Horsin' Around

A lot of analyses propose that the overwhelming predominance of male/male ships over female/female and female/male ships in fandom reflects an unhealthy fetishisation of male homosexuality and a deep-seated self-hatred on the part of women in fandom. While it’s true that many fandoms certainly have issues gender-wise, that sort of analysis willfully overlooks a rather more obvious culprit.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that we have a hypothetical media franchise with twelve recurring speaking roles, nine of which are male and three of which are female.

(Note that this is actually a bit better than average representaton-wise - female representation in popular media franchises is typicaly well below the 25% contemplated here.)

Assuming that any character can be shipped with any other without regard for age, gender, social position or prior relationship - and for simplicity excluding cloning, time travel and other “selfcest”-enabling scenarios - this yields the following (non-polyamorous) possibilities:

Possible F/F ships: 3 Possible F/M ships: 27 Possible M/M ships: 36

TOTAL POSSIBLE SHIPS: 66

Thus, assuming - again, for the sake of simplicity - that every possible ship is about equally likely to appeal to any given fan, we’d reasonably expect about (36/66) = 55% of all shipping-related media to feature M/M pairings. No particular prejudice in favour of male characters and/or against female characters is necessary for us to get there.

This is certainly one large factor in the amount of M/M slash out there, and the first reason that occurred to me when I first got into fandom (I don’t think it’s the sole reason, but I think it’s a bigger one than some people in the Why So Much Slash debate give our credit for). And nice point about adding female OCs.

When it’s a male-female buddy show, all of the failed relationships are usually, canonically, because the leads belong together. (Look at early Bones: she dates that guy who is his old friend and clearly a stand-in for him. They break up because *coughcoughhandwave*. That stuff happens constantly.) Male-male buddy shows write the central relationship the exact same way except that they expect us to read it as platonic.

Long before it becomes canon, the potential ship of Mulder/Scully or Booth/Bones or whatever lead male/female couple consumes the fandom. It’s not about the genders involved. Rizzoli/Isles was like this too.

If canon tells us that no other relationship has ever measured up to this one, why should we keep them apart? Don’t like slash of your shows, prissy writers? Then stop writing all of your leads locked in epic One True Love romance novel relationships with their same-sex coworkers. Give them warm, funny, interesting love interests, not cardboard cutouts…

As in, people gravitate to the characters given the most depth, complexity, and satisfying interactions for their shipping needs, because those characters are most human, and we want the realest characters to play with.

In a lot of media, the most depth gets handed to male characters.

And, oftentimes, even when the screentime and depth and interactions are granted equally well to female characters, there can be a level of, for lack of a better word, dis-authenticity to those female characters: they are pared down, washed out, or otherwise made slightly less themselves than they could be, in the interest of making them decorative, or likeable, or “good,” or keeping them from upstaging or emasculating their male companions, or just that the writer whose job it is to write them doesn’t know how to write women the way they write men.

And you get the characterization equivalent of that comparison chart where so many animated female characters have the same facial features because the animators and designers are so worried about not letting them be ugly.

When you have a group that’s allowed to be themselves, warts and all, and another group that has to be decorative at all costs, the impression given on some level is that the decorative quality is making up for a shortcoming. That they wouldn’t be enough in their own right.

And sometimes that cost is authenticity. The interesting, striking, awe-inspiring, bold and glorious unapologetic selfhood that draws the viewer most particularly to those characters who are unapologetic in their particular existence, standing clear of the generic and bland and unchallenging “safe” appearances.

It is authenticity, not beauty, which powers subjectification. The love for a character, not because they are perfect, but because they are them.

They can be pretty, sure. They can be sweet. But being pretty and sweet is not a replacement, and too many female characters have been written by writers who think it is, while the interest—in appearance, in personality, in interactions, in plot development—goes to the men.

You have to do so much of the work yourself, because the canon left them unfinished, with huge gaps or unexplored contradictions that you have to somehow resolve. Every female character you decide to integrate into your fanwork in some major role constitutes an undertaking in her own right as you patch together an understanding of her sufficient to model a consistent set of reactions and priorities &c.

The dudes just get handed to you. Even the ones whose canon is a mess have properly developed character cores.

ATTENTION #LeverageRedemption fans  The team has a top secret message for you… @ChristianKane01 @Ginabellman @BethRiesgraf @AldisHodge #AleyseShannon #NoahWyle

What gets me is how god damned frustrating it would be to work somewhere that one of the Leverage crew supports. Nate would be okay, he’d just make small monthly gifts to ten million different organizations so that nobody thinks he’s worth very much (he doesn’t own his home and he gives such small amounts monthly that Development writes him off as an earnest but low-capacity donor who should get a thank-you card around the holidays). It’s probably a bigger inconvenience to him because he’s on every nonprofit mailing list known to man. He has so many address labels, guys. (I don’t want to be Nate but I am Nate. I have so many address labels.)

Sophie I imagine has an extravagant alias for every charity she supports; she gives outrageous amounts and in return demands only attention and adulation, tickets to all the galas, and to be in at least one photo in every annual report. We have a donor like this – she’s genuinely invested in our work, gives generously of her time and money, is never rude or demanding, but if she’s in the room all eyes must be on her at all times. I actually really like her but constant exposure could get…tiring. 

Eliot just sends enormous, anonymous checks once a year through a shell company or DAF, which while not unusual would be irritating in that they can’t ever reach out to thank him and/or steward him into a larger gift appealing to his interests. They can’t even send him dumb swag! He deserves a charity-branded bottle opener and keychain flashlight! (He has stolen all of Nate’s, but they don’t know that.) Still, they’ve probably got a fun nickname for him; I have a few people in my research files who are simply named after characters from Greek mythology because that’s all the data I have or am allowed to store. 

For a long time Hardison just dumped money into the bank accounts of his charities of choice, seamlessly, invisibly – it just APPEARED in the account, and he was cool with that until he checked back after a few years and found none of his money was being used because they couldn’t figure out where it was coming from and were worried it was a clerical error despite the bank assuring them otherwise. Now he still dumps money into the accounts but he entertains himself building an elaborate digital paper trail so that the accounting all works. Have you ever watched a Gift Processing office try to balance a nonprofit’s books? Sometimes they cry! Don’t be mean to them, Hardison. 

Parker, bless her heart, just leaves bags of money on the doorsteps of random employees with notes directing how, in general terms, it should be spent. If she’s particularly pleased with the climbability of their home, she leaves a donut for them, too. Generally if she mentions she’s done this to the crew, Eliot calls up the charity to assure them that the large bag of cash was a legitimate donation and is not some kind of money-laundering scam. (That was ONE TIME Eliot, and the IRS didn’t even NOTICE.) This happened to me once. A tiny old lady in a Cubs jacket showed up to our office with a backpack full of money and it was a very intense morning. 

Boss made a dollar

I made a dime,

That was a poem

From a simpler time.

Now boss makes a thousand

And gives us a cent

While he’s got employees 

Who can’t pay the rent.

So when boss makes a million

And the workers make jack

Then that’s when we riot

And take our lives back.

Depression Hotline:1-630-482-9696

Suicide Hotline:1-800-784-8433

LifeLine:1-800-273-8255

Trevor Project:1-866-488-7386

Sexuality Support:1-800-246-7743

Eating Disorders Hotline:1-847-831-3438

Rape and Sexual Assault:1-800-656-4673

Grief Support:1-650-321-5272

Runaway:1-800-843-5200, 1-800-843-5678, 1-800-621-4000

Exhale:After Abortion Hotline/Pro-Voice: 1-866-4394253

Child Abuse:1-800-422-4453

UK Helplines:

Samaritans (for any problem):08457909090 e-mail [email protected]

Childline (for anyone under 18 with any problem):08001111

Mind infoline (mental health information):0300 123 3393 e-mail: [email protected]

Mind legal advice (for people who need mental-health related legal advice):0300 466 6463 [email protected]

b-eat eating disorder support:0845 634 14 14 (only open Mon-Fri 10.30am-8.30pm and Saturday 1pm-4.30pm) e-mail: [email protected]

b-eat youthline (for under 25’s with eating disorders):08456347650 (open Mon-Fri 4.30pm - 8.30pm, Saturday 1pm-4.30pm)

Cruse Bereavement Care:08444779400 e-mail: [email protected]

Frank (information and advice on drugs):0800776600

Drinkline:0800 9178282

Rape Crisis England & Wales:0808 802 9999 1(open 2 - 2.30pm 7 - 9.30pm) e-mail [email protected]

Rape Crisis Scotland:08088 01 03 02 every day, 6pm to midnight

India Self Harm Hotline:00 08001006614

India Suicide Helpline:022-27546669

Kids Help Phone (Canada):1-800-668-6868, Free and available 24/7

suicide hotlines;

Argentina:54-0223-493-0430

Australia:13-11-14

Austria:01-713-3374

Barbados:429-9999

Belgium:106

Botswana:391-1270

Brazil:21-233-9191

China:852-2382-0000

(Hong Kong:2389-2222)

Costa Rica:606-253-5439

Croatia:01-4833-888

Cyprus:357-77-77-72-67

Czech Republic:222-580-697, 476-701-908

Denmark:70-201-201

Egypt:762-1602

Estonia:6-558-088

Finland:040-5032199

France:01-45-39-4000

Germany:0800-181-0721

Greece:1018

Guatemala:502-234-1239

Holland:0900-0767

Honduras:504-237-3623

Hungary:06-80-820-111

Iceland:44-0-8457-90-90-90

India:022 2754 6669

Israel:09-8892333

Italy:06-705-4444

Japan:3-5286-9090

Latvia:6722-2922, 2772-2292

Malaysia:03-756-8144

(Singapore:1-800-221-4444)

Mexico:525-510-2550

Netherlands:0900-0767

New Zealand:4-473-9739

New Guinea:675-326-0011

Nicaragua:505-268-6171

Norway:47-815-33-300

Philippines:02-896-9191

Poland:52-70-000

Portugal:239-72-10-10

Russia:8-20-222-82-10

Spain:91-459-00-50

South Africa:0861-322-322

South Korea:2-715-8600

Sweden:031-711-2400

Switzerland:143

Taiwan:0800-788-995

Thailand:02-249-9977

Trinidad and Tobago:868-645-2800

In December Trump called a chief investigator in Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s office asking the official to “find the fraud” and telling this person they would be a “national hero” for it.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2242937-universal-basic-income-seems-to-improve-employment-and-well-being/