said "exploiting" instead of some other word and that's rubbing folks the wrong way.
 

Kayla

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,316
Shipping has always seemed weird and obsessive to me. I enjoy some light shipping in some media but i don't really care if it doesn't work out my way.
 

nonoriri

Member
Apr 30, 2020
4,241
You're rather burying the lede here, huh? How many paragraphs did it take to reach this acknowledgement?

It's not all about straight women. Yes, there's a vocal and in various cases problematic subsect of straight women shippers who cause all these issues you lay out, and toxic masculinity's influence on cultural norms is an important topic,, but the crux of the issue for queer folks—who make up more of this shipping than you're letting on—is that there is almost literally no representation anywhere in these Hollywood blockbusters (let alone a diverse breadth of representation), and those frustrations boil over.

Disney has been engaging in flagrant queerbaiting and patting themselves on the back for trivial inclusions ("Look at those two extras who were totally kissing in the background for half a frame! We're so progressive."), all the while utterly capitulating to outside pressure and refusing to ever allow a main character to be visibly confirmed queer, let alone in a relationship with another main character of the same sex, let alone if either of them are masculine (because we can't be making the straight men uncomfortable by identifying with or admiring a gay dude).
Thank you. To make it all about straight women is totally disingenuous. Shipping fandom has always been a refuge for queer people. Heck, I know tons of people for whom it helped them come to terms with their queerness.
 

Jombie

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,392
He doesn't explain himself very well, but it's not worthy of the disingenuous twitter mob. Men being able to open up to other men - emotional intimacy - is just as important and something I still hear being called 'gay' by straight guys.
 

mk_68

Banned
Feb 3, 2020
942
I think this story is so overblown. Mackie definitely stepped into it but he didn't mean any harm. It's completely understandable what he is saying and I think that is also important and is being glossed over by many. I also notice that a lot of the people bitching are straight and that is so frustrating as a gay person. It is exhausting seeing the performative bs from straight people who just make things worse for our community with their outrage on twitter.

This is a situation where a lot of the sides are right. What Mackie is saying about toxic masculinity and having sensitive male characters is totally correct. The people who say we ship male characters because of the lack of gay rep in Marvel are also correct. It's just common. As for queerbaiting accusations...I don't think that's viable here. This isn't a Star wars situation imo. I think a lot of accusations of queerbaiting nowadays is a result of toxic masculinity funnily enough.

Anyways, I think it's ridiculous how twitter just took this story and ran it into the fucking ground but that's twitter. He made a bad choice with words with no intention of being homophobic or whatever the fuck people want to accuse him of.

On a side note Marvel better not fuck up the Young Avengers. We deserve each and every one of those LGBTQ heroes lol.
 

Watchtower

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,652
There was a good Twitter thread about how he was basically put on the spot to acknowledge but not agree with a major fandom thing in a strictly brand friendly way. Obviously he could have done better but it's also a circumstance where it's easy to fumble.

I saw a thread linked on another forum, unsure if it's the same thread but it sounds like it's making the same point.

Tumblr

Tumblr is a place to express yourself, discover yourself, and bond over the stuff you love. It's where your interests connect you with your people.

There's no good answer to the question "so strangers think XYZ about your character's sex life and your bosses say XYZ is banned, state your feelings about XYZ without angering anyone".
 

TheSix

Member
Nov 1, 2017
1,638
Toronto
I don't think he messed up. Not every man and his friend need to have queer subtext in television these days. That's absurd and it is a toxic product of fandom. Two men with baggage can and should be able to become close and rely on each other without the need to be more than just that.
 

Deleted member 20892

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
1,958
Last edited:

25th Baam

Member
Jan 9, 2018
272


This tweet summarizes my feelings.

Yep, that summarises my feelings very well too. Like I understand the need for straight men emotional friendships to be represented in media, but if gay men are so starved for representation that we latch on those representations as gay couples, let we have it please.

Otherwise you have the risk to sound like a "no homo" dudebro, even if I get your point. I don't understand the need to defend yourself from being called a gay couple, you should take it with pride that you and your straight friend seem so close that you seem in a relationship.
 

That1GoodHunter

My ass legally belongs to Ted Price
Member
Oct 17, 2019
10,863
I get the sentiment, and he was put on the spot. I often vomit out word salads in similar situations, if this was a thought out written statement he crafted... i would be less charitable
 

Deleted member 1003

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,638
People need to put their anger toward Marvel's executive more than anything. Sure he wasn't eloquent but he is the actor, he does his part but he's not Kevin.
 

azfaru

Member
Dec 1, 2017
2,275
As a thirsty gay man. Of course I love to fantasize and ship on-screen men for fun. But I can see where he's coming from, not all close and sensitive friendships have to be a homosexual one.
 

PSOreo

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,260
I kinda get where he's coming from in the sense of "they're just friends, it isn't always more than that" but they're fictional characters, people will ship them. Just let them and don't be so defensive. The Mark Hamill statement on Luke Skywalker that people have mentioned before is perfect; "If you think he's gay, then he's gay!"
 

Rendering...

Member
Oct 30, 2017
19,089
Bi dude here, kinda feel the need to clarify that.

It's possible I am misreading here or it's specifically about the word choice, I honestly have no idea what the hell he was aiming for with "exploiting", but I do think it is demonstrably true that platonic male friendships are often seen as romantic, or needing to be romantic, and I feel this is something that's come about because we've been so deluged in heteronormative media for so long that now that we've had the curtain removed and seeing how much of a goddamn mess it's been we're in a scramble to start correcting it however we can, and wanting to see romances between Queer men is part of that. I'm not gonna police anyone's ship, but, like, it's okay that the guy playing Falcon says out loud "yeah they're straight and they are close friends who are emotionally open to each other."

Which is to say healthy platonic male friendships and male romances both deserve to exist, and we've been capitulating too long to the standards of toxic masculinity and dudebro culture. I don't think the answer to that is to discount platonic relationships between men as something not worth depicting. To be perfectly frank, yes, even if I am someone who can and has fallen for other men, I do think it's true that emotional availability between straight dudes is something that needs to be depicted, because straight dudes have been fucked up for a long ass time by the standards of toxic masculinity.
100% agreed, well said.
 

Disclaimer

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,532
Are there examples of this? I'm not doubting him, but I don't think I can think of any examples.

Literally any example of sub-textual queer love in any form of media? Which, unfortunately, is a highly prevalent form of 'representation', because up until very recently—and hell, even including now, really—it was taboo to confirm a character was written intentionally as gay.

Straight men refuse to believe—and mock, using the same excuse of "let friends be friends"—that two men can be romantically inclined unless they're actually shown sucking each others' cocks. (And even then, no homo, just two friends experimenting.) This is what the tweet is referring to: ignorant straight people not understanding the aforementioned fact that queerness and queer relationships had to be subtextual for so long, and thus queer people have been programmed to search for that subtext, because of the dearth of representation they receive otherwise.

This is very prevalent in gaming, too. Just look at one of my favorite series, Fire Emblem. It's rife with clearly intended queer subtext, and if we were counting that as representation (because we're that desperate), it'd probably feature one of the largest queer casts in gaming, and very arguably the only queer male MC I'm aware of in gaming. But even today in 2021, straight people in the fandom stick their heads in the sand and aggressively deny the various examples of flagrant subtext (Raven/Lucius, Ike/Soren, etc. etc.)

(Even in the latest game, Three Houses, it was quickly noticed that not only were there much fewer m/m relationship options for the male avatar than there were w/w for the female avatar, but every single clearly intended m/m pairing outside of the avatar's were subtextual and never confirmed [all "and they went and lived together as bros in a one room cabin for the rest of their lives"], whereas multiple w/w options ended in confirmation. Why is that? Totally not because w/w are titillating to that same straight male audience, while m/m are intimidating.)

To blanketly dismiss m/m "shipping" as a problematic pasttime of lonely straight women, as that other poster was more or less doing, is flatly incorrect.

But ultimately, all of this stems from the complete and utter lack of queer representation in media. And the bigger the form of media—e.g., marvel blockbusters—the more barren that landscape becomes, because they prioritize the money of people living under homophobic regimes (putting it mildly) over the visibility of queer folks.

If straight "allies" could do less bristling when queer people ship same-sex characters out of desperation, and instead loudly support their inclusion, maybe things could change. Instead y'all relaying boogieman tales of some drunk woman shipping two friends at a bar and that making them uncomfortable because they're immature. But leave it to straight people to make themselves the real victims of queer erasure, while propagating that erasure.
 
Last edited:
Literally any example of sub-textual queer love in any form of media? Which, unfortunately, is a highly prevalent form of 'representation', because up until very recently—and hell, even including now, really—it was taboo to confirm a character was written intentionally as gay.

Straight men refuse to believe—and mock, using the same excuse of "let friends be friends"—that two men can be romantically inclined unless they're actually shown sucking each others' cocks. (And even then, no homo, just two friends experimenting.) This is what the tweet is referring to: ignorant straight people not understanding the aforementioned fact that queerness and queer relationships had to be subtextual for so long, and thus queer people have been programmed to search for that subtext, because of the dearth of representation they receive otherwise.

This is very prevalent in gaming, too. Just look at one of my favorite series, Fire Emblem. It's rife with clearly intended queer subtext, and if we were counting that as representation (because we're that desperate), it'd probably feature one of the largest queer casts in gaming, and very arguably the only queer male MC I'm aware of in gaming. But even today in 2021, straight people in the fandom stick their heads in the sand and aggressively deny the various examples of flagrant subtext (Raven/Lucius, Ike/Soren, etc. etc.)

(Even in the latest game, Three Houses, it was quickly noticed that not only were there much fewer m/m relationship options for the male avatar than there were w/w for the female avatar, but every single clearly intended m/m pairing outside of the avatar's were subtextual and never confirmed [all "and they went and lived together as bros in a one room cabin for the rest of their lives"], whereas multiple w/w options ended in confirmation. Why is that? Totally not because w/w are titillating to that same straight male audience, while m/m are intimidating.)

To blanketly dismiss m/m "shipping" as a problematic pasttime of lonely straight women, as that other poster was more or less doing, is flatly incorrect.

But ultimately, all of this stems from the complete and utter lack of queer representation in media. And the bigger the form of media—e.g., marvel blockbusters—the more barren that landscape becomes, because they prioritize the money of people living under homophobic regimes (putting it mildly) over the visibility of queer folks.

If straight "allies" could do less bristling when queer people ship same-sex characters out of desperation, and instead loudly support their inclusion, maybe things could change. Instead y'all relaying boogieman tales of some drunk woman shipping two friends at a bar and that making them uncomfortable because they're immature. But leave it to straight people to make themselves the real victims of queer erasure, while propagating that erasure.
We had a thread last year about Flick and CJ from Animal Crossing being a gay couple and quite a few posters adamant in stating it was all in our heads.
 

nonoriri

Member
Apr 30, 2020
4,241
(Even in the latest game, Three Houses, it was quickly noticed that not only were there much fewer m/m relationship options for the male avatar than there were w/w for the female avatar, but every single clearly intended m/m pairing outside of the avatar's were subtextual and never confirmed [all "and they went and lived together as bros in a one room cabin for the rest of their lives"], whereas multiple w/w options ended in confirmation. Why is that? Totally not because w/w are titillating to that same straight male audience, while m/m are intimidating.)
I agree with a lot of your post but please don't center WLW rep around their "palatableness" to straight men. Lesbophobia is real. Focus on the problem that cis men are often homophobic and misogynistic.
 

Haunted

Banned
Nov 3, 2017
2,737
I'm with Mackie, I know what he means. Shipping fandom has always been annoying, fucking tumblr.
 

Watchtower

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,652
So a couple things I've run into regarding this whole thing.

First, a short Twitter thread highlighting Variety writer/interviewer Adam B. Vary and the way he approaches these topics with black actors:





The Twitter thread highlighted in the Tumblr I previously linked is actually provided here, and he uses it to extend the thread on it. Notably he does at one point criticize Mackie for his poor word choice but argues that that's something queer friends and colleagues should handle with him in private.



Finally I was only introduced to it through this controversy but it deserves to be noted that Mackie starred in the Black Mirror episode Striking Vipers, where he, a straight married man, gets sexually intimate with his male best friend (played by Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) through a VR game and the two even kiss as themselves. So clearly Mackie is willing to explore the subject of sexuality, it's just also clearly not the ultimate intent with Sam Wilson (at least partially because of Disney), and at least part of his ramble is him feeling like what he's trying to do with Sam's relationship with Bucky isn't being appreciated by shippers.

(And to be clear I do think he's off-base in focusing it on shippers, as noted the LGBT community can't be blamed for constantly having the swim around subtext in media. However I do think the point he was trying to get to is worth exploring, and part of it coming off so poorly is him being put on the spot and trying to figure it through in the moment.)
 

Browser

Member
Apr 13, 2019
2,031
I still think marvel were cowards for not making carol and rambeau a couple instead of "best friends" in captain marvel.