noodlesquad

[noodlesquad]

8 tropes I’m tired of in the mystery genre

1. The whole mystery ties back to the detective’s childhood somehow.

2. The killer is an evil genius (bonus points if they get a shrink in to call them a psychopath) and is always way ahead of the police in a creepy cat and mouse game. It’s ridiculously unrealistic, ableist, and if you’re gonna give your characters superhuman intellect you might as well write fantasy.

3. The whole murder spree is actually a personal vendetta against the protagonist. I groan audibly whenever this is revealed.

4. The lead detective gets framed for the crimes by said evil mastermind. Seriously, every series that has gone past 5 books has this one.

5. Murderer has DID. (Bonus points for MPD or ‘split personality schizophrenia.’) I shit you not, I actively try to avoid this one, and I’ve still accidentally read 3 books with this plot twist in the last year. It’s not original and again, ableist.

6. Male protagonist is an alcoholic. No, you are not the new Jo Nesbø and the Harry Hole lookalikes are getting annoying.

7. Female protagonist got raped in her past and it made her TOUGH and ONE OF THE GUYS.

8. Copycat killer who follows mystery books written by one of the main characters. More common on mystery TV shows, but it’s popping up in books too.

[noodlesquad]

Book review: Max Seeck’s “The Witch Hunter”

I got this book for free from the bookstore I work at and decided to give it a go, mainly because the cover said “Just when you thought you’d read all there is of nordic noir, this book comes along!” And honestly, if it hadn’t tried to convince me that it would be something new and refreshing, I might have been a bit more charitable. But it did, and I’m not.

Truth is I think a good AI could read 100 nordic noirs and then spit this one out. It was riddled with every cliche you can think of, like it was honestly almost impressive. I should have counted them. The characters were also quite 2-dimensional, although he did to be fair write quite believable female characters. (Except a couple sex scenes that definitely belonged on r/MenWritingWomen.) There was a lot of head-hopping within the same scene, which made it hard to keep track of which characters actually knew what, especially when there were so many of them to begin with. I know some people like this, after all Stephen King has done quite well for himself, but I’m not one of them. Also, there is just no conceivable way for the reader to guess the solution to the mystery before it is revealed. Which I guess is one way it sticks out within the genre.

The book also struggles with believability. I really do not buy that the main characters actually knew what they were doing. They are presented as seasoned detectives but seem to fumbling in the dark and using very few of the resources obviously available to them. Although I am in no position to speak on the subject, I feel like the writer didn’t actually research how a police investigation is ran. I am however in a position to speak on the accuracy of the mental health diagnoses he wrote about, and I can assure you there was not a five minute google session before he started writing his neurodiverse characters.

So basically, if you want a fast paced horror mystery you can’t actually figure out, this book is alright. But be prepared to not actually feel like you got a solid conclusion, cause the last few chapters are basically just sequel baiting and loose ends. Won’t be picking up the next one.

[noodlesquad]

[noodlesquad]

[noodlesquad]

My kinks are emotional intelligence and vulnerability

[noodlesquad]

The Tragic Story of Sarah Hegazi is One You NEED TO KNOW! IMPORTANT!

[noodlesquad]

Symptoms and beliefs caused by Complex PTSD - the result of prolonged, repeated traumas https://traumadissociation/complexptsd

[noodlesquad]

Reading “Why Women are Blamed for Everything” by Dr. Jessica Taylor, Thoughts on chapter 2-4.

I had a lot of thoughts about the next few chapters of this book, but I noticed that they were basically about a few reoccurring themes, so I decided to, instead of reacting to individual statements, try and react to the underlying premises that the problematic (in my opinion) statements are founded on. So here we go.

The rejection of mental health diagnoses:

In this book, Dr. Taylor frequently seems to reject the idea that mental illness caused by trauma is mental illness at all, however, she never really clarifies her exact stance nor does she clarify which illnesses she is referring to. There seems to be a real ambivalence throughout chapter 2 in regards to this. She refers to mental illness as “So-called mental illness” and later she puts schizophrenia in quotation marks without clarifying why. She also states that she has met women diagnosed with “poorly-defined, imaginative and downright offensive disorders” but she never specifies which disorders she is talking about. For such a bold statement about recognised health conditions, she is being quite vague. However, her description of what “so-called mental illness” actually is, is very on point. She describes it as “a result of social, environmental and interpersonal pressures, abuses, oppressions and stressors.” Absolutely! Mental illness as a result of trauma is a natural and human response to unnatural and inhuman treatment. It is normal, justified, proportionate and rational, as Dr. Taylor puts it. However, I strongly disagree with Dr. Taylor when she insinuates that knowing the cause of the mental illness makes it less of a mental illness. Acknowledging that someone else caused my symptoms and that they are not my fault does not make my symptoms any less real, and I think it is counterproductive and dismissive of women’s mental illnesses to claim that because they are justified, they are not illnesses, which insinuates that they are not causing her distress.

I want to add that she brings up a very good point when she writes that women are often considered to be “more mad” if she rejects medication or therapy. A lot of trauma treatment is horrible, counter productive, sexist or simply does not work for everyone, and the idea that women must all commit to the same prescribed healing journey, decided by someone she sees once a week based on experiences with past patients that may differ a lot from her, is very dangerous. Especially when women who says the medication or treatment is not working for her are labeled as “difficult” or “treatment resistant”, rather than aware of their own needs and in need of taking control of their bodies and their own healing.

The claim that women are blamed for their trauma when held responsible for behaviour caused by trauma:

She claims that women are blamed for how they react to trauma, but this chapter is again vague, and does not draw any distinctions between who is to blame for the situation and who is responsible for the situation. For example, while a woman is not at fault for having a drinking problem as a result of trauma, it is her responsibility to manage her drinking problem. Keeping her accountable for her drinking problem is not the same as blaming her for having it in the first place. Another example: if a woman abuses her kids because she herself was abused as a child, her children are entitled to label her an abuser and holding her responsible for the abuse she committed. This is not the same as blaming her for the original abuse. My point is that while trauma related disorders are never our fault, they are, sadly, our burden to carry.

The idea that women should not be taught to protect themselves from male violence, because it is not fair that they have to: 

Furthermore, the book seems to me to be written on the premise that teaching women to protect themselves from male violence is victim blaming, because it insinuates that women are able to control whether or not men commit violence against them. In my opinion, this is a glaring logical fallacy. Claiming that X will protect you from Y, does not mean that no X equals an invitation to Y. For example, claiming that wearing a helmet lessens your chance of getting seriously injured in an accident, does not mean that not wearing a helmet means you provoke, deserve, or invite as accident. Equally, claiming that learning self defence might come in handy if a woman is attacked, does in no way insinuate that women who do not learn self defence are inviting, deserving, or provoking an attack.

It is part of female empowerment to learn tools to avoid and fight very real threats against us.

I 100% agree with her when she later states that efforts to teach children how to say no to sexual abuse that is already going on will cause self blame and puts unjust responsibility on the child. However, she makes the same argument for adult women, that they should not be sent to programs for women abused by men to learn to “protect herself” and “realise what is happening,” because education on sexual violence is not “enough” to save women from sexual violence, and gives women unjust responsibility to resolve the situation herself. However, Dr. Taylor does not present any alternative way of helping that would be “enough,” and since it is illegal to kidnap a grown woman away from her abuser for her own good, without consent, I struggle to see alternative solutions that does not include women having to realise what is happening, protecting herself, and deciding to leave. If Dr. Taylor has any solutions in mind, she does not present them, and the whole argument seems to be that she would rather have no intervention than less-than-perfect intervention.

Dr. Taylor writes, and I quote: “The responsibility and blame is squarely with the oppressor and the oppressive structures that allow the oppression to continue. It is not on the shoulders of the victim of abuse and oppression to protect themselves from the oppressor.”

This to me seems like some sort of a perfect world scenario where the argument “but it is not fair” is likely to get you anywhere against someone who is purposely making it and profiting off of it being unfair. Women cannot sit around and wait for men to realise their mistake and stop attacking us. Historically, change is always brought about when the oppressed do stand up to the oppressor.

What ways to protect ourselves, stand up for women, and bring about justice would be most safe and efficient is still up for debate, but I cannot get behind Dr. Taylor when she insinuates that we should:

1. Avoid taking measures that might help some, because they aren’t efficient enough to help every single victim. (Because implementing these measures, according to Dr. Taylor, insinuates that women have the power to end violence against themselves but chooses not to by not always responding positively to said measures.) 2. Not protect ourselves from male violence, because it is not fair that we have to.

[noodlesquad]

Reading “Why Women are Blamed for Everything” by Dr. Jessica Taylor, chapter 1.

This book was sent to me by my good friend @safalafal, and after reading the first chapter I ended up having so many thoughts and notes in the margin that I figured I might as well write it all down. These will be my thoughts on the first chapter, titled “Introduction to violence against women.” I just wanna note that the parts I bring up here will be the parts I questioned, but most of this chapter were things I absolutely agreed with, so please don’t take my nitpicking as criticism of the whole book.

This book is about the sexual abuse of women and girls and will include triggering content.

She starts off by explaining key terms, like CSE, CSA, rape etc., while adding her own thoughts. On CSE she specifies that she rejects the UK definition, but there is no such note on “rape,” where she stands by the UK definition, which clearly states that only a man can rape. So, the book is written on the premise that only men can commit rape and that female rapists do not exist. This is really troubling to me, especially when she later writes:

“[…] the CPS are deliberately dropping as many sexual violence cases as possible, whilst only taking forward the cases that they feel they have a very high chance of successful conviction. This means that thousands of women and girls are being told that their case does not warrant investigation, prosecution, or conviction.”

This seems really validating, after all, I was one of those girls, who were literally told by a caseworker that they needed to spend resources on more clear cut cases where they could actually do something. But that’s until I got another paragraph down, where it says: “With the majority of all cases of rape being perpetrated against women and girls and 100% of rapists being male.” And I realise that Dr. Jessica Taylor, who wrote the book in “love and solidarity” does not think my case warrants investigation, prosecution or conviction of rape, because the abuser was a woman. On one side I really get her argument that a male dominated government is not taking crime primarily affecting women and primarily perpetrated by men seriously because it’s not in their interest, and her later point of whataboutery and how the book is unapologetically focusing on male violence against women and girls. On the other hand, she is not just saying that she isn’t focusing on rape by women, she is saying with absolute certainty that it does not exist. As someone who have experienced CSA at the hands of both sexes, I can assure her that they are equally traumatising and painful, so I don’t see why only the victims of one sex are allowed to describe their experience as rape.

Furthermore, she lists prostitution and surrogacy as forms of male violence against women, alongside things like rape, slavery and public flogging. I decided to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she meant forced surrogacy or prostitution, cause surely you can not equate making the choice to capitalise on your body a form of victimisation at the hands of men? I would consider it sexist against women to claim that after spending months researching, weighing pros and cons, and eventually deciding on their own to take up surrogacy, they are nothing but a victim of men. Later she also refers to female sex workers as “women who are prostituted” which to me implies that she feels like prostitution is done to women. She never draws a distinction between women who choose to become sex workers or surrogates and women who are forced by men.

The introduction also includes a list of statistics, which I think could use a bit more context. For example she claims 7-40% of women report that their first sexual experience was forced. That’s a 33% margin, but we get no context as to how this data was collected or how on earth it is so inaccurate. She later claims that 50% of UK prostitutes working outdoors have been subjected to violence, but immediately follows up with “81% of prostitutes working outdoors in the UK has been beaten, choked, raped, threatened with a weapon, slashed or stabbed.” All forms of violence. So which is it, is 50% subjected to violence or over 81%?

Finally I would like to mention her point on revictimization. She quotes research stating that 2 in 3 women who were abused by men will be abused by men again, and theories as to why men choose those exact women. Her counter theory is that women are likely to be victims again because men abuse so frequently that it is bound to happen multiple times to the same woman, and that it has nothing to do with “our behaviour, upbringing, what we wear or how we walk down the street.” She also seems to imply that studying why certain women tend to get abused over and over is part of victim blaming, which I struggle to get behind. Sure, when it comes to how we look, what we wear, or how we walk, that is victim blaming, but I see nothing wrong with looking at what we are teaching young girls and how that can lead to them being victimised later. It is no secret that a girl who thinks she needs to be meek and submissive to men are more likely to be victimised by handsy men at a bar than a girl who kicks up a fuss. That is not victim blaming, that is discovering ways of self defence. Kicking up a fuss is a more effective way to get rid of a handsy guy at the bar than smiling and nodding along. That does not mean the meek woman is more at fault, the perpetrator is always at fault, but it means she can learn a way to protect herself.

To use an analogy my partner shared, if a car hits two cyclists, one with a helmet and one without, the driver of the car will be equally at fault in both cases, neither deserved to be hit more than the other, but the cyclist who wore the helmet is still less injured. Researching why people got hurt in crashes and what can be done better isn’t blaming cyclists who get hit by cars, it’s being realistic about it happening and finding ways they can protect themselves.

That being said, I enjoyed a lot of it, especially the excellent explanation of the gender pay gap, as well as the explanation about “whataboutery,” which I probably have used as an argument in the past as well, and something I plan to be more mindful of in the future.