#and then they claim to be feminist or pro choice or whatever... but they still don't want bodily or medical autonomy | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

demiaroacejolynekujo · 8 months

Text

Tarot Account: @babybatwitchxxx

Pride Icon Account: @radinclussakurauchiha

🦋About Me🦋

💚Call me Jolyne (not giving out my irl name for privacy reasons)

💚She/They

💚Cis Woman (Although I've been questioning if I'm Nonbinary or not. Still figuring it out)

💚24

💚Demi AroAce

💚Autistic + Anxiety

💚Radical Inclusionist/Anti Exclusionist

💚Antishipper/Anti Proship, Anti Comship, and Anti Darkship

💚Leftist

💚Intersectional Feminist

💚Ex Catholic

💚Beginner Satanic Pagan Witch

💚Beginner Tarot Reader

💚Abuse and SA victim

💚Fat

🦋My Beliefs🦋

💚Anti Proship Neutral (as in against anyone who claims they're proship "neutral". Anyone who claims are neutral are lowkey proship)

💚Fiction can affect reality

💚Pro Choice and Pro Bodily Autonomy

💚Pro MOGAI

💚Pro Microlables

💚Pro It/Its Pronouns and Neopronouns

💚Against anyone who believes that Its/Its Pronouns and Neopronouns are transphobic (it's also ableist to be against these pronouns as they're created by Neurodivergent and disabled Trans people)

💚Pro Xenogenders

💚Anti Amber Heard/Anti Amber Heard Supporters (Supporting Amber after she admitted to abusing Johnny Depp is TERF rhetoric. TERFs believe that abusive and terrible women should he absolved of their actions because they're women. I'm not a Johnny Depp fan, but using his shitty actions as a way to erase his status as a domestic violence victim is victim shaming. You can acknowledge that Johnny is a terrible person and an abuse victim at the same time.)

💚Men can be victims and suffer under the patriarchy

💚Women can be abusers and benefit from the patriarchy

💚Anti "Kill All Men" (Wishing death to all men and wishing to commit male genocide is eugenics as marginalized men exist.)

💚Against anyone who compares being Trans to blackface (These two things should not be compared to all. It's racist and transphobic to compare the two since Trans people of color exist.)

💚Cancel Culture doesn't exist (it was made up by people who don't want to hold themselves accountable for their shitty actions. There's a difference between calling someone out of their bullshit and going after someone for something so small.)

💚Pro Sex Work

💚Pro Porn/Anti Porn Industry

💚Anti Christianity/Catholicism (and against all denominations of Christianity)

💚Anti TERF/Radfem/MERF/TEHM/SWERF (or any fascists who appropriates feminism with their bigotry)

💚Pro Kink

💚Queer is a political term and identity. Not a slur.

💚The R slur will never be a reclaimable slur

💚Against anyone who calls Autism "Asperger's Syndrome" (it's named after an Austrian doctor who was affiliated with the Nazis and killed Autistic children that didn't fit his standards)

💚Anti Veganism (Veganism is ableist and classist)

💚Anti Antitheism (Antitheism is deeply rooted in white supremacy and is harmful to people in marginalized religions.)

💚Anti Yandere Simulator/Anti Yandere Dev/Against anyone who still plays the game after Yandere Dev got exposed as a groomer

💚Anti Yandere archetype (it's based on harmful stereotypes of people with Borderline Personality Disorder)

💚Anyone who says that women shouldn't wear makeup, shouldn't wear revealing clothing, shouldn't get plastic surgery, and shouldn't become a sex worker (by choice) is anti bodily autonomy

💚Against people who are anti children (people who are against children and say stuff like "fuck them kids" or "I hate kids" probably have some deep-rooted trauma and should consider seeing a therapist. Adults should not be projecting their trauma onto kids. Also, saying you want to hurt any random child you see will end up with you being charged for child endangerment)

💚Against anyone who believes that hitting their children is a form of punishment (hitting your kids for whatever reason is abuse. And this is coming from someone whose been hit by both parents.)

💚Pro Self Shipping (self shipping is okay as long as you're shipping yourself with a character that's close to your age)

💚Against adult self shippers who ship themselves with underage characters

💚Against any fanart/fanfiction that sexualizes underage characters/against any fanart and fanfics that "ages up" underage characters just to sexualize them (sexualizing fictional minors is just as bad as sexualizing real minors. Pedophilia is still the same regardless of whether the minor in question is fictional or not.)

💚Against anyone who ships real life people

💚Anti Real People Fanfiction (making fanfics of real life people is so fucking weird. Stop treating real people like fictional characters.)

💚Against any Autistic person who refers to their Autism as Asperger's Syndrome/Anti Aspie Supremacy (Aspie Supremacists are low support needs Autistic people who believe that they're more superior than high support needs Autistic people and other high support needs disabled people. It's also rooted in white supremacy as well.)

💚Against anyone who still uses terms like "high/low functioning", "special needs", and "mentally challenged".

💚Anti White Supermacy/Neo Nazism

💚Anti Republican/Apolitical/Libertarian/Centrist

💚Anti Autism Speaks and against anyone who supports it

💚Anti Harry Potter/Anti Fantastic Beasts/Anti JK Rowling/Against anyone who still consumes JK's work after she outed herself as a TERF (buying secondhand and fanmade merchandise and reading/producing fanfics is just as bad as you're continuing to give her work relevance and keeping it mainstream even though she's not profiting from anything secondhand and fanmade. This includes any book she wrote under the name Robert Galbraith, who was an Anti LGBTQIA+ conversion therapist.)

💚Hazbin Hotel Critical/Anti Helluva Boss/Vivziepop Critical

💚Pro Mspec labels (I don't fully understand those labels, but I'm not going to use it as an excuse to exclude them from the community.)

💚Against non-Lesbians who think Trans men can't be Lesbians (as a cis non-Lesbian, it's none of my business if a Trans man identified as a Lesbian as long as they're not hurting anyone)

💚Against anyone who ships canon Lesbian characters with male characters

💚Against anyone who ships Gay male characters with female characters

💚Against anyone who ships canon Ace/Aro characters with Allo characters

💚Against anyone who believes that blashwashing is real (blackwashing was created by anti black racists as a way to silence people of color when talking about representation in media)

💚Anti Transmed/Anti Truscum/Anti Gender Critical

💚Pro Self Diagnosis/Anti Fake Claiming

💚Anyone who mocks Joe Biden for his stutter and accuses him of having dementia are ableist (Biden has a speech disorder, which causes his stuttering. I'm not a Biden supporter, but as a disabled person, you're saying that disabled people that they can't hold high positions of power by making fun of the way he speaks.)

💚Anti Harassment

💚Anti Suicide Baiting

💚Anti Fatphobia/Anti Fat Shaming

💚Anti Radqueer

💚Pro Palestine

💚Anti Israel/Anti Zionism

💚Anti Enemies to Lovers trope (and against other toxic relationships tropes)

🦋Fandoms🦋

(This will be filled out at one point. I'm just too lazy to do so 🙃)

🦋Rules🦋

💚Reblogs have been turned off on my posts to prevent people whom I don't want to interact with. This includes restricting comments on my posts, too, for the same reason. I suffer from anxiety, and it's just easier for me to filter out who I do want or do not want to interact with.

💚Any asks and DMs from people I don't want to interact with will be deleted. If anyone continues to do so, will be blocked.

💚Anyone who I don't want to interact with will be instantly blocked if they tag me in any posts. I'm not gonna waste my time and read your stupid ass post. Also, it will open me up to any form or harassment.

💚Any asks and DMs complaining about my beliefs list will be deleted. I'm sorry, but I'm not gonna argue with people my beliefs. It's not worth my time and mental health.

💚Any asks and DMs about the Amber Heard vs. Johnny Depp situation will be deleted. I don't support either person as they're both terrible people. Also, the situation has been over for more than a year now, and it's basically beating a dead horse. I was simply trying to make a point that you can be a victim of something and be a shitty person at the same time, as well as that person's shitty actions should not be used as a way to erase their victim status. I was trying to make a point that men can be victims, and women can be abusers. Abuse has no gender.

8 notes · View notes

casually-slips-into-coma · 3 years

Text

An Essay (sort of) Explaining the Many Grievances I Have With Debbie Gallagher

Once again, Debbie is the fucking worst.

I’ve been wanting to write out my feelings towards her character for a fucking minute now just so that I have a full concise list. Now, I can talk about how Debbie has a constant need for attention, or how her character has become someone unrecognizable in the past few seasons, or how she’s a terrible mother, but what I really want to focus on is the center of my issues with her: her sexuality. Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t about to be a homophobic rant or anything. I just think her queer development has been written terribly and that should be addressed.

Too often I see people praising queer characters or relationships based solely on the fact that they are queer, and as a member of the community, I get it. I am also starved for representation. This, however, does not mean I’m going to settle for annoying, poorly written characters.

Why Make Debbie Queer?

The first thing I want to address is why suddenly develop a WLW storyline for her. Given that Debbie started as a little girl on the show, this gives the writers a lot of opportunity to give a character like that interesting storylines because she does not yet have a solid personality. It gives writers the liberty to take her story anywhere they want to without the constraints of established character because she, as a person, is still developing into adulthood. The show runners unfortunately dropped the ball with this.

From season 4 and onwards was when Debbie began showing interest in dating, sex, and romance having just turned the corner to puberty. From then up until season 9, she has shown exclusive interest in men. It isn’t until Alex the welder that Debbie deviates from this path. Alex is portrayed as a stud who confuses Debbie. I am inclined to believe that Debbie was originally attracted to her because she was masculine and therefore close enough to the people Debbie had previous experience with.

This arc was treated very much as Debbie experimenting with her sexuality, something that Alex also ends up realizing after Debbie tells her that having sex with a girl is “not that bad” and “like having sex with yourself” (S9E4). Once this storyline wrapped up (with Debbie shouting “you make me want cock again”) the writers powered through, adamant about Debbie now being a lesbian.

I have two theories as to why they’ve been fighting so hard for her queerness.

1) This was around the time that Cam was leaving Shameless. This obviously didn’t end up happening, but I was under the impression that the writers were freaking out at losing their token gay character and needed to fill that position. When Cam ended up staying, they were stuck with a queer Debbie storyline and decided to just go with it.

2) Shameless was planning on doing a WLW storyline regardless of Cam’s choice to leave and were originally going to give it to Fiona and her lesbian tenant that she had a close relationship and a lot of chemistry with, but Emmy Rossum wanted to move on from Shameless, and so they pivoted and gave the arc to Debbie, a character that was not supposed to be moved in that direction and so her new sexuality seemingly came out of nowhere. Fiona as a bisexual character would have made sense. Debbie still does not.

Shameless’s Awkward Relationship With Bisexuality

One of the biggest issues I have with Debbie is her insistence on being a lesbian. Lesbianism doesn’t come out of nowhere. Bisexuality, however, can. When you grow up being told that you are supposed to feel attraction to men, and you genuinely do feel attraction to men (which Debbie has expressed in past seasons/episodes) it’s easy to ignore your attraction to women and write it off as something that either isn’t a big deal, or something that isn’t there. It’s a lot more confusing than being strictly at one end of the spectrum. It would have been so much more believable if they had simply made Debbie bisexual. Unsurprisingly, they didn’t because the show has a history with bi erasure.

Bisexuality has been treated badly all throughout Shameless, used as a vengeful plot device back in the earlier seasons where Monica was only ever with women when unmedicated. Then in Season 7 when Ian’s boyfriend Caleb cheated on him with a woman (enforcing the stereotype of bisexuals being unfaithful) Ian, possibly acting out of anger or ignorance, said things like “only women are bisexual. When a man says he’s bisexual he’s really just gay”. The only semi positive bisexual representation on the show was Svetlana and Vee when they were in a poly relationship with Kev (though I also think that storyline wasn’t handled as well as it could’ve been).

This fight against the bisexual label in media is not a new one but it is also a harmful stance to take when writing a sexually fluid character. Debbie declaring that she is, in fact, a lesbian after waxing poetic about how Matty had a big dick and Derek had a great body and knew what he was doing is not the way to go.

You could argue that Debbie, like many other queer women, is an unfortunate victim of compulsory heterosexuality, but frankly I don’t think the writers are well versed enough in queer theory for that to be a possibility.

Debbie as The White Feminist

Debbie is the pinnacle of white feminism. It’s an unfortunate thought that has occurred to me a few times throughout the show. She talks a big game as a man hater and someone after the equal treatment of women but she herself participates in a lot of problematic and anti feminist behavior.

For one, she r*ped Matty back in season 5 when he was blacked out and unconscious. This was a point in the story that was glossed over and one where she suffered no repercussions other than Matty no longer wanting to be around her. It was explained in the show that Debbie didn’t realize what she did was wrong until after she was explicitly told so because she was maybe 14 when it happened (not 100% on the age Shameless is very inconsistent about timelines). It was treated as somewhat of a punchline, something that Shameless has unfortunately done more than once when referring to male sexual assault (Mickey’s r*pe, Liam in season 10 ((i think??)) and in this latest season, Carl) but that is a different topic.

There was also the time in which she lied to her boyfriend about being on birth control so she could trap him into a relationship with pregnancy (which also counts as r*pe!!) Good on Derek for getting out of that.

Debbie has also been pro-life in the past. Now I understand this was when Fiona was pressuring her into aborting her pregnancy, and as a pro choicer myself, I believe that Debbie was fully in her right to have bodily autonomy and go through with the pregnancy. This isn’t where the issue lies. It’s when Fiona finds out that she too is pregnant and tells Debbie that she wants an abortion that Debbie accuses her of “killing her baby”. Again, her behavior could be explained by her age given that Debbie was still a young teen during this time.

When her actions as a White Feminist become less excusable is mostly in the latest season. Her relationship with Sandy is one that I’m not really happy with because Debbie doesn’t deserve her.

Recently, it has been revealed that Sandy is actually married to a man and has a son. It’s explained that she was basically married off against her will at the age of 15 to a man twice her age. This implies that the product of the marriage, her son, was most likely conceived through dubious consent (or worse) at the hands of an adult when she was just a kid. Just because Debbie thinks that Sandy’s husband “seems nice” does not give her the right to try and make a victim of grooming feel bad about not wanting to be with her abuser. While I understand that Sandy’s son has no fault in how he came into the world, I’m still gonna side with Sandy when it comes to having to take care of a child she didn’t want and who is most likely a source of trauma for her. It’s not difficult to sympathize with Sandy and see that she’s clearly gone through something fucked up and Debbie, despite claiming to love and support her, AND despite her dumb white feminist arc about wanting equal pay and all that jazz, turns her back on the girls supporting girls aspect of feminism.

This isn’t even mentioning how shitty it was to just leave Franny by herself and assume that one of her siblings would take her to school and pick her up and stuff as if they don’t all have separate lives. She talks a lot about being a good mother but decided to “let off some steam” by fucking off to a gay bar to get loaded on coke and fuck a gay man (which wtf thats not a thing that really happens with casual coke but whatever I guess). Once she realized she fucked up, instead of taking responsibility she decided to paint herself as the victim as well as spew offensive bullshit about how she “probably has AIDS now” because of her sexual encounter with a gay man. No lesbian in their right fucking mind would ever say that because as members of the LGBTQ+ community, you are at least a tiny bit informed as to how devastating and tragic the AIDS crisis was for queer people.

(I also have an issue with how Debbie capitalized on her felony as a sex offender and her sexuality to start her Hot Lesbian Convict business but I think that’s enough said.)

Blame the writers

The show got almost an entirely new cast of writers after season 7 which is why the show feels more like a sitcom with low stakes and no consequences rather than a drama, but if there is a queer writer on the team it’s not very evident. Even the better half of the queer relationship story, Ian and Mickey, I don’t feel has really been done justice since the change in writers. It’s just become painfully obvious that the actress is a straight girl playing a gay character (not to mention I have never seen any chemistry between her and all of her female love interests). I don’t fault Emma Kenney (the actress) for this. I actually really like her as a person and I like the videos she makes about the cast and such, and I think she does her best with the script she’s given. My complaints with Debbie are targeted entirely towards the writers.

This brings me to my final point. I need them to let Debbie be alone. Her whole thing for the second half of the season has been that she clearly has abandonment issues and is afraid of being alone. It’s why she’s so adamant about keeping the house and fighting with Lip about it (I’m actually on Debbie’s side for that one but that’s besides the point). They had her and Sandy break up which leaves Debbie to spiral further into her loneliness. From a writing point of view, it makes sense to take this opportunity to give her an arc in which she can overcome that and feel comfortable with herself so that she can move on as an adult instead of jumping into a new relationship. This is especially true since this is quite literally the last season ever of the show and any character development needs to be wrapped up. Introducing a new character out of nowhere does not give the viewers enough time to actually get invested in the new relationship. It’s also unfair to Debbie’s character because her arc is going to feel incomplete.

Anyway,,,,,,uuuhhhhh,,,,,feel free to add on if u want lmao

#shameless #debbie gallagher #sandy milkovich #lesbian #ian gallagher #mickey milkovich #terrible queer rep

71 notes · View notes

maestrowave · 4 years

Text

I just think it’s *funny*

how when I say to a pro-life person (*ahem* republican), “you’re not pro-life, you’re anti-safe abortion”, and tell them that countries where abortion is legal and available for everyone who requires one, actually have lower abortion rates, they try to turn it round on gun control

saying that “in that case, not regulating gun laws will lower the amount of mass shootings, because people will always be able to get guns”

no?!

As you can see, by not regulating guns in America, it has surpassed every other country in the fucking world by making up 31% of the world’s mass shootings, despite only making up 5% of the population.

Why??

Well, because it’s almost like civilians having easy access to one of the most dangerous things made could turn out pretty fucking badly!

You may be wondering, “but why? it’s how it works for abortion, why not guns too?”

Well, young padawan. Let me tell you.

It’s almost like

for one (1) scenario

cannot always be applied to

scenario, where all variables are wildly,

different.

Because whilst one is

FUCKING HEALTHCARE

The other is simply

SOMETHING THAT’S SOLE PURPOSE IS TO MURDER SOMEONE.

And now, all you faux-feminists, pro-lifer, republican shitbags may be thinking

“But Maestrowave! Abortion IS murder!”

NO.

First it is sperm

And egg

And then those sperm and egg cells go into

the embryonic period

Which is between 1-8 weeks.

During this stage, that thing inside you is called

you guessed it

AN EMBRYO

However, a heartbeat can sometimes be detected as early as 5.5 weeks.

When it is still an embryo.

Once that embryo reaches 9 weeks

IT IS A FOETUS.

Now, for a quick intermission, I would like you to look at something.

between

BIRTH

and

DEATH

and now take a look at this definition

WHILST THAT JELLY CREATURE INSIDE YOU MAY BE ALIVE

IT SURE AS HELL DOES NOT HAVE A LIFE.

And now back to our usual, scheduled program.

We could say that a foetus becomes a human being from anywhere between 8 weeks to 16 weeks.

I’ve chosen that range because of wildly ,

differing sources, the 8 weeks because that’s when it stops being an embryo

and the 16 weeks, because some people say that’s when you get your soul.

Very scientific, I know, but bear with me.

For the sake of argument, I’m going to say that at 10 weeks it becomes human.

At four weeks, this is (roughly) the size of the creature:

A donut sprinkle.

Or a poppy seed, if you’d prefer.

At 6 weeks:

A chocolate chip.

This is what you are saying is being murdered.

A chocolate

Fucking

Chip.

This is the definition of murder my dudes.

By the logic I’ve already laid out, at 6 weeks, that poppy seed of jello is not a human.

It is an embryo.

Therefore, it’s not murder.

Getting an abortion at 11 weeks?

When it is a human?

1) In some places, that is legal, meaning it’s not murder.

2) There is justification. The person didn’t want to be pregnant/ could not be pregnant/ is not able to have or support a baby. Therefore, it’s not murder.

But what about people getting an abortion at 24 weeks? The foetus is a human!

It would be for medical reasons. That is justification, and a valid excuse. Hence

Its not fucking murder.

Do y'all see where I'm going with this?

Abortion is healthcare, not murder.

And if you’re still going to bitch about late-term abortions, and murder, then keep this in mind-

If someone is getting an abortion at 24 weeks- they didn’t want to get an abortion.

That’s 6 months of picking out baby names, getting clothes, picking out nursery furniture.

That person wanted that baby.

Obviously, there would be exceptions to this, but generally

anyone getting an abortion that late is probably fucking devastated, and you parading outside abortion clinics calling them murderers is not helping their pain whatsoever.

Don’t claim to be pro-life if you’re supporting killing people who get abortions.

Don’t claim to be pro-life if you aren’t supporting the 441,000 children in the foster care system in the US.

Don’t claim to be pro-life if you don’t help the countless children of immigrants being locked up with minimal resources in cages you’d put a dog in.

Don’t claim to be pro-life if you’d rather make sure a baby is born into a family where it is abused or neglected, because it’s parents didn't want to be parents, than it being aborted.

And don’t claim to be pro-life if you care more about something that has *the potential* to become a human being, as opposed to the actual living human being carrying the embryo.

And let me make one thing fucking clear.

If you are pro-life-

You are not a feminist.

That is not a debate, not a discussion.

That is a fact.

Pro-choice does NOT equal pro-abortion.

It means pro-do whatever the fuck you want with your body, it’s up to you, not anyone else.

#can't believe its 2020 and I still have to say this #prochoice #abortion #pro choice #gun control #america #healthcare #feminist #feminism #science #just damn logic #not pro life #imigration #foster care #tw: abuse #abortion law

85 notes · View notes

bluewavenewwave · 4 years

Text

Feminism Masterpost

Feminism - Feminism is about supporting all women

I’m going to preface this by saying that I am a pro-choice liberal feminist. When I say “bad feminists” I mean people who claim to be feminists but have the wrong idea about feminism, hate men and dismiss real issues facing men, and tear other women down and pit women against each other. Yes I am generalizing, but you will get my point.

Feminism is important. Feminism is about gender equality. Feminism is good but, yes, there are some bad feminists. There are bad chefs, bad singers, bad dancers, bad athletes, and there are definitely bad feminists. (And I’m not even going to talk about TERFs, because TERFs are not feminists, they are just hateful people.)

Feminism is not about fighting men or calling men bigots or misogynists. Some very well are, but men collectively are not. Feminism is not about hating men and bringing men down and threatening men. It is not about dismissing men’s issues or saying that there are no challenges and problems facing men, or saying men’s issues don’t matter.

Feminism is not about taking away from men or ridiculing men or trying to control men. It is not about saying men cannot do what they want (within reason) or stopping men from living their lives peacefully. Feminism is not about women taking over the world or becoming more powerful or superior to men. It is not about oppressing men.

Feminism is not about hating men just because they are men. Think about if that were reversed - hating women just because they are women. That is misogyny and it is wrong and it is what we are trying to abolish. Hating men because they are men is misandry, and it’s just as wrong as misogyny. It’s just mindless bigotry and hate and the world doesn’t need more of that.

There are feminists who believe feminism is about all those things - all about misandry and oppressing me. Those are the bad feminists. There are also feminists who believe all women should go to college and work and be in STEM majors and be masculine and be athletes and wear pantsuits and have short hair and be outspoken about feminism and be assertive and be a boss. And some women are these things and that’s great. But there are a lot of women who aren’t these things and that’s also great.

Feminism is not about supporting only one image of a woman, or only one set of beliefs about women; feminism is about supporting all women, in all walks of life, with all different backgrounds and views and beliefs. Feminism is about women supporting other women and fighting for gender equality and dignity and respect.

Working women and housewives and stay at home moms are equal. No matter what a woman’s job is, whether that’s an IT worker, company CEO, waitress, dancer, hairdresser, veterinarian, stripper, teacher, doctor, nurse, firefighter, cheerleader, or nanny - all are valid and all should be respected. A woman’s choice of career should always be validated and respected, even if it’s not the same career choice you made.

No matter how a woman chooses to dress and stylize - long hair, short hair, painted nails, makeup, natural, dresses, skirts, pantsuits, jeans, high heels, boots, sneakers, slides, jewelry, no jewelry, dyed hair, natural hair - it’s all valid and should be respected. A woman’s choice of attire and style should be validated and respected, even if it’s not the same attire/style choice you made.

A woman’s choice is a woman’s choice and it should always be validated and respected even if it’s not the same choice you would have made.

Bottom line, feminism is about supporting all women, and working towards gender equality.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feminism - Feminine Validity - Women shouldn’t have to change who they are to feel like they belong

You’ll often hear a woman or a girl say she just feels like “one of the guys”, whether it’s a girl on a little league team or a woman working a STEM or robotics job. And that’s all very well and good in principle, but the issue I have is this: a woman/girl shouldn’t have to feel like a man or a boy to feel like she belongs. It diminishes her validity as a female in whatever situation she is in; it diminishes the validity of a female playing a “male” sport; it diminishes the validity of a female working in a male dominated field. A girl shouldn’t have to feel like a boy to feel like she can play baseball; a woman shouldn’t have to feel like a man to feel like she can work in a male dominated field. A woman should be able to do whatever she wants and feel confident doing so, while also staying true to herself.

A woman shouldn’t have to feel like she has to be masculine and “manly” and tough to be respected, because that just furthers the idea that only men should be respected, that women aren’t good enough, and if women want to make it in the world, they should act more like men.

Women should be able to be soft and feminine and girly and non-combative and true to themselves and still have their dreams and goals and aspirations and plans and achievements and talents and skills be recognized, validated, and respected.

And I am in no way saying that all women are, or should be, soft or submissive or girly or feminine. I’m just saying that for those that are, they shouldn’t have to change anything about themselves to feel confident and respected. No woman should have to change who she is, for any reason. As I said, a woman should be able to do whatever she wants and feel confident doing so, while also staying true to herself. A woman should never need to change who she is to fit anyone else’s views of how she should be.

#masterpost #my post #mine #my masterpost #feminism #feminism 7 #7 #women #woman #gender #gender equality #feminism masterpost #7 masterpost #bluewavenewwave #bluewavenewwave masterpost #girls #gender stereotypes #patriarchy #stereotypes

2 notes · View notes

preserving-ferretbrain · 5 years

Text

Shut. The. Fuck. Up. You. Smug. Bitch.

by Dan H

Thursday, 05 February 2009Dan deals with That Woman again~

A quick mea culpa, added 20.09.09: A random anonymous troll picked me up yesterday on the title of this article - okay they actually picked me up on "whining" so I suspect they were just an outraged fanboy, but they were actually quite right that reaching for gender-specific insults as a first recourse in an argument with a woman, even one you're not actually talking to, is not okay. I'm leaving the title as it is, because I don't think you should try to cover these things up, but I do actually regret the choice. It's a rather nasty silencing tactic, and it shouldn't have been my first instinct.

While Kyra was writing her review of the insestimably worthy On The Jellicoe Road, a genuinely moving book about love and pain and hope, I was reading The Tales of Beedle the Bard, a genuinely infuriating book about what a great writer JK Rowling is.

The Tales of Beedle the Bard is a mercifully short collection of “stories” the sole function of which is to provide JK Rowling with a vehicle to have Albus Dumbledore suck her children's book cock.

Want to hear more? Here's a quick summary of the stories:

The Wizard and the Hopping Pot

Summary: Good Wizard helps Muggles with magic. When he dies, his bad son decides not to help the Muggles, the good Wizard's magic pot starts jumping up and down and annoying the crap out of him, so he eventually gives in and helps the Muggles.

Cheap point scoring: Notice that while the hero of this story is the Good Wizard who helps Muggles with magic, and that the villain is his selfish son who refuses to help Muggles with magic, that in fact the Wizards in the world of Harry Potter never so much as think about using their magic to help anybody with anything (often including themselves – see “but why didn't they cast ...” moments passim ad nauseam).

Favourite Lines: “'Begone,' cried the son. 'What care I for your brat's warts!'”

Dumbledore Apologia: Rowling uses the first set of Dumbledore's notes to introduce us to two straw men who will remain with us throughout the book. The first is Brutus Malfoy who (along with many other “Muggle Haters” tried to suppress the story of the Wizard and the Hopping Pot because it was “Pro Muggle”. Because these books are about

tolerance

get it? The second figure that Rowling invents to make herself look good is Beatrix Bloxom who “believed that

The Tales of Beedle the Bard

were damaging to children because of ... their unhealthy preoccupation with ... death, bloodshed, wicked magic ... and eruptions of the most disgusting kind”.

Do you see? Because JK Rowling writes really dark, books where dark things happen in dark ways, and some people just can't

take

that.

The Fountain of Fair Fortune

Summary: Three witches and a Muggle knight travel to the Fountain of Fair Fortune, which can reverse all your misfortunes. One of the witches is terminally ill, the other is extremely poor, the last is heartbroken. The Knight is just a Great Big Loser. They face perilous quests, get to the top of the hill, and discover that It Was The Journey That Was Important. It turns out that The Fountain Isn't Magic After All. The knight marries the heartbroken witch.

Cheap Points Scoring: What the fuck? One of those chicks was suffering from an

incurable fucking illness

. You don't just make that sort of thing go away with positive thinking.

Favourite Lines: “The sky was rent with the first ray of the sun.” “The crowd surged forwards, each of them shrieking their claim for the Fountain's benison.”

Dumbledore Apologia: The Muggle-Haters tried to have it banned again! (Lucius Malfoy this time, because a witch marries a Muggle at the end). But Dumbledore was like, no way man, because people should totally be allowed to marry Muggles if they want to. I'm so glad that JK Rowling is presenting these thoughtful, incisive comments on the nature of racism to the British youth.

The Warlock's Hairy Heart

Summary: Actually this one's alright, because it's essentially ripped off from other, better fairytales and doesn't have anything to do with the Harry Potter mythos. Warlock cuts out his heart, tries to marry a hot chick for prestige, she asks him to put his heart back in, he does but it's gone TOTALLY EVIL and he kills her, then himself.

Cheap Point Scoring: Not from the text of the story, but Rowling takes pains to note in her introduction that the maiden in this story is the one exception to the rule that “Beedle's witches are much more active in seeking their fortunes than our fairy-tale heroines”. Becaues JKR is a FEMINIST. You can tell by the huge numbers of well realised, empowered female characters who get things done on their own behalf in the Potter books.

Favourite Lines: “Though many a maiden was intrigued by his haughty mein, and employed her most subtle arts to please him, none succeeded in touching his heart. The warlock gloried in his indifference and the sagacity that had produced it.”

Dumbledore Apologia: Dumbledore first of all tells us that the whole “removing your heart” thing isn't possible in the Harry Potter world. We had already worked this out because it was kinda cool, and Harry Potter magic sucks donkey balls. Then of course he goes on to tell us that this story is all about love love love love love love love. Because I don't know if you caught it, but the power of love was what the Harry Potter series was all about. That and tolerance. And death. Gosh they were a profoundly complex series of books.

I should also add that Dumbledore's explanation of this story is particularly heavy handed: “And sure enough in seeking to become superhuman this foolhardy young man renders himself inhuman. The heart he has locked away slowly shrivels and grows hair, symbolising his own descent into beasthood. He is finally reduced to a violent animal who takes what he wants by force, and he dies in a futile attempt to regain what is now forever beyond his reach – a human heart.”

Okay I know I was keeping these summaries short but what the

fuck

. I mean, I know JKR was always keen to have people interpret her work correctly, but even I never thought she'd be this blatant. I mean she is literally, literally having Albus Dumbledore tell you how to interpret the story. Literally. Fuck.

Babbitty Rabbity and her Cackling Stump

Summary: Stupid king wants to learn magic. Hires a conman to teach him. Conman gets Babbitty Rabbity to do magic so that the King thinks it's him doing it. This all goes wrong when the King tries to use magic to bring back a dead dog, because death is srs bzns in Harry Potter, oh yes. So Babbitty Rabbity runs away, and then threatens the King with a curse which makes everything better. Oh by the way, witches are being persecuted in this story because it is teh burnining tiemz!

Cheap point scoring: Babbitty Rabbity and her Cackling Stump is mentioned in Deathly Hallows. Were I feeling cheap, I'd suggest that Rowling wrote this completely fucking nonsensical story because having stuck herself with the title, she couldn't think of a remotely sensible way to make it work. I mean really “Babbitty Rabbity”.

Favourite Lines: “Seeking a vent for his fear and anger, the charlatan approached the window of Babbitty the washerwoman.”

Dumbledore Apologia: Dumbledore, of course, insists that this pile of nonsense involving stupid kings, fraudulent magicians and the like is all about

the tragic and irreversible nature of death

. This set of Dumbledore Apologia is particularly hilarious because it's basically a venue for JK Rowling to say “death is totally irreversible in my books, even though you can talk to dead people, and they can come back as ghosts, and portraits of them possess all the features which they had in real life, and are capable of experiencing all the feelings and emotions that person would in real life, death is still

totally overpoweringly important

in this world”.

I'm going to digress again, but the more JK tries to explain the whole death thing, the more stupid it sounds. No magic can bring somebody back from the dead. Okay, the mirror of Erised can show you your dead parents, but that's not bringing them back. Okay, your dead parents can appear out of a wand, and talk to you and give you messages from the other side, but that's still not bringing them back. And okay the dead literally watch over you in this world. And okay, magical artefacts exist which allow you to literally see the dead people who are literally watching over you. And okay, there are ghosts. And okay, if a portrait is made of a dead person you can talk to that person exactly as if they were still alive, and they'll have all the thoughts, feelings, and memories of the dead person, and you can talk to them every day, and they can express pride in your triumphs and console you in your failures, and they can make independent decisions, but that doesn't mean you can bring people back from the dead, oh no. Death is

final

in this world. So final that once you're dead you certainly can't show up and have long conversations with people in imaginary train stations. Oh wait.

Basically the prohibition against bringing back the dead in the Potterverse is like that business with the British Sausage in that episode of Yes Minister. You can have your dead relatives about talking to you and walking around all you like as long as you don't say they're back from the dead, it's okay. The moment the “B from the D” label gets put on somebody, they become a hideous twisted abomination created by a man's foolish desire to cheat nature.

The Tale of the Three Brothers

Summary: See

here

Cheap point scoring: See

here

Favourite Lines: “It was only when he had attained a great age that the youngest brother finally took off the Cloak of Invisibility and gave it to his son.”

Dumbledore Apologia: See

here

and

here

Conclusion

In short,

The Tales of Beedle the Bard

sucks whatever unfortunate item or items you might care to present to it. It's written in this faux-Brothers Grimm style which sounds like a nine year old's first attempt at creative writing. Of its hundred and eight pages only fifty-six are taken up with the actual stories (including illustrations) the rest being Rowling's self-serving introduction and “Dumbledore's notes”.

Like everything JK Rowling wrote after

Prisoner of Azkaban

The Tales of Beedle the Bard

fails on pretty much every level. It's not a book of children's stories. Fairytales and folklore can't

deliberately created, not even by the world's best-selling novelist. No child is actually going to grow up listening to the story of the Fountain of Fair Fortune.

Ultimately, TToBtB is not about the tales themselves, it's about Dumbledore's notes. It's about providing with yet another way to tell her readership, directly, what they are supposed to think about love, death, the relationship between Wizards and Muggles, and of course about Albus Dumbledore and the Harry Potter books.

I rather suspect that her next published work will simply be a single note saying “having read this, you feel that you better understand the nature of love, sacrifice, and mortality.”Themes:

J.K. Rowling

Sci-fi / Fantasy

Young Adult / Children

bookmark this with - facebook - delicious - digg - stumbleupon - reddit

~Comments (

go to latest

)

Wardog

at 18:17 on 2009-02-05Quite frankly anyone who uses the word "benison" in cold blood deserves everything they get.

Seeking a vent for his fear and anger, the charlatan approached the window of Babbitty the washerwoman

Hello there, I'm seeking a vent for my fear and anger...

permalink

go to top

Arthur B

at 19:45 on 2009-02-05Happy Christmas!!!!!!!

permalink

go to top

http://rudecyrus.livejournal.com/

at 22:26 on 2009-02-06Man, Rowling really loves alliteration and rhyming words.

Can Dumbledore just go away already? We've spent more than enough time with the old coot.

permalink

go to top

Wardog

at 10:53 on 2009-02-09Y'know, I think it says something about the nature/quality of your Xmas present to your good friend, Dan, that you had to also give him a

fighting fantasy book

make up for it

. =P

By the way, Rudecyrus, I've noticed a couple of comments from you scattered around the place - welcome :) I think an over-reliance on alliteration and rhyming words are yet more evidence of a mediocre author struggling to replicate a fairytale style in most superficial way way possible. Sigh.

Isabel, I'm so sad about President Roslin -

spoiler spoiler spoiler

When I thought she was dying of cancer, I was actually really into her - in that context, her semi-saintly and infalliable moral compass actually worked really well for me. For the first season and a half of BSG she was actually one of my favourite female characters on TV, like, ever - I loved the fact she was strong and vulnerable, compassionate and ruthless, and generally just a strong women in a position of power and responsibility. But then she kind of didn't die and from that moment on I completely lost faith in BSG as a whole, and the character alongside it. BSG still really upsets actually because until that exact episode (Epiphany - it is branded on my memory) I thought it was one of the best shows I had ever seen. There were problems associated with it than just Roslin, of course, but the conclusion of that arc was indictative to me.

Generally I start to hate characters when they stop being characters and start being mouth pieces for the author - like Dumbledore and, I have to say, Sam Vines and Vetinari by the latter Discworld books...

permalink

go to top

Arthur B

at 10:59 on 2009-02-09The FF book was for Dan. Beedle the Bard was really for FB. :D

permalink

go to top

Sister Magpie

at 17:03 on 2009-02-11

The Muggle-Haters tried to have it banned again! (Lucius Malfoy this time, because a witch marries a Muggle at the end). But Dumbledore was like, no way man, because people should totally be allowed to marry Muggles if they want to.

Oh man, really? For some reason of all the notes this is the most egregious. Too bad it wasn't a Wizard who married a Muggle man. That would get left out for not having anything to do with the story.

Isn't there also a thing that says these were supposed to have been translated from the ancient runes by Hermione? Which makes me think Hermione's a really poor translator, but also wonder why fairy tales were ever supposed to be written in ancient runes. But I only heard that second hand, so maybe I'm wrong there.

permalink

go to top

Arthur B

at 18:35 on 2009-02-11

Given that she did the translation (if I remember right) in the middle of

Deathly Hallows

, this would imply that Dumbledore either:

a) Wrote his annotations in ancient runes for shits and giggles, rather than producing a proper translation himself - which you'd think he'd do, given that he seems to think it's important that these stories are told.

b) Dictated his commentary from beyond the grave.

c) Secretly survived the series and rode to the Moon on Hagrid's motorbike waving a middle finger at the audience and yelling

Fuuuuuuuck yoooooooou suckeeeeeeeeeeeeeers

, leaving behind reams of commentary on the writings of the Great Rowling.

permalink

go to top

Dan H

at 11:35 on 2009-02-12

Isn't there also a thing that says these were supposed to have been translated from the ancient runes by Hermione?

Yes, they were. A poster on Death to Capslock did point out that this actually makes the really awful style make more sense (because if *anybody* would use the word "benison" in cold blood, it'd be Hermione). And of course since "Hermione" is really JKR's self-insert, it sort of fits anyway.

As for the runes: surely you know that *everything* was written in Runes in Olden Times.

permalink

go to top

Rami

at 16:38 on 2009-02-13Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the entire point of runes was that they were easy to carve into solid surfaces like stone or metal? So were these tales supposedly engraved into stone slabs, like the Ten Commandments Of Worshipping The Great Rowling?

permalink

go to top

http://miss-morland.livejournal.com/

at 23:16 on 2009-02-19At this point, I'm mostly interested in the HP books as source material for fanfiction. Alas, BtB doesn't seem to have much potential in that respect...

permalink

go to top

Wardog

at 12:37 on 2009-02-20Well, not unless you want to ship Albus Dumbledore / JK Rowling

permalink

go to top

http://miss-morland.livejournal.com/

at 13:24 on 2009-02-21Hee. I wonder if anyone has ever written that...

permalink

go to top

Arthur B

at 00:19 on 2009-04-07

JK Rowling reads Beedle the Bard at the spouses of world leaders.

What I want to know is what terrible ransom the G20 paid Rowling to get her to let the hostages go. Are we looking at the world's first fantasy author with a nuclear arsenal?

permalink

go to top

https://me.yahoo.com/a/tjLTVHEducFb4rKDHU5DukBHtQcCbTVMEEq55v0CxV4-#5e156

at 12:54 on 2009-08-09Hm I don't think guys who are ruthless enough to become leaders care for their spouses wellbeing that much.

permalink

go to top

Viorica

at 01:57 on 2009-11-23Having stumbled upon this article by the miracle of the random generator, I do have to defend Rowling on one point. The crazy woman who thinks that these stories are unsuitable for kids due to their darkity dark darkness is probably a parody of Laura Mallory and her ilk as much as it is an advertisement for JKR's infinite wisdom.

I actually read a series of (fanfic) stories about Hermione telling Ron about Muggle fairytales, and Ron trying to puzzle out their logic. Unfortunately, I've lost the link . . .

permalink

go to top

Rami

at 06:09 on 2009-11-23

probably a parody of Laura Mallory and her ilk

Er, Laura Mallory? Who's that?

permalink

go to top

Dan H

at 11:01 on 2009-11-23

The crazy woman who thinks that these stories are unsuitable for kids due to their darkity dark darkness is probably a parody of Laura Mallory and her ilk as much as it is an advertisement for JKR's infinite wisdom.

Like Rami I've never heard of Laura Mallory, but yeah, I do get that the HP books have come under attack from people who insist that The Children Must Be Protected.

The problem is that Rowling *also* likes to deny (implicitly rather than explicitly) the existence of other works of children's literature which are *far* darker, *far* more mature and *far* more disturbing than her own. There's a kind of recieved wisdom grown up in the last few years that JKR is some kind of benchmark for the handling of serious themes in Childrens' books.

I actually read a series of (fanfic) stories about Hermione telling Ron about Muggle fairytales, and Ron trying to puzzle out their logic. Unfortunately, I've lost the link . . .

Oh come on, how OOC is that. Since when has Hermione *ever* shown an interest in her Muggle heritage...

permalink

go to top

Arthur B

at 13:56 on 2009-11-23Google tells me that Laura Mallory is the person who claimed that the culture fostered by

Harry Potter

books pressures people into joining Wicca and causes school shootings. Best sources I can find for her views are a

carefully-written Daily Mail article

of the "we're giving this person coverage because she's crazy, but we're not going to call her crazy to her face" variety, and an

Encyclopedia Dramatica

writeup (watch out, potentially NSFW banner ads).

permalink

go to top

Rami

at 16:35 on 2009-11-23

Oh come on, how OOC is that

Just want to confirm -- I'm guessing OOC == Out Of Canon?

Best sources I can find for her views are a carefully-written Daily Mail article

Hehehe, carefully written Daily Mail article.

permalink

go to top

Arthur B

at 16:38 on 2009-11-23

Just want to confirm -- I'm guessing OOC == Out Of Canon?

I'm guessing either that or Out of Character...

Hehehe, carefully written Daily Mail article.

Well, written with sufficient care to make sure she doesn't notice they're making fun of her. Not written with sufficient care to make the reader not feel talked down to. ;)

permalink

go to top

Rami

at 16:55 on 2009-11-23

I'm guessing either that or Out of Character...

Seriously, people, the TLA namespace is crowded enough already ;-)

permalink

go to top

https://me.yahoo.com/a/gNLVidA.xeLuPiOU_2B_USM.HYNFjA--#b0b6b

at 15:13 on 2010-08-26Hi there, hope you don't mind a late and admittedly ranty comment. I only just got around to reading Beedle, and by god you're right: it is so smug and sanctimonious and badly-written and just plain

infuriating

I actually detested The Warlock's Hairy Heart a bit more than the others. In all her gushing and spewing about how wonderful and almighty Love is, through this story (maybe not so much in the actual HP series) JK seems bent on specifically endorsing the heterosexual, happy-ever-after 2.3 kids and a white picket fence kind.

It seems so because, at the outset, this baddie does nothing remarkably bad beyond deciding that the life and duties of a husband and father are not for him. But by the story's logic, this points him towards the Dark Arts and *

wham

* - he has become a SERIOUSLY EVIL WIZARD.

Later in the story when the Warlock reinstalls his heart and cosies up with the witch, his feelings are described in unmistakably sexual terms - like his being suddenly aware of the witch's smooth, silky skin and all that. This is what the reader is expected to recognise as Love.

But of course there's no change possible for Dark Wizards: he goes and kills the girl, because

of course

he was just repressing himself all these years, and everyone knows that abstinence turns people into the most horrible sexual deviants.

While Dumbledore's commentary on this story is as unenlightening as usual (his powers of literary analysis do not impress me, and neither does his deep familiarity with a single quote by Alexander Pope), it does perhaps become a bit interesting when you consider it against Dumbledore's own non-heteronormativity and brush with the Dark Side. As you've pointed out elsewhere, it seems quite clear that the two go hand in hand in Rowlingland. It also becomes apparent that Dumbledore is a flaming hypocrite.

We might make concessions for Beedle himself, who was writing in a different era, and for all we know maybe wizards traditionally had no role for celibates in their culture. But for Dumbledore to esteem Beedle's late-Medieval values as some sacred, universal truth frankly boggles the mind. Jodel on the Red Hen website writes viciously about the gaping lack of a sense of history in the Potterverse, and to me it shows here very starkly indeed.

permalink

go to top

Dan H

at 15:26 on 2010-08-27I was okay with the Warlock's Hairy Heart as a fantasy archetype (although you're right that in the context of Rowling's wider worldview it's annoying).

What're Jodel's articles? There's a whole lot of stuff on the Red Hen and I thought I'd take a look, but can't find the article you mention here.

permalink

go to top

https://me.yahoo.com/a/gNLVidA.xeLuPiOU_2B_USM.HYNFjA--#b0b6b

at 07:58 on 2010-08-28Yeah, I see what you mean. I guess what gets to me is that the whole hairy heart thing ought to be recognisable as a fairy tale archetype, but instead it comes across as Family Values being hammered over the reader's head.

The article I'm referring to is

The History of Magic

. Rather long, but very interesting stuff.

permalink

go to top

http://ipslore.livejournal.com/

at 00:54 on 2011-06-03'Fairytales and folklore can't be deliberately created, not even by the world's best-selling novelist.'

'Oh,' says Neil Gaiman. 'A challenge.'

permalink

go to top

Arthur B

at 08:29 on 2011-06-03Neil Gaiman,

creating

folklore? I think you need to look again. ;)

permalink

go to top

Michal

at 00:42 on 2011-10-13

Fairytales and folklore can't be deliberately created, not even by the world's best-selling novelist.

Ahem,

Ruth B. Bottingheimer disagrees.

So does Suzanne Magnanini.

(On whether fairy tales can be deliberately created, that is. I don't think either would give much merit to J.K. Rowling). Both books were assigned for my Fairy Tale & Folklore class back in uni.

permalink

go to top

Shim

at 07:24 on 2011-10-13I'd be interested to know what fairy tales are actually discussed (the only one I saw mention of was "Puss in Boots", which I'm not sure I quite consider a fairy tale for some reason.

Anyway, without reading the books I'm not sure if they do actually disagree, but if they did I would disagree back. I mean sure, many traditional stories, including many fairy tales were deliberately invented out of whole cloth, rather than developing from fragments through many different storytellers. But when those authors were writing them, were they actually deliberately creating fairy tales, in the sense we think of them, or just writing stories? I mean a fairy tale to us is quite a specific thing and a bit hard to define; they're fantastical but not just fantasy, they have certain types of characters and roles... lots of things written around that time are probably not considered fairy tales (bet there's loads of stuff in Grimm's nobody cares about). And I'm not convinced the category of "Fairy Tales" existed in the same way at in the 16th century. I would expect that they were really just writing stories, and somehow some of those stories came to be what we now call Fairy Tales. It's a case of evolution over centuries. Whereas someone sitting down now, in a completely different literary environment, where authorship is known and protected, and you can't easily reuse someone else's material and change it about, and it hasn't had a few hundred years to get filtered and adapted... surely they're just writing a story. It's like the old "mythology as fantasy" "Beowulf as fantasy" thing.

It just strikes me as being like trying to invent a national pastime or traditional song. You might invent something popular, but the way things achieve those particular statuses is arbitrary, mysterious and impossible to control. Also it takes a long time.

permalink

go to top

Orion

at 07:59 on 2011-10-13But the flaw with the "Beowulf as Fantasy" meme isn't just that Beowulf is old; it's that it's largely uninterested in the things fantasy books are interested in and not addressed to the same audience. You can point to a great many differences in function between a quasi-oral poetic epic and a strictly literary prose fantasy.

I'm not confident a similar gap exists between "stories about fairies written for print by individual Europeans from a few centuries ago" and "stories about fairies written for print by individual Europeans today"

permalink

go to top

Arthur B

at 08:59 on 2011-10-13But fairy stories created by authors for print are an exception, the likes of Andersen and Morris arising as a response to collections like Grimm's which collected together stories originally recounted as an oral tradition. And only a very few fairy stories cooked up from whole cloth for print - most of them Andersen's - ended up feeding back into the oral tradition. (Chances are you didn't read Andersen's original text when you were little, you listened to someone paraphrasing them.)

And the point that I think Dan was trying to make in the article is that you can't artificially design something specifically to make that jump from being a story printed in a book to a part of an oral tradition retold and paraphrased and adapted by storytellers for generation after generation. The fact that Andersen's stories managed it was in many ways an incredible fluke; the prospect of Rowling's stories doing it is remote, not least because there's very little reason to be interested in them unless you've already got hooked on Potter.

permalink

go to top

Michal

at 18:31 on 2011-10-13Shimmin, I hate to say "now that you put it that way", but...now that you put it that way, I'm not sure those books disagree, either. The audience for Straparola and Basile was not the same as the perceived audience for fairy tales in the 19th century, though you could argue that they were at least attempts at imitating oral traditions (namely, the

1001 Nights

). I think we can blame hyperbolic book-jacket blurbs for this one, since both books contest the original source of what would become fairy tales read to children; neither claims that this was what the authors deliberately set out to write.

(In regards to authorship,

Wikipedia

surprisingly has a good list of what made it from Straparola's

Facetious Nights

into

Grimm's Fairy Tales

. For anyone who cares,

the entirety of Facetious Nights is available online.

And if you want to see what fairy tales are discussed in

Fairy Godfather

and

Fairy-Tale Science

, Google books has a partial preview you can take a look at.)

The point about fairy tales today is also a good one, since the term

pretty ill-defined. I hauled out my

Spells of Enchantment

collection (edited by Jack Zypes, who's the big name in fairy tale scholarship and all) and its got stuff from Aurelius to Straparola to Voltaire to George Macdonald to Lord Dunsany (and even Jane Yolen!), which seems maybe a

bit

too large a net.

I hae no desire to read

Beedle

, since I didn't even like

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

back when I was 11 and I don't submit myself to books I know I'll hate. Maybe someone could fill me in: what does J.K. Rowling claim? Is it just a background book going "here's the folklore traditions of a world I created", or is she actually deliberately saying "this is a book you should read to children, with helpful notes in case your kid misinterprets what I wrote?"

permalink

go to top

Michal

at 18:34 on 2011-10-13Side note: despite the title of her book, Magnanini seems to prefer the term "wonder tale"for what she's talking about.

permalink

go to top

Dan H

at 18:57 on 2011-10-13

Maybe someone could fill me in: what does J.K. Rowling claim? Is it just a background book going "here's the folklore traditions of a world I created", or is she actually deliberately saying "this is a book you should read to children, with helpful notes in case your kid misinterprets what I wrote?"

I'm not sure she claims anything, which I think is sort of the problem.

When I said "Fairy-tales and folklore can't be deliberately created" (which was, I freely admit, a poor choice of words - as a couple of pointed out Hans Christian Andersen managed to do exactly that, and a lot of fairy stories do in fact have a specific author) I think what I meant (and it was a long time ago now) was that you can't sit down in the present day and write an original story which will be read by a modern audience in the same way that they would read a story passed down to them as traditional, unless you deceive your audience about the story's origins (what I actually said implies something stronger - that no consciously authored story can become traditional, and that clearly isn't true).

Beedle the Bard doesn't work as children's stories, because the stories only make sense in the context of the Harry Potter books, and the Dumbledore's Notes sections are as much part of the text as the actual stories (this also raises questions about how the book is supposed to be read - a book of fairy tales can be read in any order, whereas ToBtB seems designed to be read straight through).

The book is probably best viewed as a simple tie-in. It's not supposed to be enjoyed for itself, it's supposed to be enjoyed as a companion to the series, the pleasure of reading it comes almost entirely from recognition of familiar concepts from the Potter books. It's like Quiddich Through the Ages and Magical Beasts and where to find them, it's all about the novelty of somebody producing a "real" version of an in-world text.

permalink

go to top

http://gx1080.livejournal.com/

at 21:59 on 2011-10-13That "History of Magic" article seems like a very long way of saying:

"The protagonists do the exact same shit that the bad guys do and they are never are called on their hypocrisy"

Which sounds like yet another fall of hack writing.

permalink

go to top

Sunnyskywalker

at 22:41 on 2011-10-13There is certainly a lot of that in the Potter books and the Red Hen article. That, and "the wild guesses the protagonists make about some people a thousand years ago based on a few scraps of hearsay should be considered factually correct and not missing any essential details." Mixing up what the characters could reasonably be expected to know and understand accurately with what the author knows about the backstory, and expecting readers not to notice the difference: also hack writing.

permalink

go to top

Andy G

at 23:51 on 2011-10-13Anyone else noticed how angry the RSS feed looks with this title repeated over and over again on it? ;)

There was a big thing in Romanticism of artistically re-creating nature and hiding your own artistry, and I guess the same thinking was behind fashioning fairy tales that were more Volks-y and authentic than the real thing.

permalink

go to top

Janne Kirjasniemi

at 20:10 on 2011-10-15

Anyone else noticed how angry the RSS feed looks with this title repeated over and over again on it? ;)

Yes. Now I have a feeling that I shouldn't comment on anything and also a slight sadness over my unintended smugness and the hate it has inspired in the RSS feed.

On subject, like said, a traditional story or fairy tale or the very wide strata of literature discussed here is considered a part of story-telling heritage because several generations have upheld that tradition. So, for a modern author to write stories which in form or other qualities resembles this, it is not in any ways a bad thing and if they are succesful enough, well, they will beome traditional stories or whatnot in the future. But I suppose the problem is that J. K. Rowling did not just make up new tales as a new project, but rather made up some storytelling mythos for the Potterverse which feels like further milking of the success of Harry Potter in a rather cynical way. It seems like just a way to make parents and assorted other people to buy more of the same stuff, with the illusion that this is something new and special. Instead of writing new stories altogether perhaps?

permalink

go to top

In order to post comments, you need to

authenticate with OpenID

. Don't have an account? See the

About Us

page for more details.

Show / Hide Comments -- More in February 2009

#Ferretbrain #Harry Potter #The Tales of Beedle the Bard #Dan H.#J.K. Rowling

2 notes · View notes

laughriotgrrrl · 6 years

Photo

My Thoughts On Where Comedy Is Going By Bobbie Oliver

Recently someone asked me where I saw stand-up comedy going in the future. I think they wanted a short answer. I wrote an essay. So, I’m sharing it with you.

Technology has opened up comedy to a vast slew of marginalized voices that were previously unheard in the homogeneous pool of comedians of the past. Social media and easy access to recording and publishing devices have given more people the ability to produce their own podcast, web series, video shorts, record their own comedy album, publish their own book, build their own web sites and blogs, etc. In other words, by allowing people to bypass industry gatekeepers, these tools are changing the game. Comics can create their own comedy shows, festivals, organizations, venues. Many of these groups/voices were (and still are) considered fodder for comedy. Now, they are making their own comedy. This shift has led to a national conversation about what and who is and is not considered comedy material. This split is not unlike the main stream comedy club vs alternative comedy venue debate that has been going on for years.

When I started doing comedy in 1988, the mainstay adage was: PUNCH UP, not down, meaning don't use your comedy powers to go after the underdogs of society, but rather the people, institutions and beliefs that created those underdogs. Or, as Chris Rock says, only go after people who “have it coming.” While many comics maintain this philosophy, a number of comics have used their comedy powers to, some say, bully marginalized voices. Those voices are now talking back. (What do I mean by marginalized voices? For example, the LBGT+ community; people of color; women, especially women of color; sexual assault and domestic violence victims; people with disabilities; people over a certain age; poor communities, etc.). Splinter groups have formed and the arguments and think- pieces run rampant. There are people who would like you to believe that this discourse is being thrust upon comics against their will. In reality, the calls for change are coming from inside the house.

A prominent argument in this conversation is that comedy is about FREE SPEECH and that audiences have become too sensitive, too easily offended. I totally get that thought process. But, on the other hand... free speech is defined as the government being prohibited from arresting or detaining someone based on something they said (short of shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theatre). Last time I checked, no one is arresting comics for anything they say. No one is even telling comics they can’t say anything (except Louis CK, who needs to shut the fuck up). Also, support for comics accused (and many admitted) of sexual assault/ harassment (sometimes in the workplace) has somehow hitched its wagon to the "people are too easily offended" argument. I didn’t realize jerking off in front of your co-workers was a First Amendment right. Free speech does not allow one to be free from backlash, consequences or hearing other people's opinions. Free speech goes both ways. And, no, I am not referring to heckling. We all agree that heckling should not be allowed in a comedy show. Or at least, I think we all agree on that. Comics taking this hard-line free speech position sometimes go out of their way just to say the most offensive shitty thing they can to appear edgy. Comedy is not a contest to see who can say the shittiest thing. I am not talking about comics like Anthony Jeselnik, who clearly have a method to their madness.

As a comic, I was surprised by this argument that audiences don't get to tell you what they do like and don't like, what they think is funny and what they don’t. When I hear people like Jerry Seinfeld complain that audiences are too easily offended, first I think, what the fuck has Seinfeld ever said that was offensive (I mean, besides his off stage remarks about women in comedy not having any more barriers than men)? Then, I saw it as just a comic complaining that they can't keep up with changing demographics and preferences of audiences. Comedy is changing, waaahh!! Besides, lots of audiences do still want to go see comedy that some people consider offensive, or rather some people consider not funny. Comedy has always been subjective. One man's joke attacking homeless people for annoying him is another man's treasure. Especially with the access that people have to comedians today, audiences will find the comics for them and comedians will find their audiences. There is no reason to squash anyone's voice.

That being said, there is also absolutely no reason why we can't have this national conversation about the state of comedy. Every industry has “best practices.” Every industry does, or should, take a step back every now and then and look at where they have been and where they are headed. The change in audiences’ attitudes is more about the changing demographics of audiences. Used to be, you had to be able to pay to go see live comedy. You had to live in a place that had comedy shows, be able to afford a baby sitter and the cost of the ticket, and have the free time and ability to get to a comedy show. So, comedy audiences tended to be more people of privilege (or at least resources) and the jokes were only heard by the people in that room (fewer people and limited demographic to feel like they are the butt of a joke) or by people who bought a particular comedy album because they were a fan of that comic or watched a TV show they could easily turn off (but was also censored). Gatekeepers in the entertainment industry tended to be straight white males (and still are) who let performers through the gate that they found funny and fit their views of life. Also, our experiences as comics were limited to the people we knew or had been around in our lives or read about.

With the invention of the Internet, audiences widened to include the whole world. You may have never met a trans person or known a person with disabilities; you may have not spent much time around people of color; you think you don’t know any rape victims (you do). But, no one with social media can claim that those human beings and experiences are unknown to them now. Previously upheld stereotypes and the ability to distance oneself from the experiences of others are dissolving. Not to mention, things like making fun of people for having an accent when the speak English or how “foreigners” look different from you, or how hearing-impaired people may talk, etc is just considered hack lazy comedy now.

So, where do I think comedy is going? Everywhere. Now everyone has a comic who looks like them and sounds like them and they can relate to or just find funny as hell even if they are completely different because they find their perspective interesting. Audiences have choices. If they don’t like something, instead of abandoning comedy altogether, they can find someone and something they like or they can start doing comedy themselves. I once guest-tweeted for a feminist organization that brought in women from different careers to discuss their fields with the group’s followers. I got an overwhelming number of tweets from women saying they stopped going to comedy clubs because of rape jokes. I was shocked at how many women just abandoned their love of live comedy because of this. Cue the “well if you don’t like what comedians are saying, don’t go to comedy clubs” argument. They don’t anymore. You can say whatever you want. But, audiences don’t have to sit there and take it. You may agree or disagree, but the fact remains that comedy clubs lost revenue and comedians lost fans. I can and have written long diatribes about the difference between a pro-rape victim blaming joke and a rape culture joke, but that is for another day. Suffice it to say that no one is taking your right to free speech from you. If you don’t want a reaction to what you are saying, go do comedy alone in a dark room. But, as long as you do comedy for and in the presence of people, they are going to have a reaction. Welcome to the future.

3 notes · View notes

ambernorman222-blog · 5 years

Text

Step-By-Step Guide: How to Write the Perfect Persuasive Essay

What's a Persuasive Essay and can i order it at https://broessay.com/?

A persuasive article, also called an argumentative composition, is a bit of academic writing in which you employ logic and rationale to demonstrate your viewpoint is far more valid than some other. You have to expose clear discussions and encourage them by persuasive facts and plausible factors.

Persuasive Essay Topics

Do you understand what the biggest difficulty with these kinds of missions is? Pupils do not get enough directions. Sure, they may ask the professor to its persuasive composition definition, however, the directions will not go much farther than that. You are going to be left with a overall theme and also a necessity to fill out the essay by a particular deadline.

With this kind of lack of info, it is tough for you to receive thoughts that would ignite your inspiration for academic writing. You do not have an exact subject, and that means you've got to begin from this step.

What name do you place? We are going to propose a few college persuasive essay subjects from other regions of research. This listing can allow you to realize how great persuasive essay subjects seem like, and it'll get you motivated to begin writing the undertaking.

You will notice that the majority of these themes are put from the arrangement of a query, so that they provide you with a fantastic base to state and protect your own opinion.

Should gambling be prohibited in the united states?

Are cats pets than dogs?

If every household have a thorough survival strategy for natural-disaster scenarios?

Should kids get payment out of their parents to doing house chores?

Should homosexual couples be permitted to adopt kids?

Are good-looking individuals being underestimated since they look great?

Can it be a great or a bad thing for the society?

If God does not exist, is what permitted?

Are there any such things as good and bad?

Are people greedy?

Is fact universal?

Is human behavior influenced by genetics?

If the government be spending a lot of our cash about the Olympic Games?

If psychiatrists and priests violate their vows asked to testify ?

If people undergo psychological testing prior to being permitted to have kids?

Should individuals with disabilities be counseled never to have kids?

Should soccer teams be blended concerning gender equality?

Should authorities use cyber-attacks to spy on other nations?

If there be boundaries between nations?

Is nationality a warranted concept once the planet is moving towards globalization?

Should same-sex unions be permitted or prohibited in the united states?

Is euthanasia unkind?

Is sex orientation based on youth?

That was a fairly long list of persuasive article thoughts, was not it? The more choices that you have, the easier it'll be for one to comprehend exactly what this kind of mission requires. You probably heard that topics above took your simple view and left area for a dialogue.

You need to pick a subject that motivates you to compose, but in addition provides you plenty of stuff to study. This sort of paper is significantly based on study information, and thus don't opt for a subject that does not offer you access to plenty of tools.

We have the sort of mission clarified and we motivated you with a few topics, it is time to get the actual lesson: How can you write a persuasive newspaper? Before we begin with the step-by-step manual, let us go through several general tips that Can Help You complete the job:

Establish your position directly from the start, and keep it through the paper. If, by way of instance, you're writing a persuasive paper about the lady's right to abortion and you opt to encourage the pro-choice motion, you are going to need to make that position clear in the debut, and you ought to keep it powerful throughout the newspaper.

This is a kind of paper which needs facts. Find info in the kind of data, scientific experiments, and study materials that help your own arguments.

Construct the disagreements in development, and that means you are going to proceed in the least important for the main one. This gradation is going to continue to keep the reader's attention and will convince them that you are standing your ground at the conclusion of the paper.

Your professor would be your viewer for the persuasive essay. But you still ought to write this newspaper as though you were describing things to a newcomer. Assume the reader does not understand anything about this situation. Through the entire body of this essay, you're defend your perspective, but you will also supply advice about the conflicting places, so the reader will be aware of what you are arguing against.

Disproving the conflicting claim is among the very best tactics to demonstrate your view. Therefore, you are going to be looking for tools not just to support your perspective, yet to refute the conflicting rankings too. In academic writing, this strategy is known as refutation.

Specific, applicable, and realistic cases are able to make your place more powerful. Though persuasive writing is about real facts, you might also utilize renowned or less-known illustrations to show your view.

There are 3 Chief components of writing to recall:

Logos -- that the appeal to logic and reason. You say it using details introduced in a logical manner.

Ethos -- that the appeal to integrity. In writing, you have to convince the reader that you are right in an ethical perspective.

Pathos -- that the appeal of emotion. You need to wake the reader's empathy, anger, despair, or another sort of emotion, and that means you are going to create your primary argument more persuasive.

That is the way that it can convince your reader to think about and even embrace your perspective. However, how can you achieve this kind of impression? Just how do you write a persuasive newspaper?

As soon as you select your subject and you also do enough research, you are going to be prepared to consider the construction of your document. From the outline, you're write short tips on which you plan to incorporate in each part of this newspaper.

Let us say that you are composing an article on the subject"Is feminism warranted now?" , You Might intend to add these points through the articles:

Intro:

Some background: why didn't feminism begin and what exactly did the motion to stand against?

Yes, feminism is warranted (main debate )

Thesis statement: Feminism is warranted because though women in Western civilizations have more liberty than some girls from throughout the world continue to be oppressed.

Body:

First paragraph: that the lifestyle of women in Western societies isn't exactly what feminists were originally fighting .

Second paragraph: girls in most cultures continue to be oppressed.

Third paragraph: assert the conflicting view that feminism is redundant in the current societies.

Conclusion

Restate the thesis statement and also reveal how you demonstrated it.

As you may see in the case of a persuasive essay outline previously, this looks like a fairly standard article with these primary components:

Introduction, in which you're present the subject and also expose your own thesis statement.

Body, in which you are going to say your details and establish your thesis together with disagreements, and reevaluate the arguments of your competitors.

Conclusion, where you're bring down all points to a reasonable end.

Whenever you have your outline prepared, it'll be simple to begin with the real writing process. Nonetheless, the introduction could provide you a bit of trouble.

The absolute most significant part the opening is that the crystal clear and succinct thesis statementsthat defines your own perspective, in addition to the path that the whole essay will take. Prior to this thesis statement, you need to"hook" the reader. You might do this using a fact linked to a subject, an anecdote, a quotation, or possibly a definition. Consider something which would help keep your reader thinking about your newspaper.

A good introduction will flow towards the human body paragraphs, which can show the thesis statement together with powerful arguments.

How to Write a Decision to get a Persuasive Essay

It is odd to observe how many pupils write the principal areas of the persuasive newspaper and get stuck with this debut. You have to pay good attention to the part of this newspaper. It is not there just as your professor said ; it is there since it must balance out the composition and direct the reader towards a more reasonable decision.

It is a fantastic idea to restate the principal debates and reveal how they establish the thesis statement. Do not simply paraphrase what you wrote. Show precisely how a point of view is the ideal position to get on this particular matter, and encourage your reader to do it.

Conclusion

It is no wonder the persuasive newspaper is among the most frequent missions you obtain in the school. This kind of article reinforces your abilities of persuasive believing, talking, and writing. If you master these skills, you will be more ready to tackle some expert challenge later on, whatever the profession you select.

#essay #writing #tips

0 notes

feathersandblue · 7 years

Text

hansbekhart

reblogged your post and added:

I’d rather discuss what you think of my argument.

Then I hope you don’t mind me putting this in an extra post, as the original thread is getting quite long.

I’m copying/posting your last reply here:

I don’t think it’s a contradiction though. I think it’s a miscommunication, stemming mostly from privilege. The disconnect in this argument is over what, exactly, is problematic.

Fandom has always imagined itself as a place of progressive values - a place where (predominately) women can explore their own sexuality and recreate community in a way that isn’t hostile to them, as a lot of the real world is. But this world we’ve created still has all of the prejudices that each member was brought up with - there’s no way that it couldn’t, firstly because many of our prejudices are invisible to us, and secondly because a lot of fandom works were created specifically to remix that already-existing culture: fan fiction is a mirror that we bend to find stories that include ourselves.

I think that the expression “fandom has always imagined itself” is a bit of a generalisation that does not hold up to close scrutiny: fandom is extremely diverse, and I don’t necessarily think that everyone who participates in it - or even the majority of people who participate in it - frame their contribution in these terms, or see it in that light.

So while such a narrative exists, especially when it comes to the defense and representation of fandom in media, I wouldn’t agree that this idea of “progressiveness” is at the center of fandom for a majority of fans - at least not for those who never engage on a meta level. People often politicize fandom, but I’d argue that fandom, as such, is personal rather than political.

I absolutely agree wtih you that fandom content reflects our perception of the world, and all of our biases. But for me, that’s pretty much a given, and I’d like to add that the same applies to every kind of art and literature: whether we try to avoid it or not, everthing that we create is a reflection of our environment (geographical, historical, political), our personality, our prejudices and biases, our personal issues.

And since it’s squeezed through what could arguably be called a feminist lens (because it positions female sexuality and self-exploration at its center), we fool ourselves into thinking that all the bad stuff - the parts of the world we were so alienated by that we were compelled to fix them - all that ugliness, we think it all gets left on the other side of the glass.

I don’t think that is the case, actually. At least I can’t confirm that from my own perspective and experiences. Very few people that I’ve spoken to - very few people who I argue with - would claim that fanworks are necessarily “better” or “less problematic” than the sources they derive from. Such a statment, I think, would be difficult to uphold when one takes a closer look at the average fanwork, the 90% between “My Immortal” and your Personal Favorite.

I think that there might be a bit of confusion - or disagreement - about the nature and purpose of fanworks. In my understanding, fanworks are a form of wish-fulfillment and self-empowerment for those who create it. Fanworks can be progressive, sure, and they can be political, but I see that as side effect rather than a primary purpose. First and foremost, fanworks are hedonistic. They are the self-expression of individuals, the purely self-indulgent outlet for personal creativity.

Of course, I have no idea what goes on in the mind of any given fan creator or writer. But speaking from my own perspective, when I write fanfiction, I write things for my own, personal enjoyment, for my own, personal amusement, or, if I wanted to be flippant: Because I can. Nothing inherently progressive about that.

I’m saying “we” not just as a fan, but as a demographically representative one. Fandom is majority straight, white, and female - I’m two of those things, and can pass for the third. The reason I called this the White Feminism of discourse is because that’s where I think it comes from: a centering of a certain sort of narrative and victimhood to the exclusion of all others. Not necessarily out of maliciousness, but because a large proportion of fans don’t see the persistently racist problems in fandom - because it doesn’t affect them. Because they’ve never experienced racism personally, and are blind to the way they (we) perpetuate the microaggressions or outright racism that literally every fan of color has experienced in fandom. It’s a language we can’t hear unless we really, really listen.

Fandom is mostly white and female, though not necessarily straight, but that’s another matter.

I think we need to make a distinction here, and that’s between fandom as a space for individuals, and the idea of fandom as it is currently presented in media by pro-fandom voices, which indeed often paints fandom as a beacon of progressiveness and female empowerment.

When it comes to the individual fan and their contribution to fandom ... I hate to say it, but there is no reason why any given fan should priotitize anything but their own, selfish enjoyment. I’m not in fandom to contribute to the joy and happiness of other people. I’m here for my own.

Creating art of fiction is always a selfish act. No writer writes something they don’t want to write (unless they’re paid for it, or course), no artist paints something that they don’t want to paint. That’s how we create: it’s our personal, self-indulgent vision that we turn into something that other people might enjoy. Or not enjoy, whatever the case may be.

The argument that I often hear is “if your personal enjoyment comes at the price of other people’s hurt feelings, it’s oppressive and immoral”, but that only applies when I actually force people to consume the product of my imagination. But as long as they have the freedom of choice, why should their feelings take precedence over mine?

Especially, and I feel that this is an important point that doesn’t get stressed often enough, when I don’t even know who these people are? We’re on the internet. I have no idea whether the person I’m dealing with is actually who they claim to be. I have no idea what their life looks like. I have no idea whether they were actually “triggered” by something (I’m using quotation marks because the way the word is used here on tumblr, it can mean anything, from mild annoyance to great anxiety) or are just striving strive for power and control.

I can totally get where the people who write this sort of positivity posts about fandom are coming from, and I can get why it seems like these are attacks out of left field. But when you (and not meaning you specifically, OP - all of us) claim essentially that all media/fandom is good, and all ways of consuming media/fan fiction are good, that ignores the way that media/fandom continues to be a really hostile and ugly place for a lot of people. You may mean, “There is no bad way to explore your sexuality,” but it can sound like you really mean “Even if it includes explicit, unqualified racism.”

But who says that media/fandom has to be “good”? Who made that rule when I wasn’t looking? When I “joined” fandom, I never agreed to limit my own, personal enjoyment to what minorities find acceptable. And while I get that some people think they’re entitled to that - that it should be my goal as a “decent person” to make them feel included, safe, welcome, and cared for - that’s not what I’m here for.

You may find this a controversial statement, but actually, it shouldn’t be controversial at all. I get that some people would like me to sign a metaphorical contract, with the fine print written in their favor, but the truth is that such a contract does not exist within fandom.

No other person has the actual authority to tell me that my own enjoyment should not be my sole and ultimate goal. People might think they have the moral authority to tell me that, but there is no reason why I should have to accept that.

Why should I let other people dictate what my contribution to fandom should look like? Or, what’s more to the point, why should I let a bunch of strangers with funny urls do that, who willingly choose to engage with the content that I post on my blog or to my AO3 account?

ESPECIALLY because, when confronted with that exact challenge, a lot of people double down on that and admit that yeah, the racism doesn’t really bother them. Which is what’s happening here.

It’s not a contradiction, but an unwillingness to confront an ugly truth about fandom because it doesn’t personally affect you. Fandom has a huge problem with racism, and pointing that out is not an act of The Morality Police.

Well, I’m one of these people. Though I think it’s fair to say that while racism does, in fact, bother me, my understanding of racism does not conform with the US American definition, and I’m not inclined to re-frame my worldview according to US American sociological theories just because fan culture happens to be dominated by US Americans.

It’s not only racism, though, is it? It’s “abuse” and “homophobia” and “transphobia” and “ableism” and “misogyny” and so on, and I can tell you that most of what I’ve written and published would raise the hackles of one minority or another, if they came looking.

Or rather, raise the hackles of some individuals, which is another issue: very rarely, in my experience, has there been an agreement within a minority group on whether something was actually “harmful” or “offensive”. So, when I’m faced with a couple of people who come to my inbox, often in a very hostile manner, to tell me that something is offensive to people of color, or Jewish people, or trans people, or disabled people, and so on, they might be making a lot of noise, but I have no real means to say whether they are actually representative of the minority they claim to speak for.

In reality, it might look a little like this: My piece of dark fic, which was clearly labeled as such, got twohundred hits. Ten people left kudos, one left a positive but trivial comment, and now suddenly three people, one after the other, leave their comments in quick succession, neiher politely worded nor inviting a discussion, informing me that this piece of fiction is problematic and needs to disappear. Because they say so.

That’s the point where I have to ask myself: if I give in to that kind of intimidation and pressure, am I doing it because these people are in the right, or because I’m afraid? Am I willing to follow their moral code, which apparently includes dogpiling, intimidation, and name-calling, or do I trust my own?

Meanwhile, the people in my comment section are in all likelihood not willing to take my opinion into account. Any attempt on my side to justify myself just leads to statements like “check your privilege”, “you’re a nazi apologist”, “white (cis, straight, abled) people don’t get a say in this”. Disagreement is not an option. They’ve decided that my content problematic, that I am problematic, and that’s that.

I’ve seen this play out in a variety of instances, and quite honestly, I think it’s very important that people don’t give in to that kind of bullying.

Finally, let me just add, for good measure: I think you’re right in one point, and that is that we might want to stop pretending that fandom is all about progressiveness, when progressiveness is mostly accidental, and yes, we can absolutely point out that fandom content reflects the preferences of those who contribute to it. If that’s mostly white women, the content will reflect that, as we’ve basically agreed above.

On the other hand, if everyone keeps making the kind of content that they want to see, instead of bemoaning that others don’t make it for them, fandom will continue to change.

Just don’t expect fans to go to great length to make fandom a better place for others if that’s not what they signed up for.

#hansbekhart

115 notes · View notes

prideandpen · 7 years

Text

A rant about the state of Hell America

God every single day for the past week and a half, I’ve woken up and been horrified because it’s 2017 and America is being lead by Nazi’s. Actual, literal Nazi’s, and that’s. I remember learning about the Nazi’s in school. Like they were some thing-of-the-past. All the photos were in black and white. They were other. They were history. Never to be repeated, only talked about. Talked about because history is supposed to be a reminder, a warning, when it comes ton the horrible things that happened. We read Anne Frank’s Diary, we watched movies about her and the holocaust. And every time I felt cold. Chills that spread down my spine and across my shoulders at the sight of every photo, at every horrible moment in the movies. I still can’t understand how people can be so vile. But I don’t think I ever had a moment in those classes where I thought “This will never happen again” even though it was talked about in class. How it can’t happen. Maybe I’ve just always been a cynic, but I think deep enough down I recognized that the world - particularly the western world - wasn’t done being so cruel yet. And maybe we should have all seen this coming. Because while Germany’s(and several other European countries) government has laws about Nazi symbols America has had nothing at all preventing the open pride of displaying a flag from the civil war - a war fought over the south wanting to keep their slaves - with the claims that it represents ‘southern heritage’ until recently. Other countries are ashamed of their racism but America shrugs it’s shoulders and tries to hide it under the rug. America claims to be a melting pot, a home for refugees and immigrants, but our history has consistently disproved that. I wish I was surprised by Nazi’s in 2017. By Nazi’s in America. By talk of banning people and putting up walls and camps. But I’m not surprised by any of it. That talk has been happening for a lot longer than just the election season. I’m angry and horrified and hurt that it all came slamming fist-first into reality, but I don’t think there’s anything surprising about this. Because frankly history repeats itself. And I’m afraid for what comes next. I’m afraid we’ll fight so hard in these first weeks and months, burn so bright and hot, that we’ll burn out. Because I’m already tired. And I’m sure I’m not the only one. I’m afraid we’re going to have to pick and choose which battles we need to fight when how can we when they’re all important and they all have peoples lives on the line. I’m afraid that it’s not going to stop with executive orders and mass protests. We’re less than two full weeks into this new government and my dash and twitter feed is full of terrible statements, executive orders, dangerous nominations, protests, rogue officials desperately trying to reach us with real facts, and self care. Self care for protesting, self care for activism, self care for your mental health and emotional health and physical health all relating to this political nightmare. And I love self care. It’s important and essential but it’s not even been two weeks and how can we keep up this fight if we’re already having to remind each other to try and take a break. To try and breathe and thing about something else. It’s so hard to think about anything else at the moment. This is everywhere, tumblr, twitter, the news, tv shows. Everything is either horror or hope and sometimes I don’t want either. I want to turn it all off and forget it exists for a minute. But I can’t. Because facebook is business as usual and it makes me so angry that not a single person I’ve actually known who uses their facebook seems to give a shit except for a single post or two, a photo from the womens march, an odd article about pro-choice or black lives matter. Even the places that aren’t flooded with trying to survive or unbridled rage make my blood boil at the moment. It’s like being trapped in the rapids while the current pushes you in several directions at once and you can’t seem to break the surface. I have this constant, almost desperate, desire to be a source of hope because there are so many people who are in positions that are way more threatened than my own and I want to be able to remind them that we’re all going to keep fighting for them, for each other, because this is #not okay and #neveragainisnow and we’re going to continue to #resist because he is #notmypresident. But I don’t know how any of us can keep going at this pace, and I don’t know how we can stop when there’s so much danger every day. I’m afraid of what happens next, and of the question about what next is that I’m sure is at the back of so many minds when everyone knows what next is in a dystopian novel or movie, when history repeats itself and we’ve seen the protests become next in other countries in recent history. And I seem to be shifting, constantly, between white-hot rage and an uncaring void, to a spark of hope, to such a swirling mess of thoughts and feelings I don’t know where to start untangling it. All I want to do is write right now. To get back into my resistance but I can’t seem to connect with it even though it seems more relevant and important all the time. So there it is. I put on a good face and I talk about hope and resisting and how proud I am of every single person who goes out there and protests all the while wondering what good I’m actually doing sitting behind my computer when I can’t even force myself to focus on my resistance. Wondering where I’ll be and what I’ll be doing when next comes around the corner. I wonder if I should share the dream I had the other night which was at least half a nightmare about next and after and wonder what good it would actually do when all I want to do is spread hope when there’s so much fear and rage to go around, when I already share so many small slices of my rage. And I would give every last one of you every last ounce of my hope if it would do any good. But it’s so much harder to pretend that I’m not worried too when I was already stressed before the Nazi’s set fire to our country. I never considered myself a patriot. I hated America too much for that. I hated the hypocrisy. The greed. The capitalist, corporate focused, white male centric truth of this country was all I could really see. Because for all America talks about the melting pot, and the American Dream, and American Ideals, none of it has ever seemed real to me. Like it was just a mask. But maybe I am a patriot. Not of what America is, because frankly America is shit. America has never been great. But what America could be, what it should be, what it pretends to be. That I do believe in. Call me what you will, socialist, liberal, feminist, social justice warrior, I’m all of that. I want to be all of that. I want to be more than that. And while I am not capable of everything I would like to be, I will do everything I can to be a patriot because I believe in liberty and justice for all. I don’t want this country to continue with it’s mask and it’s lie and it’s bullshit persona of freedom. I want it to live it. To breathe it. To be it. So maybe I’m a patriot now. Maybe whatever next is I’m here for it. I will draw hope from the marrow of my bones if I have to.

#america #politics #US politics #Nazi's #hope

4 notes · View notes

censored-on-gendercritical7-blog · 5 years

Text

#radfem-excludes: Exclusion of women and women’s needs in ostensibly pro-women radical feminism

This experience has made me think that what I experienced is broader than a few specific forums on a specific platform.

What I'm wanting to document here might more broadly be "exclusion of women from radical feminism" or "exclusion of women's needs from radical feminism".

I am resentful of a movement that claims to be about helping people like me, but in practice seems to be acting on a somewhat more narrow political ideology. Certain views and experiences are welcomed with compassion and support, with women telling you, "no, you're not crazy for thinking that. welcome." And other experiences are treated with contempt, with responses like, "You need to educate yourself. Your needs aren't important, and your thinking is wrong."

I'd like it to be more open who and what sentiments are being excluded. Actual women who are being refused help. Actual women's ideas and interactions with reality that are being excluded.

And, with a bit more frustration, I'd like for women involved in radical feminism to be more comfortable being open and loud about what women they exclude. You don't have to be welcoming to everyone. If you don't want to be around some type of women, or you only want to be around some type of women, it's probably more accurate to call yourself pro-(type-of-woman)-woman. And that's fine! And good! It would lead to a lot less confusion, and disappointment on the part of the women you're really more comfortable excluding and not helping.

I think I'll suggest the hashtag "#radfem-excludes" for this kind of discussion.

I also want to say that, even as someone mostly excluded, I have gained a lot from radical feminism. I just also am genuinely not fully welcome because of the reality of the political situation I happened to be born into, by virtue of the kind of woman I am. And in part by virtue of being a woman, I do think there is some genuine misogyny and harmful advice being given to women. It feels like I can participate and learn important information and have important realizations, but only if I also prevent myself from having other important realizations and learning other important information. I don't like it, but I do like it.

I would like to see the development of a local and, when useful, internationally-cooperative pro-women's movement. Not one that replaces radical feminism, but one whose priority is simply helping women in practical and real ways. Not out of a political power objective, but simply out of a practical objective. One where women who want to help make things turn out well for women like them have an easy time doing so, not out of a sense of charity, just out of a sense of developing things positively for the women in the communities they belong to, whatever that actually is for those particular women, whether it helps the political agenda they'd personally like to see happen or not.

When I put it that way, it does feel a little like radical feminism is, at least to some extent, willing to use women as political pawns to achieve its ends at the expense of participating women. I know they say "women as a class" is what matters and "we don't support whatever choice a woman wants to make as empowering because some choices harm women," but that still involves refusing support to an actual human female person who the movement is at the same time claiming to be supporting.

It does some pro-woman good. But the core of radical feminism is not being pro-women. The core is being pro-ideology. I would like a movement whose core is being pro-woman.

In summary, I'm suggesting:

#radfem-excludes: share your information about who and what is being excluded from radical feminism

"pro-women" for pro-women women, whether or not they are or consider themselves to be feminists or radical feminists. you don't have to follow any ideology to help things turn out well for women, especially when putting your efforts practically into your local family and community most.

#radfem-excludes #radfem #radical feminism #pro-women #politics #feminism #exclusion #censorship #free speech #freespeech #misogyny #terf #terfs #terfsafe #terf safe #womens liberation #terfs interact #women interact

0 notes

habia1veredaempinadaxahimelanc · 6 years

Text

Feminist opposition to the sex industry has little to do with women's 'choices'MARCH 11, 2015 by

MEGHAN MURPHY

181

400SHARES

I feel quite certain that the reasons feminists oppose prostitution and pornography are clear. We have gone over the arguments many times and left little room for confusion.

In short, the sex industry exists because we live in a capitalist patriarchy that places men, as a class, in a position of power over women, as a class. Within this system women’s bodies are seen as and treated as existing “for men” — for their use, for their pleasure. Men’s desire is prioritized above women’s well-being. Men will often hire prostitutes to do that which they “can’t” do to their wives or girlfriends, thus creating a class of abusable women, dividing us into worthy or “good” women and unworthy or “bad” women. At the same time, these systems make all women into things that are publicly accessible — we are to be groped, looked at, cat-called, fucked. Pornography serves to sexualize inequality and the degradation of women. It turns violence, gang-rape, and abuse into maturbatory tools. It teaches the viewer that male power and female subordination is “sexy.” It sexualizes incest and pedophilia. Both prostitution and pornography are deeply racist — creating, sexualizing, and perpetuating racist stereotypes about women that are then attached to misogynist practices. The prostitution of women of colour is, as Alice Lee explains to Chris Hedges, “an extension of imperialism” and “built on the social power disparities of race and color.” The prostitution of Indigenous women and girls, in Canada, is directly connected to our history of colonialism.*

Despite all that, when liberal feminists or leftist men who have chosen to avoid criticism of the sex industry in favour of “women have agency,” “sex work is work,” or “my body my choice” -type arguments, they tend, more often than not, to erase our actual critique, instead creating caricatures that can more-easily be dismissed or trashed.

We see this in Pandora Blake’s recent piece in New Statesman. She writes:

Porn is one of the least marginalized jobs within the sex industry, but it still suffers from the same fallacy as every other discussion about sex work — the idea that it is only a legitimate choice if it is ‘empowering.’

This characterization always strikes me as odd when I come across it because I’ve yet to encounter a feminist critique of pornography that mentions anything about “legitimate choices.” Blake goes on to repudiate the notion that a job must be “empowering” in order to be viewed as a “legitimate choice,” noting that we don’t ask the same of film, in general, or really, of any job.

“Why do we only expect ’empowerment’ of sex work, and not of other jobs?” she asks.

Well, I think we do hope for “empowerment” in other jobs and don’t wish for anyone to be degraded at work, for starters… Feminists have fought sexual harassment, assault, and abuse in the workplace for decades. But also, the question of whether or not an individual feels “empowered” by sex work isn’t one we pose — rather, it’s a position taken by those who believe the existence of the sex industry is fine and good and justifiable because some women claim it can be experienced as empowering in certain ways. Now, whatever is inside your head belongs to you, but whatever a person believes or chooses to believe about their own sense of empowerment doesn’t change the fact that the sex industry does harm individual women and does impact all women.

Needless to say, feminists don’t “expect empowerment of sex work” nor do we ask whether or not a woman’s “choice” to enter into the sex industry is a legitimate one. The question of “legitimacy” should, rather, be asked of this imagined debate.

We see another example of this in a recent post by Anne Thériault, who says that “white feminists” need to stop “thinking that all sex workers are all miserable wretches who hate their lives.” She writes:

Like, this is literally what you’re saying: “I believe women have agency and can make decisions about their lives except for when it has to do with sex work, at which point I will assume that either someone is exploiting them or else they are self-hating gender traitors only interested in the male gaze.”

So just to clarify, you think that women can make choices except when it’s a choice you disagree with, at which point you’re pretty sure she’s being coerced. You also think that sex workers need to be “rescued,” even if they’re happy with what they do. You would rather see women further marginalized by anti-prostitution laws than find ways to keep sex workers safe.

Again, explain to me how this is a pro-woman stance?

Hmm, no… What we literally are not saying is that women in prostitution are “gender-traitors” or that we “disagree” with women’s “choices” to enter into the sex industry. Literally no feminist I know says that. And I know an awful lot of the women who fight, within the feminist movement, against the sex industry… Not only does Thériault erase all of the women of colour who are opposed to the racist, misogynist sex industry, but she chooses to erase our actual arguments, developed over decades and waves. To pretend as though only white women are feminist, fight sexual exploitation and abuse, and can see and care about the harm and abuse that happens in the sex industry is an appalling — but deliberate — attempt to dismiss the work and efforts of thousands and thousands of women, over decades, across the globe, and I think it is reprehensible.

It is only necessary to invent untrue and insulting caricatures if you are not willing or able to engage with the actual critiques and analysis at hand. I might ask how willfully misrepresenting the work, ideology, politics, arguments, beliefs, intentions, backgrounds, lives, and experiences of women as a means to justify telling them to shut up is “pro-woman?”

Feminists do not judge women who enter into prostitution — whether they have made some version of a choice (within the context of capitalist patriarchy) or not. Certainly we don’t see them as “gender traitors.” There is no “them,” for that matter, as many of “us” (feminists) have been involved in the sex industry in one way or another, and all of “us” live in this world. There is no clear dichotomy between “us” and “them.” Certainly we don’t want to see women further marginalized by sexual exploitation, considering that it is the most marginalized women (and also considering that women are marginalized as a group, under patriarchy, and therefore it is “us” who are affected) who already are most vulnerable to exploitation in prostitution.

We are largely concerned, though, with the choices men make to consume pornography, to buy sex, and to exploit and profit from the sale of women’s bodies. We are also largely concerned with the fact that we live in a culture that treats women as objects to be bought and sold. We are largely concerned with the fact that most women and girls grow up believing that their existence is legitimized by the male gaze and that we then internalize that gaze. This is a problem that hurts women — all women. Therefore it makes no real sense to “disagree” with women’s “choice” to be impacted by this gaze and the larger systems at work, since we (women) are the ones who are suffering under said systems. We will certainly disagree with and challenge women who defend these systems or who pretend as though they are good for women, but prostitutes are not to blame for prostitution and women aren’t to blame for the existence of porn. In short, the fight isn’t about women’s individual choices — it is about the fact that women’s choices are limited and shaped by patriarchy and, of course, that many women and girls have no real choice when it comes to the exploitation, abuse and violence they experience in this world.

What should be clear, at very least, is that we are feminists because we care about women. To say that we want to see women further marginalized is an incredibly bold fabrication. What could our motives possibly be except the well-being, rights, and liberty of women? These representations ignore and erase the truth of our movement. They erase the fact that women in this movement come from all sorts of backgrounds, are marginalized, have been prostituted and abused, work with and for women on a daily basis, and not only are impacted by the sex industry on a personal and systemic level, but care about the impact on all otherwomen and girls as well.

Blake writes:

If you truly care about empowering porn performers, start by reducing poverty. Fight to improve our welfare state, for a citizen’s basic income, for more flexible working options for parents and people with disabilities, and for decreased tuition fees for students. It is possible to work full time in this country without earning a living wage, while others who want to work full time may not be able to. If you want to make someone more empowered, you need to give them better options, not fewer options.

Indeed. As the women (and men) I ally with are somewhere over to the left (whether or not they identify as socialist, as I do), these issues are of primary importance. But because we are fighting for a stronger welfare state and free tuition and a living wage does not mean we drop our fight to end violence against women and the dehumanization of women and girls.

A woman can “choose” to do sex work, but that doesn’t mean I think it’s ok for a man to buy her. A woman can “like” or “dislike” performing in porn, but that doesn’t make porn “good” for women, nor does it negate the fact that the sex industry reinforces male power and entitlement.

Part of the reason feminists fight prostitution and pornography is, yes, because of the violence and abuse so many women and girls suffer within it. But it is not those women and girls’ “choices” we disagree with… Prostitution and pornography are social problems that exist on a larger spectrum that includes objectification, rape culture, sexual harassment, domestic abuse, body image, self-esteem, sexual assault, incest, and more. The way we understand heterosexual relationships, the way we understand sex, the way women and men relate to one another, the way we understand marriage and beauty and our value as human beings — it’s all connected and affected. Pop culture, film, television, advertising are all affected too. The connections are palpable to anyone willing to see.

If the point, in terms of this debate, were whether or not any individual felt they were being empowered by porn at any given point in time or whether or not one person “liked” another person’s “choice” to do sex work, then we could simply argue back and forth about who feels personally empowered by what and who personally “liked” or did “not like” any given thing or idea, divorced from a larger context, political movement, or ideology, for eternity, and get nowhere. Oh wait…

I honestly don’t know how a person can be a feminist and fail to understand all this, but if they truly don’t, the least they could do is represent our arguments fairly. Otherwise it simply appears as though you are unable to engage with the ideology at hand, cheaply resorting to red herrings and sexist tropes, which not only detracts from your argument, but does the feminist movement no good.

*Editor’s note, 03/11/2015: This paragraph was added in to clarify the arguments for those who might be unfamiliar with the feminist analysis of prostitution and pornography.

0 notes

drcontrarian · 7 years

Text

How to persuade the world you are right

Dear trolls,

I shall be writing about gender, but I am not entering into a debate about gender with you or anyone about that now. I am going to write about the mechanics of swinging public debate.

I want to explore about persuading people en masse - at a societal level. How do you ‘win’ a public debate? The topics du jour are for instance abortion, climate change, homophobia and gender equality - and given the audience’s likely interest, I am focussing on the latter.

The lense that I am viewing this through is that of behavioural economics and neuroscience. I will focus on how and why the current approach fails - which is not a comment on whether the approach is true or false.

That is, I am going to criticise you for over-cooking the steak, and that does not mean I don’t like steak or that I am a vegan. My dietary preferences are irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Capiche?

How do you win an argument with half the society? How do you pitch your proposition so that your target audience buys your version of events?

The argument for and against Abortion is an example where an argument was had at a socio-cultural level. Few people will argue that abortion is today commonly accepted as a woman’s right. (Whilst I am personally anti-abortion, ‘my side’ lost the debate.)

In the 60s the era of free love heralded an era of sexual promiscuity (or sexual liberation, depending on your frame) and unwanted pregnancies increased dramatically, raising the need for abortion as the only viable post-coital solution to the problem.

For decades the debate raged within a frame of Pro-Abortion and Anti-Abortion. Progressive, secular leftists were typically pro-abortion and conservative, religious traditionalists were typically anti-abortion.

The abortion issue was resolved when the framing of the debate shifted.

WHAT IS A FRAME?

Imagine if you were given the following choices:

A. Be given $240 - guaranteed

B. Be given 25% chance to gain $1000, and 75% chance to gain nothing

Statistically and rationally, which is the best option? Which would you choose?

In the research of Tversky & Kahneman it played out as follows:

A: 84 percent

B: 16 percent

That is, even though Option A is statistically/logically the worst option, people still choose it. Why?

Because most people choose to avoid loss rather than chase the potential of gaining even more. When it comes to making many of life’s choices their default frame is that of ‘loss aversion’.

The debate about ‘diversity’ - specifically gender equality - is a case where those in favour are trying to persuade those against to pick ‘option B’. Diversity proponents think they have logic on their side and want to win the argument on that basis.

The abortion issue was resolved when the framing of the debate shifted.

Instead of discussing the issue as a wanting to kill vs not wanting to kill an unborn baby, the debate was framed instead as one of being Pro-Choice vs (by implication) Anti-Choice.

Most people don’t think too deeply about these types of things. When such a proposition is considered, it simply sounds stupid and feels it stupid to claim you’re NOT Pro Choice.

Who in their right mind would want their ‘right to choose’ denied, right?

Not long after that the idea of abortion not being an issue of the life and death of a baby became an issue of civil liberties; the frame was ‘the freedom to choose’ as opposed to a frame of ‘killing the unborn’.

That was how the debate was won. That is the neuroscientific insight that can be used to tackle the Gender Diversity issue.

What is the status quo?

Organisations are struggling to articulate where they stand on the issues of gender diversity, equality, human rights and sexual identity, all the while not even being sure that they should even be claiming a position on these matters.

The Guardian called 2015 the year in which companies will take a stand on social issues.

● Some companies are leading the charge: Qantas, led by a gay CEO (in Alan Joyce) being the exemplar for affirming publicly their position on these social issues.

● Some companies remain silent, trying to quietly get on with business.

● Some companies are bullied into adopting a stance that ostensibly supports the popular social justice narrative. (Hello Coopers beer.)

● Some companies are taking a stand that supports an alternative view. From the lonely baker not wanting to bake for a gay wedding to Saudi national soccer team who did not support the minute of silence in memory of the London attacks, not everyone subscribes to the popular narrative.

The battle lines are drawn and the strategies that are typically employed :

● Appointing Diversity and Inclusion Managers

● Launching Women-in-XYZ Industry programmes

● Setting gender-based targets

● Making loud public statements

● Feminist tweet storms

● Publishing ‘think pieces’ on popular blogs

● Virtue-signalling Gamma males

● Boycott and bullying tactics

These are the ‘Option A strategies’ attempting to sell the positive ‘gains’ of diversity.

None of the above initiatives will work the way they are intended, however laudable the intentions and however noble the ambitions. In fact, I argue that they actually have the opposite effect of harming the cause.

THE CURRENT PROPOSITION

Proponents of Gender Equality frames it variously as issues of:

● Fairness

● Diversity

● Better Performance

● Gain

The proposition is failing to get traction because it is framed incorrectly.

THE FIRST AXIOM: IT MUST BE TRUE

OR: Why the current strategy won’t work - counterintuitive truths and unintended consequences

Whatever you are choosing to persuade the people on must be TRUE.

You can NOT say abortion is about choice, if choice does not play a role. Having a different frame/lens does not change the ACTUALITY OF REALITY. It simply changes how you look at things.

None of the arguments proposed by proponents (of gender equality) are logical and neither are they valid. The truth is, people wear the default lense that is more concerned with loss, and what they are hearing in your argument is:

● It is not fair. Only the men are going to sacrifice something.

● It is not about diversity; it is about ideological conformity.

● It is not about performance: the facts say otherwise.

● It is not about gain, it is about loss of male privilege.

A fact is a fact, even if it is unpopular

When you want to frame the debate in a way that that does not recognise the ‘losses’ then it is likely to fail. The current debate has multiple factual and logical flaws that make it easy for sceptics to dismiss the validity of the proposition all together. Space limitations prohibit the full exploration of the supporting evidence, but the following are facts and/or reasonable conclusions. Please bear in mind that your own ‘lens’ may want you to see things differently, so just settle down and read on:

There is such a thing as male privilege.

The rarefied atmosphere of Blue Chip Boards is a closed shop - not only females, but even for highly competent males.

The debate is dishonest. It is ostensibly about equality, but in truth it is about something else. It is rarely about underrepresentation of women in the roof tiling or profession or amongst the grave diggers. And the debate is never about getting equal representation in the prison population - which is overwhelmingly male.

If the actual debate is about economic power and the concomitant freedoms, it is a legitimate debate to have.

There is little benefit in giving up the male power base, so let’s not pretend diversity is about equality that has benefits for all.

Men know they have to give up something, and loss aversion is a thing – and asking them to embrace it anyway is not realistic nor smart.

Men are generally hardwired to be somewhat pragmatic and are typically less emotional about things. (And that is a fact.) Appeals to emotion won’t work in this case.

Claims of equality are irrational. The differences between genders are obvious and the only way you can accept ‘equality of gender’ is to actually deny reality. Most men are simply not romantic enough to accept that version of reality. Mr Friedrich Nietzsche said it as follows: “Equality is a lie concocted by inferior people who arrange themselves in herds to overpower those who are naturally superior to them. The morality of 'equal rights' is a herd morality, and because it opposes the cultivation of superior individuals, it leads to the corruption of the human species.”

Many men don’t really believe in these initiatives, but are acquiescing to public pressure or making these moves for personal career advancement. Sadly, some may not even recognise it in themselves. Virtue-signalling is now a thing. (The reason they don’t believe are because of the multiple erroneous/ dubious claims being made in the process of attempting to win them over.)

Whilst women are underrepresented in certain roles, it is highly unlikely that it is so on the basis of overt gender-discrimination. A sceptic might ask where all these CEOs endorsing ‘diversity’ today were a mere three or five years ago. I think the truth is simple: none of them spoke up five years ago because no one thought five years ago that women were being discriminated against, because they weren’t! I have never (in three decades, across multiple organisations and on multiple continents) even heard a rumour where men conspiring to discriminate against someone because she was a woman. This is a sample of one, but it is a fact.

If the people don’t think they have a problem, you will have a hard job fixing it. Have you ever met an executive male who will admit that HE is the problem? Or one that would give up his board seat for a woman?

The fact of the matter is that there is wage disparity between genders, but most likely for several reasons that has nothing to do with male privilege. Here is an article that lists a bunch of facts which should at least indicate to an objective reader that such a sweeping statement about income disparity is not a simple, universally accepted one.

The research also does NOT suggest that ‘diversity’ in Boards or Senior Management perform better. Read this piece by Wharton management professor Katherine Klein that summarizes academic research on the topic and comes to the simple conclusion: “Rigorous, peer-reviewed studies suggest that companies do not perform better when they have women on the board. Nor do they perform worse.”There is also research that shows that, in the US, unmarried women in full-time work in big metropolitan centres actually out-earn men.

The proponents of diversity have not taken the time to study their opponents, taking a self-righteous approach without recognising that the utopian view is fraught with logical fallacies.

Your gender does not make you a good or a bad boss. The worst boss I ever had was a woman. The best I have ever had was a woman. It is a sample of one, but it is still a fact. (And this is why the argument that you need more female bosses fails - any gender can make a good/bad boss.)

Making a Board reflect an ideological commitment to diversity for the sake of diversity will fail because you are simply replacing one failed ideology (chauvinism) with another alienating ideology (feminism). It is a fact that feminism alienates most males (which is why women still do most of the house work.)

If you choose gender as the basis of selection, you set up the selected people for failure. Tim Newman wrote on his blog about the Executive Team of the responsible entity for the building that went up in flames in London and gleefully pointed out how ‘diverse’ the Board is.

Diversity peddlers ignore the very essence of Marketing: Punters ask themselves ‘what’s in it for me’ before they buy. In this particular debate, the honest answer is a bit of self-righteousness and not much else.

Diversity activists are tackling the wrong problem: The problem with boards is not that they are filled with Old White Dudes. The problem is that they are filled with people - who happen to be OWDs - who all think and act alike. Cialdini popularised many of these factors, and in particular, the neuroscience behind ‘Liking’, ‘Social Proof’ and ‘Consistency’ are well established. And these are the factors that drive the decisions we make, including who gets the job.

Evidence of under-representation of one gender does not equate to subversive discrimination against that gender. Correlation is not causation, right? There is likely to be a systemic problem, but it is not necessarily male vindictiveness.

I am convinced (so this does not qualify as a fact) that women of competence don’t want to be given roles because they are women. Was Christine Holgate appointed as CEO of Australia Post because she was a woman or because she was the best candidate? What about Julia Gillard or Gail Kelly?

Whether you agree with all of the above is irrelevant. Whether you like it is irrelevant. I am suggesting that the public (whom you are trying to persuade) believe that the above IS the reality, your frame will not succeed if runs counter to the reality.

SECOND AXIOM: PICK THE RIGHT FRAME

By reframing the debate, we re-think and we re-affirm what we mean by, teamwork, leadership, effective communication and decision-making. By focussing on these ‘frames’, people realise there is is nothing to lose, and consequently that there is nothing to fear.

By redefining what success looks like, we are establishing the new attributes we are looking for in a leader. The lazy alternative is that companies are simply saying that we need more female leaders, which will bring those ‘new attributes’ to the table.

Both approaches achieve the same outcome, except that the latter is resisted because of the implied losses for the incumbents.

What we should be doing is to stop defining the only successful leaders as being aggressive, ball-breakers, connected to some ‘network, etc.; which are typically masculine traits and few women will ever measure up.

A good communicator is not the person with the loudest voice who can make others listen.

An effective team is not one who drinks and plays golf together.

If equality is framed as ‘success looks different’, and if equality is framed as ‘everyone can be successful in a different way’, and if equality is framed as ‘it takes all kinds of people’ to make the world go around; how could anyone argue with that reality? Importantly, there is nothing to lose, male OR female.

Any man who currently feels excluded from the boys’ club, and most importantly all of society would intuitively embrace the idea of ‘different strokes for different folks’ as coherent with their view of the world.

Just like everyone feels they should have the right to choose, everyone feels that it should be good to allow for differences since they believe we are different. (The logic notwithstanding.)

In the practical world we need diversity and you need unity. When you are considering a workforce or a board, you need to accommodate both these elements.

You want unity and similarity in that everyone who is elected to the board must have a certain type of experience and must have certain level of intellectual horsepower. You may want unity in their commitment to a cause or a passion for a particular market.

You want diversity in temperament, diversity in styles. You want action-orientated people and you may want strategic long-term thinkers. You may want conservatives and you may want progressives. Sometimes you need the ball-breaker and sometimes you need the diplomat.

If you only aim for diversity, then you will create discord. If you only aim for unity, you foster groupthink. Neither one is a recipe for success.

If Women accept that ‘equality’ is to be achieved by reframing what success looks like, they have to be willing to forego the illogical insistence that there is never a valid reason why there may need to be gender-specific roles.

It has been done it before. Not so long ago, the idea of ‘commitment’ was re-framed in organisations. People can now leave at 5:30pm or drop the kids off before work and not be branded as lacking commitment or being lazy. Commitment and your work ethic is judged on your output (a new frame) and not your hours spent at your desk (the old frame).

Focussing on gender to remedy gender diversity is fixating on the symptom, not the problem.

The women I know who are great candidates for promotion, would prefer to be picked because of their abilities and not because of their vaginas. No matter how many times you squeeze the tomato, it won’t ripen any sooner. On the contrary, you are simply ruining something great, no matter how noble your intentions.

If your ladder is leaning against the wrong wall, it doesn’t really matter how fast you are climbing it.

The ‘right’ frame is the one that minimises ‘regret’

This is the way (the new frame)works in the real world:

You are respected for your position, your capabilities and talent - not merely your gender.

If you screw up, you are judged on your failures, not your gender.

If you succeed, you are admired for your success, not your dress sense.

We admire certain traits and attributes for what they are.

We recognise that women and men are different, but of equal value.

We are willing to be surprised by people’s abilities which may not conform to preconceived expectations.

We believe our differences are what makes us better together.

You need different notes to make good music.

We can all learn that neither of us make decisions with our genitals, despite the popular conceptions that we do.

If we both accept that equality is about opportunity, fairness and mutual respect, we may be able to accept that some jobs are naturally and practically more suited to another.

THIRD AXIOM: CONGRUENCE OF BELIEF AND BEHAVIOUR

We ‘spot’ when someone is telling a lie, without even knowing how we did it. We don’t have to process things rationally to pick up a problem. Our brain simply registers the signs (behaviours like touching your lips) and the the actual words you are speaking.

That is the easiest way for our (lizard-) brains to make decisions - to be attuned to incongruence. The ‘frame’ you talk about needs to correspond what you do about it. Your WALK must match your TALK or people will notice, even when they don’t know they do.

The ‘special initiatives’ (noble as the intentions might be) reinforces the stereotypical roles of the benevolent male (we will give you certain privileges) and the weak female needing special assistance.

Affirmative action is an ACTION that is INCONGRUENT with the BELIEF and the statement that ‘women are equal’.

Danie Craven was a revered rugby coach in South Africa. He forbade his players to celebrate when they scored a try. His rationale was that scoring tries is what is expected of his team, and they should NOT act as if it is a rarity. I don’t know if that contributed to his success as a coach, but the idea is psychologically powerful: don’t celebrate your success as if you are surprised by it!

In early 2016 there was a story about a female pilot (Tracey Curtis-Taylor) who flew from Britain to Australia in a 1942 biplane. The news anchor (I forget the channel) gushed about the achievement of this brave woman who flew the plane single-handedly all this way.

Acting surprised when a woman achieves something (that wouldn’t make the evening news if you are a man) is not a smart way of spruiking the strength and bravery of females. Just do the story and let the fact that it is a woman who was brave (or whatever) speak for itself.

I have lived through Affirmative Action programs as beneficiary and as victim. Even the benefits have unintended consequences and the key disadvantage is that these programs are like a virus that infects and eventually paralyses the host. All round, it is a bad idea.

People may believe fervently in an idealised reality where things feel good and everything is just fair. Unfortunately, that is not reality. And the only way to fix this is to deal with the reality we face.

Re-distributing wealth and re-assigning Board seats are all strategies that inflict pain on one side of the ledger. People are naturally averse to this. By re-imagining and re-framing the debate to be about the gains both sexes will make, you rewrite the narrative and stand a chance of persuading them. Of course, those who don’t subscribe to the idea of parity will continue to frame the debate to be about what men (all incumbents) will lose.

CONCLUSION

To persuade the world, the successful approach requires that (1) it must be true, then that you (2) pick the right frame (that minimises regret) and finally, (3) ensure beliefs and behaviours match up so that you don’t undermine the message.

I have illustrated this approach with the gender equality debate. The same ideas work for any scenario where you want to persuade someone.

A better frame for Climate Change will be about benefits of innovation, job creation and the like; i.e. the things you will gain. The current frame is accentuating the losses. We won’t be able drive everywhere, we need to give up air conditioning. We are going to LOSE jobs. Proponents are trying to claim (with religious ferocity I might add) that we should do the right thing and ‘save the environment’. All we hear and all we think about is what it is going to cost us. In fifty years when the sh*t hits the fan, I will be dead, so that particular calamity is not particularly real. Having to give up my car, here and now, is a real pain and few people think it is worth the price.

The only aspects of the climate change debate that succeeds occasionally is when they excessively appeal to science, but articulate it in a way that makes people fear looking stupid by denying it. But that applies to only some people. Real climate change deniers actually know a little bit about climate change - at least enough to know the science is not as settled as climate apostles would want you believe.

Which brings us to the most important question: which is the best way to cook a steak?

0 notes