#double standards

Mind you, nobody ever has a problem when someone says they’re going to eat at a Chinese/Mexican/Indian etc. restaurant. To everyone, that is normal and not an aberration but centering Blackness in any context immediately gets everybody tight; or hesitant, limited enthusiasm. 😐

So many people seem to be loudly subscribing to this tribalistic "us vs them" version of identity politics that has them projecting a whole lot of their own issues onto media. There's an awareness of how political TV shows are despite the fact that media literacy is at an all time low. So many people are assigning moral value onto media works and so many people have been conditioned into thinking that portrayal somehow equals endorsement.

And because portrayal equals endorsement to certain types of people, portrayal always ends up getting the short end of the stick, whether or not its endorsement. You know, censorship, moralism, fascist thinking and all that stuff.

So yeah, I expected the backlash because this is the bullshit one always has to deal with if you like your shows with a bit of complexity to them.

But it pisses me off that the Claudia seance is being cheapened into another political soundbite about how "the writers just wanted an excuse to be racist."

Do I think people are allowed to be hurt by portrayals of racism in a show? Of course I do. I've been hurt by it since I was old enough to understand what race was. I'll probably be hurt by it until the day I die. It's valid to be upset by something and never want to watch it again. There are plenty of shows I haven't finished because they were too triggering for me.

Do I think that being upset by something gives me the right to assign values onto writers I know nothing about for simply doing their jobs and telling a story? No, the fuck I don't.

Writing about racism doesn't make you racist any more than writing about murder makes you killer. And the fact that lately, so many people can't grasp that is scary to me.

You tell a story about race, you tell a story about racism. Because racism is alive and well. And even if we manage to create a post-racism society, racism will have been alive and well. They're a package deal.

I want people to be able to tell stories about race. I want every kind of depiction about race there is. The good, the bad and the messy. We've been invisible for too long.

And if you think thoughtful media portrayals of racism are just a writer's excuse to be racist and not a portrayal of issues and inequalities that can and have played out in the real world because of the systems of oppression that underpin them, you're clearly unable to separate a fictional story from your own personal baggage and I have nothing to say to you.

These terrible takes about Claudia are extra irritating to me as someone from an African country, who grew up on multiracial and multicultural shows and studied post-apartheid and postcolonial literature at university, media that had racism as a recurring theme, because the narratives, like IWTV and TVL, were about racist structures and the people who lived in them.

It's so fucking painful to realize that the majority of these would be lumped under "generic racist propaganda" on this stupid US-centric website because for some reason people think that a piece of media having racism in it makes it politically incorrect propaganda, unfit to be enjoyed, studied or consumed. Without realizing what an oppressive, imperialistic, white standard that is.

"I'm a good person who only consumes media that is 100% non-racist, non-sexist and politically correct."

Congratulations. I can't go a week without experiencing some form of oppression, from other marginalized people even, because internalized marginalization is a thing and my parents and grandparents grew up in systems where racism was valued. In fact, racism is valued to this day in certain places, but I'm overjoyed to hear that I'd get punished by Western audiences if I were to write about it. I'd be nothing without your erasure.

The scene where Claudia finally gave Louis a piece of her mind could've been a wonderful opportunity for the fandom to talk about how racism is a structural context that marginalized people cannot separate themselves from or how traumatized people can and do weaponize each others' internalized racism against each other.

It could've been a wonderful opportunity to discuss how Claudia was misrepresented because of Louis' guilt and love for her or how female characters, black women in particular, are rarely allowed to show their ugly sides in media, especially when the narrative is told through a male lens. A male lens that's been well established as someone who puts himself and the people he loves on pedestals and continues to view her through rose-colored glasses to this day.

It could've been a wonderful opportunity to talk about the myth of the perfect victim or how her being trapped in a young girl's body means people have "no idea of her strength."

It could've been a wonderful opportunity to discuss how much of that scene was Claudia finally being honest and letting out all that pent up resentment she never got to share with Louis while losing him was at stake (but now she has nothing to lose) or how much was cruel lies motivated by the pain of being ripped from her resting place, seeing Louis and Lestat there together (Louis choosing Lestat over her AGAIN) while she's stuck having to exist without Madeleine.

Some people did speak about that which is awesome. Thank you for existing.

But mostly, it became all about "My morals have been violated" (fine, don't watch it then) and "what Claudia said was inexcusable, how dare she" (you're policing a traumatized black female character, EXCUSE YOU) and "the writers are such racist and sexist meanies for no longer portraying Claudia as Louis' most special manic pixie throw pillow" (??? make it make sense ???). It mostly boiled down to the fact that Claudia was cruel to Louis out of anger.

"This isn't Claudia."

There's literally an episode titled "The Ruthless Pursuit of Blood with All a Child's Demanding". Describing Claudia. From Louis' perspective. The person who has an admittedly rosy view of her.

She's ruthless. She's bloodthirsty. She's cruel.

She's every bit as ruthless as Lestat, whose blood flows through her veins. She's every bit as bloodthirsty as the coven that took her out. That's why they had to team up in order to do it. And she's every bit as cruel as Louis, who we've seen do this type of thing to multiple characters at multiple times. Lestat taught her how to hunt, but if there's one thing Claudia would have learned from Louis, it would be being cruel to people out of anger.

Racism is one of Louis' core wounds and triggers. We see it throughout season 1. Lestat uses the racially neutral term "fledgling" to address him, and he assigns racial meaning onto it, after which Lestat never uses the term again. Claudia uses "slaves" as a buzzword to manipulate him. Daniel uses racial terminology to get him to open up in the interviews. His favorite human meal is Jim Crow racists. Every time he acts on impulse, it's triggered by someone else's racism or perceived racism. It's a core wound so it's the best way to be cruel to Louis. Claudia is a predator and she went straight for the jugular.

Did you expect her not to?

Claudia was summoned to once again assuage the guilt of the two people who were complicit in both her deaths. She was immediately confronted with the image of the two of them together again after decades of searching for and not finding her companion, Madeleine.

Before she died she literally called them out for the self-absorbed bastards that they were, the fact that they constantly used her as a pawn in their drama and the fact that her being made a vampire was never about her, but about them.

She died because Louis refused to listen to her warnings about Armand. And then Louis still stayed with Armand for years after that, the very years she was stuck in purgatory without Madeleine, showed her private diaries to everyone, because her words were published in a fucking international bestseller, read out her most vulnerable thoughts about getting assaulted to her abuser to fuel his own sanctimonious hero complex and then paid a sex worker to act like her.

Of course, she's harder on Louis and easier on Lestat. Louis was supposed to be better than this. As unfair as it is, she always held him to a higher standard. Lestat was always the scumbag she detested (and father she loved in secret) and she never let him forget that. Louis was the father she was open about loving (and scumbag she detested in secret, because she could not afford to push him away when he always had one foot out the door anyways). Louis was the person she had the most faith in and trusted not to fail and betray her. And then he went and did all that. Lestat was just acting like Lestat, but Louis broke her heart.

She is allowed to be pissed and to say whatever the fuck she wants to in order to get that message across. She is allowed to say things that she knows will hurt them, Louis in particular, whether or not those things are true. She's allowed to be in enough anguish to lash out about it where it'll hurt most. Because they'll always have each other anyways.

I write this in response to criticism I've received for commenting that the padlock necklace likely worn by Will Byers can be both a commitment symbol (possibly related to Mike!) and also an expression of his sexual/romantic preferences, sharing what I'd just learned the lock symbol has in the gay and BDSM communities.

Given how closeted and repressed we know Will's character to be, and given other rumors/leaks, this is likely a glance at Will after a time skip after the main events of s5, or "Epilogue Will" (lol). He's likely an adult here, and his colorful style SCREAMS that he is out of the closet! (Maybe it's less true now, but wearing this in 1989 screamed I AM GAY! It was quite common to get gay-bashed for what you wore.) Plus the lock necklace has some flair and is undeniably stylish lol.

My reaction to seeing this was "This is AMAZING!" As a gay man who's been invested in Byler and Will's character arc, I see cause for CELEBRATION. This older Will is READY TO FACE BULLIES, if he's openly wearing an outfit expressing his gay identity and sexuality. This is an out and proud gay man!

So I put up my post, and the reaction on Tumblr was ALL POSITIVE. (Then I made more Byler posts, as is my wont lol.)

Then suddenly in the past few hours, my post has gotten comments all saying the same ugly things. The timing was suspicious and I soon found where all the hate was being organized (Hint: it's not Tumblr.)

First of all, I have learned increasingly this past week or so on TikTok that saying "weird" is code for homophobia. ("Byler would be weird" etc.) Doesn't matter if the word comes from a Byler either. It's been quite consistent. It's what someone says when they want to express something but also know they'd come off as prudish or bigoted if they said what they really think.

Will is a FICTIONAL CHARACTER, and this is a decision by the SHOWRUNNERS and COSTUME DESIGNERS. It's open season to talk about its meaning for a character who has throughout the show been closeted and self-effacing. And the lock having various commonly-understood symbolic meanings is a FACT. The creators have talked about putting thought into every detail in the show, from triangles on shirts to... well, locks on necklaces. (Personally, I didn't know about its association with BDSM culture until I googled "gay lock necklace" myself, and bam I found it!)

The necklace is probably WILLINGLY WORN BY WILL IN THE SHOW. And by wearing it, he would face judgment from BULLIES for the various things it signifies, judgment that those of us who claim to be open-minded and/or not homophobic shouldn't partake in.

Commenting on how a FICTIONAL gay character dare express HIS sexuality and CHEERING for him to do so, like really? Gay liberation has ALWAYS been about rebelling and breaking taboos, and this is possibly Will not giving a fuck and celebrating his sexuality. (What that "sexuality" is exactly here is ambiguous - that's the beauty and fun of interpretation!) It would be AMAZING if WILL of all people is loving himself and feels he has the right to be happy!

Why are we suddenly prudes? When Milev*ns talk about Mike and El having sex in s5 while they're still minors they're not met with stigma and insinuations. Why only NOW the pearl clutching and accusations of "sexualizing"? Didn't this show have a somewhat-explicit scene of two minors having sex (Nancy and Steve)? Didn't it show two twelve-year-olds kissing (Mike and El)? But talking about an adult gay man who MIGHT ACTUALLY LIKE SEX (shock! gasp!)!?!? It's a homophobic double standard and it doesn't matter where it comes from, and it's wrong. This is precisely why many LGBT people stay in the closet. And it's also why many make a point to express their sexuality: because society tells us to be ashamed for something wonderful and normal.

Meanwhile, there's nothing inherently wrong with BDSM! There are people of all sexualities, gay, straight, etc. who consensually engage in it. I personally have zero interest in it, but I'm not going to clutch my pearls and kink-shame people. (If you're like what the hell is this, then read up on it! See links at the end about BDSM and its relation to queer history.)

Now on to what my post was OBVIOUSLY about.

This glimpse of Epilogue Will is EXCITING because we might actually see the full promise of what the Duffers said would be Will's arc this season:

As many who've seen my Byler video have probably guessed, it's meaningful to me as an older Byler who grew up in the 80s to see a suffering, closeted, and bullied gay boy in the 80s OVERCOME IT ALL. This glimpse of Epilogue Will is a clue that the Duffers have motherfucking done it: they put at the center of the world's biggest TV show a FIVE-SEASON ARC OF GAY TRIUMPH...

... JUST as how it would be groundbreaking for this show to feature likely TWO closeted gay boys finding the courage to love each other against all odds. Will not only gets the love of his life, but gets to be OUT AND FREE.

I was celebrating that we might see Will's coming-out arc and sexual liberation.

And it's frankly homophobic and dehumanizing to think it was anything else.

I can stand toxic Milev*ns attacking me; they'll come up with any excuse to try to tear down anyone who points out the signs that their ship started sinking long ago.

But to see some in the Byler fandom join the chorus trying to stigmatize and drive out older fans for being passionate and wanting to celebrate Will's gay liberation is SHAMEFUL. And honestly, given that Byler itself is a story of heroism against bigotry, I don't think people who persist in such views should be welcomed in the Byler fandom.

We shouldn't cave to the homophobes. Be Epilogue Will. Wear that lock necklace proudly, dammit. Let people think what they think, because it won't stop us being who we are.

-teambyler

==========================================

EDIT: I suspect many younger folks who are swept up by or confused by the hysteria don't know much about BDSM and its relation to queer history. Here are some resources:

"It’s Time to Recenter Kink and BDSM as Part of Radical Queer History" (Slate.com, 11/7/2018)

"Leather subculture" (Wikipedia)

Also for the record, if this is truly Epilogue Will, I personally don't think he's a BDSM kind of guy lol. (Though a comment was made that he might explore it as a way to deal with trauma and reclaim his power, which is a valid take!) But I DO think with the lock necklace he's making a statement! Definitely telegraphing being gay, probably saying he's in a relationship, and possibly saying more!

EDIT 2: Want to share a great comment from @woah-someone-actually:

"It's so disheartening to see people turning something that can be such a beautiful thing and turning it into something weird. People need to understand that sexual topics are not always discussed for pleasure??? And its kind of weird for them to assume so?? Sex is a part of life. Its a depiction of love, and a vulnerable one at that. Its a natural puzzle piece in every persons life, and it affects everyone somehow. Fully celebrating Will Byers as a character ultimately involves looking at his sexuality. And that is undeniable."

The only openly queer couple in the entire series—a relationship that was largely developed off-screen—was used solely as a narrative device. Not as a love story in its own right, not as something allowed to exist and grow, but as a tool for Will’s arc, and more cruelly, as a mirror held up to him to show the love he would never be permitted to have this season.

Their very first scene together, in episode one, is intimate: they are kissing, touching, existing in tenderness. And Will watches them with quiet longing, with that unmistakable ache of recognition—the desire not just to be seen, but to be loved like that. Robin’s friendship with Will did matter, of course. It guided him toward self-acceptance, reminded him he was not alone, offered him a glimpse of a possible future. But the moment Will comes out, that friendship is quietly erased. They stop interacting. We are not even granted a glimpse of it in the epilogue.

That absence speaks louder than any dialogue. It proves that Robin and Vickie were never meant to exist beyond their usefulness. Once Will’s arc was “complete,” they were discarded. And it becomes even more disturbing when you realize the show had the audacity to use Tammy as a narrative excuse to dismantle Byler.

Robin and Vickie were used to give false hope—to Will, and to the audience who longed for Byler to become real. And once the season was over, once that hope had served its purpose, the writers broke them up. They are the only couple to end that way. Even Nancy and Jonathan—who also broke up—are, according to the Duffers themselves, destined to find their way back to each other in time.

So let’s be clear: The only canon queer couple was used to offer false hope to the only canon gay boy, whose feelings were then exploited to prop up a heterosexual relationship—and all of it was for nothing, because that heterosexual couple was ruined anyway.

And this doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

The Duffers have now revealed alternative endings they considered for Eleven. Aside from her suicide, the other option they entertained was keeping her alive, no longer hunted by the government—but married at eighteen to Mike. Those were the two imagined futures.

Think about that.

For a girl who was exploited throughout her childhood in a laboratory. Who never had a childhood at all. Who spent her life being hunted, controlled, used. Who was kissed at twelve—six days after escaping captivity—when she barely understood what the word “friend” meant and before she even knew her own real name. Who was abused, manipulated, and denied agency again and again by men.

The only futures the Duffers could imagine for her were death or marriage—a life still defined by a man, still orbiting male desire, still stripped of true autonomy. They never imagined a third path: Eleven alive, free, independent. Catching up on the childhood she was robbed of. Exploring the world. Traveling. Growing alongside the sister who truly understands her. Becoming a person before becoming someone’s wife.

No. In their imagination, abused children and traumatized girls either disappear—or settle.

And queer love? Queer love is allowed to exist only long enough to teach a gay boy that he may never have it.

("but it's okay since he had self-acceptance, why he would have both ? lol")

Once it has served that lesson, it is erased.

What we are left with is not tragedy—it is ideology. A story where heterosexual endings are endlessly protected, repaired, and forgiven, while queer ones are treated as temporary metaphors. A world where growth is permitted only if it leads back to conformity, and where hope is dangled just long enough to hurt when it is taken away.