what do we mean by queerbaiting?

(notes: both kyra and megan use queer as an umbrella term. this discussion includes minor spoilers for skins (uk) and for supernatural (season 8), as well as non-spoilery references to bbc sherlock, elementary, community, and the big bang theory.)

megan

okay, queerbaiting!

the way i’ve seen queerbaiting used and defined is: a situation where there is implication and/or subtext implying a character is queer, but that character’s queerness is denied within the canon and/or by the creators of that character. i believe the idea is that a queer audience is led to identify with that character but denied actual representation. i think i first saw the term here although i have some minor disagreements with the original post that the quote is drawn from.

i’ve also heard it used to the practice of attracting a fanbase of straight women through homoerotic subtext between men. i’ve also heard it being leveled at fans who ship slash. since it seems to be a tumblr-centric term, there seem to be some overlapping and/or contradictory definitions.

in my mind, making queerness the butt of a joke (see raj and howard in the big bang theory) is not queer baiting, because i never think those characters are queer (still makes me rageful and is incredibly shitty writing and equally shitty being-a-person).

i also don’t really think shippers are the issue here (although the ethics of shipping are a whole other topic) EXCEPT when shippers claim that a queer ship is canon when it is not (as i saw a small subset of destiel shippers claim after the dean-cas hug in purgatory, and which made me really worried about their ideas about queer representation and also whether they understood what hugging was).

i also don’t really have a problem with relationships like troy and abed’s in community, because i have never heard any of the characters or any one involved in the show going around being all “NO HOMO”, but it might have happened and i missed it.

where i do have problems with are characters like john “i’m not gay” watson and oswin “it was just a phase” oswald, because you have to ask why these parts are being written the way they are. why write two characters who are constantly mistaken for a couple (which usually denotes sexual/romantic tension)? why mention oswin’s sexuality at all, especially if she’s just going to dismiss it a minute later? these kinds of characters seem to be gendered too-the (Too) Close Male Friends and the Highly Ambiguously Bisexual Woman-and they can’t exist without being implied as queer, and they are also not allowed to actually be queer.

supernatural is the other show that seems to get cited a lot it seems, but i’m not sure how i feel about that. despite the amount of slash shipping that goes on, the only character i’ve ever actually read as potentially queer is dean (i could write books about dean winchester and gender and sexuality). and i don’t think that that will ever be canonical and there is probably queerbaiting going on in the show, but i’ve never found that aspect of supernatural as upsetting as other instances that i would qualify as queerbaiting (not sure why. i’ll think about it.)

that’s my understanding anyway. kind of makes me feel like we need a better vocab for talking about queer repesentation.

Kyra

Well like I told you earlier, I hadn’t actually heard the term queerbaiting until you brought it to my attention.

 

From what I’ve seen since you introduced the term to me and how I personally understand it, I would define queerbaiting as such: when writers intentionally create a character with either explicit or implicit non-heteronormative aspects (such as Oswin Oswald) but then deny that deviation from the heterosexual norm (“I was going through a phase”). I think I am also going to include same-sex friends who are consistently mistaken for a couple in this category, as in heterosexual friendships this does, as you point out, usually foreshadow a future romantic engagement with the other person (for example, Booth and Brennan in Bones, Castle and Bennet in Castle) whereas this is never the case for same-sex friendships (*valiantly attempts to resist bring up Sam and Dean Winchester as an example of this*).

 

It is entirely possible to have close same-sex friendships without having this problematic aspect. In fact, I think there should be more portrayals of close same-sex relationships, especially between women (though that’s touching on a whole other problem in terms of female representation in film and television). Though there has been an upsurge of the bromance lately. However, it is equally important that non-hetero relationships are also portrayed and allowed to exist. And if a same-sex friendship was allowed to develop into an outright relationship, it makes me very very happy (hello Emily and Naomi from Skins, you are awesome).

 

I think I’ve never found the aspects of supernatural which might be read as queerbaiting less upsetting because it is much less flagrant than in other shows. Mostly it seems to exhibit itself in highly ambiguous moments of male-male interaction which could be read as sexually charged or could not be – in other words, it is less a blatant dismissal of queer people and queer experiences, and more a subtle bit of fan service (which is a whole other problematic can of worms). When Dean says he is not gay, it is not a loud shout, but a casual, respectful repudiation (in Live Free or TwiHard). There is no one yelling NO HOMO NO HOMO every time Dean and Cas stand a bit too close together. Much like Abed and Troy’s relationship on Community, there is no aggressive dismissal of queerness associated with the implication of queerness.

 

Characters in television can have interactions which can be read as having homoerotic subtext without that subtext ever being developed (especially since I have to admit that my little shipper heart can find homoerotic subtext in pretty much everything). That is something I can deal with. While this might have some problematic queerbaiting aspects, it doesn’t set my blood boiling (especially since as I mentioned, it might totally not be the writers fault – people have an amazing ability to read into situations what they want to read into them, whether or not the creator intended that reading). It becomes extremely frustrating, and the epitome of queerbaiting, however, when that homoerotic subtext is first acknowledged, perhaps reinforced with reference to previous queer experiences, then dismissed or denied.

 

Sidenote: I definitely think we should have a conversation about shipping at some point, btw (also, I am dying over “whether they understood what hugging was”).

megan
i think you’re right that the thing that’s trying to be called out with “queerbaiting” is that kind of have-your cake-and-eat-it-too dismissal.
the fact that close (hetero) friendships so often develop into relationships also kind of bothers me (although obviously for different reasons)(see number 389 why i’m in love with elementary), but it bothers me much more that close same-sex relationships are often treated as a site for jokes about queerness that are, again, never realized (and usually not even addressed in a respectful way).
still not sure about why supernatural bothers me less, although you’re probably right about the tone of the whole affair. probably also because of my plethora of headcanons about dean’s sexuality.
i don’t even know what my life would look like without homoerotic subtext, and i really like ambiguous characters as well. but if someone feels they have to deny subtext (and deny actual text, as in the case of oswin) it’s not just lazy and unoriginal, but, you know, pretty textbook homophobia right there.

does dumbledore count as queer representation?

(note: kyra and megan both use queer as a blanket term for LGBT+; maybe we’ll discuss this in a post sometime)

megan

(i was going to do something more hefty than this but again i took too long getting myself together, so…next time).

i’ve been thinking about this the last few days since it came up in our class, and then i saw this post (the gif of jk is almost laughable to me) and i was…confused. i mean i think you and i have talked about this before, but my take on dumbledore has always been that he is never portrayed in any kind of romantic relationship (i mean you can talk about grindelwald, but a. canonically it’s represented as a friendship, b. it happened when he was very young and then as far as we know he was never involved with or interested in anyone ever again. and c. grindelwald was kind of not a great person, so, you know, that’s troubling). so while dumbledore might be a gay character, he’s certainly not representation, and when rowling divulged that particular nugget of information, i felt more angry than anything else.

Kyra

I am still angry about that whole thing. For one, it really does just reek of JK trying, after the fact, to include some diversity in her world. If she was looking to include queer characters, she had an entire school full of children who, at any point, she could have made gossip about so-and-so being in a gay relationship with so-and-so, or casually mention that girl A and girl B were walking down the stairs holding hands or any other minutia of subtly and easily including a diverse range of gender identities and sexualities. It would have been so. Fucking. Easy for her to include queer characters in other, subtle, canonical ways, if that was her intention in revealing Dumbledore as a gay character (after all, the demographic she would have lost from having queer characters already wasn’t reading the books because of the witchcraft).

As that post points out, the teacher’s love lives are not discussed, and it would have seemed very awkward for Dumbledore at any point to stand up and say, “Sup. Homo, right here”. As you say, for the Grindelwald thing, it is canonically a friendship, and even I, with my magical ability to find the gay in absolutely every fictional work ever, did not read it as anything other than that. However, the fact that he doesn’t act like a flaming stereotype does not discount the fact that he might be quietly gay, or that JK could have always thought of him as gay. And if she had revealed his homosexuality through a Q&A (fan: I’ve always read Dumbledore as being gay. How do you see him? JK: Yes, I’ve always thought of Dumbledore is gay) I would have been like, cool, and moved on with my life. But the fact that she made a big announcement of it makes it seem like a contrived effort to place some diversity in an otherwise very hetero world. Honestly, if she said that to me, I might very well have wanted to slap her. If the queerness is not canonical to the books, I’m sorry JK, but it quite frankly isn’t good enough.

Dumbledore is gay. Fine. Great. Whatever. However, that is not canon to the books, is not mentioned or indicated in the books, and thus he does not function as queer representation because, quite frankly, if his queerness is so incidental to his character that the majority of readers didn’t even know about it, he might as well be straight or an blob of anti-sexuality like the majority of elderly people are portrayed.

megan

okay, i thought i remembered it being in response to a fan question, so i went looking and apparently it partially was. this article says that it was after she was asked whether or not dumbledore found “true love”, and jk herself mentions grindelwald. (pretty much every quote by rowling in that article makes me wince though).

the weird thing is, i wasn’t really upset when it seemed that there were no queer characters in the books. it’s something i kind of expect, sadly. but once dumbledore is gay, and there was (supposedly) some thought put into including queer characters, it’s a different question.

first, as you point out, there are so many other characters in harry potter (there’s about 150 listed on wikipedia). things like the yule ball would have been great opportunities to include some queer characters. but all the boys (dutifully wearing their dress robes) go with girls (dutifully wearing their dresses), and vice versa. (i feel like it could have lost her additional readers, although i’m not sure, don’t really understand people).

then there’s the fact that dumbledore is a powerful old white dude, and has one known romantic relationship that turns into his Big Dark Secret. i’m not saying that you have to slather on the diversity just for the sake of diversity, or that queer characters have to be perfect people, but when it’s your only queer character, and his only queer relationship is basically portrayed as a mistake? questionable.

finally, i totally buy that there is no reason to bring up dumbledore’s sexuality in the context of hogwarts. but even when all the dirt about dumbledore’s past is being brought up so harry can go through his crisis of faith, no one brings up that dumbledore is gay, or that he was something other than friends with grindelwald. and if you’re a wizarding writer and you’re trying to cause a furor by revealing that dumbledore was friends with grindelwald, you’d think you’d just go the whole nine yards and paint them as boyfriends. unless, of course, dumbledore is so closeted that no one makes the connection(again, nothing wrong with that for a queer character-but if it’s your only queer character, and you want to claim that it’s representation?) and/or, homosexuality is so taboo in the wizarding world that it would never be directly spoken of, which. you know.

i mean i guess what really bothers me is rowling or fans thinking rowling has Done Something, when really she’s just slipped us a queer character consolation prize on the side.

Kyra

EXACTLY. Bam.

Queer consolation prize. Thats all he is.

And I wasn’t upset when I first read the books that there weren’t any gay characters, nor did I really think about it, but as soon as she put it out there that Dumbledore was gay it became glaringly obvious that that was the only character that she put in, and even then never explicitly stated his gayness.

I don’t really have anything else to add, because I basically just read what you wrote shouting YES, yes, this. What she said.

It does really bother me when authors or their fans are giving themselves huge props for what is basically an after-thought of a representation, that doesn’t really do anything for anyone, isn’t  operating as a representation of that community, and is so far in the closet that the majority of the fandom would never have guessed the queerness was canonically intended by the author. Whenever an author reveals something like this after the fact it reeks of self-promotion (look at me! so inclusive! so diverse! go me!) not to mention condescendingly giving a last-second, half-assed consolation prize to a group which is largely ignored and marginalized, especially in  fantasy.

Forever side-eyeing JK because of this.

megan

(and then there’s all the other problematic stuff in harry potter, but that’s another story…)

is political correctness getting out of hand?

Kyra

I would never say that political correctness is a bad thing – any institution that makes it social anathema to call a black person the n-word or a gay person f*g is getting no complaints from me. But sometimes I feel that I don’t know what words to use anymore, that our language is so heavily policed that it is difficult to communicate what we want to without hovering around the issue to the extent that our original point is lost.

 I’m bringing this up because I’ve noticed that on tumblr, people who are making statements will often be sure to qualify those statements in the tags so as there is no possible misinterpretation of those words, and people cannot take their words and derive offense from them. I’ve also experienced the need to do this, and the nervousness which can accompany putting any sort of opinion or view on the internet for fear that I’ll get half a dozen social justice bloggers or just uptight assholes with nothing better to do than police the language of random internet users jumping down my throat.

 Though I guess that begs the question if the problem is really with political correctness or with the whole structure of internet anonymity and the lack of consequences embedded in that anonymity. People seem to often loose sight of the fact that they are talking to a person – and while I would certainly never say to someone that their opinion is stupid as fuck and they are a douche in real life, I have done so on the internet.

Anyways. That got off topic.

The thing that always really worries me is how to refer to ethnic minorities. Seriously. That might be offensive. I don’t know anymore. I know African American is not ideal (because not all black people are African nor American). I think black is okay, but always sounds like it is wrong. People of colour or POC seems to be the really commonly accepted ‘right’ term, but then again, I recently saw someone condemning that term for various reasons (which I can’t remember, because I was too sidelined by the fact that POC too was, apparently, offensive).

I think the anonymity of the internet helps contribute to this anxiety. Because while in real life a person might take the time to politely correct your terminology, on the internet you are far more likely to have someone calling you a racist and delineating all the ways that you are perpetuating systems of oppression. This extends into my long-time confusion over the terms transsexual and transgender (which I don’t think I’m alone in). While a quick google search reveals the difference, you might not always remember it, and it is really easy to get confused. So when talking about trans* individuals, for a long time, I would dance around the term, being careful not to label their gender expression at all for fear of using the wrong term. I suppose that ties into a greater desire to not appear like an uneducated bigoted ass as well.

IDK. I’m not sure any of this makes sense, or what my point really is.

megan

i think language is definitely a bigger deal online than off. this is mostly understandable, since language is the only method of communication (no inflection, body language, etc. and often no prior knowledge of the person speaking). communication online also happens in contained blocks (not like an organic dialogue with interruptions and clarifications).

i think this is largely justified. using (and not using) words as they are defined by the community they belong to is one of the most basic ways you can show that community respect and support. i mean i’m tempted to play devil’s advocate here and just say that if you don’t have confidence in your terminology maybe you shouldn’t be saying anything, but i don’t really believe in that 100%. the internet has a lot of potential for education and dialogue, and i am a fan of both those things.

on the other hand, this is the internet, and that means you’re almost always talking to a (potentially) large group of people. so:

a. the “correct” language might differ from person to person.

b. someone is always going to want to be a shit disturber.

c. you are definitely going to fuck up at some point(s).

honestly, in my own internet travels, if someone fucks up on a terminology level, if they:

a. apologize

b. don’t temper that apology with excuses/misdirection/”but did you have to be so rude about it?”

c. and don’t do it again

no one really cares beyond that. (unfortunately this doesn’t seem to be how it usually goes, especially with b.)

i agree that internet anonymity is a contributor. more so that you don’t empathize with the other person than that you yourself are anonymous, like you point out. it might also be the sense that “i dealt with this all day irl and now here it is again”, potentially somewhere that is their own space like their blog.

to back track a bit, there’s also the problem of how fluid and conflicted information online is. when i think of “political correctness” i tend to think of what a politician could say to not get in shit during an interview. a lot of times what’s permissible in an online (and especially a social justice context) is very different from that. i think a lot of communities have sort of beginner, intermediate, and advanced vocabulary, and while beginner is usually the baseline offline, advanced is sometimes the baseline online.

i think you maybe have more exposure to some of the more interesting elements of the social justice community than i do. i do sometimes feel like there is a superficial engagement with a lot of issues (which, i mean, shit’s complicated, and you don’t have to go into every part of everything every time-but if your stance on any social justice issue is “why can’t we all just get alooooong” i am going to start judging you), and i find that some of the people who are most invested in hyper-specific language are sometimes those same superficial people. maybe.

i mean i’m thinking more and more about my own experiences, and i’m way more likely to be aware of “correct” language (or at least the debates going on about it) in communities that i’m a part of… and i’m much more likely to be upset about it then if it’s with some one i know during the day.

on the other hand, i think debates about terminology (which will never by as precise and universal as we want it to be) at some point have to take a backseat to more practical/immediate issues.

most of the blogs etc that i read that are written by pocs use poc; i haven’t really seen much criticism of the term?

 Kyra

That is a large part of my trouble with online communication I think – and honestly, comes up when I’m talking to someone IRL who isn’t used to me – that a large part of what I say is embedded in sarcasm and hyperbole, and a lot of that sort of language is lost online, or is far more difficult to communicate.

I certainly agree with you that using the language as set out by the community is important, and is certainly something that I try for – but, as you point out, online it often feels as though communities of people expect commentators or people passing through to be on the ‘advanced’ level, whereas I often feel like I am constantly and continually at a beginners stage (in pretty much everything ever) – and online, people who are, as you point out, often frustrated with seeing the same shit over and over again, are far more likely to lash out than to take the time to explain again and again. And the problem with the devil’s advocate position, that if people are told not to say anything if they don’t completely understand it, then it does remove a lot of opportunities for education. It also opens a lot of doors for absolute asshattery, but such is the internet. I definitely think a greater effort towards respect on both sides goes a long way, as does the ability to say “only if your comfortable” and “no, I am not”.

Maybe I’m just parsing through the more… as you termed it, ‘interesting’ parts of the social justice community, but it often feels like a struggle to include every possible element that someone might take offence to, and often is an exhausting impossibility. And, as you pointed out, some people seem to take the most superficial approach to this – getting offended for the sake of being offended, not because the OP was trying to be offensive or was really out of line at all (such as the people who look at any representation and point out the missing elements, with no consideration to the fact that there isn’t any way to include every single element in every single representation – if that wasn’t too vague). And while I do often find myself looking at my computer screen and moaning “why can’t we all get aloooooong” to myself, it is certainly an inadequate response.

Recently I’ve been trying to cut the word ‘retard’ out of my vocabulary, as it was never something I was happy about picking up, but due to constant use by classmates, ended up becoming part of my language anyways. I told this to a friend, and a bit later we were out and I said something that she had done was ‘retarded’, and she looked at me and said ‘excuse me?!’ (you know the tone). I knew as soon as I said it that I should have said something else – I am immensely aware of every time I slip up – but having someone policing my language like that made me want to just stand there and say it over and over again (a bit of a childish reaction, I admit – though I obviously didn’t actually do it). I think this is a pretty common reaction though, to be being told what to do, and something that just gets worse online.

Thinking of my own experiences, maybe I just find the constant policing of language frustrating because I am lucky enough to be a skinny white educated cis able-bodied person who doesn’t, as a general rule, have to put up with that much bullshit (besides the constant inquiries about my sexualities from the guys I work with). So maybe this whole thing is me being a privileged dink, who doesn’t really understanding the anger and frustration that certain communities feel due to constant harassment and exclusion.

On the other hand, as you point out, there are more important issues. There is a difference between calling someone out for using derogatory language such as the n-word or f***ot, and debating whether or not ‘queer’ is an appropriate term due to its history as a slur, despite the LGBTQ communities reclamation of it.

(Most of the POC blogs that I read by POCs use POC as well – I think it was just the one random person… it was mostly that it kind of sidelined me with the whole “really, that too?” of it, where I wanted to wave my arms in the air and give up on talking).

megan

“privileged dink”

lololololol

although that does make me think more about my own background-not only as a fairly privileged person, but also not having had language used against me very much. most of the times i’ve had slurs etc thrown my way have been in situations where i was able to laugh/write that person off as an asshole and carry on my way, not in a situation where i felt very threatened. also, coming from a very rural conservative background where no one learns these kinds of vocabularies; whenever i come across someone who calls someone else out and then tacks on any kind of “how could you not know this/you’re uneducated” i get really uncomfortable, because i think of how many people i know who, despite their intelligence/ethics/anything about themselves, simply don’t have the language.

i mean i guess i usually feel that anything which encourages people to talk (to each other, not pontificating) and question is good, and anything which discourages that should be looked at pretty critically.

ok, that is childish, and i give you judgmental eyes over the internet. but it’s hard to change your vocabulary (i remember like two years ago i was like i am going to stop blaspheming with other people’s religions…and well…you can see how that’s going). and i think that it is legitimately frightening how complicated the world is, that i will never know or understand everything, that i will make mistakes and probably hurt people, and that there probably are no real answers (see: why i find doing math proofs soothing). and maybe a lot of times people feel like they can make these things less difficult to deal with by being able to talk about it? and i think that’s true, but not to the extent that we maybe want it to be. i mean you can be capable of using all the right language but still be ignorant of history, current events, and real issues.

i think maybe sometimes “political correctness” gets hijacked on the internet actually in the form of tone policing and some other common responses (like the person who shows up on a blog about poc to inform the world that we’re all people and they’re being divisive).

one of my favorite sj blogs has this post about the role of niceness in social justice, which i think sort of informs my thinking on why a lot of people get upset about being told their language is wrong (and is also really fucking interesting). on the other hand, the fear that you originally wrote about is different in my mind. maybe related, but different. i mean i think it stems from not wanting to hurt other people, and acknowledging your own ignorance. and i don’t know if there’s anyway around this other than to listen a lot, to know you’ll probably fuck up, and to be ready to keep listening and learning and apologizing. and maybe to try to remain aware that those fuck-ups are things you did, not you yourself?

i feel like i’m veering wildly off topic now, but i know one of the other things that scares me off of these kinds of discussions on the internet is the permanency of it. the ignorant/not-pc shit i said in conversation 3 or 4 or however many years ago is basically gone, but something on the internet can stay attached to you forever.

i just tried to write a concluding sentence but i JUST DON’T KNOW.

Kyra

Like you said, the very few times I’ve had things said to me it wasn’t in situations where I’ve ended up feeling threatened, and though I’ve yelled at people for the language they have used, it wasn’t actually directed at me (a supervisor called another employee f*g over the headset and I bitched her out for it, another time a coworker kept saying he was “jewing it up” getting free meals from the company and I almost punched him). But it those situations the people very certainly knew better. Like I said, there is language that everyone knows is unacceptable, and language which enters into that kind of nebulous debatable environment of political correctness and community-approval.

I guess I think that the best reaction would be patient explanations rather than any sort of holier-than-though lecturing or policing – that is far much less likely to provoke a childish reaction such as a complete shut out of what the person who was offended might be trying to explain. While I sympathize with the degree of frustration that people who are faced with providing these explanations over and over again experience, snapping at people is just going to make them snap back, and make them far more likely to remain ignorant. Discussion is important, rather than just yelling at each other. I always really appreciate it when I run across blogs who answer questions with patience and politeness every time, no matter how inappropriate the question or rude the asker.

That article is AWESOME by the way.

I guess overall (to rephrase what you basically already said) it is kind of impossible to take everything into consideration, and we have to move through life with the knowledge that we might at some point say something to put someone else off, but with the conscientiousness and willingness to listen and change should someone raise an issue with your language or knowledge.

We just have to try our best, and continue educating ourselves. And keep in mind that fear of fucking up should not stop you from trying.

megan

i just realized while editing that you basically ended this with “everyone try your best!”

motivational!Kyra 😀

hello!

megan

so i guess we should introduce ourselves and the blog? or do you want to introduce me and i’ll introduce you because i feel like that is less awkward and also more fun.

Kyra

We should absolutely introduce each other.
As for the blog, it is a blog full of opinions.
A month or so ago, Megan mentioned in a post on a different website on an entirely different topic, that she was thinking of starting a serious blog. I suggested we start one together, perhaps formatted as a sort of back-and-forth, allowing us to fully hash out our thoughts, reasons, and feelings before posting them to the internet. Several terrible name suggestions later, “rhubarbing: the over-examined life” was born.
The blog is composed of Megan, a young, struggling English student, and a successful writer. Though none of the publications she has submitted her work to seem to agree on the latter, they will see the light eventually. She enjoys large sweaters, Neil Gaiman, and generally geeking out over anything and everything (including space, Doctor Who, and British authors). With her large stature and propensity to hibernate, Megan is said to closely resemble an overgrown bear, though with a much gentler disposition.

megan

the other half of rhubarbing is kyra, who is likewise a young English student. she’s going after a career in publishing, which will eventually lead to her ruling the world and/or being able to afford fancy cheeses as well as paying rent. evidence would suggest kyra has given up sleeping in order to be able to watch more tv shows and spend more time on the internet. she also enjoys DIY, movies that scare the shit out of me, and watching people get clotheslined by the 2×4 of knowledge. if kyra had a kind elderly neighbour named mr. haversham, he would probably describe her as “a very interesting young lady”.
this blog is a dialouge. we want to talk about stuff that we think is important, stuff we think is interesting, and stuff we think is ridiculous. we want to talk about it with each other and with you, dear reader. we’re pretty excited.