some type of adult girl

blue-author:

commanderbishoujo:

gadaboutgreen:

biyuti:

fandomsandfeminism:

fandomsandfeminism:

Pink hair bows. 

Many male Disney villains are what we would call “camp.” Effeminate, vain, “wimpy” and portrayed as laughable and unlikable. Calling upon common negative stereotypes about gay men, these villains are characterized as villainous by embodying these tropes and traits. 

Think about it: Often Thin/un-muscled figure, heavily inked and shadowed eyes (giving the impression of eyeliner and eye shadow?), stereotypically “sassy” and/or manipulative, often ends up being cowardly once on the defensive, many have comedic male sidekicks (such as Wiggins, Smee, Iago, the…snake that isn’t Kaa) 

Other examples:

since i was talking about one of the disney man villains who doesn’t fit this stereotype yesterday…

Gaston.

my bf was listening to that song about him yesterday

and i mentioned that he is literally the most terrifying disney villain

why?

because his type of evil is banal and commonplace

there are white men walking around who are exactly like him

men who think that women are prizes they deserve

men who will not listen or pay attention to a rejection

men who will go out of their way, if rejected, to ruin a woman’s life

ppl often seem to miss this when discussion beauty and the beast since the stockholm syndrom ‘romance’ is also a giant icky thing

the terrifying thing about gaston is that he is supposed to be (as all disney villains) a hyperbolic cartoon

but he is the absolutely truest and most real villain

because he exists in the real world

we all know men like him

Also, if we’re talking about queer coded characters the MOST important of all the characters is Ursula who was bad off of a drag Queen (Divine) and has a whole host of negative stereotypes.

She’s also my favorite.

This post is sorely missing some seriously important historical context. The term for this as film history goes is the sissy, and as a stock character the sissy is probably one of the oldest archetypes in Hollywood, going back to the silent film era. Some of the most enduring stereotypes of male queerness—the limp wrist, swishing, etc—can actually be traced to the exaggerated movements of cinematic sissies in silent films. And it’s important to note sissies were portrayed in a range of ways, though they were generally used to comedic effect; queerness was considered a joke, and the modern notion of the “sassy gay friend” in films can probably be traced back to this bullshit too. It wasn’t until the Hays Code was adopted in the ’30s that sissies almost uniformly started being portrayed as villains. Homosexuality was specifically targeted under the euphemism of “sexual perversion”, and the only way it could fly under the radar in films under the strict censorship of the code was by coding villains that way in contrast to the morally upright hetero heroes. Peter Lorre’s character in The Maltese Falcon is one off the top of my head, but there are a slew of them from the ’30s onward, and this trope didn’t go away after the Code ended either. More modern examples in live action films are Prince Edward in Braveheart, Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs, and Xerxes in 300.

So Disney just provides some of the most egregious modern examples of the sissy villain, but this is a really old and really gross trope that goes back years and years in Western film. There’s a fantastic book and accompanying documentary about the history of homosexuality in film by Vito Russo called The Celluloid Closet that gets into a lot of this.

It’s incredibly refreshing to see a response to a post like this that starts with “This post is sorely missing some seriously important historical context.” and then goes on to provide important historical context that adds information to the point being made. I was seriously wincing and bracing myself for “You guys, you don’t understand. It was different back then.”

(Of course, I wouldn’t have been worried if the name of the last poster hadn’t scrolled off the top of my screen by the time I got to it.)

beyonceprivilege:

agender-offender-deactivated201:

its not a slur its just racist because

- it throws every non white person together as a group which is exactly what white supremacists want
- it says that we all have the same experiences and face the same problems and understand all of eachothers problems… which is definitely not true
- its literally “colored person” worded in a fancy way

i’m literally so confused by this weird train of thought where people reject “people of color” as racist but then, like, unintentionally acknowledge that it’s an important term to be used because their counterargument literally forced them to use the phrase “non white”

like it’s such weird backwards logic

& also it was a term that was literally coined by women of color in response to the phrase “colored people” so why would that be an argument of why it’s racist? Women of color reclaiming a term and suiting it to put people first and color second in order to ease discourse and create unity is racist? O… kay….

And, no, people of color does not “say” we have the same experiences. “People of color” does not SAY anything. It is a term that is used within anti-racism discourse to ease in the description of the oppressor and the oppressed. How we define our struggles under the umbrella “people of color” is dependent on the people who use it. And when we look at it that way, NOBODY is saying that. Literally nobody. In fact, when people DO try to say that kumbaya nonsense they get their asses dragged because it’s simply not true. 

Anyway, you’re, uh, non white yourself (your about me says youre a poc tbh idk what you want to be called) so you’re allowed to like speak against it. I just think this train of logic is dangerous since like obvi it got reblogged by a white person and was seen by white people who felt it was toties cool to be like “Ah yes, people of color, very racist term”