Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, add this to the list of things we won’t be watching.

Kids’ movies are for kids. They’re not for parents. Most kids and teenagers are much more comfortable in a diverse world than their parents are, because this is their reality. That’s to be celebrated, not looked down on.

Young kids do not need to be thinking about sexuality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do we have to go out of our way *specifically* reveal the sexuality of the lesbian character *only*? No other characters in SD reveal their sexuality, no? If we are going to reveal the sexuality of the characters, then why should Velma be the only one to reveal? The other characters should confirm their orientation as well, which likely includes straight heteros. I mean hey, if you are going to make sexuality important in SD, you need to reveal for every character in SD if you want to be truly inclusive.

This is a flimsy diversity attempt. All of these lame diversity pushes are going to stupendously backfire once people have had enough and get fed up with the forcefeeding. 99% of diversity in media these days is contrived, shallow crap to check a box off. They have to commandeer characters and stories and change the race of the character, the sex of the characters, their sexuality,.....it never ends. Diversity is now formulaic crap garbage. It is an sttempt that is the equivalent to the trend of sriracha in everything that lazy chefs did for a while and fizzled out. Coming up with novel stories and characters who just happen to be diverse is hard, therefore we get lazy, unauthentic attempts like this that take over a children's character and make sure they jam it down the throats of children. Why is there sooooooooo much attention on over representing all of these identity groups when they make up such a small fraction of the country?

+1,000

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, add this to the list of things we won’t be watching.

Kids’ movies are for kids. They’re not for parents. Most kids and teenagers are much more comfortable in a diverse world than their parents are, because this is their reality. That’s to be celebrated, not looked down on.

Anonymous wrote:Why do we have to go out of our way *specifically* reveal the sexuality of the lesbian character *only*? No other characters in SD reveal their sexuality, no? If we are going to reveal the sexuality of the characters, then why should Velma be the only one to reveal? The other characters should confirm their orientation as well, which likely includes straight heteros. I mean hey, if you are going to make sexuality important in SD, you need to reveal for every character in SD if you want to be truly inclusive.

This is a flimsy diversity attempt. All of these lame diversity pushes are going to stupendously backfire once people have had enough and get fed up with the forcefeeding. 99% of diversity in media these days is contrived, shallow crap to check a box off. They have to commandeer characters and stories and change the race of the character, the sex of the characters, their sexuality,.....it never ends. Diversity is now formulaic crap garbage. It is an sttempt that is the equivalent to the trend of sriracha in everything that lazy chefs did for a while and fizzled out. Coming up with novel stories and characters who just happen to be diverse is hard, therefore we get lazy, unauthentic attempts like this that take over a children's character and make sure they jam it down the throats of children. Why is there sooooooooo much attention on over representing all of these identity groups when they make up such a small fraction of the country?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does nobody else find it misogynist that the homely, less attractive girl must be lesbian? We have not come as far as some people think. This screams of sexism to me.

The original series was released in 1969. It's not shocking that a show from that time would make the less "hot" one a lesbian. But people are really deranged if they think anyone talking about the subtext is pinning it all on her hair. It was the 60s/70s - there were not many female archetypes at the time. There was the hot chick (Daphne), the homely or fat chick (usually defined by her pining for some/all boy characters and their disgust at her attentions), and the mom. The subtext around Velma was not that she was brunette. It's that she was part of the group, not disdained by anyone for her unsexiness, and never shown pining for any boy character. She wasn't one of the typical "girl" options.

And yes, as times and attitudes around LGBT evolved, she has been portrayed as pretty instead of completely unsexed (SMG), and now will be out instead of closeted. But the character is the same.

Anonymous wrote:Does nobody else find it misogynist that the homely, less attractive girl must be lesbian? We have not come as far as some people think. This screams of sexism to me.

Anonymous wrote:Does nobody else find it misogynist that the homely, less attractive girl must be lesbian? We have not come as far as some people think. This screams of sexism to me.

Anonymous wrote:Why do we have to go out of our way *specifically* reveal the sexuality of the lesbian character *only*? No other characters in SD reveal their sexuality, no? If we are going to reveal the sexuality of the characters, then why should Velma be the only one to reveal? The other characters should confirm their orientation as well, which likely includes straight heteros. I mean hey, if you are going to make sexuality important in SD, you need to reveal for every character in SD if you want to be truly inclusive.

This is a flimsy diversity attempt. All of these lame diversity pushes are going to stupendously backfire once people have had enough and get fed up with the forcefeeding. 99% of diversity in media these days is contrived, shallow crap to check a box off. They have to commandeer characters and stories and change the race of the character, the sex of the characters, their sexuality,.....it never ends. Diversity is now formulaic crap garbage. It is an sttempt that is the equivalent to the trend of sriracha in everything that lazy chefs did for a while and fizzled out. Coming up with novel stories and characters who just happen to be diverse is hard, therefore we get lazy, unauthentic attempts like this that take over a children's character and make sure they jam it down the throats of children. Why is there sooooooooo much attention on over representing all of these identity groups when they make up such a small fraction of the country?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the CNN article

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/05/entertainment/velma-scooby-doo-gay/index.html

I guess I really don’t understand why Velma needs to “come out” in a kids Halloween cartoon. Why does she need to identify as anything? Is her crush on a girl really need to be part of the storyline for a kids holiday movie? No qualms with whatever people decide it right for them sexually, this just seems like an odd choice for a Halloween storyline

Even as a kid I concluded:
-Velma is gay
-Shaggy and Scoob were straight up on the reefer all the time
-Fred and the other female character (whose name I'm not immediately recalling) were FWB or a couple.

This is NBD to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of us dream about the day when our kids see a gay character on TV and think nothing of it. Just like they think nothing of seeing characters with different skin colors and physical abilities. But that only happens if they actually do see gay characters on TV.

Do you censor children’s shows that have black characters or characters who use wheelchairs - until they can “understand” those differences?

Or are those shows OK because you’re not afraid they’ll turn your kid black or paraplegic?

I’m betting there’s a lot of overlap between these posters and the parents who are outraged that the star of the new Little Mermaid movie is Black.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's always been a lesbian, it's just that mores have changed enough that subtext can now be text.

She looks pretty hetro hot here…

It takes a special kind of idiot to think you've disproved her queerness by pointing out she's pretty.

DP. I agree with you, but then why are so many saying they knew she (or, say, Peppermint Patty) were gay all along? What’s the tell if not their physical appearance?

She has the bisexual bob

What? Now because half the swim team has bibs they all have ti explain their not Bi??

or maybe they are?

anyway it's not my rule: https://www.google.com/search?q=bisexual+bob&sxsrf=ALiCzsahDifhhYs0loLT97ViQWjRCOrclw:1665001699496&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjm9OTW9sn6AhVSTjABHbPDCS8Q_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1311&bih=658&dpr=2

what? Now one can’t have short hair, it signals bio female is non-binary?!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omg, brunettes, you are not lacking in heterosexual representation. There are plenty of brunettes with glasses of the “sexy librarian” stereotype. There’s nothing stereotypical about a brown haired woman with glasses and a mini skirt being a lesbian. She’s not a butch or masculine woman.

Ever seen the episode of 30 Rock where Jack sets Liz up with a woman because he assumes she’s a lesbian? I’ve seen many posters on DCUM suspect that Tina Fey is clearly gay, presumably because…why, exactly?

Probably because she’s not very feminine? The same reason there’s running jokes that she’s not a woman. She serves as best man at more than one wedding. She can grow a mustache, she always says she’s really a girl and “that doctor was a quack.” It’s not because she has brown hair and glasses.

There are plenty of feminine lesbians. Try again.