This is the biggest reason to why I relate to Britta. Even though we both are feminists and we’re both “that person” who always has something to say about everything when no one wants to hear it, I was really struck during one episode in Season 1 when she said, “I try to act compassionate, because I’m afraid I’m not.”
Woah Britta, way to encapsulate all of my fears in one succinct statement.
(Source: community-confession)
A White Savior Film (WSF) is a movie that features a white person coming into the lives of a person or people of color (POCs) who are often low-income, troubled, and/or severely oppressed. The troubled times that the people of color are in can be a product of oppression from other white folks, or their own doing. Either way, the White Savior comes in, quickly sympathizes with the problems of the people of color, learning what needs to happen to solve their problems, and in doing so, wins their favor and becomes their hero. Here is a list of some of these films:
There are a few different kinds of WSF. The most popular kinds include the white teacher/administrator that helps the students of color realize their true potential and help them overcome their own prejudices (The Principal, Freedom Writers, Dangerous Minds, etc.), and the white sports coach leading his or her team filled with usually poor and troubled people of color to victory (Glory Road, Cool Runnings, Wildcats, Sunset Park, Hardball, etc).
The more epic, and true “savior” WSF that many sci-fi films also fit into feature a white person who is often an oppressor happening upon a culture of people of color or aliens that are POC stand-ins. The white hero eventually assimilates into their culture, and he even proves to be more skillful than them as learns the culture. He becomes their leader and savior in the battle against their enemies (Avatar, The Last Samurai, Dances With Wolves, Dune, District 9, etc.) Particularly for the “epic” WSF, the saviors are male, heterosexual, and very masculine.
So what are the problems with these films? Well, they portray people of color as too desolate, too hopeless, too overcome by their own prejudices and circumstances to help themselves, so they need someone to help them. But not just anyone, no, this helper must be a White Savior. This Savior inspires the people of color, teaches them how to be a better them, and makes their lives better when the people of color couldn’t do it themselves. These films ignore the stories of people of color helping their own communities and helping themselves.
Hollywood, and many white people, eat these WSF up because white audiences can identify wanting to be the “savior” in POC’s lives, to be the one who rescues the poor POCs from their circumstances, to be the hero in their lives. They help alleviate feelings of white guilt by projecting white people not as the oppressors, but as the heroes who can save people of color from their circumstances, and often, the oppression that whites in the past have caused. Essentially, these films capitalize on the stories of people of color, yet instead of telling the film through their eyes, they are presented as stories of the white people who help them. The people of color in these films function as catalysts for the White Savior to learn his or her lessons and reach the end of his or her own journey.
* You’ve probably noticed that many of these films are inspired by true stories. People who defend WSF often bring up the fact that several of these are “based on a true story,” however, that doesn’t necessarily mean that all WSF are valid as a group. Rather, it shows that Hollywood has a greater interest in the stories of heroic white people saving people of color than stories of people of color helping their own communities or people of color helping white people out of bad situations. WSF stories are being used to support the status quo.
Is it racist to enjoy these films? No, it’s not. You can still watch these films and like them, but they are part of a trend that chooses to ignore the perspective of people of color, and feed into the White Savior Complex that really shows what Hollywood, and unfortunately, many white people have, so choose your films well and watch them carefully.
See, my problem with this Tony’s opening number is that, though it is very entertaining in making fun of the idea that theatre has for “the gays,” I don’t get why there should be this ardent projection that Broadway is also for straight people, but I as a gay woman have never felt like Broadway was for “me,” although I love it very much. I’ve had to really search for any queer female characters, playwrights, actors, directors, producers, anything about Broadway shows that have some form of lesbian visibility. I would love to see more representations of queer women, particularly in musicals, but lesbians barely have an iota of presence on the Broadway stage. Broadway may be queer-dominated, but it’s still male-dominated.
Nit-picky, maybe, but I just feel it’s another one of those moments in which the “gay community” only refers to gay men, while gay women are completely erased.
I’ve been asked this a lot lately, and I’m sick of it. At first I was perfectly fine with answering it to the best of my abilities, but I am no longer as tolerant. Since coming out as a gay woman, I knew that I would be required to explain myself as a sexual minority, but this question is my most frequent and my most loathed one.
Before I even tackle the question itself, I’d like to point out that the ones who ask this question the most happen to be gay men, often with a cheeky smirk. This perplexes me to no end. Maybe gay men believe that they have more license to ask uncomfortable and personal questions because we are part of the gay community, but that doesn’t make the questions feel any less intrusive; in fact, it feels even more so. Maybe I was naive to believe that the ones who would understand my frustrations with ignorant questions would be my queer brothers, who have probably had to answer uncomfortable and personal inquiries such as these. But I’m not sure, I’d hate to generalize. I’m sure my experience is not the same as other queer women, but for me, it hurts when queer men do not respect my boundaries.
Now onto the question itself.
Firstly, when asking “How do two girls have sex?” people assume that I’ve already had sexual experiences with women. It is a common misconception that gay people are gay for the sex, or that if you are gay, then you’ve already had sex. It shows that that struggle for the legitimization of our emotional along with our sexual relationships is not over.
So this question may affect me differently because I’ve never had sex or any sexual experience with anyone. Of course, when I respond with that, the next question people ask is “Then how do you know you’re gay?” Again, it shows that people assume that a non-straight sexual orientation cannot exist without sex. That suddenly my romantic feelings towards women are illegitimate because I’ve never slept with a woman. I can’t stand it when people have the audacity to tell me that “You can’t know until you’ve had sex,” because I’m pretty sure that I would know better.
Now let’s be hypothetical and pretend that I have had sexual experiences with women. This brings up another problem with “How do girls have sex?” and its implications. People do not ask me “How do YOU have sex?” or even “How do YOU as a gay woman have sex?” (both of which I don’t need to answer anyway). No, this question specifically asks me to define sex for an entire subculture of the gay community. Whenever I am asked this question, all eyes turn to me, suddenly making me the Ambassador of All Lesbians. This position is unfair, since one queer woman’s sexual experiences are different than another woman’s, just as straight people have different sexual experiences from each other. Gay people have often had to speak for their entire community, and as much as we want to educate, one queer woman should not be required to be the voice for all queer women.
Finally, this question is almost always asked with a sort of tongue-in-cheek manner. People who ask this question often need sex between women to be defined because they believe that two women having sex is not “real sex.” Again, many queer women have had to deal with this perception of our sexuality. This is also a reflection of sexism, since a man’s sexual experiences are always valid, but a woman must be penetrated in order for it to be a valid sexual experience for her. Sex is often defined as needing penetration in order to be “real,” but this perception shows disregard to any personal definitions of sex that I or other women may hold. If our sexual experiences as queer women cannot be taken seriously, than we as a community cannot be taken seriously.
“How do two girls have sex?” is a problematic question because it makes too many assumptions, and it is just intrusive and personal. I’m just one queer woman in a heterosexual world trying to figure out my own way to express my sexuality; I don’t need to explain myself to others.
