#but if i say stop making gender-blind media and embrace critical gender theory i just sound like a terf | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

the-cryptographer · 4 months

Text

Mmm... I think Aloy Horizon Zero Dawn kinda disappoints me as a protagonist because I can definitely feel the ways the story went out of its way to minimise her relationship with her gender. Aloy is someone who imho would be a more resonant character if the game better explored her feelings about being outcast and excluded from her tribe AND about being excluded from societal femininity. Something I don't imagine she would simply wish to be included in either - it's complicated. But the absence of this conflict in the narrative to me feels like an oversight that can basically only be explained by trying to keep a female protagonist otherwise as comfortable for male devs/players as possible, and not letting gender influence her priorities in a way that would make them clash with those of male players.

And I think it's fair if the writers/devs didn't feel capable of tackling this. And this is of course happening in an environment of executives that are wary of funding games with female protagonists to start with and an environment of gamers who are incredibly sexist and like to complain when a fictional women is too martially competent or has vellus hair.

But, yeah... mmm... idk? I suppose this is also me disbelieving the egalitarian quality of the worldbuilding? It's not that women are less martially capable than men or unable to meaningfully hunt and fight. It's that this is a world where people are under constant threat of death via killer robots and exposure, and any group of people who regularly take on the task of leaving camp to hunt will suffer casualties. And losing too many people with wombs (who are disproportionately if not exclusively women) is uh... extremely bad for the survival of a population in a way losing people without them isn't.

So, yeah, realistically there should be fewer women hunters in this verse. And it's not a problem that Aloy - who is already an outcast and has been written off by the tribe and needed to learn to live in the wilds - is totally bamf at archery and climbing and taking down robots and bandits. Just, yeah, like... I think if anything this should be more of a mixed blessing and another thing that separates her from social conformity. And it's almost strange to feel the game lean out of this interpretation rather than into it when they have Aloy otherwise struggle against being accepted as an outcast with her own people and as an outlander with ppl of other tribes.

#i guess it's on my mind since i've also been talking about how much GoT the tv show altered the portrayal of Arya-Brienne-Cat from the books #so that male viewers wouldn't need to be bothered empathising with a young widow frustrated by & terrified for her reckless teenage son #or empathising with arya and brienne's about not fitting in with other women they care for and resent and admire #idk this game also definitely took a raceblind approach rather than critical race theory approach #(which i think is a bit more valid in a post-apocalyptic society operating on a tribal level and accompanying xenophobia)#(rather than one operating on the level of imperialism and institutionalised white supremacy like ours)#(i think a more pertinent criticism of race in HZD is that phenomically distinct populations of white and black ppl should no longer exist)#but see- i feel like i have the vocabulary to criticise that #but if i say stop making gender-blind media and embrace critical gender theory i just sound like a terf #idk i know that radical feminism as a movement has never existed separate from racism/classism/transphobia #or existed separate from misandry/misogyny - hostility towards anyone amab and infantalism towards anyone afab you disagree with #but i am often extremely fucking sad we haven't managed to build a better version of it #status update

1 note · View note

robert-c · 4 years

Text

Could Right Wing Conspiracy Theories Be Previews of What They Will Do?

A “deep state” of career government employees who hide their fanatical and hard core political beliefs while trying to implement their agenda, regardless of the party in power. Efforts to commit voter fraud by counting votes of those not entitled to vote, and/or by the suppression of votes in areas not believed to be sympathetic to “the cause”. The use of sophisticated algorithms to suppress dissident opinions in social media and other online forums. Using the excuse of a natural disaster or other crisis to activate FEMA’s emergency powers in order to detain dissidents in camps. These are just a sampling of the far right or “Alt Right” conspiracy theories.

There is no credible evidence for any of it. It is easy to dismiss it because it is ridiculously false, and because these same people love to present themselves as victims of plots etc. Yet perhaps we should be paying more attention to them. Because they may just be accusing others of doing what they themselves would do if they had the opportunity. Seeing yourself and your beliefs as under attack allows the justification of a lot of things you might previously have thought of as wrong.

They love to present themselves as being forced to embrace an ideology that they find despicable, but in fact all they are being asked to do is comply with a public societal/legal tolerance of others who believe differently, it is the same societal/legal requirement that protects them and their private beliefs. They can privately believe that women and all people of color are inferior to themselves; they just don’t get to act on it in any way that deprives others of the opportunity to prove them wrong. They don’t have to invite anyone over for dinner at their home that they don’t agree with, but they don’t get to tell others who they get to associate with.

There is a fundamental flaw in their thinking – that being tolerant of other’s differences is somehow immoral, or worse some kind of endorsement; that intolerance is a sign of lack of strength or sincerity in one’s own beliefs. We strive to have laws that make rational sense in the preservation of specifically enumerated rights we believe all people have. That is a totally different model from one that believes all laws are a reflection of a religion’s moral teachings. That is the unique difference that allows for freedom of religion here in the US. Without it one sect or another ends up controlling everything and everyone. Only a fool could imagine that their religion would always be the one on top.

Make no mistake about it, the strong coalition of right wing groups is united by hate, or at least strong emotional opposition to things. Being against changes or various specific policies and for a sort of blind personal loyalty is the consistent story told of their life inside by people who have left the right wing, from the 90’s through to today. Yet for a large part the right has been able to control the rhetoric and paint themselves people whose rights are somehow being violated. As sad and pathetic as this seems, it doesn’t make them harmless. A failed artist, a broke chicken farmer, and a host of other “losers” showed the world how dangerous people like this could be.

They are held together by opposition to change represented by any number of progressive alternatives; while progressives tend to be united around their specific issues for change. If the progressives want to ensure long lasting and permanent victory over these tyrannical notions of how people must be, then they must quit being quite so devoted to only their cause and broaden their support and agenda.

The critical days of my young adulthood were dominated by the Civil Rights Movement and the Anti-War Movement. Frankly there was little overlap between the two ideas. Add in “Free Love” and there was even less common ground. But a generation or so of people saw that all together these various ideas had personal liberty and personal choices at the core of their ideologies. Your choice of education or career to pursue shouldn’t have anything to do with your race or your gender, any more than your choice of who to love, and whether or not you did it outside of the sanctions of marriage. And what could be a greater matter of personal choice and liberty but the ability to say “no” fighting a war in which there was no threat to the USA? No matter which element was more important personally, I think most of us realized that it all had to come together or we would fail.

I urge all who think we need to improve to examine how they can link up with and support others on the same path, even if they have different agendas. The late 60’s and early 70’s were unique and remarkable times. They probably cannot be duplicated. But the key feature of a united front for change for the better, for the benefit of real and ordinary people certainly can and should be repeated.

As a “student of history” and something of an “arm chair philosopher” I believe, no, I know, that the reactionary forces that want to turn back the clock and keep us in a 1950’s “paradise” of white, religious privilege won’t prevail over the long run. But the damage and the lives they can ruin in the meantime is enormous if we don’t unite to stop them.

But there is one more lesson from the 70’s we should take forward. You have to win elections before you have any chance of changing things peacefully. Nixon won in 1972 only in part because of dirty tricks. McGovern was easily labeled too liberal for the mood of the middle ground at that time. That means we don’t get everything we want in a single step. It means we introduce that middle ground of people to the idea that the worst fears of the most reactionary are false, we build and we take every step we can. Being idealistically pure is not only of no value, it is a guarantee of failure for peaceful progressive movements. Staying true to the principles and guidelines of what we believe, while being realistic about what we can achieve in this moment is tough but it is so much better than the alternatives. No one can be sure how violent revolutions turn out.

Worst still, ideological purity is often what justifies extreme actions, whether from the right or the left. We ought to be better than that.

#conspiracy theories #extremism

4 notes · View notes

thegloober · 6 years

Text

Thumbnails Special Edition: National Disability Employment Awareness Month

by Chaz Ebert and Matt Fagerholm

October 24, 2018 |

Print Page Tweet

Thumbnails is a roundup of brief excerpts to introduce you to articles from other websites that we found interesting and exciting. We provide links to the original sources for you to read in their entirety. This special edition of Thumbnails celebrates National Disability Employment Awareness Month, which runs through the entirety of October. Our contributor Scott Jordan Harris gave us the following article recommendations, and they provide a vital array of perspectives on the need for inclusivity in media.—Chaz Ebert

“Growing Up, I Only Saw Half of Myself Represented On TV—That Needs to Change Now“: A personal essay from Bustle‘s Andrea Lausell about representations of Latinx people with disabilities. See also: Melissa Hung’s Huffington Post piece on “the most damaging way movies portray people with disabilities” and an article by prominent activist Vilissa Thompson on her Ramp Your Voice blog about portrayals of disability in the Black community.

“As I’ve grown into my adult years, it has made me happy to see Latinx-centered media begin to share stories of other marginalized non-disabled groups in the Latinx community (LGBTQ+, Afro-Latinx, Indigenous-Latinx). Representation is slowly improving with how these identities are viewed with TV shows like ‘One Day at a Time’ having a teenager like Elena Alvarez come out as queer and work through the emotions while seeking acceptance from her Cuban family. ‘Jane the Virgin’ highlights characters of color tackling the topic of immigration, all while making a political statement about our government and its treatment of people seeking a better life. Although these strides are giving us a diverse representation of Latinx culture and are being received fairly well by the community for being marathon-worthy, if Disabled Latinx were to be included in the narrative, would the public receive it as well? I’ve noticed that non-Latinx communities are just starting to embrace disabled narratives on their TV screens. Often, disabled representation in Hollywood, like in the novel-turned-film ‘Me Before You’ starring Emilia Clarke and Sam Claflin, portrays the harmful stereotype of disability being a burden. However, shows like ABC’s sitcom ‘Speechless’ have been a game changers for showing a disabled lead character happy with their life. But that’s just starting to happen now. Growing up, I learned to be ashamed of who I am because there were so few positive disabled Latinx representations on TV. Hearing from my Latinx community that disabled Latinx don’t exist — or that there’s ‘no need’ for us to be shown — told me that my place as a Disabled Latina within Latinidad wasn’t welcomed.”

“Why are disabled actors ignored when it comes to roles like the Elephant Man?“: Asks The Guardian‘s Frances Ryan. See also: Ryan’s piece on the controversy regarding Netflix’s “Afflicted” series and Julie Rehmeyer’s Los Angeles Times essay on how Netflix is “televising prejudice against the chronically ill.”

“The BBC has been widely criticised over its decision to cast a non-disabled person in its remake of ‘The Elephant Man.’ The role of Joseph Merrick – who had severe physical deformities – will be played by the Stranger Things actor Charlie Heaton. Notably, actor Adam Pearson – who has neurofibromatosis type 1, a condition which was once thought to affect Merrick – has said he wasn’t even given the opportunity to audition. As Pearson told LBC, it’s part of a culture of exclusion for disabled actors. ‘It’s a systemic problem, not only in the BBC but industry-wide.’ From Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man to Eddie Redmayne in ‘The Theory of Everything,’ it’s routine for non-disabled actors to play disabled characters, often gaining critical acclaim in the process. At best, it takes work and exposure from talented disabled actors and further adds to an arts and culture that pushes disability representation – much like race, sex and class – to the sidelines. At worst, it sees non-disabled actors mimic the characteristics of a minority group without any involvement from the community it depicts.”

“‘A Quiet Place’ proves there’s no excuse for using non-disabled actors to play disabled characters“: According to The Independent‘s James Moore. See also: Variety‘s Joe Otterson reports that Maysoon Zayid, who has cerebral palsy, will write and star in “an autobiographical comedy series in development at ABC,” while CNN‘s Wayne Drash analyzes the outrage over the portrayal of epilepsy on Netflix’s “Seizure Boy.”

“The movie is set in a post-apocalyptic world haunted by blind monsters that zero in on sound with the aid of supersensitive hearing. Silence is thus a matter of survival. Because her family uses American Sign Language (ASL) they have an advantage: they can talk to each other in a world where speaking can get you killed. The script could have fallen down at this point by having Simmonds perform a functional role without much else to do other than move the plot along for the other actors, including A-lister Emily Blunt, to shine. But it has more ambition than that. Simmonds’ Regan Abbott is a fully formed character; a stroppy teen, chafing against her parents’ overprotectiveness and haunted by what she sees as her role in her little brother’s death. It’s not just her deafness that is central to the plot: she is. She’s neither an afterthought, nor is she an inspiration, which is another trap films involving disability fall into. She’s a person. She’s also the best thing about a film that is full of good things. Director John Krasinski, who pushed to cast her, has further revealed that she changed one of the signed parts of the scripts in an important way that makes it better. In fact she elevates the whole project. As Kamran Mallick, the chief executive of Disability Rights UK, says, she brings ‘an extra dimension to the role which a hearing actor would not have been able to do.’”

“Toppling Structures of Inequality in the Documentary Field“: A great article published at IDA by Nicole Opper.

“New Day Films, a distribution co-op created by and for independent documentary filmmakers in 1971, has recently been grappling with what it means to be truly representative of the broad spectrum of filmmakers that exists, including filmmakers of color, working-class filmmakers, trans and gender non-binary filmmakers and those with disabilities—groups that have historically been underrepresented or poorly portrayed in the industry. At our Annual Meeting in upstate New York this past June, a panel was convened to discuss the findings of an Equity and Representation task force, and to open up the conversation to all member-owners of the co-op. ‘Very often in the documentary space, I’m the only person of color,’ remarked Michael Premo. Premo is the director of ‘Water Warriors,’ the story of a community’s successful fight to protect their water from the oil and natural gas industry. ‘This is also sort of dually equated with poverty, which is equally as racist as being the token black guy.’ Cheryl Green, the director of ‘Who Am I To Stop It’—a documentary about individuals with traumatic brain injuries—shared her perspective as a filmmaker with acquired disabilities herself: ‘There is no one disability community. What is a film about disability? What is a person with a disability? We’re not a monolith. There’s not one way to talk about it; there’s not one way to present it. The main way disability is represented is non-disabled people parachuting in and filming a medical story. Usually it’s one that starts off as ‘That’s gross or scary or painful! Phew! They got better.’”

“CinemAbility: The Art of Inclusion“: Scott Jordan Harris recommends Jenni Gold’s documentary in his RogerEbert.com review.

“‘CinemAbility’ is the most entertaining and comprehensive history of disability in American film and television ever made. In that sense it is the onscreen equivalent of Matthew F. Norden’s classic book Cinema Of Isolation: A History Of Physical Disability In The Movies, and Norden is prominent in the film’s opening scenes, explaining the early and generally disheartening history of Hollywood’s ideas about disability. Due prominence is given to Lon Chaney, an able-bodied actor notorious in the disabled community for making a career out of grotesque and exploitative parodies of disability. He often did so in partnership with director Tod Browning, who in 1932 made ‘Freaks’ with a cast of disabled actors. Norden uses ‘Freaks’ to make an important point about audience attitudes to disability then that is still relevant now: ‘Audiences couldn’t handle [‘Freaks’]. People supposedly went screaming down the aisles because what they were seeing on the screen were not able-bodied actors wearing tricky makeup … They were seeing authentic disabled people.’ But ‘CinemaAbility’ never feels like a lecture. It is structured like a conversation, with contributions from an array of industry heavyweights, including Marlee Matlin, Ben Affleck, Geena Davis, William H. Macy, Ben Lewin, Peter Bogdanovich and R.J. Mitte.”

Image of the Day

TV Guide‘s Alyssa Andrews explains “how TV is still failing people with disabilities,” in graphic novel form.

Video of the Day

[embedded content]

The official trailer for Jenni Gold’s documentary, “CinemAbility: The Art of Inclusion,” reviewed above by Scott Jordan Harris.

Previous Article: Thumbnails 9/28/18

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

comments powered by

Source: https://bloghyped.com/thumbnails-special-edition-national-disability-employment-awareness-month/

0 notes

mrmichaelchadler · 6 years

Text

Thumbnails Special Edition: National Disability Employment Awareness Month

"Growing Up, I Only Saw Half of Myself Represented On TV—That Needs to Change Now": A personal essay from Bustle's Andrea Lausell about representations of Latinx people with disabilities. See also: Melissa Hung's Huffington Post piece on "the most damaging way movies portray people with disabilities" and an article by prominent activist Vilissa Thompson on her Ramp Your Voice blog about portrayals of disability in the Black community.

"Why are disabled actors ignored when it comes to roles like the Elephant Man?": Asks The Guardian's Frances Ryan. See also: Ryan's piece on the controversy regarding Netflix's "Afflicted" series and Julie Rehmeyer's Los Angeles Times essay on how Netflix is "televising prejudice against the chronically ill."

"'A Quiet Place' proves there's no excuse for using non-disabled actors to play disabled characters": According to The Independent's James Moore. See also: Variety's Joe Otterson reports that Maysoon Zayid, who has cerebral palsy, will write and star in "an autobiographical comedy series in development at ABC," while CNN's Wayne Drash analyzes the outrage over the portrayal of epilepsy on Netflix's "Seizure Boy."

"Toppling Structures of Inequality in the Documentary Field": A great article published at IDA by Nicole Opper.

“New Day Films, a distribution co-op created by and for independent documentary filmmakers in 1971, has recently been grappling with what it means to be truly representative of the broad spectrum of filmmakers that exists, including filmmakers of color, working-class filmmakers, trans and gender non-binary filmmakers and those with disabilities—groups that have historically been underrepresented or poorly portrayed in the industry. At our Annual Meeting in upstate New York this past June, a panel was convened to discuss the findings of an Equity and Representation task force, and to open up the conversation to all member-owners of the co-op. ‘Very often in the documentary space, I'm the only person of color,’ remarked Michael Premo. Premo is the director of ‘Water Warriors,’ the story of a community's successful fight to protect their water from the oil and natural gas industry. ‘This is also sort of dually equated with poverty, which is equally as racist as being the token black guy.’ Cheryl Green, the director of ‘Who Am I To Stop It’—a documentary about individuals with traumatic brain injuries—shared her perspective as a filmmaker with acquired disabilities herself: ‘There is no one disability community. What is a film about disability? What is a person with a disability? We're not a monolith. There's not one way to talk about it; there's not one way to present it. The main way disability is represented is non-disabled people parachuting in and filming a medical story. Usually it’s one that starts off as ‘That's gross or scary or painful! Phew! They got better.’”

"CinemAbility: The Art of Inclusion": Scott Jordan Harris recommends Jenni Gold's documentary in his RogerEbert.com review.

“‘CinemAbility’ is the most entertaining and comprehensive history of disability in American film and television ever made. In that sense it is the onscreen equivalent of Matthew F. Norden's classic book Cinema Of Isolation: A History Of Physical Disability In The Movies, and Norden is prominent in the film's opening scenes, explaining the early and generally disheartening history of Hollywood's ideas about disability. Due prominence is given to Lon Chaney, an able-bodied actor notorious in the disabled community for making a career out of grotesque and exploitative parodies of disability. He often did so in partnership with director Tod Browning, who in 1932 made ‘Freaks’ with a cast of disabled actors. Norden uses ‘Freaks’ to make an important point about audience attitudes to disability then that is still relevant now: ‘Audiences couldn't handle [‘Freaks’]. People supposedly went screaming down the aisles because what they were seeing on the screen were not able-bodied actors wearing tricky makeup ... They were seeing authentic disabled people.’ But ‘CinemaAbility’ never feels like a lecture. It is structured like a conversation, with contributions from an array of industry heavyweights, including Marlee Matlin, Ben Affleck, Geena Davis, William H. Macy, Ben Lewin, Peter Bogdanovich and R.J. Mitte.”

Image of the Day

TV Guide's Alyssa Andrews explains "how TV is still failing people with disabilities," in graphic novel form.

Video of the Day

youtube

The official trailer for Jenni Gold's documentary, "CinemAbility: The Art of Inclusion," reviewed above by Scott Jordan Harris.

from All Content https://ift.tt/2OOlC4P

0 notes