Happy to go point by point:
It’s not a misunderstanding of what toxic masculinity is. A big problem with perceptions and portrayals of masculinity in the past has been that straight men are viewed as “weak” or “feminine” if they show love, tenderness, patience, etc. Basically any trait that wasn’t aggressive or stoic.
Men we’re viewed to be especially weak if they showed those types of feelings toward another man. Generations of fathers didn’t say “I love you” to their own sons because of this belief. It’s very real. This is a part of toxic masculinity. Men were told they needed to be “men”. And in this antiquated way of thinking, being a “men” was tied to all that outdated tough guy machismo stuff - where men aren’t allowed to show a full spectrum of emotions.
The irony of saying this, while stating it is problematic that a character is bi is legit astounding. The idea that Tim can't set an example against toxic masculinity if he is attracted to other men is just... yeah.
Second point: No one is saying that Tim being made LGTBQ means that “bros can’t be bros.” I’m saying that he seems to have been chosen because he has deep relationships with other male characters. This is a trend that some fans have shown with other characters (Steve and Bucky, Po and Finn, etc). I understand the impulse. There is a hunger for more representation. And there needs to be more representation. But the idea that, “This straight character is non-romantically very close with this straight character … let’s put them together romantically” is a bad one. Just because two straight men are very close friends doesn’t mean they will become romantically involved - it’s pretty problematic to demand that they do. Just like it’s problematic to suggest a straight character can “turn” a gay character. This assumes preference and not orientation.
Why do assume that Finn and Poe are straight?
The only one implying that two characters of the same gender being friends means they have to **** is you. That is what you are doing here. Tim's gay, oh well he can't have close relationships with guys he doesn't **** now. He has to want to **** them all. That is what you are saying.
Though I do wonder, who cares if he finds his male companions attractive? If the male friends are straight, it isn't happening, so what's the issue? Do you believe attraction cancels out friendship? Thus you believe a man and woman can't be friends. Isn't that not an example of toxic masculinity?
Your third point we agree on. That’s my point. The reasons justifying Tim being LGBTQ confirm that problematic way of thinking: He can’t possibly be this close to male characters without being gay and romantically interested in one of them …
Damnit. Now we are limited to every single other male superhero character who is straight, and has bromances, whether it is the random team up he is in or his side kick.
There are a lot of male superhero characters who have deep and meaningful relationships with other dudes. It's a common trope in fiction. Like that one Fellowship, where say if Sam and Frodo were gay, bi or pan, would still somehow have figured out a way to have real friendships with 7 other dudes without ****ing them.
“Shipping” of m/m or f/f IS problematic if the characters in question aren’t LGBTQ. Would be the same if fans were demanding to see a gay character with a character of their opposite sex. Again, it’s orientation not preference. Preference suggests that there’s a choice on the character’s part to steer their sexuality. I’m pretty sure that type of thinking went out a while ago and now we accept that people are born with their particular orientation, whatever it happens to be.
Wow, all those problematic gay people, be attracted to fictional characters. All those years when there was zero representation, they were being so problematic daring to dream of one dude kissing another dude. Nasty.
Shipping is fantasy. I have a crush on Keira Knightley. One of the reasons, the 2005 adaptation of
Pride and Prejudice. Her Elizabeth Bennet is all time attractive to me. I am well aware of many women who feel the same. According to you, their crushes on Elizabeth Bennet are problematic. Do I need to explain the obvious issue with stating that having an attraction to a fictional character is problematic, especially for a group that has had very little representation?
Again, this isn’t outrage over “the collapse of the bromance.” This is pointing out that demanding any two males who show affection for each other have to become romantically involved is deeply flawed and problematic. Men should be able to show any and all emotions, and those emotions shouldn’t be reserved only for non-straight men. Yes, we are in an age where LGBTQ characters are becoming normalized. And a small part of the reason for that acceptance is the progress made by a lot of folks in trying to get rid of toxic masculinity. But sending the message that loving another man and having a deep affection for him isn’t something straight men do … contributes to that toxic masculinity. Plain and simple.
-R
Demanding? This is 100% faux outrage. Men can and have shown a range of emotion, and they can do that whether they are a member of the LGBTQIA or not. Using the discussion of toxic masculinity as a shield to complain about a character being bi is as obvious as it is terrible.