Post by Mr Picalini on Jan 28, 2012 21:44:40 GMT
I may, perhaps, only dig a deeper hole for myself, but I feel I want to explain this a little more clearly. I don't know how many people saw my original comment - Em was certainly fast to clear the board, which is fine with me. It was a very poorly worded statement that would easily be misinterpreted as . . . well, not anything very good.
But then there's the whole "that's called transphobia" statement and people tend to assume the worst when you bring up stuff like that. So I'm just going to explain what I meant and let the rest of you decide for yourselves how my opinion fits with your own particular moral stance.
For starters, I'll get this out in the open; I tend to genuinely loathe characters of the "non-traditional" sort in media in general and movies in particular. The reason for this is that Hollywood is run by stuffed shirts who are stuck on an outdated mode of thought due to them isolating themselves from the rest of the world as the obscenely wealthy are prone to do. They don't really seem to understand what they're actually talking about and, as such, when they try, what you usually end up with are stereotypes. The attitude of Hollywood seems to be that if they say "Hey, it's alright to be that way!" people won't notice that the character is nothing more than a stereotype which, in all likelihood, bears little or no resemblance to reality.
That's half the time. The other half of the time, you get people who are trying so hard to make a point that they bury their characters in it. The social/political agenda becomes all the character is.
Were Cherry to be written as a Hollywood movie character, he would either be a compilation of stereotypes played for laughs, or we would be constantly bombarded with a message about accepting different lifestyles and would probably be sent all the way into the transgender to make him stand out, because hey, if you're going to do controversy, why not go all the way? At least the shock value will get some attention, right?
What I like about how Cherry is written is that his cross-dressing is an aspect of his character, rather than the definition of it. It's just a part of who he is, not something he obsesses about. Particularly in the Footloose comic, we have a plot that is not afraid to have a character that's different just be another character. Cherry doesn't have to be a crusader for acceptance or rights or whatever; he's just another person in the comic. Ironically, this makes him a far more effective tool for that purpose.
Now, I'll also come right out and say that, as a Christian, yes I do disagree with the lifestyle (well, not so much the cross-dressing, which merely strikes me as idiosyncratic, but we'll let that alone while I make my point). There's a lot that goes into why I feel this way aside from just what's written in the Bible, but that doesn't really apply to the matter at hand. I only bring this up to make a point that no, I can't really understand people's desire to do whatever it is their lifestyle is. I do not lean that way, nor do I believe in it and no amount of politically driven campaigning is going to ever change my personal beliefs, nor make me understand what it's like to be that way.
But I'll tell you what I can get behind: the desire to be treated as a human being. As a schizophrenic who's had to endure being treated like I'm some kind of dangerous freak because my mind works differently, I can very much get behind the desire to be treated with dignity. I can understand the desire to just have people overlook the ways that I'm different from other people and just let me be another person in the world.
And that is exactly what Footloose does with Cherry. I like Cherry as a character because he doesn't grab me by the collar and shake me while screaming, "Accept me!" like there's a reason I should dislike him. In short, Footloose treats Cherry as a human being. Sure, he's different, but, in Cherry's own words, "why is this always such a big deal?"
But I guess that's really more why Cherry doesn't make me dislike him. What I like about Cherry is that he's a well developed and interesting character beyond just wearing women's clothing. He's very practical ("you know how most magical girls do a lot of jumping around to build up tension before using their big attacks? I think that's stupid"), he's a headstrong, if slightly petulant teenager ("I'm not in your house anymore"), but for that, he's still kind of shy and is a bit of a pushover when it comes to people like his dad. I could go on at great length about all kinds of other details you can pick up in the writing but the important part is that Cherry is a character and his cross-dressing is an aspect of that character.
So, when I said the phrase "I'm a girl in a guy's body bullshit," I didn't mean that the argument itself is entirely nonsense. Having studied psychology, I understand the issue is quite a bit more complicated than people tend to realize (more complicated, I think then even many transgenders realize; but my stance on the matter comes from my own experience with schizophrenia, which, while probably not the best point of view to approach it from, is kind of the only one I have). What I mean is he's not buried under a complex issue that has been oversimplified to the point that it's become bullshit.
What Cherry is - what Steve is - is a character.
And a damn good one at that.
I don't think that's transphobic, but if it is, then very well. Everybody's got problems and this wouldn't be the only one on my list. And really, if people are unwilling to accept help from someone who'd be willing stand up for their right to be treated with dignity and equality just because he doesn't share their exact opinion on all matters, I'd have to ask them who's the one that's really close-minded?
Heh.
Em, Ally, I think I may have found the subject matter for that essay I said I might write on your comic. Cherry really is an excellent example on how to write a character that might be considered controversial. In fact, I think I wrote a good chunk of it just now.
But then there's the whole "that's called transphobia" statement and people tend to assume the worst when you bring up stuff like that. So I'm just going to explain what I meant and let the rest of you decide for yourselves how my opinion fits with your own particular moral stance.
For starters, I'll get this out in the open; I tend to genuinely loathe characters of the "non-traditional" sort in media in general and movies in particular. The reason for this is that Hollywood is run by stuffed shirts who are stuck on an outdated mode of thought due to them isolating themselves from the rest of the world as the obscenely wealthy are prone to do. They don't really seem to understand what they're actually talking about and, as such, when they try, what you usually end up with are stereotypes. The attitude of Hollywood seems to be that if they say "Hey, it's alright to be that way!" people won't notice that the character is nothing more than a stereotype which, in all likelihood, bears little or no resemblance to reality.
That's half the time. The other half of the time, you get people who are trying so hard to make a point that they bury their characters in it. The social/political agenda becomes all the character is.
Were Cherry to be written as a Hollywood movie character, he would either be a compilation of stereotypes played for laughs, or we would be constantly bombarded with a message about accepting different lifestyles and would probably be sent all the way into the transgender to make him stand out, because hey, if you're going to do controversy, why not go all the way? At least the shock value will get some attention, right?
What I like about how Cherry is written is that his cross-dressing is an aspect of his character, rather than the definition of it. It's just a part of who he is, not something he obsesses about. Particularly in the Footloose comic, we have a plot that is not afraid to have a character that's different just be another character. Cherry doesn't have to be a crusader for acceptance or rights or whatever; he's just another person in the comic. Ironically, this makes him a far more effective tool for that purpose.
Now, I'll also come right out and say that, as a Christian, yes I do disagree with the lifestyle (well, not so much the cross-dressing, which merely strikes me as idiosyncratic, but we'll let that alone while I make my point). There's a lot that goes into why I feel this way aside from just what's written in the Bible, but that doesn't really apply to the matter at hand. I only bring this up to make a point that no, I can't really understand people's desire to do whatever it is their lifestyle is. I do not lean that way, nor do I believe in it and no amount of politically driven campaigning is going to ever change my personal beliefs, nor make me understand what it's like to be that way.
But I'll tell you what I can get behind: the desire to be treated as a human being. As a schizophrenic who's had to endure being treated like I'm some kind of dangerous freak because my mind works differently, I can very much get behind the desire to be treated with dignity. I can understand the desire to just have people overlook the ways that I'm different from other people and just let me be another person in the world.
And that is exactly what Footloose does with Cherry. I like Cherry as a character because he doesn't grab me by the collar and shake me while screaming, "Accept me!" like there's a reason I should dislike him. In short, Footloose treats Cherry as a human being. Sure, he's different, but, in Cherry's own words, "why is this always such a big deal?"
But I guess that's really more why Cherry doesn't make me dislike him. What I like about Cherry is that he's a well developed and interesting character beyond just wearing women's clothing. He's very practical ("you know how most magical girls do a lot of jumping around to build up tension before using their big attacks? I think that's stupid"), he's a headstrong, if slightly petulant teenager ("I'm not in your house anymore"), but for that, he's still kind of shy and is a bit of a pushover when it comes to people like his dad. I could go on at great length about all kinds of other details you can pick up in the writing but the important part is that Cherry is a character and his cross-dressing is an aspect of that character.
So, when I said the phrase "I'm a girl in a guy's body bullshit," I didn't mean that the argument itself is entirely nonsense. Having studied psychology, I understand the issue is quite a bit more complicated than people tend to realize (more complicated, I think then even many transgenders realize; but my stance on the matter comes from my own experience with schizophrenia, which, while probably not the best point of view to approach it from, is kind of the only one I have). What I mean is he's not buried under a complex issue that has been oversimplified to the point that it's become bullshit.
What Cherry is - what Steve is - is a character.
And a damn good one at that.
I don't think that's transphobic, but if it is, then very well. Everybody's got problems and this wouldn't be the only one on my list. And really, if people are unwilling to accept help from someone who'd be willing stand up for their right to be treated with dignity and equality just because he doesn't share their exact opinion on all matters, I'd have to ask them who's the one that's really close-minded?
Heh.
Em, Ally, I think I may have found the subject matter for that essay I said I might write on your comic. Cherry really is an excellent example on how to write a character that might be considered controversial. In fact, I think I wrote a good chunk of it just now.