#decried as bad representation | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

soracities · 1 year

Note

Hey! It has been on my mind lately and i just wanna ask..idk if it would make sense but i just noticed that nowadays ppl cant separate the authors and their books (ex. when author wrote a story about cheating and ppl starts bashing the author for romanticizing cheating and even to a point of cancelling the author for not setting a good/healthy example of a relationship) any thoughts about it?

I have many, many thoughts on this, so this may get a little unwieldy but I'll try to corall it together as best I can.

But honestly, I think sometimes being unable to separate the author from the work (which is interesting to me to see because some people are definitely not "separating" anything even though they think they are; they just erase the author entirely as an active agent, isolate the work, and call it "objectivity") has a lot to do with some people being unable to separate the things they read from themselves.

I'm absolutely not saying it's right, but it's an impulse I do understand. If you read a book and love it, if it transforms your life, or defines a particular period of your life, and then you find out that the author has said or done something awful--where does that leave you? Someone awful made something beautiful, something you loved: and now that this point of communion exists between you and someone whose views you'd never agree with, what does that mean for who you are? That this came from the mind of a person capable of something awful and spoke to your mind--does that mean you're like them? Could be like them?

Those are very uncomfortable questions and I think if you have a tendency to look at art or literature this way, you will inevitable fall into the mindset where only "Good" stories can be accepted because there's no distinction between where the story ends and you begin. As I said, I can see where it comes from but I also find it profoundly troubling because i think one of the worst things you can do to literature is approach it with the expectation of moral validation--this idea that everything you consume, everything you like and engage with is some fundamental insight into your very character as opposed to just a means of looking at or questioning something for its own sake is not just narrow-minded but dangerous.

Art isn't obliged to be anything--not moral, not even beautiful. And while I expend very little (and I mean very little) energy engaging with or even looking at internet / twitter discourse for obvious reasons, I do find it interesting that people (online anyway) will make the entire axis of their critique on something hinge on the fact that its bad representation or justifying / romanticizing something less than ideal, proceeding to treat art as some sort of conduit for moral guidance when it absolutely isn't. And they will also hold that this critique comes from a necessarily good and just place (positive representation, and I don't know, maybe in their minds it does) while at the same time setting themselves apart from radical conservatives who do the exact same thing, only they're doing it from the other side.

To make it abundantly clear, I'm absolutely not saying you should tolerate bigots decrying that books about the Holocaust, race, homophobia, or lgbt experiences should be banned--what I am saying, is that people who protest that a book like Maus or Persepolis is going to "corrupt children", and people who think a book exploring the emotional landscape of a deeply flawed character, who just happens to be from a traditionally marginalised group or is written by someone who is, is bad representation and therefore damaging to that community as a whole are arguments that stem from the exact same place: it's a fundamental inability, or outright refusal, to accept the interiority and alterity of other people, and the inherent validity of the experiences that follow. It's the same maniacal, consumptive, belief that there can be one view and one view only: the correct view, which is your view--your thoughts, your feelings.

There is also dangerous element of control in this. Someone with racist views does not want their child to hear anti-racist views because as far as they are concerned, this child is not a being with agency, but a direct extension of them and their legacy. That this child may disagree is a profound rupture and a threat to the cohesion of this person's entire worldview. Nothing exists in and of and for itself here: rather the multiplicity of the world and people's experiences within it are reduced to shadowy agents that are either for us or against us. It's not about protecting children's "innocence" ("think of the children", in these contexts, often just means "think of the status quo"), as much as it is about protecting yourself and the threat to your perceived place in the world.

And in all honestt I think the same holds true for the other side--if you cannot trust yourself to engage with works of art that come from a different standpoint to yours, or whose subject matter you dislike, without believing the mere fact of these works' existence will threaten something within you or society in general (which is hysterical because believe me, society is NOT that flimsy), then that is not an issue with the work itself--it's a personal issue and you need to ask yourself if it would actually be so unthinkable if your belief about something isn't as solid as you think it is, and, crucially, why you have such little faith in your own critical capacity that the only response these works ilicit from you is that no one should be able to engage with them. That's not awareness to me--it's veering very close to sticking your head in the sand, while insisting you actually aren't.

Arbitrarily adding a moral element to something that does not exist as an agent of moral rectitude but rather as an exploration of deeply human impulses, and doing so simply to justify your stance or your discomfort is not only a profoundly inadequate, but also a deeply insidious, way of papering over your insecurities and your own ignorance (i mean this in the literal sense of the word), of creating a false and dishonest certainty where certainty does not exist and then presenting this as a fact that cannot and should not be challenged and those who do are somehow perverse or should have their characters called into question for it. It's reductive and infantilising in so many ways and it also actively absolves you of any responsibility as a reader--it absolves you of taking responsibility for your own interpretation of the work in question, it absolves you of responsibility for your own feelings (and, potentially, your own biases or preconceptions), it absolves you of actual, proper, thought and engagement by laying the blame entirely on a rogue piece of literature (as if prose is something sentient) instead of acknowledging that any instance of reading is a two-way street: instead of asking why do I feel this way? what has this text rubbed up against? the assumption is that the book has imposed these feelings on you, rather than potentially illuminated what was already there.

Which brings me to something else which is that it is also, and I think this is equally dangerous, lending books and stories a mythical, almost supernatural, power that they absolutely do not have. Is story-telling one of the most human, most enduring, most important and life-altering traditions we have? Yes. But a story is also just a story. And to convince yourself that books have a dangerous transformative power above and beyond what they are actually capable of is, again, to completely erase people's agency as readers, writers' agency as writers and makers (the same as any other craft), and subsequently your own. And erasing agency is the very point of censors banning books en masse. It's not an act of stupidity or blind ignorance, but a conscious awareness of the fact that people will disagree with you, and for whatever reason you've decided that you are not going to let them.

Writers and poets are not separate entities to the rest of us: they aren't shamans or prophets, gifted and chosen beings who have some inner, profound, knowledge the rest of us aren't privy to (and should therefore know better or be better in some regard) because moral absolutism just does not exist. Every writer, no matter how affecting their work may be, is still Just Some Guy Who Made a Thing. Writing can be an incredibly intimate act, but it can also just be writing, in the same way that plumbing is plumbing and weeding is just weeding and not necessarily some transcendant cosmic endeavour in and of itself. Authors are no different, when you get down to it, from bakers or electricians; Nobel laureates are just as capable of coming out with distasteful comments about women as your annoying cousin is and the fact that they wrote a genre-defying work does not change that, or vice-versa. We imbue books with so much power and as conduits of the very best and most human traits we can imagine and hope for, but they aren't representations of the best of humanity--they're simply expressions of humanity, which includes the things we don't like.

There are some authors I love who have said and done things I completely disagree with or whose views I find abhorrent--but I'm not expecting that, just because they created something that changed my world, they are above and beyond the ordinarly, the petty, the spiteful, or cruel. That's not condoning what they have said and done in the least: but I trust myself to be able to read these works with awareness and attention, to pick out and examine and attempt to understand the things that I find questionable, to hold on to what has moved me, and to disregard what I just don't vibe with or disagree with. There are writers I've chosen not to engage with, for my own personal reasons: but I'm not going to enforce this onto someone else because I can see what others would love in them, even if what I love is not strong enough to make up for what I can't. Terrance Hayes put perfectly in my view, when he talks about this and being capable of "love without forgiveness". Writing is a profoundly human heritage and those who engage with it aren't separate from that heritage as human because they live in, and are made by, the exact same world as anyone else.

The measure of good writing for me has hardly anything to do with whatever "virtue" it's perceived to have and everything to do with sincerity. As far as I'm concerned, "positive representation" is not about 100% likeable characters who never do anything problematic or who are easily understood. Positive representation is about being afforded the full scope of human feelings, the good, the bad, and the ugly, and not having your humanity, your dignity, your right to exist in the world questioned because all of these can only be seen through the filter of race, or gender, religion, or ethicity and interpreted according to our (profoundly warped) perceptions of those categories and what they should or shouldn't represent. True recognition of someone's humanity does not lie in finding only what is held in common between you (and is therefore "acceptable", with whatever you put into that category), but in accepting everything that is radically different about them and not letting this colour the consideration you give.

Also, and it may sound harsh, but I think people forget that fictional characters are fictional. If I find a particularly fucked up relationship dynamic compelling (as I often do), or if I decide to write and explore that dynamic, that's not me saying two people who threaten to kill each other and constantly hurt each other is my ideal of romance and that this is exactly how I want to be treated: it's me trying to find out what is really happening below the surface when two people behave like this. It's me exploring something that would be traumatizing and deeply damaging in real life, in a safe and fictional setting so I can gain some kind of understanding about our darker and more destructive impulses without being literally destroyed by them, as would happen if all of this were real. But it isn't real. And this isn't a radical or complex thing to comprehend, but it becomes incomprehensible if your sole understanding of literature is that it exists to validate you or entertain you or cater to you, and if all of your interpretations of other people's intentions are laced with a persistent sense of bad faith. Just because you have not forged any identity outside of this fictional narrative doesn't mean it's the same for others.

Ursula K. le Guin made an extremely salient point about children and stories in that children know the stories you tell them--dragons, witches, ghouls, whatever--are not real, but they are true. And that sums it all up. There's a reason children learning to lie is an incredibly important developmental milestone, because it shows that they have achieved an incredibly complex, but vitally important, ability to hold two contradictory statements in their minds and still know which is true and which isn't. If you cannot delve into a work, on the terms it sets, as a fictional piece of literature, recognize its good points and note its bad points, assess what can have a real world impact or reflects a real world impact and what is just creative license, how do you possible expect to recognize when authority and propaganda lies to you? Because one thing propaganda has always utilised is a simplistic, black and white depiction of The Good (Us) and The Bad (Them). This moralistic stance regarding fiction does not make you more progressive or considerate; it simply makes it easier to manipulate your ideas and your feelings about those ideas because your assessments are entirely emotional and surface level and are fuelled by a refusal to engage with something beyond the knee-jerk reaction it causes you to have.

Books are profoundly, and I do mean profoundly, important to me-- and so much of who I am and the way I see things is probably down to the fact that stories have preoccupied me wherever I go. But I also don't see them as vital building blocks for some core facet or a pronouncement of Who I Am. They're not badges of honour or a cover letter I put out into the world for other people to judge and assess me by, and approve of me (and by extension, the things I say or feel). They're vehicles through which I explore and experience whatever it is that I'm most caught by: not a prophylactic, not a mode of virtue signalling, and certainly not a means of signalling a moral stance.

I think at the end of the day so much of this tendency to view books as an extension of yourself (and therefore of an author) is down to the whole notion of "art as a mirror", and I always come back to Fran Lebowitz saying that it "isn't a mirror, it's a door". And while I do think it's important to have that mirror (especially if you're part of a community that never sees itself represented, or represented poorly and offensively) I think some people have moved into the mindset of thinking that, in order for art to be good, it needs to be a mirror, it needs to cater to them and their experiences precisely--either that or that it can only exist as a mirror full stop, a reflection of and for the reader and the writer (which is just incredibly reductive and dismissive of both)--and if art can only exist as a mirror then anything negative that is reflected back at you must be a condemnation, not a call for exploration or an attempt at understanding.

As I said, a mirror is important but to insist on it above all else isn't always a positive thing: there are books I related to deeply because they allowed me to feel so seen (some by authors who looked nothing like me), but I have no interest in surrounding myself with those books all the time either--I know what goes on in my head which is precisely why I don't always want to live there. Being validated by a character who's "just like me" is amazing but I also want--I also need-- to know that lives and minds and events exist outside of the echo-chamber of my own mind. The mirror is comforting, yes, but if you spend too long with it, it also becomes isolating: you need doors because they lead you to ideas and views and characters you could never come up with on your own. A world made up of various Mes reflected back to me is not a world I want to be immersed in because it's a world with very little texture or discovery or room for growth and change. Your sense of self and your sense of other people cannot grow here; it just becomes mangled.

Art has always been about dialogue, always about a me and a you, a speaker and a listener, even when it is happening in the most internal of spaces: to insist that art only ever tells you what you want to hear, that it should only reflect what you know and accept is to undermine the very core of what it seeks to do in the first place, which is establish connection. Art is a lifeline, I'm not saying it isn't. But it's also not an instruction manual for how to behave in the world--it's an exploration of what being in the world looks like at all, and this is different for everyone. And you are treading into some very, very dangerous waters the moment you insist it must be otherwise.

Whatever it means to be in the world, it is anything but straightforward. In this world people cheat, people kill, they manipulate, they lie, they torture and steal--why? Sometimes we know why, but more often we don't--but we take all these questions and write (or read) our way through them hoping that, if we don't find an answer, we can at least find our way to a place where not knowing isn't as unbearable anymore (and sometimes it's not even about that; it's just about telling a story and wanting to make people laugh). It's an endless heritage of seeking with countless variations on the same statements which say over and over again I don't know what to make of this story, even as I tell it to you. So why am I telling it? Do I want to change it? Can I change it? Yes. No. Maybe. I have no certainty in any of this except that I can say it. All I can do is say it.

Writing, and art in general, are one of the very, very, few ways we can try and make sense of the apparently arbitrary chaos and absurdity of our lives--it's one of the only ways left to us by which we can impose some sense of structure or meaning, even if those things exists in the midst of forces that will constantly overwhelm those structures, and us. I write a poem to try and make sense of something (grief, love, a question about octopuses) or to just set down that I've experienced something (grief, love, an answer about octpuses). You write a poem to make sense of, resolve, register, or celebrate something else. They don't have to align. They don't have to agree. We don't even need to like each other much. But in both of these instances something is being said, some fragment of the world as its been perceived or experienced is being shared. They're separate truths that can exist at the same time. Acknowledging this is the only means we have of momentarily bridging the gaps that will always exist between ourselves and others, and it requires a profound amount of grace, consideration and forbearance. Otherwise, why are we bothering at all?

#this is so much longer than i intended but yeah. those are my very long 2 cents #tbh i also think social media makes it worse in a way especially bc “transparency” has become a form of public vetting which is insane to m #me* transparency and honesty are not the same thing ans its ludicrous that this is where we're at and while we all have to live with this #demand for transparency i do think it affects writers differently bc the whole art as mirror thing comes to the fore in this argument #why would you sit with your feelings about a book when its easier and more accessible for you to @ the authors twitter handle #but anyway #ask #anonymous #book talks

399 notes · View notes

mycochaotix · 4 months

Text

My “real”nonbinary friends and fam, please read this and tell me your thoughts!!! —r/nonbinary user commented:

“I feel that Blair White and others like her are calling out bad behavior and demanding personal accountability. We all can live our lives as we see fit, but demanding nullification of sexual orientation in relation to one's gender or having a melt down over misgender pronouns without self realization about how we present ourselves is narcissistic and provides our detectors against the lgbt+ community with reason to vilify us.

Non-binary people are not the problem, to be clear. It's people who believe being non-binary qualifies them for special victimhood status and who go on public forums to decry society's ills for not recognizing their non-binary lifestyle on sight that creates this negativity.

If you know you are emotionally mature enough to get through your day and live your truth without being angry someone isn't into you or that the days your presentation may lean one way or the other on the gender spectrum and gracefully correct and move on, you know you aren't the problem.”

- they were downvoted many times when I saw rhe comment, so I asked chatgpt why and replied to them:

“Asked ChatGPT why your comment is being downvoted, it said: “This comment appears to express a negative view towards individuals, particularly non-binary people, who assert their gender identity and seek recognition. The use of terms like "meltdown" and the implication that asserting ‘one's gender identity is narcissistic’ may be perceived as dismissive or transphobic by some. “ 🤷🏽”

- they responded to my comment with:

“I mean, if you like feel that someone crying over a stranger at a fast food restaurant calling them "Ma'am" while taking their order on Tik Tok is good representation, we're at an impasse. That's not real life and it doesn't represent real non-binary people.

Edit: More importantly, if we ourselves do not call out bad behavior in our own community and ensure that negative representation isn't the only viewable commodity, we're practically committing self harm.”

- i replied with:

“Up until this comment, I havent made a personal belief claim about your comments. Just saw you being downvoted and wanted to understand why :) hence why I asked chatgpt.

Honestly, your comment reflects that you seem to be trying to police or gatekeep what anyone gets offended by. Why does that matter. Most non binary people i know are too concerned about being hate crimed to actually get offended at a mcdonalds worker incorrectly assuming their gender… much less asserting their correct pronouns when being misgendered.

Your use of “real non binary people” is quite problematic tbh. I think you may have an insulated understanding of Queer people thats influencing your perspective in an unhelpful way. Im a real non binary person and I disagree with your perspective and characterization of non binary people. Your edit is something im not comfortable addressing specifically tbh, I process it as problematic and not worth pursuing as you seem set in your beliefs.

Your feelings, and mine, and whatever queer scapegoat you are bringing up from tiktok, all matter and are valid. You dont know the trauma history of the person who is offended at being misgendered. To be misgendered is uncomfortable, especially for trans folkx and especially for those who are aware of the insane, incessant gender norms, mores and expectations on us at all times.

Calling out bad behavior is fine, but looking at situations empathetically, and from as many perspectives as you can, is going to aid you on identifying behavior thats could be a meaningful change to call out , and behavior that you just dont like and want to stop someone from doing because of your discomfort.”

—

Queer, and specifically: Transfam, please tell me if im far off here … or what yall think!

-mcx

———

update:

15 notes · View notes

jadejedi · 1 month

Text

Romance Book Review: Red, White, and Royal Blue (Casey McQuinston)

JJ’s rating: 5/5

How feral did it make me: 4/5

My book reviews

I have been seeing a lot of negativity around this book and the movie for a while now, and that has made me want to review this book. I will say it’s been a couple of years since I’ve read it last, but I have read it multiple times. The first time I read it I literally could not put it down; I had the audiobook and the ebook so I could read wherever I was lol.

I genuinely love this book. I think it is a great romance novel and I LOVE Alex and Henry so so much. I think a lot of the negativity is coming from a couple of places. First of all: the politics. Yes, you heard it here folks: the gay rom-com known as Red, White, and Royal Blue is not the next “Communist Manifesto”. Shocking, I know. But McQuinston was clearly not trying to write something politically revolutionary?? So, I don’t understand why that is being held against this book. From my understanding, they wrote this book after the 2016 election as a way of coping, essentially. To me, it is not at all different from something like Parks and Recreation, which is easily as much of a liberal utopia as RWRB. I said this in my review of Victoria Goddard’s The Hands of the Emperor, and I’ll say it here: not every work of fiction needs to have a radical political statement. Even if it features politics. It’s okay to have a book that is just about two young men falling in love against this dramatic political backdrop. Is it a bit cringe? Maybe?? But who cares!!! What isn’t cringe these days?? God. Also, it’s not like this book paints a super pretty picture of the monarchy in particular.

Sure, it's escapism, but so what?? What's wrong with a bit of escapism?

I think the other place some of the negativity is coming from is from the crowd who kind of wants to police what is and isn’t “good queer representation”. If a work isn’t “good enough” (i.e. doesn’t resonate with them personally) they will decry it as “bad representation”. I saw this happen with Simon vs. the Homosapien’s Agenda and the movie, Love, Simon. Like those works, I have occasionally seen RWRB condemned as sort of gay fiction for straight people. As if there is only one way to be queer. As if there is only one queer story. I acknowledge our need for a wide range of experiences portrayed in the media, but to say that we as a society no longer have a need for coming out stories is a bold fucking claim to be perfectly honest. RWRB was one of the first queer romance books I read, and it really meant a lot to me at the time, and continues to do so. I think that there is value in portraying both Alex’s journey of self-discovery and Henry’s journey of realizing that he doesn’t have to be unhappy in his life, that he deserves to be able to openly love who he loves.

So, with all of that out of the way, here’s the summary. Alex Claremont-Diaz is the son of the first female president of the USA and she is about to be up for reelection. Alex is widely beloved, he’s got a bright future in politics ahead of him, and everything seems to be going his way. Except he keeps getting put in the path of his nemesis, the younger Prince of England, Prince Henry. Henry, who is so cold and uppity and standoffish and Alex is definitely not attracted to him. Nope. Not a bit.

This book has everything you want in a romance book. Lovable characters, leads with genuine chemistry, lots of heart and emotion, a good dose of humor, and LOVE LETTERS. And HISTORICAL LOVE LETTERS. God. Even though, as I said above, this book is not a revolutionary political story, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t deal with deep and interesting topics. It deals with multicultural relationships, what it means to have a legacy and how much we get to dictate what that legacy is, and some of the realities of being a queer person in the public eye.

I love this book, and I think if you are a romance reader or just love a good queer romance with a genuinely happy ending, this is the book for you.

#rwrb #red white and royal blue #book review #romance book review #meet ugly #mlm #contemporary romance #rom com

11 notes · View notes

shotofchinaco · 29 days

Text

If you’ve ever wondered why it seems like every other station on your dial is Christian rock, EMF [the Educational Media Foundation] is a big part of your answer. From its headquarters in a Nashville suburb (the organization is slowly relocating from its longtime home of California), EMF plays the generic sounds of contemporary Christian music, or “CCM.” It is a genre that everyone from artists and critics to church leaders have decried as being somewhere between “the absolute worst” and “doctrinally unsound.” But the Educational Media Foundation has quietly become the country’s fastest-growing radio chain and second-largest station owner in the country, bested only by iHeartRadio. With hundreds of cookie-cutter stations branded as “K-LOVE,” as well as its smaller chain of “Air1” stations, EMF broadcasts on more than 1,000 signals across all 50 states and some U.S. territories, reaching an estimated 18 million listeners a week. On the surface, EMF’s broadcasts are glaringly apolitical. They opt instead for their trite brand of Christian rock, all teed off by the same, small cast of nationally syndicated, Anywhere-USA DJs who smile through everything from squeaky-clean jokes about the drink sizes at Starbucks to prayers asking God to watch over those who have donated to the organization. But behind its politically neutral facade, the organization — and the CCM industry more broadly — appears to be an inherently conservative project. Many right-wing Christian culture bearers have long believed in the “Breitbart Doctrine” — the idea that, to change politics, you must first change culture — and have fought for decades to build a parallel popular culture free of sharp edges, hard questions, or representations of lives that veer from the straight and narrow.

[...] But EMF’s story isn’t just about bad music taking over the airwaves in service of a cultural vision that is overwhelmingly white, straight, and artistically regressive. It’s also the story of the near-demise of local radio — a longtime haven for new music, artistic outcasts, and political dialogue — at the hands of a tax-avoiding not-for-profit organization that appears to operate like a very-much-for-profit media mega-corporation. For decades, EMF has hidden behind a veneer of uncoolness while honing a signature technique: At big commercial stations and small, beloved community-radio stations alike, they’ve offered the owners an undeniable sum of money, wiped out the local presence, and replaced it with unmanned transmitters.

#worth reading #ccm #educational media foundation #radio #radio industry

7 notes · View notes

taylortruther · 11 months

Note

i think matty was too dismissive of people's concerns and he should really, truly apologize for all of the shitty, racist crap he said.

but at the same time, I think some of what he said is real. like all of us being so worked up online over one person is a bit ridiculous. representation matters and who we hold up in our society matters, but if we really don't like him and don't like taylor for dating him, then we as individuals should just move on, not give him/them our money, stop running our fan blogs, etc. writing pages and pages about someone online is something people do ultimately just to make themselves feel better and like they're a good person.

or, if you still want to be a taylor fan, we don't need to see your long, drawn out explanation for why that's ultimately still justifiable because x y and z. just say you are still supporting her without writing a whole explanation about why you're actually still a good person.

i generally agree with you. no comment on whether matty should have apologized better, really. i think he should've but i absolutely did NOT expect it and will not expect it in the future.

this reply got super long but it was inspired by conversations i've been having with some pals in dms and irl, and how the conversation has evolved (or not evolved) online. so i might be guilty of your last paragraph here and if i am being a holly stallcup right now, so be it!

but there are two things i personally believe about this situation:

a) matty has said and done gross things and now taylor is associating with him (to put it lightly), and people are struggling to cope with that. it's deeply unpleasant to know she wants to date this idiotic edgelord.

b) remaining a fan of taylor's music is truly not indicative of how you personally feel about the issues of racism, sexism, antisemitism, bigotry, and so on.

i think most of fandom on tumblr shares both of these feelings. however, it's a process. some people idolize taylor way and so the idea of giving her up, or changing their perspective/relationship with her, is REALLY hard. a lot of fans are just thinking out loud and processing in real-time, and i think that should be encouraged, because i believe acknowledging taylor's different political opinions or behaviors is critical to moving on to more productive political engagement. it's a good mental exercise, especially for people who are in the early stages of their social justice education.

on the other hand, i see a lot of in-fighting going on; there's been a lot of shaming of other fans, posts suggesting you are "bad fan" or "bad person" if you aren't loudly decrying taylor enough.

and the thing is, the real issue here is racism and bigotry and creating a more just society. a symptom of this issue is that matty, and men as a whole, make comments or jokes like this as a matter of course. why is that? how do we coexist with men who find violence against women, and especially women of color, joke-worthy? if, at the end of the day, we share the same larger political goal as matty, of wanting a better and more just world for everyone, then how do we make sense of his "jokes" in relation to his politics? is it possible you can have a deeply shitty view of x and y issues, and still care about justice in some form (ie, can men in the dirtbag left still add value to social justice movements)? and when we hold people accountable for those hurtful behaviors or words or beliefs, what are we expecting? is it reasonable? do we want education and forgiveness or do we want to exile people who fuck up? what level of fuck up requires exile and which require forgiveness? what are the pros and cons of each and how do those decisions get us to the overall end goal of creating a just world for everyone?

these are, imo, the real concerns. these are what we are trying to talk about when we talk about matty's racist comments. the real issue is not whether you still enjoy reblogging gifs of taylor or if you still want to go to her concert or if you still listen to her music. and unfortunately a lot of the well-meaning conversations people are having end up sounding like taylor is the biggest problem here.

26 notes · View notes

gingerylangylang1979 · 7 months

Text

Can we raise the bar for who to consider role models? I don't care if they are marginalized and rich.

Are women and POC so thirsty for role models that we have to accept any shenanigans because someone is wealthy? I find this especially irksome when their behavior is actually damaging to their identity group. How many times do we let craziness slide because, "Oh, they are a great business person." I'm tired of seeing women let themselves be hypersexualized and set crazy beauty standards but it's ok because they are girl bosses. I'm tired of seeing black men who decry racism in one breath and in the next breath they are mocking our community and disparaging black women. But it's ok because they are playing the game and make millions. I'm tired of politicians who do nothing for the communities they represent, except talk, get held up as saviors and worshipped. Like, literally portraits and statues commissioned like they are Medici's and shit when most of them are all so bought and sold they should be stamped with their brand sponsors.

I'm seeing more people call out this type of shit but really it comes down to people valuing money and clout over human dignity. And I don't care how underrepresented a group is, call people out for what they are because bad representation doesn't equal progress.

#don't even know what to tag this?#celebrity capitalism #misogynoir #grifters

14 notes · View notes

sroloc--elbisivni · 7 months

Text

not to like. have a hot take about discourse on main but i've been thinking recently about how singularly unhelpful it is to gauge 'good representation' based on personal experience. to use a real example, i'm trans, and i don't consider myself as having a deadname. i vastly prefer using a chosen name in public or a professional environment but generally, for close friends and family and paperwork reasons, i'm fine with answering to my birthname. they're both my names. notice i'm NOT saying 'and therefore anyone who anyone who writes a character who has a deadname is bad rep because it doesn't align with my experience.' and i am ALSO not saying 'therefore i should not expect to see my own experiences depicted in fiction because it is Bad Representation.' just like. there are more things in heaven and earth horatio than are dreamt of in your lived experience. 'bad representation' is kind of meaningless as a phrase to me now because of how often i see it used by someone decrying something that doesn't align with their own life.

#it also often turns into like...a greatest common denominator checklist?#thinking of a different example: a canon autistic character who is never shown to have a non-verbal moment #but is regularly depicted in fanworks as being regularly non-verbal #and some of that is very much people who ARE autistic and DO see themselves in this character and are themselves non-verbal and want to ref #ect this aspect of their experiences #but a nonzero part of it just by sheer numbers has to be people who are allistic and have just seen this character depicted as nonverbal in #other fanworks or just seen 'nonverbal' somewhere in a list of autistic traits and internalized that it's a Correct or Discourse Approved #way to be autistic #sroloc babbles

12 notes · View notes

artist-issues · 7 months

Note

I mostly agree with your points about representation, that we should be able to appreciate characters that we don’t personally relate to, and I would NEVER decry something for lack of representation, nor applaud something purely on the basis of representation. However, I certainly do think that there is a place for people saying that they want to see their life experience reflected in the media. As an autistic, Australian and young Christian woman, I rarely see any media that reflects even one of those identities in a realistic way, and when I do I get super excited, because it’s nice to occasionally hear an Aussie accent, see people acknowledge that women can be autistic too, and know that some people see Christians as real people, not just bigoted, religious fanatics. So I definitely think that while representation in and of itself is no mark of a work’s quality, I would not go so far as to say it doesn’t matter.

@mymanyfandomramblings I appreciate your thoughts and I agree with the spirit of them (don’t want to rush into discourse without establishing that.)

But I don’t think that representation is a mark of a work’s quality—OR that it matters. After all, the word “matters” is so important when we talk about this. What does representation (of life experience, specifically) matter for?

I’m worried that what we mean when we say “representation matters” is just “representation matters for the end goal of: communicating the most meaningful parts of my identity to others.”

Please don’t take this flippantly: what I’m about to say has more hope of being understood graciously between Christians than anywhere else. From one Christian to another, take it as me just trying (maybe rudely) to change the aim of the spotlights in your brain (like others have done for me:)

Why does it matter that you’re Australian? Why does it matter that you’re a female? Why does it even matter that you’re autistic? Are those the most important, fundamental things about you? So important that it’s more than just “nice” to represent them to others—it’s necessary?

Why does it feel so nice to have those things acknowledged by others? It’s not bad that it feels nice…but why does it feel so nice? So important?

The most meaningful part of your identity (which is what we talk like representation matters for) isn’t your identity at all. It’s Christ’s.

If what we believe is that “in the image of God He created them,” and as Christian, that “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus,” then why do we get enough sense of identity and recognition out of any other traits to feel so strongly about them? To demand that, in the most public of stages and every corner of media, those traits be reflected?

If all we believe is that everything aside from our image-bearing of God is just secondary, then why are we campaigning so hard for people to recognize those secondary traits?

It’s like baking the world’s greatest cake and inviting everyone to try it, but becoming outraged if they decide to eat that cake with a spoon instead of a fork. Why in the world would you care if someone eats the cake with a spoon or a fork, if the main thing is, eat the world’s greatest cake?

What’s the main thing? What’s the most important part of our identities? What does representation matter for? Is just to make certain parts of us (but not all) that we assign value to feel nice and recognized? Why do we need people to recognize those certain parts? Why do we consider those certain parts so important to our “identities” at all? And maybe, why are we so obsessed with people seeing and thinking of us the way we want them to see and think of us?

The most important part of your identity is in Christ. Who you are is wrapped up in Him. When you keep that in the spotlight, then it’s very easy to say that representing everything off in the shadows, like skin color or nationality or even experiences, doesn’t matter.

#Thank you for such an insightful question #asked #answered #mymanyfandomramblings #Representation does not matter #representation doesn’t matter #representation matters #discourse #Christianity #long post #Christian

14 notes · View notes

illwynd · 1 year

Note

Not to be overly intrusive but I very much want to hear your rant about jms lady loki arc? Your thoughts about thor stuff are fascinating generally, and it either makes me go " I hadn't even considered this aspect of things ", or " oh that's what bothered me about this but I just couldn't find the words!" I mean it goes without saying that you don't have to if you don't want to, but I haven't heard people say anything about that arc other than it was sexist, so now I'm very curious about your opinions on it.

Oh nonny you’re not overly intrusive at all! Thank you for asking this and giving me the excuse to blather about it XD and thank you for the kind words. I clearly think about this stuff way too much, and all I can hope for is that someone else finds it of some sort of interest or value.

Re the JMS lady Loki arc…

So OK I guess I should summarize the thing for the benefit of anyone who hasn’t read it. The main gist goes like this: Thor is having to call Asgardian souls back into the world after breaking the cycle of Ragnarok, and when Loki is brought back, he is “inexplicably” in a female body. Loki has in fact arranged this as part of a con, using his new appearance to better sell everyone on the idea that he’s changed and no longer villainous, but the truth is that it’s Sif’s body he’s stolen, and Sif’s spirit is trapped in the body of a dying mortal, so it’s basically attempted murder (though Loki’s plan is thwarted and Sif is saved at the last minute). In the meantime, the “lady” Loki is a sexy, buxom caricature of played-up femininity, using her wiles to manipulate the men around her, and through it all it doesn’t really seem to be motivated by any genuine gender fluidity on Loki’s part. It’s just a trick.

So I can see where the criticism comes from: that it’s sexist, that it’s bad genderfluid representation since it’s in the form of a murderous villain, that it resembles transphobic tropes of trans women being “really” men trying to steal whatever from women. But those criticisms never seemed to me to land quite right. They seemed to be superficial and missing something important. And there are several angles you can take in looking at it more deeply where all those criticisms just fall apart.

I’m not even really going to go into the problems with decrying it as bad representation because he’s a villain. I really hope we’re past that. It’s not good when your media queers can only be villains, but having every queer character be morally upright and squeaky clean isn’t a good answer either, because real people aren’t like that. What I ask for is that the whole range be available, and that for any given character, they are first and foremost an interesting character with believable motivations for what they do. So “but he’s so evil he was trying to kill Sif! Bad representation! Bad!” is a complaint we’re just going to set aside and make dubious faces at, because for reasons I’ll get to later, I think there is an emotional truth to the portrayal, and in fiction that matters far more than any black-and-white moral claims.

So next up, we have the complaint that he doesn’t seem to be motivated by any genuine genderfluid feelings, since it’s all just a con. And my issue with that is that… it’s a very superficial take. He is motivated by gender stuff. Just not in a way that the complainers recognize.

The absolutely crucial detail is that his target is Sif. I say again. It really matters that he targeted Sif for this con. And yes, sure, part of his reasoning is jealousy over her close relationship with Thor (thorki is canon, y’all). But another part is this: Sif is the only other (that we know of) gender nonconforming person in Asgard, and definitely the only other one that we see as being close to his social circle. But where she is celebrated as a woman who is active and successful in traditionally culturally masculine pursuits, Loki’s gender nonconformity—his failure to live up to Asgardian masculine ideals—gets him demeaned, derided, dismissed. The gender fuckery going on here is that he is furious at the difference in how their GNC-ness is treated. His resentment and anger at that injustice, and he's being a right bastard in expressing it. We stan.

(I also do think there is something genderqueer in how the trickster considers using a feminine appearance to be just one potential tool in his arsenal, the kinda just shrugging and doing whatever works for his purposes rather than getting worked up about having to do such a thing? I mean. So shocking for a trickster figure, right? But hold that thought.)

So that was where I was with it for several years. But I kept coming back to how relatable Loki is to me as a trans masc person, and trying to figure out why it was that way, and what that had to do with this particular arc, and then it finally hit me.

This scene.

“Thus is Loki truly beautiful.”

In this scene, Loki has just been able to finally return to his male body (with Hela’s help), and he expresses his relief and joy in it, all while the art makes him look… kinda grotesque. And my gods that is such a trans masc mood. Knowing that while you pretend to be a woman you’ll be seen as nonthreatening and acceptable, and maybe you can put up with that for practical or social reasons for a while, but it isn’t how you want to live your life, it isn’t how you want to be seen, it isn’t the appearance that makes you happy. Constantly hearing how by changing your form you’ll be changing from sexy and desirable to ugly and monstrous… but thus you are truly beautiful to your own eyes.

(I think it is worth pointing out here, for anyone who might not know, that it is not uncommon for trans masc folks to have a phase of trying to go hard femme before they really accept themselves as trans. I personally didn’t, but I can imagine that the exaggerated femme lady Loki might be familiar to some of those guys. I, on the other hand, had a phase of treating my afab body as a tool that wasn’t really connected to me, so there are some other bits of the lady Loki arc that I find familiar. And here I should note that I’m not saying JMS had all this in mind, I have no idea whether he did or not, but death of the author, baby. The interpretation is very much there.)

And there is another little bit that I want to mention. There is one point where Fandral says to lady Loki, “even when you thought you were a man, you weren’t the man you thought you were.”

And. Firstly, screw you Fandral. Seriously. Secondly, the interpretation of this arc as being related to trans femininity gets a lot more press but that is an insult that is far more relevant to trans masc folks. The insults against Loki’s masculinity are reminiscent of how trans guys are not seen as real men, especially if they are GNC in any way, as Loki is. Loki may be amab, but his struggles are so incredibly similar to trans masc struggles (and really, I can’t be the only trans guy who fuckin loves that: a character who feels so familiar and relatable, flawed and angry and messed up in ways that I know all too well, but also has the goddamn body I wish I had. It’s the perfect combination.)

So yeah. That’s the short version, at least, of the rant about what everyone gets wrong about the lady Loki arc. The sexism, and complicated gender politics, is a thing it is commenting on, and I don't see how so many folks miss that.

#replies #anon #ty nonny! <3 #grand unified theory of loki

23 notes · View notes

ladygwyndolin · 1 year

Text

I guarantee you that if Noir came out now people would ignore the incredible depiction of a messy and complicated lesbian relationship and simply decry it as "bad representation"

15 notes · View notes

elias-rights · 2 years

Note

It's absurd that Elias haters / Jonelias antis have argued that Jonelias is an inherently aphobic when the j/onmart/in tag is full of Extremely Allosexual Smut without the basic courtesy of tagging allosexuality when the character is supposed to be ace as default.

How do they actually believe "psychosexually entangled with monstrous character who made him a monster too" is MORE aphobic than "Jon wants to have sex with Marín because he loves him SO MUCH"? As an ace who doesn't screw (like Jon), I can tell you which one triggers me more. Which one tells me that "happiness" and "love" are dependent on my ability to choke down an act I'm not interested in.

Ahah, sorry, this is kinda venty. I'm just tired of people telling *me*, an ace person, that I'm aphobic for preferring cosmic horror hannigram to the popular fluffy ship.

It's interesting because I feel that way about people who decry Jonelias as a toxic ship. When a Jonelias fan writes a power imbalance that is the point, but J*nmartin fans will write the most unhealthy dynamic lifted from a bad rom-com and call it #goals. I think this ties into what you said; it's like JM fans don't stop to question what they're writing because they've already internalised their ship as healthy representation.

#Also I'm sorry you had to go through that anon.#answered ask #anonymous #fandom complaints #jm critical

34 notes · View notes

checkoutmybookshelf · 1 year

Text

Teenage Vampires Meet Jane Austen

There is a danger of decrying all vampire YA books released in the 2000s as mere Twilight Saga clones, but Beth Fantaskey's (and if ever an author had a vampire novel writing last name, she does!) novel was published in 2000, and Twilight wasn't released until 2005. So please, no comparisons between these two books--they're sufficiently different that they deserve to be discussed on their own merits. Honestly, I kind of wish that Fantaskey's books had blown up and become the mainstream YA vampire duology of the 2000s, but a girl can't have everything. Let's talk the marvelous mix of Jane Austen and vampire lore that is Jessica's Guide to Dating on the Dark Side.

Right off the top, this book has startlingly excellent adoption representation. Jessica is adopted, and she has a phenomenal relationship with her adoptive parents. She is unconditionally loved and supported, she is happy, there is great parent-child communication, and there is exactly zero resentment or hesitation once Jessica is ready to explore her birth parents--she is supported in that too. She struggles with her adoption circumstances specifically, but even that is handled well--who wouldn't struggle with being adopted as an infant to avoid being murdered alongside their family? I was pleasantly surprised to find such great representation, and it serves the story equally well, given how objectively abusive and cruel Lucius's biological family is. This tends not to be something I see a lot in SFF (you could argue for found family doing similar things, but this is an explicit adoption story in the 2000s, so I think that gets its own literary area), and I loved how well it was handled.

So who are Jessica and Lucius?

Jessica was born in Romania as Antanasia to the Dragomir royal vampire family. However, she grew up as Jessica Packwood, daughter of a university professor and a hippie in Southern America, a mathelete, and a 4H horsewoman who isn't a half bad jumper. She's not popular at school but she has her best friend, her mathelete colleagues, and even a boy who is a little bit interested in her as she learns to be more assertive with her worth and skills--again, supported wholeheartedly by her parents.

Then Lucius Vladescu rocks into town and pulls a Heathcliff out on the moors at her bus stop on the first day of senior year. That absolutely unmitigated dramatic flair is arguably a combination coping and rebellion methodbecause Lucius is the heir apparent to the Vladescu royal vampire family. He's basically a teenage angst version of a combination of Mr. Darcy and Heathcliff, and that in and of itself is the weirdest combination of chivalrous, assholeish, dutiful, and "let it burn." It's unusual for me to say that the male lead in a YA vampire romance is actually fascinating, but watching Lucius try to burn down the status quo as hard as he can while also trying to stop things from catching fire as hard as he can is never not interesting.

In addition to Jessica and Lucius being genuinely interesting characters to follow, the book itself does the weirdest thing where it combines literary influences and allusions to Pride and Prejudice (in the form of Lucius's letters to his uncle and Jessica's resemblance to Lizzie), Wuthering Heights (in Lucius's *gestures broadly* and direct diegetic references to the novel that get a bit close to the heavy-handed line), and Dracula (in the general vampire aesthetics and the Vladescu vibes--I am super not speaking for the Dragomir family vibes, because that is just...yeah). Vampire and Gothic make sense together, but the Pride and Prejudice vibes just take this story and give it a bit of lightness that I wasn't expecting and frankly think works astoundingly well.

Overall, this book was a favorite of mine when I found it in high school, and I cannot recommend it enough. It's part one of a duology, so be sure to follow it up with Jessica Rules the Dark Side.

#beth fantaskey #jessica's guide to dating on the dark side #wuthering heights #dracula #pride and prejudice #vampire #vampire romance #ya books #ya romance #ya vampire romance #high school book #books #books and novels #books and reading #books & libraries #book recommendations

5 notes · View notes