#especially because gender roles dictate that the boy asks out the girl | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

la5t-res0rt · 4 years

Text

this was written several weeks ago in response to asks i was receiving i am posting it now it is very long the longest i have ever made and it is not very well edited but here it is in this final essay i talk about how shitty rae is about black people in her writing as well as just me talking about how her writing sucks in general lets begin

hello everyone

as you may know i have received a lot of anons in the last week or so about issues of racism in the beetlejuice community both just generally speaking and also within specific spaces

i was very frustrated to not be getting the answers i wanted because i typically do not talk about what i do not see but in an effort to be better about discourse i went looking through discourse from before my time in the fandom and i also received some receipts and information from my followers and from some friends

keep in mind that the voices and thoughts of bipoc are not only incredibly important at all times but in this circumstance it is important that if a bipoc has something to add you listen and learn and be better

i admit that when this happened i wasnt aware of the extent of what occurred and im angry at myself for not doing more at that time and i want to work harder to make sure something like this doesnt go unnoticed again

im a hesitant to talk about months old discourse because i have been criticized for bringing up quote old new unquote but this is very important and i am willing to face whatever comes from to me

lets talk about this

content from our local racist idiot that may be months old but its important

putting my thoughts under a cut to spare the dash but before i begin obviously this is awful

lets fucking unpack this folks

right out the gate op states that she supports artistic freedom but then within a couple words she goes against that statement

being entirely canon compliant isnt artistic freedom and even so if this person has so much respect for canon they wouldnt be out here erasing lydias obvious disgust for beetlejuice in the movie or ignoring lydias age for the sake of shipping that shit isnt canon either

also we love the quick jab at the musical there hilarious we love it dont we because god forbid a licensed and successful branch on a media have any standing in this conversation but whatever

now lets scroll down and talk about the term racebending

the term racebending was coined around 2009 in response to the avatar the last airbender movie a film in which the east asian races of the characters were erased by casting white actors in the three leading roles of aang sokka and katara

whenever the term racebending is used in a negative light it is almost always a case of whitewashing like casting scarlett johansen in ghost in the shell or the casting of white actors of the prince of persia sands of time instead of iranian ones

this kind of racebending erases minorities from beeing seen in media and is wrong

all that being said however racebending has also been noted to have very positive after effects like the 1997 adaptation of cinderella or casting samuel jackson as nick fury in the marvel movies nick fury was originally a white guy can you even imagine

i read this piece from an academic that said quote writers can change the race and cultural specificity of central characters or pull a secondary character of color from the margins transforming them into the central protagonist unquote

racebending like the kind that rae is so heated about is the kind of creative freedom that leads to more representation of bipoc in media which will never be a bad thing ever no matter how pissy you get about it

designing a version of a character as a poc isnt serving to make them necessarily better it serves to give new perspective and perhaps the opportunity to connect even more deeply with a character it doesnt marginalize or erase white people it can uplift poc and if you think uplifting poc is wrong because it tears down white people or whatever youre a fucking moron and you need to get out of your podunk white folk town and see the real world

the numbers of times a bipoc particularly a bipoc that is also lgbt+ has been represented in media are dwarfed by what i as a white dude have seen myself represented in media is and that isnt okay that isnt equality and its something that should change not only in mainstream media but in fandom spaces as well

lets move down a bit further to the part about bullying straight people which is hilarious and lets also talk about the term fetishistic as well lets start with that

this person literally writes explicit pornography of a minor and an adult are we really going to let someone like that dictate what is and what isnt fetishistic

similarly to doing a positive racebend situation people may project lgbt+ headcanons on a character because its part of who they are and it helps them feel closer to the character and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that

depicting lgbt+ subject matter on existing characters isnt an inherently fetishistic action generally things only really become fetishistic when the media is being crafted and hyped by people who are outside of lgbt+ community for example how young teens used to flip a tit about yaoi or how chasers fetishize trans people

but drawing a character with top surgery scars or headcanoning them as trans is harmless and its just another way to interpret a character literally anone could be trans unless if their character bio says theyre cis and most of them dont go that deep so it really is open to interpretation and on the whole most creators encourage this sort of exploration because it is a good thing to get healthy representation out in the world

as for it being used to bully straights thats just funny i dont have anything else on that like if youre straight and you feel threatened and bullied because of someone headcanoning someone as anything that isnt cishet youre a fucking idiot and a weak baby idiot at that like the real world must fucking suck for you because lgbt+ people are everywhere and statistically a big chunk of your favorite characters arent cishet sorry be mad about it

lets roll down a bit further about the big meat of the issue which was when several artists were drawing interpretations of lydia as a black girl which i loved but clearly this person didnt love it because they have a very narrow and very racist and problematic view of what it means to be a black person

and before i move forward i must reiderate that i am a white person and you should listen to the thoughts of poc people like @fright-of-their-lives or @gender-chaotic it is not my place to explain what the black experience is like and it certainly isnt this persons either

implying that the story of a black person isnt worth telling unless if the character faces struggles like racism and prejudice is downright moronic

why use the word kissable to describe a black persons lips now thats what i call fetishistic and its to another extreme if youre talking about a black version of lydia on top of that

the author of this post says herself that shes white so clearly shes the person whos an authority on the black experience and what it means to be a black person right am i reading that right or am i having a fucking conniption

how about allowing black characters to exist without having to struggle why cant a black version of lydia just be a goth teenager with a ghost problem who likes photography and is also black like she doesnt have to move to a hick town and get abused by racist folks she doesnt have to go through any more shit than she already goes through and if you honestly think thats the only way to tell a black persons story you need to get your brain cleaned

you know nothing about the complexities about being a black person and i dont either but you know wh odo black people who are doing black versions of canon characters they fucking know

lets squiggle down just a bit further

so the writer has issues with giving characters traits like a broad nose or larger lips if theyre a woman but if theyre a man suddenly its totally okay to go all ryan murphy ahs coven papa legba appropriation when approaching character design like are you fucking stupid do you hear yourself is that really how you see black men like what the fuck is wrong with you

none of the shit youre spewing takes bravery it takes ignorance and supreme levels of stupidity

do you really think you with your fic where a black lgbt+ woman is tortured and abused where you use the n word with a hard r to refer to her like that shits not okay its fucking depraved and yeah we know you love being shitty but like christ on a bike thats so much

can we also talk about this

what the fuck is this fetishistic bull roar garbage calling this black character beyonce dressing her up in quote fuck me heels unquote are you are you seriously gonna write this and say its a shining example of how to write a black character youre basically saying ope here she is shes a sex icon haha im so progressive and i clealry understand the black experience hahahaha fuck you oh my god

on top of that theres a point where this character is only referred to as curly hair or the fact that the n word is used in the fic with the hard r like thats hands down not okay for you to use especially not in a manner like this jesus christ

oop heres a little more a sampling for you of the hell i am enduring in reading this drivel

oh boy lets put a leash on the angry black woman character lets put her in a leash and have the man imply hes a master like are you kidding me are you for real and what the fuck is with calling her shit like j lo and beyonce do you actually think thats clever at all are you just thinking of any poc that comes into your head for this

also lydia fucking tells this girl that she shouldnt have lost her temper like she got fucking leashed im so tired why is this writing so problematic and also so bad

hold up before i lose my head lets look at some of her own comments on the matter of this character and what happens to her

hi hello youre just casually tossing the word lynch out there in the wide open world as if thats not a problem that is still real like are you fucking unhinged there have been multiple cases of this exact thing happening in our firepit of a country in the last five months alone like how can you still have shit like this up for people to read how can you be proud of work like this in this climate

and also what the fuck is that last bit

what the actual fuck

i dont speak for black people as a white person but you do!? im sorry i had to get my punctuation out for that because wow thats fucking asinine just because one black person read your fic and didnt find the torture and abuse of your one black character abhorrant doesnt mean that the vast majority of people not only in the fandom but in the human population with decency are going to think its okay because its not

i started this post hoping to be level headed and professional but jesus fucking christ this woman is something else white nationalism is alive and well folks and its name is rae

if you defend this woman you defend some truly abhorrant raecism

editors notes

in order to get some perspective on these issues more fully some of the writing by the author was examined and on the whole it was pretty unreadable but i want to just call back to the very beginning of this essay where the person in question talked about holding canon in high regard but then in their writing they just go around giving people magic and shit and ignoring the end of the movie entirely like are you canon compliant or nah

the writing doesnt even read like beetlejuice fanfic it reads as self indulgent fiction you could easily change the names and its just a bad fanfic from 2007

also can we talk about writing the lesbian character as an angry man hater like its 2020 dude and als olets touch on that girl on girl pandering while beetlejuice is just there like here we go fetishizing again wee

i cant find a way to work this into this already massive post but

im going to throw up

okay so thats a lot we have covered a lot today and im sure my ask box will regret it but this definitely should have been more picked apart when it happened

please feel free to add more to this i would love more perspectives than just my own.

#long post #racism #raecism #im so tired #thanks for reading

41 notes · View notes

priorireverte · 3 years

Photo

Congratulations Rachie!

Your application for Narcissa Malfoy has been accepted. I am so excited to have both halves of one of my favourite pairs around, and to see Narcissa being amazing and calm and collected even when facing a total upheaval of her world—again.

Please look to the checklist for the next steps and reach out if you have any questions!

OUT OF CHARACTER

NAME & PRONOUNS: Rachie / She/her

AGE: 29

TIMEZONE: GMT

ACTIVITY LEVEL: I can generally be on every day for a few hours, and then a little bit more at the weekends! I work full time (and am currently in temp housing) but I try to find time each day to be online cause rping is my stress relief!

ANYTHING ELSE: No triggers. But I’ve been rping in the HP world for approx 10ish years? I’ve rped on a dedicated site, and then more recently on tumblr. I’ve also been rping non-HP role plays on tumblr on and off for about five years.

CHARACTER DETAILS

NAME: Narcissa Violetta Malfoy (neé Black)

BIRTHDATE: 31st August 1956

DEATHDATE: N/A

GENDER, PRONOUNS, and SEXUALITY: Cis Woman, she/her and Demisexual. When asked, Narcissa would more than likely say she was straight, and has probably never been attracted to anyone not male. But in actual fact it is the emotional connections she has with a person that really leads to the eventual sexual attraction. In actual fact since she has had a strong emotional bond, and relationship with Lucius, she has never looked at anyone else in that manner at all.

BLOOD STATUS: Pureblood

HOUSE ALUMNI: Slytherin

OCCUPATION: Technically Narcissa is unemployed, and most of the Wixen world would view her as a housewife, and having never worked a day in her life. In actual fact Narcissa has ‘worked’ as a private potioneer ever since she graduated Hogwarts. She brews and works out of Malfoy manor. Of course, she’s very exclusive, and charges very high rates. It was generally the other purebloods that she would brew potions for.

FACECLAIM: Charlize Theron

CHARACTER BACKGROUND

POSTBELLUM

If there was one thing that drove Narcissa more than anything it was her family. She had always been a family person, and to her there was nothing more important than the family she had created. They were the reason she made the choices she did, and why she betrayed the Dark Lord. One might not even call it a betrayal. Technically she wasn’t a death eater. She was never marked. But it was clear to the Wixen world the side she had chosen. But she had chosen to betray the cause anyway, and she does not regret it. The war hadn’t been anything she had really wanted, and so for it to end, was something she was grateful for.

She isn’t the woman she was then though. Not anymore. In the manor, she might seem more like herself. But she sometimes finds herself more clingy, or more in need of physical contact. It sucks because she doesn’t really have many people that want to hug her anymore. Her relationship with her husband sometimes feels strained. She still adores Lucius, but it’s been more difficult since the war. They both went through so much, and are both still working through things. But what Narcissa knows is that she will always love and be dedicated to her husband, regardless of the choices he made.

These days Narcissa is just taking each day as it comes. She still worries that someone might change their mind about the Malfoy’s getting a pardon. She could probably talk her way out of getting imprisoned, technically she was never actually involved. But she worried about what a jail sentence would do to her husband and son. She tries to hold her little family together and navigate through the world.

But she is fearful. Fearful of what will happen if her sister, or the dark lord come back through that veil. She betrayed them, and she knows they will come for her if that happens. Now she’s just praying it won’t happen.

PERSONALITY

positive traits: Loving, Loyal, Fighter, Determined, protective negative traits: Manipulative, Calculating, Cold, worrier

Narcissa has always been a loving, loyal and protective person. She has always been a person with a huge heart, even if from the outside people might disagree. When she loves, she loves hard, and it is almost impossible for her to stop loving someone. This of course was tested when Andromeda left. If being honest, Narcissa still loves her sister, but she had to turn away, if only to protect herself. The bonds she forms are deep, and very emotional. They can be taxing, and sometimes too much.

As loving and friendly she is to those lucky enough to be close to her, Narcissa is also incredibly calculating, cold and manipulating. She has an extraordinarily strong talent in manipulating people to do her wishes. Add a cold exterior, and she managed to get a ice queen reputation. To be honest, it kind of amused her, as it was really so far how she would describe herself. But it fended off the people that she once thought weren’t good enough to be around her. It’s been a reputation she’s found hard to shake off in recent years, and she stills finds herself having to prove that she is kind and caring. Narcissa still doesn’t care too much about what people think of her though. People will talk about her regardless.

Narcissa is incredibly academically talented. Sadly at school she wasn’t really allowed to pursue a career, and her parents didn’t want her to focus too much on her schooling. But Narcissa was very clever. Her best subject was potions, and she was determined to carry on brewing, even after she graduated. It was a huge stress reliever for her, and she know being able to brew, and escape from reality, is something that kept her sane over the years.

Family has always been important to Narcissa, and if anything was the main driving factor in everything that she did. That is something that is being tested at the moment, especially with Bellatrix being back. She always said she would be loyal to her family, but this was a little too far. It is something she is really struggling with, and she finds that she really doesn’t have anyone to talk too about it.

BRIEF OVERVIEW OF FAMILY

The one thing striking from her childhood was the need to always be perfect. The Black sisters had to be perfect in every sense of the manner. It was a tough childhood, one filled with distant parents that never seemed to be quite happy enough. Narcissa was lucky in the sense that she was the baby of the three, but even then, she wasn’t a boy, and so her father would always be disappointed. Along with the need to be perfect, became the need to be pure. The law of being pure was pressed into her from a young age, and breaking that law became something that the young girl would become terrified.

The only decent thing really was her sisters. The three Black sisters formed a bond like no other, and Bellatrix and Andromeda were big factors in making her happy. Having her sisters love made the disappointment her parents expressed a little more tolerable. Everything would be okay as long as she had her sisters.

But then suddenly she didn’t have Andromeda, and it felt like her world was collapsing around her. The net suddenly got tighter then, and Narcissa probably couldn’t have left even if she had wanted too. Narcissa was just lucky that she was soon an adult, and could at least escape her parents house. They might have still had some influence on her, but she had a bit more freedom then.

Growing up in the Black family was hard. She always had to be perfect, and she always had to be pure. But the love she got and expressed for her sisters helped to shape Narcissa into who she became, and for that she couldn’t regret, or want to change anything that she had gone through.

HISTORY

To be honest, just before the end of the war her life was pretty terrible. The death eaters were running out of her house, and she felt like her life was being dictated. This wasn’t what she signed up for when she married Lucius, and she hated it. She hated not feeling comfortable, or happy in her own home. Tensions were high, and the only reason she survived was because of her family. It was tense with Lucius too, but he and Draco kept her going. She had to keep them safe, and that gave her a purpose.

Before then, before the dark lord had returned, her life has been pretty great. She got to do basically whatever she wanted, and it made her happy. Sure, she should have been upset that they hadnt won the first war. But, she was just happy that she got to live the life she wanted. She brewed her potions, and she had her family close. Family was the most important thing to her, and she was just glad that they were safe. The world might mistrust them, but they were safe, and for that she would be forever grateful.

The second wizarding world was hard for Narcissa. She shared the view points of the death eaters, but it took her husband away from her. First, at night, when he went on tasks for the dark lord, and then completely when he was sent to Azkaban. It was only her loyalty, and her love of her family, that kept her in that manor. Her love for Lucius was tested, but her marriage vows never faltered. For better, for worse.

She was a Black and a Malfoy, and so, at Lucius’ side was where she stayed. If that was the right choice….. only time would tell.

OOC EXPLORATION

WHAT ARE YOU MOST LOOKING FORWARD TO?

Narcissa has always been one of my favourite characters in the harry potter world. I love being able to really delve into who she is, and what drove her to become who she did. We get so little about her in the books, and so I love basically having a blank slate to work on. It really interests me in being able to play Narcissa, and see who she is as a person. There is so much more to Cissa than just being a mother, and I love the opportunity to explorer this.

This roleplay has such an interesting idea. Not only does it have the post-war to explore, which is so interesting for the the Malfoys. But it also has the fact that people are coming back from the dead. Technically Narcissa is a traitor to both sides, and it’s something that I am really looking forward to exploring! I’m also looking forward to exploring the relationship between Lucius and Narcissa, and seeing how this was shaped and changed by the outcome of the war. Lucissa is my fave HP ship, and this is something that really excites me!

ANYTHING ELSE?

Nothing right now, but i’ll probably set her up an pinterest cause I love creating aesethetics for my charries!

#prioriacceptance #narcissa malfoy

5 notes · View notes

newhologram · 3 years

Text

Now that I'm once again committing to being openly #trans, stepping out of the rain and under the umbrella that used to keep me dry, I wrote something up for family, friends, and followers who may have questions:

Dear family, friends, and Holograms: Thank you for your kind messages. Even though most of you already knew this about me for so long, it feels so good to be more public, to be a voice just by being me, and to have your support. It's amazing to me to see that many of you have stepped into the role of an ally and are willing to learn more.

I'm writing this up to maybe offer some clarifications on things relating to trans identity in general but mostly my personal experience with gender. It's my hope that this will give you a template to work from. I don't want anyone to be so worried about offending me that they don't know how to talk to/about me. I want this to be comfortable for all of us. This is only my experience of gender at this time, so please remember that if you meet another trans/nb person, they will likely have a completely different experience than me.

Let's start with queer, which is an umbrella term for anyone who is not cisgender and/or heterosexual. It can be a useful label for someone who is not interested in having to spell out both their sexual/romantic orientation and their gender identity every time (it can get complicated even for us). Some of us might not fit neatly into the letters of LGBTQIA (notice it contains Q still) so this is the reason some people are comfortable with the label. Sometimes we do fit into the acronym, but queer is inclusive and we like it. It's also what's often used in academia. Queer history, queer literature, queer art, etc. Freddie Mercury is often referred to as a queer icon for example. Now, it can be a regional thing, as in some parts of America, queer is not considered a reclaimed slur (since it means "weird") like it is for say, a lot of Californians. While some of us feel empowered to own being "different" or "weird" while fighting for representation and rights, others may object to being called "not normal". Ultimately it's always up to the individual to decide what they are comfortable calling themselves, not what other people should be allowed to call themselves. I was always the weird kid and I have so much trauma around that and as an adult I'm like... yeah, you know what, I'm queer and proud. Now onto gender which is the focus of this post: transgender is an umbrella term. Trans as a prefix means "across" or "beyond", so transgender people have experiences and identities across or beyond gender. Non-binary is a gender identity under the trans umbrella. It refers to identities that are not strictly within the binary of man or woman. Non-binary itself is another umbrella term for many different genders such as agender (without gender), pangender (all genders), genderfluid (gender that shifts and changes), and many more. Gender is complex and varied across cultures and societies, so that's why there are so many different ways to describe it. Some may feel that not just one word works for their experience, so they may choose multiple labels or maybe even none at all. AFAB (assigned female at birth) and AMAB (assigned male at birth) is a way to describe what our assigned sex is without using "biological" or "born a (sex/gender)" as this is often used to invalidate trans experience --however, a lot of trans people who have transitioned may find it helpful to describe their experience as "born (and raised as) a girl" (again, up to the individual). We are all assigned sexes at birth but this obviously has no bearing on our gender identity or expression.

When I was a teen, "transsexual" was commonly used to describe a transgender person who transitioned, but this has fallen mostly out of use by now--But remember that being trans is not just about medically transitioning to another sex. There are many trans/nb people who do not transition, or who may make changes here and there to make their bodies more comfortable and fit their identity without necessarily transitioning. Whether or not this is a transition is going to be up to the individual. The social transition of coming out as trans/nb can be just as drastic as anything medical. (For those wondering why it even matters when celebrities come out as trans/nb if they aren't going to "change their bodies"--Visibility and authenticity. Just like I'm doing.)

Now on to me: I cannot accurately or concisely describe my lived experience of gender since it's informed every other experience of my life, but I will try. I'm NB and I definitely don't feel like a woman, but this doesn't necessarily mean I feel like a man either. "Boy" and "girl" do feel more relatable and accessible for some reason. I feel simultaneously and alternatingly like either, both, neither, all, any, and also just me.

Like I said, I can't really describe it. But for whatever reason, "boy", especially "feminine boy" has always felt more like my default energy. Don't ask me why, it is what it is. When I put on makeup, I never feel like a girl doing it even if I'm consciously exploring an archetype like "flapper girl" for example. It has always felt like princess drag to me. People were clocking me on this even when I tried to be a normal "girl". I often wonder if this is why I always felt so ugly before and now when I fully embody my gender as it is, I suddenly feel beautiful and comfortable. I feel closest to feminine or fluid archetypes, it's just how I express myself. This would not change if I were AMAB, I'd be just as feminine. I'd still be the same me.

Pronouns, for me: I can't say that my feelings on this will stay the same forever, but for now, I'm okay with any and all pronouns. I have some longtime followers who refer to me as he/him and that's amazing and so affirming!! *chef's kiss* But it's totally okay to use she/her with me too. Because I am aligned with feminine archetypes, I can't resist using she/her for myself often especially if I'm all dressed up in kawaii drag. They/them is also acceptable. This also goes for it being okay to refer to me as either a girl or a boy (or gendered family relation terms. But like, I'm Mommy to my cats, not Daddy xD)--Even though I'm not strictly one or the other, I feel all genders. While I agree with the common AFAB feeling of it being frustrating that she/her/girl/woman is always going to be considered my default by most people, and that this is/was a source of a lot of my gender dysphoria, I promise you won't offend me by referring to me as such. Often when speaking out my experience of being perceived as a woman, I might refer to myself as such because I'm talking about the way I am interacted with. (ie, it's okay to DM me like "HEY GIRL:･ﾟ✧ but the only way you’ll actually offend me is to insist I am “just a girl”/invalidate my lived experience/try to dictate my identity and labels)

It's still hard for me to share this very vulnerable part of my identity, even after having talked about it for 10 years online and with friends already. I'm probably going to keep having waves of anxiety over this as I shift into living daily life from the truest expression of myself. It really is enough for now to have you recognizing and acknowledging this very special big part of who I am and how I live. To be able to say it now everywhere and not just on my blog feels like a new universe being born. In closing, here are examples if that was too much information to ingest and understand all at once and you're not sure what words to use when referring to me: "This is my [family member], she's queer." "This is my friend New's page, he's non-binary." "This is my coworker's art, she's genderfluid." "This is a blogger I follow, they're pangender." "New is a trans model, this is his latest work." These labels and pronouns are all fine! :> I love you all. Thank you for letting me shine.

#teku #personal #gendery wendery #long post #this is written mostly for my family members who want to be allies #just thought it would help them a lot #and save me time explaining to everyone xD

4 notes · View notes

apptowonder · 4 years

Text

On the Inherent Chaotic Queer Energy of “Cats” (No, Really)

In Which the Author Relates His Early Affinity For the Musical Cats, And Meditates in Rapt Contemplation On Its Effect On His Own Queer Coming of Age.

Ok, I’ll drop the Eliotian/Victorian pretense. But in all seriousness, this is going to be a long ramble on the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical Cats, because I saw the recording of the 1998 Broadway performance again for the first time in probably 14 years and it made me Feel Feelings (tm). Plus a comrade of mine expressed similar enthusiasm and it inspired me.

I -- First Viewing

When I was 10 or 11 years old, for a brief period after seeing Cats for the first time at a local dinner theater production, I was enamored in ways I couldn’t put into words. I was not, and have not really ever been a theater queer. I did a few plays up through high school, and stopped doing theater in college when I lost interest and found out it would take time away from gospel choir. But there was something about the way these characters moved, the charisma they carried themselves with that stuck with me. Unlike some of my queer friends, I don’t have the sense that “I always knew” I liked boys as well as other genders. As a tween, I felt very aloof from romantic interest except for one long-lasting crush on a girl in 5th grade that lasted through middle school. But as I continue to look back, I do think I felt a certain stirring in my gut for certain charismatic male figures, almost like an imprinting. Early affection and crushes manifested in a desire to be like the attractive heroes I admired.

I wanted to be Mr Mistofelees, the Original Conjuring Cat. I also wanted to be Munkustrap, the unassuming but brave and suave narrator, unofficial leader of the Jellicle Tribe. Honorable mention goes to the Rum Tum Tugger, whose rock star persona definitely exudes bi energy, but he felt less approachable to me. In any case, though I didn’t realize it at the time, something was very queer about these cats.

II -- On the Naming of Cats -- Munkustrap

Why I felt drawn to this character is hard to sum up. He doesn’t have his own song, his name is only listed in the program. But he does have considerable stage time. Serving as the narrator and Master of Ceremonies for the Jellicle Ball, right-hand man to Old Deuteronomy, and the only cat willing to go toe to toe with Macavity, he had a certain gravitas that I found compelling. He is humble, as I strive to be. Caring and protective of his family, but not overly aggressive. Confident, but not overbearing. He seemed that he would be the perfect gentle lover, someone who could take you to new and unexpected places but would also make sure that you were safe and loved.

On a deeper level, perhaps my identifying with this character was a kind of rehearsal for the years to come. Munkustrap served as both the boy I wanted to meet and the boy I wanted to be. When I came out and became invested in queer community and queer Christian community especially, I found myself slowly falling into the role of psychopomp and threshold guardian for some of my gayby Christian friends who were either newly coming out or newly trying to reconcile their faith and sexuality. I would direct them to apologetics resources, but I think my greater strength was in being a kind of MC who would invite them into a new queer reality, a celebration of the richness of life and a vision of the vastness of both theology and queer vibrancy. In a sense, I invited them to a Jellicle ball.* I would invite them to dance beneath the moon of our shared experience, and show to them that far from being incomplete or broken, they had their own power and beauty, were possessed of “Terpsichorean powers” which would serve as a mysterious gift to the wider world.

The first boy I dated was a Munkustrap. Gentle, but fun-loving. Willing to meet me where I was, but also encouraging me to new heights of intimacy, feeling and adventure. Though we eventually parted ways, we remained good friends, and I will be forever grateful to him for leading me from an abstract appreciation of my queerness to a deeply embodied possession of it that I can now live out for the glory of God and the good of humanity, like a cat has a deep embodied possession of its third and secret name.

III -- On the Naming of Cats -- Mr. Mistoffelees

“Oh, well I never! Was there ever a cat so clever as magical Mr. Mistoffelees?”

Coming in at the eleventh hour to save the day, Mr. Mistoffelees employs his magical powers to rescue Old Deuteronomy when all other help fails. In the production I saw, he literally flies down onto the stage (on a wire) and proceeds to produce phantasmagorical phenomena and easily conjures up the kidnapped patriarch of the Jellicle Tribe from the place he’s been sequestered. He is flashy, elegant, flamboyant, coy, “aloof” but always fun-loving. Perhaps more importantly, in all the performances I’ve seen, he seems elegantly attuned to some deeper sixth sense. Beneath the playful surface is a deep power that manifests in impressive ways. The show relays his power through the metaphor of stage magic, but to me he also seemed to have a touch of something mystical, spiritual. I felt both awe and affection for that sensitive attunement, and how it was packaged in such a playful personality.

In my own life as queer clergy, I have sought to develop that kind of attunement. Though spirituality is a bit slower and more messy than conjuring, I have received compliments from colleagues queer and straight that I often speak the exact right prayer for the needs of a given moment. I write poems and try to breathe new life into the life-giving stories of my spiritual tradition, my life and the lives of my queer tribes. I’m always eager to come up with an impromptu liturgical service when circumstance dictates, and I draw on vocabulary from the saints and mystics as well as my own love of language and poetry. Playfulness is, to me, a spiritual virtue, and I love to offer inspiring surprises from the depths of the wisdom I have inherited from those who have gone before. When friends (especially queer Christian friends) are stuck in demoralizing binaries and limited horizons of purity culture, toxic theology, or other spiritual burdens, I will often pull a shimmering anecdote from the lives of the saints, or an ancient word of curiosity that opens up a new way of seeing the world. In a way, I’m pulling kittens out of hats.

Ironically but also fittingly, when I kept my queerness under wraps, my poetry was vivid but strained. Overwrought, often melancholy but rarely insightful. And I would pray when someone asked me to, but it generally consisted of generic requests that didn’t really mean much to me. I had to become fabulous and be willing to be in touch with the queer wonder of both my loves and my experiences before I began to really tap into that spiritual current that I am still learning how to channel for the life of the world. I’m still a beginner, and in my day to day life I’m fairly quiet and introspective. Aloof, perhaps. But I feel that my openness to queer joy, queer eros and queer vibrancy have begun to throw open a way to my own wholeness and the invigorating and revival of many of my communities. I don’t do this alone, and I am still learning from my many queer elders and forerunners. As I study and practice and bring forth vision, I continue to learn “from Mr. Mistofelees’ conjuring turn.”

At Pride a year or two ago, I met a Mr. Mistofelees of sorts. A pagan boy, playful and flashy, with a golden voice. He ended up being a bit too flighty for me, but he helped me find a bit more of my flamboyant side by getting me to do karaoke, and introducing me to the queer night life in a new city. In our own separate ways, we both helped each other I think be deeper attuned to that electric queer energy that flows into creativity, presence, wonder and resilience like lightning flows from Mistofelees’ fingertips. We pranced about our respective stages and conjured beauty for one another.

IV -- Memory (Some Thoughts on the Queerness of the Musical, and Some Final Reflections)

And what of the musical as a whole. What is it about Cats that struck such a chord with my very young queer self, and still does?

To me, it has an energy to it that resonates very deeply with queer experience. It delights in elevated pageantry, but it takes its own internal logic and way of being seriously. There is something about the mystery and spectacle of it that feels like a queer way of being. Despite the charge leveled against us by demagogues and queerphobes that we’re simply decadent, queer experience to me has always been about experiencing a heightened sense of reality, be that in adventure, sensuality, joy, beauty, celebration or pleasure. As the meme goes, before you say we’re too much, ask yourself, are you even enough?

Furthermore, the show is sensual and embodied in a way that many more conventional Broadway musicals aren’t. It delights in being just a little bit bawdy, while at the same time showcasing an excellence in the choreography and visuals that requires a good deal of skill and physical effort. In coming out and coming to know queer community, I began to listen better to my body and to be more comfortable in my own skin. To delight in the magic of touch and sensory beauty.

Finally, the sensuousness that undergirds the show also displays a very free flowing romantic and affectional subtext between different characters. Two cats may flirt or make eyes at each other, but there’s no expectation that they might not also catch the eye of a completely different cat in the next scene. They perform with a subtle erotic undertone that suggests both tenderness and hedonism, but all in the context of a tight-knit community that cares for its own. The fanfiction community for Cats presents a rainbow of different romantic pairings for various characters, and the lack of consensus as to which ones are “canon” speaks to the show’s affectational fluidity and dynamism.

In the end, the Jellicle cats all present a world within the everyday that is deeply queer and fluid, a “thin space” where personalities are larger than life and anything is possible. In this gay and mystifying romp, I was moved to a consideration in the years since I saw it of my own “secret names” as a future queer seminarian and priest (though I didn’t know it then). While it may seem bewildering to some, I continue to cherish it as a tribute to the great mysteries of queer existence, love and community. And that’s how you address us cats.

*Props to my comrade for extending on and fleshing out this metaphor in his blog post.

#cats #theology #queer theology #andrew lloyd webber #musicals #theology of media #theology of theater #biography #church #history #mister mistoffelees #munkustrap #rum tum tugger

9 notes · View notes

xxladylovexx · 5 years

Link

The crusade to cancel my talk at Toronto Public Library

Meghan Murphy

October 18, 2019

This week, three Canadian writers launched a petition demanding the Toronto Public Library cancel a room rental for a sold-out event, ‘Gender Identity: What Does It Mean for Society, the Law, and Women?’ Sounds frightening, I know.

The local women organizing the event, a group called Radical Feminists Unite, asked me in June if they could bring me to Toronto to speak about gender identity legislation and women’s rights, unhappy that the debate was not being given space in their city. This is not an uncommon sentiment. The events I have been asked to participate in generally have been organized by regular women who have serious concerns about how gender identity ideology and policy could affect, and already is affecting, women’s sex-based rights. Canada in particular has been resistant to this discussion. Due to media blackouts, harassment, bullying, threats of violence, smear campaigns, censorship, and ostracization, a few brave women have had to force the conversation, at great risk.

In January, a couple women took it upon themselves to organize an event in Vancouver, ‘Gender Identity Ideology and Women’s Rights.’ These women had no budget, no public or political power, no history in activism or organizing events, and no agenda, other than to open up a conversation they feel is desperately needed. The panel, held at the Vancouver Public Library, featured me and two other longtime feminist activists with impeccable records fighting male violence against women. The organizers and I received numerous death and rape threats, were protested, and were libeled by politicians and the media. The VPL forced us to move the event after hours (to 9:30 p.m. on a weeknight), claiming that protesters posed a risk to patrons and staff. They attempted to charge us thousands in security fees in an effort to pressure us to choose another venue, surely aware we didn’t have that kind of budget. The chief librarian, Christina de Castell, issued a statement saying the library did not agree with ‘the views of Feminist Current,’ my website. Castell did not say which views the library disagreed with (protecting women’s sex-based rights or the idea that sexist gender stereotypes are not innate?), but regardless, she should not have taken a position, as a representative of a public institution meant to be neutral, nor should she have spoken on behalf of the VPL, as not everyone at the library is in agreement with her apparent opposition to both biology and women’s rights. Vancouver’s mayor labeled me ‘despicable’. Canada’s national public broadcaster, the CBC, located across the street from the library, refused to cover the event or contact me for comment, despite hosting a panel prior to the event, speculating whether panelists might say anything constituting ‘hate speech’. Of course none did. Despite protests, the event went off without a hitch and was incredibly respectful, inspiring, and galvanizing. The impassioned talks are available on YouTube for anyone to watch and see for themselves.

But why bother? Listening to words and forming an educated opinion based on said words is no longer a popular pastime.

Things have played out similarly in Toronto. The primary difference is that it is now writers leading the charge. You know, people who should be invested in reading and using words correctly.

Not only that, but writers of all people should be defending freedom of expression and a public library’s decision to uphold its mandate, which, per the TPL’s response to the petition, is to ensure meeting rooms are available to the public ‘on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use’. The statement goes on to say: ‘As a public institution, our primary obligation is to uphold the fundamental freedoms of freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression as enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.’

This response was unacceptable to the writers and thousands of Torontonians (many of whom I’m certain would consider themselves ‘progressive,’ even ‘feminist’) wanting my talk canceled. Indeed, those who have signed the petition, ‘Stop Hate Speech from Being Spread at the Toronto Public Library,’ have publicly stated I am guilty of ‘hate speech’ and compared the organizers to a ‘hate group’. The petition, authored by Alicia Elliot, Catherine Hernandez, and Carrianne Leung, reads:

‘Those who want to disseminate hate speech today know that they can misrepresent, then weaponize the phrase ‘freedom of speech’ in order to get what they want: an audience, and space to speak to and then mobilize that audience against marginalized communities. While everyone has freedom of speech, we want to once again point to the limits of those freedoms when certain acts and speech infringe on the freedom of others, particularly those in marginalized communities. We also want to point out that hate groups do not have a right to use publicly funded facilities to meet and organize. This is precisely why TPL has a community and event space policy: to determine who and who does not have the right to use its facilities. There is a difference between denying free speech—and what is known as deplatforming, which is when you refuse to allow hate speech to be disseminated in your facility. This has been an effective tactic to stop those who capitalize on spreading hate speech, such as Meghan Murphy.’

The problem is I’ve never engaged in hate speech. I have made very basic statements about biology, such as ‘men aren’t women’ and ‘male bodies and female bodies are different.’ I have also argued that some spaces should be women-only, including changing rooms, transition houses, and prisons. I have said that individuals cannot change sex through self-declaration and that a boy is not a girl because he prefers dresses to pants. I have said that women have particular rights in this world due to the fact of being born female. I have said that women have not experienced discrimination in the workplace, in the home, in universities, and in politics because of anything they feel or because they somehow ‘identify’ with feminine stereotypes. In fact, it is the desire not to be limited to gender roles that inspired feminists’ ongoing fight.

Usually, I say this all warmly. I’m not generally an angry person but quite jovial, in fact. I don’t spend much of my energy hating anyone beyond slow walkers and morning people. I’m just telling the truth.

The writers who initiated the petition say they will no longer participate in events held at the TPL unless the library cancels my talk, which is fine, I suppose. It is their prerogative if they wish to hold readings for their friends in spaces untainted by free thought. Surely the condos their parents bought them have shared rec rooms available for such gatherings? Cozy bubbles seem better suited for those needing to protect themselves from triggers such as people with different opinions and experiences, anyway.

The whole scene strikes me as nauseatingly elitist, especially the entitlement with which these ‘progressive’ people approach members of the public — in this case, women with no particular social, political, or economic power — as though they should have the power to determine what we all think or say. As though they have the right to dictate what a library, of all places, should allow to be discussed within its walls.

These protesters are primarily middle- and upper-class people who have had access to opportunities most people in this world have not. Who live in relative safety, free from state persecution — who have the privilege of freedom in a world that continues to host dictatorships and incredibly repressive regimes that quite literally jail and murder those who fail to toe the party line. They have taken a postmodernist theory invented primarily within the walls of academia — that is, the notion that material reality is determined by inner feelings — and are attempting to impose it on the general public via force. These people have taken on the position of dictator, threatening to throw those who won’t adopt their nonsensical mantras in jail. Indeed, a former politician with the NDP, Canada’s leftist party, publicly claimed the event was ‘illegal’ while her supporters said I should be jailed.

On Thursday, Toronto mayor John Tory said he had contacted the library in an attempt to have the event canceled and is ‘disappointed’ the library declined to do so. What is in fact ‘disappointing’ (indeed, appalling) is that the mayor of Toronto does not understand the TPL’s mandate as a public institution and opposes freedom of expression.

These leftists seem unaware that opposition to free speech has not treated their presumed heroes kindly. They have so easily forgotten Emma Goldman, who was imprisoned for distributing information about birth control. And Rosa Luxemburg, arrested and killed by the GKSD, a German paramilitary unit instructed to suppress the communists. Surely the suffragettes deserved to be jailed and beaten for fighting to win women the right to vote, as their ideas were deemed too ‘radical’, not only by their opponents but other feminists and abolitionists. They have apparently not paid much attention to the female activists arrested and tortured in Saudi Arabia for advocating that women be allowed to drive. Journalists continue to be murdered in Mexico for reporting on police corruption and the drug war. But no matter. Protecting free expression is clearly a relic of the past, before we had multi-billion-dollar social media companies on hand to police dangerous speech. (‘On top of that, she has been banned from Twitter for violating their Hateful Conduct Policy’, the petition reads, as though In Big Tech We Trust is an appropriate mantra for supposed social justice advocates.)

At what point in history has suppressing subversive speech benefited the marginalized? Or anyone, really?

The CBC again failed to include the organizers or myself, the speaker, in its ‘coverage’ of the event. On a segment that aired Wednesday, Gill Deacon, host of Here and Now Toronto, spoke with Elliot, who stated that I was ‘trying to take away the rights of people’, ‘preach[ing] against human rights’, and did not believe ‘transwomen should have protections’ under the Human Rights Act or Criminal Code, claiming this constituted ‘spreading hate’. That none of this is accurate was of no concern to Deacon or Elliot. The CBC sees no need to allow me to speak for myself and explain my apprehensions because, I assume, my arguments are so reasonable people might agree with me. While Elliot claimed that I was ‘lying’ when arguing that gender identity legislation could override women’s rights, this has, unfortunately, already happened, as we’ve seen men transferred to women’s prisons, where they have assaulted female prisoners; women forced to leave shelters and transition houses on account of being made to share rooms with men; women and girls made to compete with and against males in sport; women’s organizations denied funding for having a women-only policy; and of course as we’ve seen a number of estheticians dragged to the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal for declining to wax a man’s balls, because that man claimed to be female. What Elliot says there is no evidence for, there is ample evidence for. Which of course she would know, had she ever read my work, listened to my talks, or engaged in conversation with me, rather than using her platform to spout bigoted nonsense.

Ironically, if not for free speech, these individuals would not feel so safe to libel those they don’t like — which appears to be the go-to strategy of the Woke and Online. One wonders why they believe their speech should protected — even when hateful or slanderous — but not the speech of others. It is a modern hypocrisy I will never understand.

Unfortunately for these protesters and petitioners, the TPL will not be canceling the event, and I will continue to speak the truth in the face of threats, slander, harassment, ostracization, and actual hate speech. I will do this not because I have anything personally to gain from doing so but because I could not live with myself otherwise. I will not be silent while women’s rights are eroded, and I will not lie either under duress or to make friends. My integrity is worth more to me than my comfort or popularity, and yours should be too.

Meghan Murphy is a writer in Vancouver, British Columbia. Her website is Feminist Current.

#transgender lobby #library #free speech #writing #women's rights #identity politics #news #toronto #female erasure #feminism

6 notes · View notes

theteablogger · 6 years

Text

Diversity and character death in DAYD

(Or, “DAYD’s diversity iz pastede on yay”.)

This long-as-fuck post has been sitting in my drafts since sometime in 2015. I decided to finish and publish it because an ex-DAYDian suggested that it might still be useful. The initial idea was to examine how Andy's portrayal of various characters’ gender and sexuality had changed over time. Later, I expanded it to look at a number of different “diversity labels” that Andy applied to his characters, and how they related to who lived or died. When counting casualties, I have excluded those who were resurrected after Druim Cett.

On gender and sexuality:

First, here is each instance that I am aware of in which Andy listed his LGBTQIA characters. Unfortunately, I don’t have links for everything: most of the “20 Random Facts” lists are no longer online, I don’t want to link to chats that include DAYDians’ real names, and I only have some of the Tumblr posts in the form of .docs compiled by DAYDians on the Facebook group.

Undated: In “20 Random Facts About Luna Lovegood”, Luna is described as bisexual, but “she never [got] around to acting on it”. (A DAYDian wrote that list with Andy’s approval and with information provided by him. Later, Andy seemingly forgot about that and wrote another one that didn’t mention her sexuality.) In Susan, Colin, and Icarus’s “20 Random Facts”, Andy says that they are also bisexual. Derek’s says that he is gay, and Rowan’s implies that she is only attracted to girls. Stephen and Gwen’s “20 Random Facts” were each written by other DAYDians with Andy’s approval. Stephen’s says that he’s gay, and Gwen’s seems to imply that she dates both boys and girls, but prefers boys. Much later, in a Tumblr list of his LGBTQIA characters, Andy said that Gwen is a lesbian.

Sometime between April 2008 and July 2009: In his FAQ, Andy said, “I have no problem with slash or homosexuality. Rowan Glynnis and Malcolm Braddock both 'stir their cauldrons in their own direction.' IMHO, both Colin and Luna are bisexual.”

July 14, 2009: In the comments to his “Slash Goggles” post, Andy said, “Luna sees herself as pansexual. Gender is entirely irrelevant when she is looking for a partner of any kind, especially as she doesn't see it as a binary construct, or even a continuum, but as a physical detail as irrelevant to personhood as the color of one's hair. Colin honestly died too young to really know...certainly, he was bicurious, and he certainly liked girls, but where his sexuality would have developed can't be known when it never finished developing.” He also said that Colin, Luna, Stephen, Derek, Victoria, Rowan, Dean, and Gertie are the only characters that “fall under some form of ‘queer’” and that it would be “tokenism” to include a trans person in a group the size of Dumbledore’s Army.

July 17, 2010: Andy said that Derek, Dean, Susan, Stephen, Rowan, Vicky, Colin, and Icarus are “not strictly heteronormative”.

May 26, 2011: In the midst of a post about a lot of other things, including the Trail of Tears hike, Andy listed his "LGBTQ-spectrum characters” as follows: “Derek, Stephen, and Dean were gay, Susan, Icarus, and Colin bisexual, Michael and Terry bicurious, and Victoria and Rowan lesbians, and several of the characters have challenged the socially dictated gender roles, like Ricky fighting to keep his daughter as a single father and Susan heading up the farm and fund after Ernie’s death.”

June 5, 2011: In a chat with several DAYDians, Andy said that his LGBTQIA characters were Derek, Stephen, Dean, Icarus, Colin, Susan, Rowan, and Vicky. He further stated that Derek and Dean are gay; Icarus and Susan are bisexual; Colin is bicurious; Rowan is a “baby bull dyke”*; and Victoria could be either a lesbian or bisexual, but we’ll never know for sure because she died in the Battle of Hogwarts. He didn’t state Stephen’s specific orientation in the chat. In the comments to the LJ post in which the chat was shared, Andy acknowledged that he’d previously said that Luna is bisexual. He also mentioned for the first time that Terry is asexual.

June 15, 2011: In another chat, Andy clarified that Stephen was gay, as was Derek. He also said that Colin was bicurious, but considered himself bisexual.

September 22, 2012: In a Tumblr post listing DAYD characters and their labels, Andy said that Derek, Stephen, and Dean are gay; Malcolm is genderqueer; Terry is homoromantic/asexual; Michael is homoromantic/heterosexual; Colin, Icarus, and Victoria are bisexual; Rowan is a lesbian; and Luna is “pansexually identified”.

Later that month: In response to a Tumblr ask, Andy confirmed that Terry is homoromantic/asexual. In another response around the same time, he listed his LGBTQIA characters as follows: “Dean, Derek, Stephen, Colin, Susan, Icarus, Vicky, and Rowan out, Gwen deeply closeted maybe-lesbian-maybe-bi, Malcolm heterosexual but genderqueer, and Luna panfashionable…she likes to think of herself as pansexual but has never actually gotten the warm tinglies for anything that wasn’t cismale.” Shortly thereafter, he referred to Susan as “openly bi”.

March 5, 2013: Andy repeated that Malcolm is genderqueer/heterosexual and mentioned for the first time that they’d changed their name to Morgan.

January - February 2014: Over the course of several Tumblr asks, Andy repeated two or three times that Michael is homoromantic/heterosexual and Terry is homoromantic/asexual (but they “could be fairly called ‘a queer couple’”). He also referred to Malcolm as genderfluid.

Here’s a breakdown by character.

Colin: Bisexual according to the 2008 - early 2009 FAQ and his “20 Random Facts”, but bicurious in July 2009. Bisexual in May 2011. Bicurious in June 2011. Bicurious, but self-identifying as bisexual, later that month. Bisexual in September 2012. He is also included on the nonspecific July 2009 and July 2010 lists. Colin dies during the Battle of Hogwarts. He is very prominent in DAYD and a number of side stories, and appears as a ghost in A Peccatis.

Dean, Derek, and Stephen: Derek and Stephen are both described as gay in their “20 Random Facts” lists (Dean doesn’t have one). They are not mentioned in the FAQ post. All three are “some form of ‘queer’” in July 2009 and “not strictly heteronormative” in July 2010. Starting in May 2011, they were consistently described as gay whenever Andy was specific about their sexuality. They all die during the Battle of Hogwarts. Derek and Stephen barely appear in DAYD, although they’re both in “Reasons”. Derek also has his own “Rank and File” story and appears in “Boys Will Be”. Stephen briefly shows up in a couple of Mike-and-Terry fics and appears in a flashback at the beginning of A Peccatis. Dean only comes into DAYD for the battle and is not present in any of Andy’s other fic.

Gertie: First referred to as “some form of ‘queer’” in July 2009 and never mentioned as LGBTQIA before or after that. Her gender identification and sexuality are unspecified. She dies during the Battle of Hogwarts. Gertie doesn’t appear in DAYD at all, but has three whole lines in a side story (”Turning the Tide”).

Gwen: Dates both boys and girls, but prefers boys, according to her “20 Random Facts”. She is a lesbian, according to an undated Tumblr post. Andy describes her as “deeply closeted maybe-lesbian-maybe-bi” as of September 2012, but her sexuality is not mentioned on his “labels” list that month. She is also absent from the FAQ post and the July 2009, July 2010, May 2011, and June 2011 lists. Gwen dies during the Battle of Hogwarts. She is only mentioned once in DAYD. Her sole significant appearance in any of Andy’s fic is in “Wanted”, which portrays a sexual encounter between her and Jack Sloper.

Icarus: Bisexual according to his “20 Random Facts”. He is absent from the FAQ post and from the list of “queer” characters in July 2009, but is described as “not strictly heteronormative” in July 2010. Icarus is consistently referred to as bisexual starting in May 2011. He is murdered in Sluagh (before Druim Cett, so he isn’t resurrected). He is only mentioned once in DAYD, but is fairly important in Sluagh and features in a couple of side stories.

Luna: Bisexual in the 2008 - early 2009 FAQ post and her “20 Random Facts”, pansexual in July 2009, “pansexually identified” in September 2012, and “panfashionable” later that month. She is absent from the July 2010 and May 2011 lists of non-heteronormative and/or LGBTQIA characters, and Andy explicitly stated that she never actually feels sexual attraction for anyone other than cisgender men. luna survives DAYD, in which she is very much present, and is out of the country during Sluagh. She also appears in A Peccatis and some side stories.

Malcolm/Morgan: Implied to be gay in the 2008 - early 2009 FAQ post. First mentioned as genderqueer and heterosexual in September 2012 and consistently described as genderqueer (or genderfluid) and heterosexual thereafter. Absent from the July 2009, July 2010, May 2011, and June 2011 lists. Their gender identification is never mentioned in fic; it only appears in three responses to Tumblr asks and an infodump on the Facebook group. Morgan is also one of only two Slytherins to join Dumbledore’s Army: Andy portrayed them as an effeminate stereotype alongside Terrence Runcorn’s hypermasculinity. They live, perhaps only because they become too frightened to remain in the DA following the murder of their housemate. Morgan is barely in DAYD, and their only other appearances are in a snippet with Renny and in a short fic recounting their departure from the DA.

Michael and Terry: See this post. They both die in the Battle of Hogwarts. They are very prominent in DAYD and Andy’s other fic, and they also appear in a flashback at the beginning of A Peccatis. Andy had planned to write another fic, called Oubliette, in which the two of them would turn out to have been in limbo since the Battle of Hogwarts, and a “voodoo queen” named Mama Nola (yes, really) would offer to resurrect them ~for a price~.

Rowan: Her “20 Random Facts” heavily implies that she is attracted to girls. She’s implied to be a lesbian in the 2008 - early 2009 FAQ post, first specifically called a lesbian in May 2011, and consistently described as such after that. She is also included on the nonspecific July 2009 and July 2010 lists. Rowan dies during the Battle of Hogwarts. She has an important role in DAYD, but is not very prominent in spite of that. Rowan appears in a few side stories and shows up in A Peccatis as a horribly mutilated ghost.

Susan: Bisexual according to her “20 Random Facts”. She is absent from the July 2009 list, but is described as “not strictly heteronormative” in July 2010 and as bisexual in May 2011 and thereafter--except that Andy didn’t mention it in the September 2012 “labels” list. Susan never feels or expresses attraction to anyone but cisgender men in fic: although her “20 Random Facts” does say that she sleeps with women after Ernie dies, that is the only time it’s ever mentioned. Later, Andy did some Supernatural crossover Susan/Ruby fanart that may or may not be considered DAYD canon. Susan survives DAYD and Sluagh and is extremely important throughout the entire trilogy. She also appears in quite a few side stories.

Victoria: “Some form of ‘queer’ in July 2009 and “not strictly heteronormative” in July 2010. She is called a lesbian in May 2011, but described as either a lesbian or bisexual in June 2011, and bisexual in September 2012. She dies during the Battle of Hogwarts. Her only actual appearance in DAYD is when she faints on the Hogwarts Express, and she’s only in one side story and a snippet with Rowan.

The three most prominent LGBTQIA characters not involved with Dumbledore’s Army are Robin (Icarus’s Sluagh-era fuckbuddy, always referred to as gay), Brian (Irish auror who is revealed to be gay during A Peccatis), and Emerson (Malcolm’s partner, always described as genderqueer or genderfluid). Neither Robin nor Emerson appears in Andy’s fic, although Robin is in a very brief snippet written in response to a Tumblr ask. Brian died at Druim Cett, but was apparently resurrected along with everyone else.

As a side note, the “defying gender roles” business mentioned in the May 2011 LJ post is only noteworthy because Andy and all of his DAYDverse stories are so very, very gender essentialist. The examples that he gave are especially amusing to me because they both represent extremely common tropes in romance novels. For years, Harlequin and similar publishing houses have been churning out single dad romances by the dozen because they’re so popular. There are entire publishing lines dedicated to them! Also ubiquitous is the tragic young widow who “defiantly” chooses to run her late husband’s farm and raise their child single-handedly until a big, strapping, manly man (with optional Dark Past) comes along to help her. My own mother has several of those books on her shelf, most of the historical and/or Christian romance subgenres.

That was as far as I got in 2015. More recently, I looked back at Andy’s LJ post from July 17, 2010, in which he broke down the cast list by which labels fit them: people of color, non-Protestants, people with disabilities, etc. I cross-referenced those lists with casualty lists from DAYD and Sluagh. I have to admit that I haven’t read A Peccatis very closely, so if any of these characters died in that fic, I missed it.

* No, it is not okay for Andy to say things like this. Yes, he still uses this kind of language a lot.

On diversity and death:

Andy’s DA has 78 members, of which 36 are female and 42 are male (although one of the guys later identifies as genderqueer). 12 members of the canonical DA who have already graduated return for the Battle of Hogwarts. 5 of those are female; 7 are male. Of the 90 total DA members, 56 (62%) die in DAYD and Sluagh.

I’ve already noted that of the 14 LGBTQIA members of Dumbledore’s Army, 11 die. One of the three survivors (Morgan) isn’t in any fic other than DAYD, in which they exist only to make Renny look more manly, and a couple of short side stories. Susan and Luna’s sexuality is informed-only, and Andy waffled about Luna a lot.

Of 15 characters of color--Andy omitted Cho Chang--seven (Stephen, Dean, Tommy, Padma, Parvati, Romilda, and Cho) die in DAYD. Two more of these characters are maimed: Tony Goldstein loses both legs and Li Su (called Su Li in canon) loses her entire body below the waist. They later get married. Emma sustains a traumatic brain injury and her back is severely scarred. Salome is so badly injured that it takes her a year to recover.

Of the 21 non-Protestant characters on this list, 13 (Stewart, Terry, Michael, Stephen, Leslie, Wayne, Oisin, Tommy, Camellia, Padma, Parvati, Romilda, and Icarus) die and two more (Tony and Li again) are severely maimed. Salome is injured as mentioned above. Neville is scarred to the point that he develops severe, chronic back problems as a result.

Of eight characters who are themselves immigrants to the UK, or are first-generation children of immigrants, five (Ritchie, Stephen, Tommy, Padma, and Parvati) die. Li and Salome survive with severe injuries, as described above. Fritz Bagman (an OC) survives, but loses both hands.

Of four characters born with physical disabilities, two (Jack and Ernie) die. Emma is injured and scarred as previously mentioned.

Every single one of the six characters that Andy says had psychological conditions prior to DAYD (Anna, Terry, Gwen, Gertie, Jack, and Perseus) dies during the Battle of Hogwarts.

Andy also lists ten characters who are extremely rich or poor in his fic, and five of those (Ernie, Michael, Katie, Orla, and Hal) die. He indicates that six characters have criminal pasts, and two of them (Rose and Icarus) die in Sluagh. Of five characters who have substance abuse problems in DAYDverse, only one (Terry) dies.

Finally, Andy names all of the characters who are “their own definition of feminist”, i.e., every female character in Andy’s version of Dumbledore’s Army except Anna, but apparently none of the women from the canonical DA who’d already graduated, and no men at all. Again, Andy’s DA has 36 female members (of 78 total). 23 of them (too many to list) die in the Battle of Hogwarts and two more (Rose and Rachel) at Druim Cett. Another female member of Andy’s DA (Laura) dies four years after the Battle of Hogwarts from injuries sustained therein. In addition, five of the 12 original DA members who return to Hogwarts for the battle are female, and three of them (Katie, Alicia, and Cho) die.

The only student deaths in DAYD that also occur in canon are Colin Creevey’s and Fred Weasley’s. (Lavender Brown dies in part two of the film version of DH, but the book is unclear as to whether she survives being mauled by Fenrir Greyback.) Rowling does indicate that besides Fred, Colin, Tonks, and Lupin, the death toll on the side fighting against Voldemort is about fifty; however, none of the others is named. It is very unlikely that all or even most of the remaining dead are students. There were the Order of the Phoenix, staff members, Hogsmeade villagers, Aurors, house elves, centaurs, and others fighting at Hogwarts as well. Oh, and the only students below year seven who were actually present were Colin and Ginny. It was entirely Andy’s choice to have fifty-plus Hogwarts students, many as young as 14, die between the Battle of Hogwarts and Druim Cett. It was also his choice to kill them in a variety of horrible, disgusting, often degrading ways, all described in graphic detail. The text on this promotional image may as well end with, “...but they probably die horrifically.”

Most of these characters’ backgrounds are entirely of Andy’s own making, as well. Other than a handful of POC characters and one who Rowling specifically said was Jewish (Tony), the Harry Potter series is pretty terrible with regard to representation. On the surface, that seems to make Andy look pretty good. It’s important to note, though, that most of the above information about these characters is not actually included in DAYD, Sluagh, A Peccatis, or even Andy’s side stories. It mostly came up after the fact on Andy’s LJ or tumblr, in chat, in Q&As, or in “20 Random Facts” lists about the characters. Later, one of his readers might use that information in a fic of their own. When a mention of someone’s ethnicity, etc. does show up in the main trilogy, it is often presented in a problematic way, with stereotyping and fetishization of people from “exotic” races or cultures. The Patil twins are the most obvious examples of this, but someone also recently pointed out to me that the DA members constantly refer to Romilda using an ethnic slur. So while Andy’s fanfiction does have greater representation across the board than Rowling’s novels do, he handles it very poorly and it’s obvious that much of it is an afterthought. Given that he was building a cult around his fanfiction, I believe his motives were most likely to widen the DAYDverse’s demographic appeal and to get people as emotionally invested in the characters and the ‘verse as possible--and ultimately in him, because he literally called himself God in the fandom.

TL;DR: I don’t think Andy deserves much credit for “great representation” when a) it was actually hugely problematic, and b) he killed or severely injured most of his diverse cast in such gratuitously terrible ways that large chunks of both DAYD and Sluagh can only be described as torture porn.

A few other items of note:

Others have written about how despite his alleged commitment to diversity, Andy’s art and writing make it abundantly clear that everyone in his version of the DA is gorgeous and athletic. The only DA member who gains weight (Icarus) does so after the events of DAYD and as a deliberate choice for armchair-psychology reasons. Only the villains are unattractive.

Andy does casually kill off a lot of characters off-screen or with a quick one-line reference, despite criticizing Rowling for doing exactly that.

I learned from this post by ladyloveandjustice that one of the characters that Andy killed off-screen was based on a real child who had a terminal illness, wrote to JKR, and died before receiving a reply. JKR gave her a cameo in one of the novels as a tribute, and Andy added her name to a list of “the fallen” without a second thought. (Ladyloveandjustice’s sporking of all of DAYD is worth a read, actually. Or just see the wrap-up post, which nicely summarizes some of the major issues with DAYD.)

#daydverse #andythanfiction #thanfiction #andrewblake #andrewmblake #andy blake

36 notes · View notes

browngirlwisdom-blog · 6 years

Text

“Hurt People, Hurt People” on Junot Diaz’s piece on Silence & Childhood Trauma by @BrownGirlWisdom__

Cw: sexual violence, mention of suicide

I've had some time to process Junot Diaz’s piece on silence and childhood trauma. I laid in bed, listened to the audio recording because I really had no energy to visually read it. If you have not read it, find the article here. In the presence of Sexual Assault Awareness Month and the #MeToo movement it is quite the time to really invest, revisit the reality of sexual violence and how it impacts folks of color. Many points resonated with me in his piece. My intent is not to discredit the pain, trauma and courage it took for him to be vulnerable in a patriarchal world that is not kind to vulnerability. I intend to provide my reflections as a survivor, a recovering Catholic, Mexican identified, non-Black, queer girl on masculinity, mental health, sexual violence, the familial structure as potential toxic site and religion as an oppressive institution that were brought up in Junot Diaz’s piece.

Interrogation of Catholicism as an Oppressive Structure and Tool of Conquest

What happens when praying isn't enough?

Religion is not always the cure for mental illness. Junot states, “Of course, I never got any kind of help, any kind of therapy. Like I said, I never told anyone. In a family as big as mine—five kids—it was easy to get lost, even when you were going under. I remember my mother telling me, after one of my depressions, that I should pray. I didn’t even bother to laugh.” First, families of color just do not have the language to put into words what depression is so they resort to calling us “locas/locos” and tell us to go “pray” which continues to stigmatize mental illness within our community. I often think about how religion is usually the mode of “healing” for many. It is important to interrogate how religion can be an oppressive force. Specifically in the context of Catholicism on the island of the Dominican Republic, Junot Diaz in an interview states that it is important to critique, be more “transparent” about the “syncretic” religion that has a history rooted in the plantations and a dictator as he states in a Youtube interview titled “Junot Díaz talks religion, Dominican identity, and writing.” on his reflections on The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wilde. He advocates for a democratic Dominican Republic and states he is “not here to comfort anyone”. Religion, specifically Catholicism has a history of being used as a tool for manipulation, coercion, displacement, forced assimilation of native folk to whiteness and enslavement of Black people. Religion then becomes a place of isolation, dehumanization, ostracization and massacre. Catholicism has been used as a form of indoctrination of the gender binary and gender roles. Which again, reinforces the dichotomy that men must always be strong and women must be fragile and passive. I feel like many of you who really rely on religion as a form of healing space please take this in slowly. I do not suggest to completely get rid of religion in itself because I used to rely on Catholicism as a form of escape and healing. Now I identify as a “recovering Catholic” for many reasons of my own. I will push us as a community to continue to think about the role of Catholicism as a hegemonic force that continues to uphold much of the systems that hurt us as a community. How can we push the church to recognize its power, misuse of power as an institution, as a socially accepted religion as opposed to practices rooted in the Quran, Santeria, Brujeria, and other spiritual and religious practices? Religion is not always a cure for mental illness within our community, especially given it’s violent history. Connecting this back to sexual violence, what happens when the church demonizes sex, promiscuity without taking into account sexual violence and it’s history of abuse of power? What happens when praying isn't enough?

Addressing Rape Culture

All this to say that sexual violence exists within our communities and we must not remain silent or complacent in rape culture. Here are ten reasons why rape culture is so bad in the Latinx community according to Mala Munoz in “10 Reasons Why Rape Culture is So Bad in the Latinx Community”. These are some of the reasons: the risk of deportation, difficulties seeing sexual assault for what it is, age and generational trauma, lack of family support, family unity takes priority, community supports the perpetrator, lack of consequences and accountability for abusers, negative responses are psychologically damaging, lack of support means high likelihood of revictimization, and survivors forced to create their own support system.

Accountability Now: Men of Color Need to Hold Men of Color

Boys and Men of Color Create Spaces to talk Masculinity!

I also believe that Junot Diaz’s piece is a start to a conversation that men of color should start to invest more time in their feelings, trauma, healing so we can collectively combat systems like the patriarchy, misogyny culture that continues to silence us and enables us from being our authentic selves. Junot Diaz describes his sexual relationships and failed relationships with women which is important to note. We must think about how Junot’s promiscuity and act of using women to move along the world with his trauma was harmful. I think that this is also an opportunity to talk about how men of color need to take accountability of the trauma they cause women of color, while having experienced trauma. Men of color should be having a conversation among themselves about the realities of toxic masculinity and trauma that womxn of color have to experience due to the lack of spaces that allow men of color to work through their trauma. Men of color should hold space for other men of color to be vulnerable. In short, men of color hold other men accountable and make space for each other to process and own their experiences and be honest. And womxn of color should not have to be there to process, but the reality is that many womxn of color do do that emotional labor to support the men of color in their life. So men of color, if you have womxn of color in your life that love and support you, say your Thank You’s.

Womxn of Color Can We Stop Making Excuses For Men of Color

So I also invite womxn of color to reflect on how we possibly navigate the world internalized and how we can move beyond that to really challenge these larger structures like sexism

We as womxn of color need to also stop apologizing for men of color. Internalized patriarchy and misogyny that convinces us to continue to protect and hold delicately the men of color in our lives. And the reality most of of us are not in a place to do that work due to violence we have felt from men of color and/or we can potentially put ourselves in a violent situation due to retaliation. All these concerns are real. Where do we start? Connecting with each other and building solidarity among one another and not pitting against each other for men of color that treat us like trash and waste basket for their toxic coping mechanisms. So I invite us womxn of color to reflect on how we possibly navigate the world internalized and how we can move beyond that to really challenge these larger structures like sexism, patriarchy, and misogyny. Have a conversation among each other. Check-in with each other at a family event, work space, within academia, in the streets, at a party setting and etc. We also need to address transphobia that is deeply embedded in our culture. I invite us to think critically about the gender binary and not only support our cis-ters but all of our sisters. Just like...”We deserve more complexity in these narratives. As corny and played out as the phrase is, it is true that hurt people hurt people. One can both be a survivor and a perpetuator of harm, especially if their trauma compacts with patriarchy. I would love for more attention, gratitude, credit, agency and space be given to those women who helped or loved or were hurt by those hurt men along their way, especially Black women. We deserve it.” as stated by Briana L. Urena “In the darkness men leave behind the women and emerge in the light clean and free”.

Moving forward:

I appreciate Junot Diaz’s vulnerability and became very emotional closer to the end since again, I resonated with a lot of what he expressed. It became sort of a mirror to feelings I have been carrying within myself. I also imagine how men of color can use this as an opportunity to lean more into their vulnerability. Of course, Junot Diaz is not free from critique but also it is a honest way to reflect on his reality to hopefully begin to own the harm he caused along the way. This becomes a larger conversation around addressing rape culture within our community, cultural stigma and inaccessible mental resources within the Latinx community, the need for informal spaces for men of color to address toxic masculinity, and for women of color to invest in each others wellbeing. How can we move forward with Junot Diaz’s vulnerability to change the culture of silence among the Latinx community? This is a start and I believe a platform to address sexual violence, mental health, and religion is always vital and much needed moving forward.

And I still have questions, so I ask: What is the impact when our Latinx families keep trauma silenced? What does it mean when we are unable to unpack what hurts us and who hurt us? What does it mean when we continue to uphold and reinforce toxic structures that lead many of our community members to call it quits? Where do we start? How do we move forward as a community? Towards a more healing and nurturing place? How do we take into account inequities that our communities face and also hold each other accountable for the damage we may have inflicted? How do we hold space for one another? Who should be holding that space?

Finally, I end with this quote by the one and only Gloria, “Why am I compelled to write?... Because the world I create in the writing compensates for what the real world does not give me. By writing I put order in the world, give it a handle so I can grasp it. I write because life does not appease my appetites and anger... To become more intimate with myself and you. To discover myself, to preserve myself, to make myself, to achieve self-autonomy. To dispell the myths that I am a mad prophet or a poor suffering soul. To convince myself that I am worthy and that what I have to say is not a pile of shit... Finally I write because I'm scared of writing, but I'm more scared of not writing.”

Resources:

http://ocrcc.org/the-intersection-of-sexual-violence-and-disability/

https://www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/mazeofinjustice.pdf

https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/posts/colonial-history-creates-religious-syncretism-in-the-dominican-republic

https://www.schoolhealthcenters.org/healthlearning/boys-and-young-men-of-color-bmoc/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/03/16/feminism-glossary-lexicon-language/99120600/

https://eji.org/history-racial-injustice-sexual-exploitation-black-women

https://www.rainn.org/articles/sexual-assault-men-and-boys

https://transequality.org/issues/anti-violence

#junot díaz #sexualassaultawarenessmonth #sexualviolence #mentalhealth #mentalillness #writersofcolor

1 note · View note

bigbooksandhottea-blog · 7 years

Text

Story of my Life

Let’s take it from the top. When I was born, several things happened in quick succession, I screamed, I peed all over my mother, and I was pronounced female. That moment would dictate how I lived the rest of my life, which is ironic since I haven’t done much screaming since (I daresay I’ve forgotten how to perform that particular vocal act), and I never wet the bed after I got out of diapers, you could say I’ve rebelled against my female designation as well, with more than my fair share of body dysphoria, but mainly I was just never sure of the purpose of the small F on my birth certificate and all the legal documents that followed.

I seemed to be the only member of my family who felt this way. I was born into a very traditional Catholic household and learned these gender roles from a young age. At that time, my main model for femininity was my mother. I did not want to be like my mother. She was very servile to my dad and siblings while also being high strung and anxious. These two things were likely connected, and neither of them seemed appealing to me. I decided very early on that I did not want to be a mother, assuming that I would end up like my own mother, but even worse, that I would have a child who was similarly unappreciative.

This was frowned upon in the Catholic church, where the prime directive for a woman was to have babies. In the bible, that was almost all they wanted, from Sarah to the two women defending their motherhood to King Solomon. Even my namesake, Rebekah, is most famous for her deception of her husband in favor of her favorite son. Indeed, it could be said that Catholics are so against abortion because the faith is so entwined in the idea of reproduction, that is how I got indoctrinated after all.

Religion in general should not be discounted as one of the great shapers of our society. While Catholicism cannot necessarily be construed as a dominant religion, it is a branch (although it would be more historically accurate to say the trunk) of Christianity, which has dominated much of the Western world for centuries. This has not been without its consequences.

I cannot speak for the rest of Christianity, but I know from years of experience that Catholicism is steeped in ritual and tradition. This has led to a cultural appreciation for these things, which isn’t always bad, but can be harmful in the case of gender roles. Having said that, my mother tried desperately to get away from the housewife mentality of her time, getting a degree as an electrical engineer and having my dad be the one to stay home with me when I was too young to go to school. I was impressed when I heard this story, until my mom told me that she had hated every minute of engineering school.

This introduced me to the concept of feminism for the sake of feminism. A similar phenomenon is present in Boulder that I like to call progressivism for the sake of progressivism. Boulder prides itself so much on being a progressive town that it shows open hostility to those who are not “open-minded,” which has created something called the “Boulder bubble.” For those inside, it can feel like a utopia of free thinking, but for those outside, it feels like an exclusive club that only the fit, white elite are privy to. As part of progressivism, feminism is also included in this, particularly what Roxanne Gay describes as capital-F feminism.

Capital-F feminism was extremely prevalent in the second wave feminism that my mom participated in. Although it did spurn her to getting a well-paying job and a comfortable life, she did not end up doing what she wanted until much later. Despite not wanting to be like my mother, I am still her daughter and I too briefly pursued an engineering degree. Unfortunately, I have very little motivation to do things I do not enjoy, so that pursuit ended in a spectacular crashing of my GPA. I will take the time to reiterate that this was due to my disinterestedness in the subject, not necessarily because it was “too hard for me” as my ex from the time would tell me.

That ex, and indeed all my exes would teach me even more about a woman’s place in society. I’ve been lucky enough to have the experience of dating all kinds of people from both sides of the gender spectrum, as well as having time to be single. Some people will tell you that dating different genders is no different, I will not. Like most people who were assigned female at birth, I dated men (well really boys at the time) first. I got to see what it felt like to be taken care of.

I’m not sure when I first realized that I was into girls too. I got to experience a more even level of give and take than with guys. Simply put, it was no longer obvious who would pay for dinner. Regardless of the model relationships I would have as a result, coming out was a pretty painful process, facilitated by the fact that I had no idea how to talk about how I was feeling. At the time, I was vaguely aware of the term “bisexual,” although it took many more years for me to realize the extent of my sexuality, mainly due to my lack of knowledge about the non-binary nature of gender. Here’s the quick and dirty of the sexuality you may not be aware of, courtesy of my really tiny handwriting:

(if you can’t read this, I apologize, you’re really missing out, but this is tumblr, if you ask it nicely, it will tell you all about pansexuality)

This ignorance was mostly fostered by the fairly strict gender expression displayed to me at a school that considered a male-identified individual in a skirt and pigtails top-notch comedy (and also thought it was okay to have indigenous people portrayed as a mascot, but that’s a whole other can of worms). Despite my growing up in a fairly small, conservative town, it’s pretty typical for people everywhere to accept the gender they were assigned at birth.

This tendency traces back to society’s views of the sexes and how they should behave, resulting in the training of gender into children. Judith Butler explores this subject in greater detail in her book Gender Trouble, a main takeaway of which is that gender should be viewed entirely as a social construct. However, this construct has absorbed many other aspects of our culture, down to colors and other inanimate objects. While working in the paint department I’ve repeatedly heard fathers tell their sons they could not paint their rooms purple or pink, but at the same time, I’ve never heard anyone tell their daughter they could not paint their room blue.

Telling boys they can’t do things because it’s a “girl thing” or something that “boys don’t do” is alarmingly common in our society. The same thing is hardly ever said to girls attempting traditionally masculine activities. In recent years especially, there has been significantly more effort invested in encouraging young women to pursue whatever strikes their fancy. This has resulted in an attitude that women can have masculine pursuits, but men cannot have feminine pursuits without incurring deep shame. While the distinction between masculine and feminine is as arbitrary a distinction as that between male and female, this tendency is still telling of the inevitable hierarchy that arises between distinct things.

I have been extremely privileged in that I am fairly masculine. While biology and inconsistency have made it impossible for me to actually pass as male, I have been able to engage in any activity I choose, from basketball to dance. I know I would’ve had more advantages had I been assigned male at birth, but at the same time, I would be unable to pursue dance or dye my hair, especially to the extent I would’ve wanted in the home I grew up in. This general attitude shows that society has accepted masculinity (or things associated with men) even when women do it, and find femininity merely excusable in women and downright unacceptable in men.

It is for this reason that lesbians are sexualized and gay men are stigmatized. I can speak from personal experience that straight men were a lot more comfortable with me when they thought I was a lesbian (without bothering to ask if I was, naturally), than when they found out my sexuality extended to their gender. I think part of this disarmament was due to my fairly masculine appearance. When I was a kid I was often called a tomboy, and although I still wore dresses and lots of floral, I also rocked baggy jeans and flannel, which earned me the title of “butch” when I came out. While more attention was paid to the masculine clothes I wore, wearing more traditionally feminine clothes was still an option.

This realization hit me hardest when I meant to go to Denver Pride this last summer. I ended up not going, mostly because I had just gotten off a long flight, but also because I wanted to go dressed in full drag and hadn’t realized how unassuming (and hot) it would be until I actually started looking for things to wear. Not only did I usually wear clothing that could be considered masculine, but I realize seeing someone who presents as feminine dress as male isn’t really scandalous and didn’t feel (at least to me) worthy of Pride. On the other hand, a person who presents as masculine dressed as female gets all kinds of reactions, mostly negative outside of Pride, and is considered abnormal.

To me, this means that it is okay to want to be a man (hell, Freud did a whole bit on it), but not okay to want to be a woman. By spurning things typically associated with women, society is still spurning women. I’ve focused mostly on appearance, since gender presentation has been a large part of my experience, but this issue goes beyond fashion or color or physical characteristics. Since our culture has gendered personality traits, things like aggression, confidence, repression of emotions, authoritativeness, and opinionated views are all considered positive. I have known plenty of women who are capable of any (or all) of these, and often with an intensity to rival their male counterparts. These women have been rewarded accordingly, but people who possess traits that were unfortunate enough not to be designated as masculine are considered “weak.”

These weak, feminine traits include passivity, caution, emotionality, obedience, and indecisiveness, none of which have any significant disadvantages in moderation, much like the masculine-identified traits, but they are considered lesser by our society. In fact, the way we react with others is judged so closely and affects so much that I used to think the world was make for extroverts and me and my fellow introverts would have to become writers or dancers or other professions that don’t involve talking. But it has become increasingly clear to me that it is not merely an outgoing or friendly personality that is valued, it is the perceived strength of these masculine traits over the feminine that still holds more value in our society.

At the same time, I do not think that things traditionally labeled feminine should be held above the traditionally masculine. As with all things, I think balance and equality is key, but true equality cannot be obtained until we liberate things associated with women, not just women themselves. Ideally this would occur through a release of the concept of the gender binary, as the need to label the world often leads to hierarchies that hurt everybody.

youtube

#women writers

16 notes · View notes

kidslovetoys · 5 years

Text

A guide to toys for the first five years: a complete list

Do you ever feel like your home is full-to-bursting with toys that you don’t want and didn’t ask for? The children in the 100 Toys house are 6, 5, 4 and 2 years old. That’s 17 Christmasses and 17 birthdays in total. Gifts from parents, grandparents, uncles and aunts, plus stocking fillers. It’s not unusual for a child’s Christmas haul to come to at least 10 presents. (17 + 17) x 10 = 340…

Now add in gifts throughout the year - something from the museum shop, a toy to keep them occupied on a flight, something at Easter, and at Halloween. That’s all before they start school and have parties to which the whole class is invited and you can reasonably expect to receive 30 presents for one child in a single day...

Children need fewer toys

When I launched the website my initial idea for The 100 was to create a list of 100 essential toys for every under-five. There would be more than 100 physical toys for sale on the site of course, but The 100 would be the guide to the essentials every child needed. But seeing it written down, it felt too focused on the acquisition and consumption of products. One hundred toys? From birth to five? It sounded too decadent.

It felt more in-keeping with our ethos to make The 100 about activities and experiences for the under-fives, whether or not that involved toys. After some trial and error, adding new things and taking others away, there were eventually only 10 or so physical toys on The 100 list, alongside all our ideas, knowledge and inspiration.

But now, five years since we launched, I’m revisiting the concept because here’s the thing: the idea of any under-five-year-old I know owning 100 toys or more no longer seems so preposterous.

Even 100 is an outrageous number

You don’t have to look far on the blog to see that I think that children can thrive with far fewer than one hundred toys. In fact it’s good for them. Blocks, figures, fabric, a few everyday household objects, some art materials and access to outdoor space. That’s it.

So why am I creating a list like this?

Because people are going to buy your children toys anyway. Kindly relatives will happily ignore your requests to give them tickets to a show, or a castle instead. Friends don’t want to arrive empty handed at the party. People want to put something under the tree.

If your family are like this (and mine are), what I’ve found works is to politely give them a list of toys that you’re OK with and, more importantly, are developmentally appropriate for your child.

Toys are going to arrive in your house whether you like it or not. You might as well try to ensure that what your child receives is going to challenge and absorb them, not just amuse them for half an hour, before it goes in the bag for that furtive trip to the charity shop.

Not all children like all toys

You can get years of play value out of a toy kitchen or doll’s house. Even babies who can’t yet stand unaided will pull themselves up and enjoy a rudimentary version of this sort of toy.

But use of the doll’s house divides along gender lines in the 100 Toys house. The girls are happy to sit there for hours, setting the table and tucking the figures into bed; the boys use it for target practice.

The boys do love small world play, it’s just that they’d rather build a castle or recreate battles from the Hundred Years War. And that’s OK.

In this case, the important thing is that the doll’s house provides them all with opportunities for imaginative play. The context is irrelevant. This is why The 100 list exists - to show you the kinds of activities that you could and should offer.

A path from birth to five in toys:

So here it is, the list of one hundred toys for the first five years.

If you get all of these, you’ve covered a lot of the bases, developmentally. The gaps are filled in by all that time you spend outdoors, going to museums, reading stories and singing nursery rhymes

Take this list with a pinch of salt. None of it is truly necessary. I’m not saying you should buy it all, simply that if you’re going to buy something, this list is a good place to start. The toys are, for the most part, open-ended and all are age-appropriate.

From birth

Play mat and baby gym

Activity toy

From 6 months

Treasure basket

First set of blocks

Wobbly tower

Puzzles: circular peg puzzles (easiest), four-way rotational symmetry, three-way, one-way (hardest, suitable from 10-12 months)

Shape sorter: shapes, animals (harder)

Bowls (simple, for sorting, or nested) (or look in the kitchen)

Balls (wooden, for rolling; fabric, for catching)

Focus on: puzzles

In many ways puzzles contradict the open-ended play ethos. Most puzzles can only be completed one way and can be outgrown quite quickly as your child's skill grows. And yet puzzles are still so vital. Why? Because they foster and develop so many crucial skills. Whether it’s a simple wooden tray-puzzle with little handles on the pieces, or more complex jigsaws, sorting and matching games, children need fine-motor precision, focus and determination to succeed with their puzzling projects. They need to think logically and find strategies to succeed. A one-year-old learns that pieces must be rotated to fit while an older child discovers that it's best to start with the corner pieces and edges and to sort by colour. These are essential skills that, once mastered, can be applied to more creative endeavours.

Focus on: a treasure basket

A treasure basket is a free and simple way to stimulate your child’s innate sense of curiosity and wonder. At this age your child is discovering new textures, smells, sounds and sensations as they try to understand the world around them. A treasure basket is simply a way of giving your baby a selection of things to play with and investigate. They can follow their curiosity, grasping, banging and mouthing anything of interest whilst discarding everything else. It’s especially fun for babies who can sit up, supported by a cushion or ring if necessary, but aren’t yet mobile. You can use everyday objects, such as wooden spoons, an old bracelet or a silicon ice-cube tray. The trick is to offer a wide selection that appeals to all the senses. And make sure the objects are safe. No choke hazards or toxic paints. But don’t stress if your treasure doesn’t isn’t all entirely homespun - you can mix it up with the toys you already have like balls, rattles or dolls. The important thing is to keep it fun.

From 1 year

Vehicles

Peg people and other figures

Rattle (or make a discovery bottle)

Conical tower

If you only buy one thing: figures

In play figures, children recognise themselves and their families, friends and pets. Playing with them helps them consolidate their understanding of the world, from driving a car to cooking in the kitchen. If your child is already confidently playing with blocks, adding a few figures to their play will also encourage them to bring dialogue and stories into their play. When animals join the cast, children can explore characteristics and habits: the sly fox, the cheeky monkey, the fierce lion. When choosing play figures, there's an argument to be made for favouring those that are pared back, without too many facial features or clothes that overtly genderise or otherwise pre-determine the game. But having said that, my 25-month-old daughter will happily pretend that the two potatoes on her plate are old friends and the four-year-old suspends her disbelief sufficiently to imagine that her Maileg mouse is really Elsa from Frozen. Children love to have just the right figure for their small world play, but it's not essential. Their imaginations will fill in the gaps.

From 2 years

Doll’s house and people

Trolley

Basket

Fabric

Soft toy

Bucket and spade

Ball track

2-piece puzzles

Nested and stacking toys

Sorting boxes and bowls

Focus on: fabric

Not just for girls! Pieces of fabric, and ideally play silks in a range of colours, can be a surprisingly useful and popular addition to the toy box. That’s because fabric is so versatile; it’s one of the most open-ended toys you can get. Your child can use fabric to create scenery in their imaginative and small-world play (a blue silk is a river or the sky, a green one a mountain etc.) They can sling pieces of fabric over a table or a washing line to make a tent for their dolls or a den for themselves. Fabric wrapped around a head becomes a nomad’s scarf and tied around a waist a bride’s train. Tie it to your wrists and it’s a fairy’s wings, wrap it around your legs and it’s bandages at the hospital. Silks or ribbons tied to the end of stick make beautiful, free streamers, which also lay the foundation for the up and down strokes your child learns when they begin to write.

Focus on: doll's house

In a doll’s house children recreate scenes from everyday life and try to understand their position in the family and the world. Observing their doll's house play allows you to see what your child understands of power dynamics and gender. Who takes out the bins? Who does the cooking? Whose house is it? It's also a chance for children to enjoy role-playing situations not normally open to them: answering the door to the postman (or a tiger!); going to work; cooking dinner. Go for a gender-neutral doll’s house, with natural colours and without too much elaborate detail, and you can also use it for other small-world settings. Something plain that provides a setting without dictating it, can be a doll’s house one day or an astronauts’ space station the next. Bring blocks, figures, fabrics and other items to your doll’s house and you can extend the play in almost any direction.

From 3 years

Threading buttons (or use the sewing kit)

Second set of blocks (more varied shapes)

Dressing up clothes, or hats and tails (or use silks or fabric you find at home). Box of props.

Play food

Play kitchen

Loose parts (or use dried beans and pasta)

Wooden railway

Toys for early maths: geometrical shapes, pattern-making

If you only buy one thing: blocks

There simply isn't a more versatile or durable toy than a good set of wooden blocks. With blocks your child has the scope to build, sort, carry, count, create and imagine. Starting from that very first attempt to place one block on top of another, through to complex imaginative play where blocks represent something entirely different, blocks are the definition of open-ended play. There are many different types of wooden blocks for children, from colourful or natural wood to perfectly square or irregular shapes. The key things to look out for when choosing blocks are the trueness of the cut (wonky blocks make for wobbly towers) and chew-friendly non-toxic stains that allow your child to feel the warmth and texture of natural wood in their hands. Natural-finish blocks can also make building more successful. Glossy paints look bright but can make the surfaces slippier and give less purchase.

From 4 years

Card games

Board games

Art materials

Puppets

Tools

(Toys for investigating nature - magnifying glass)

Marble run

Numbers and letters

Focus on: art materials

Before they learn to write at school, your child will more than likely sit at the kitchen table, scribbling and drawing and cutting-out and sticking. This vital foundation work stimulates and hones their fine-motor skills and hand-eye co-ordination, focus, determination and creativity. Providing them with the best quality materials will help them achieve effective and pleasing results, teaching them early on, to associate time spent at the drawing board with pleasure and success. Go for good quality paper that doesn’t tear or disintegrate. Use high quality wax crayons with profiles that are made for the smallest hands to hold, in colours that glide and stay on the page. And provide scissors that little fingers can manoeuvre around a line without too much difficulty. Using scissors is an excellent work out for pincer grip and can help them with everything from holding cups to doing up shoe-laces later on. If you have space, painting and drawing at an easel is an excellent way to develop wrist strength and the hand-eye co-ordination required for handwriting when they get to it.

You can see how you might be able to have multiples of some of these without your house feeling overwhelmed with toys. You’ll want more than one board game and several different kinds of art materials (which will also need to be replenished). A four- or five-year-old is very happy to receive a nice set of pencils or paints as a gift.

Extras

I used to object to things like scratch papers, colouring books, stickers and other activities you could only do once, on the grounds that I had all the art materials at home and you never seemed to get much in the packet anyway. You generally got one use, and the outcome was often prescriptive, with little scope for the child’s imagination. But having seen my own children be inspired by such products, to tackle a skill they’ve hitherto been reluctant to take on, I’ve softened a bit. I still think your first step should be the craft box, but these sets have their place, if only as a low-priced gift. And being disposable in nature, they're not a source of clutter once they’ve been used - a big selling point in our house!

Final word

This is a list of toys you really don’t need.

But, with luck - and help from friends and family - it may help you escape the fate-worse-than-death that is a house full of noisy, irritating one-trick ponies that are destined for the dump via an extended stay on your living room floor.

Instead of fuming quietly about another pointless birthday gift, you can ask your well-meaning friends and family to refer to this list when they ask you what they should give. It’s more toys, yes, but toys that make a difference to the quality and impact of their play. And that’s surely a gift we’re all happy with.

Happy playing!

P.S. If you've been counting, yes, it wasn't 100 toys. I couldn't bring myself to stretch it that far. But I hope it's long enough to have given you some inspiration.

from One Hundred Toys - The Blog https://ift.tt/2Vfk19W

#One Hundred Toys

0 notes

leahcrandell17-blog · 5 years

Text

Undoing Gender

youtube

In this entry, I will examine the critical question, what gender norm is constructed or undone in this artifact, how is it rhetorically performed, and/or how does it promote a dominant ideology over a marginalized group or push back against the ideology or gender norms? Is it productive/unproductive (ethical/unethical)?

The artifact that I will be looking at in an attempt to answer this question is an advertisement for Gillette Razors that was published in January of 2019 titled, “We Believe: The Best Man Can Be”. Published around the time of the #MeToo Movement, this advertisement shows boys and men alike breaking down the stereotype of “boys will be boys” with a call to action for men to hold each other’s actions accountable because the young boys who are watching them today, are the men of the future so they need to set the right example.

The Gillette advertisement, “We Believe: The Best Man Can Be”, is deconstructing the gender norm of what the understood definition of masculinity is. However, as the advertisement takes on the ideals of the #MeToo Movement, it is also playing a part in the construction of the gender norm that women are the weaker, less influential sex and therefore, it is up to the men to fix how sexual assault is handled in society. Rhetorically, Gillette uses ethos, pathos, and logos to promote what they believe in the responsibility of all men in both a productive and unproductive way.

The Gillette advertisement opens the sounds of news broadcasters saying “bullying, the #MeToo Movement against sexual harassment, toxic masculinity” (Gillette) while the faces of different men appear on the screen. Then, Gillette asks the question their ad is focused around, “is this the best a man can get?” Their old advertisement with the same slogan flashes on the screen as young boys run through it, ripping the screen. The ad continues, showing snippets of kids being bullied, crying in their parents arms, scenes of women being sexualized and men laughing at it, and a man silencing a woman in a business meeting. The voice says, “making the same old excuses, boys will be boys” over and over again (Gillette). The voice says that something has changed (meaning in society) and that there is no going back because they believe in the best of men. The tune changes, showing men holding each other accountable for their actions in objectifying women and bullying other people. The ad says that some men have already been doing so but that some men needs to turn into all men because “the boys watching today will be the men of tomorrow” (Gillette).

“We Believe: The Best Man Can Be” utilizes the spotlight that has been cast upon all men because of the #MeToo Movement to promote the company’s message that they “have a responsibility to make sure we are promoting positive, attainable, inclusive and healthy versions of what it means to be a man” (Gillette). To do so, this advertisement uses Aristotle's three artistic rhetorical proofs to move their audience. The advertisement uses pathos, which is “‘putting the audience in the right frame of mind’ to make a good decision”(Herrick, 79). Gillette asks the question, “Is this the best than man can get? Is it? We cannot hide from it. It has been going on far too long, we cannot laugh it off” (Gillette). These statements, paired with videos that show the opposite of what the voiceover is asking, is done to make men pay attention, to question what they see in front of them and to reassess their attitudes and actions. The advertisement shows men before the realization that they have the power to make a change, making it relatable to men that could be watching the advertisement. Then it switches, showing a man breaking up fights between two kids wrestling in the backyard telling them that this is not how we treat each other (Gillette). It shows a guy stopping his friend from pursuing a girl he found attractive and another guy telling another guy at a party to stop bothering a group of girls (Gillette). Aristotle suggests that an orator has a moral concern for the correct judgement. By showing these types of situations, Gillette is showing men that they are capable of doing the right thing and that they have the ability to influence change within the male culture. Gillette’s advertisement is aimed at discouraging boys from bullying each other and men from sexually harassing women by showing how bullying affects kids and video clips of women being humiliated and put down by men. The advertisement is showing men what not to do by showing them what they have been doing in hopes of leading the audience to the realization that what they may not have thought was harmful behavior, “boys just being boys”, actually has a larger impact on all of society. The first half and the second half of the advertisement, which is separated by the statement “there will be no going back” (Gillette), are drastically different. This stark contrast between what men have been hearing, “boys will be boys”, and what Gillette is advocating for gets the audience to pay attention, to recognize what needs to be changed and sparks motivation to do so.

Gillette also uses logos which is, “proofs available in words, arguments, or logic of speech” (Herrick on Aristotle’s Rhetoric, 79) to further convince the audience in their call to action. The advertising relies on the audience's ability to draw the logical conclusion that they have to change their behaviors in the statements that are made by the voiceover and the credibility of others in the video. The voiceover says “we cannot hide from it. It has been going on far too long, we cannot laugh it off, making the same old excuses, boys will be boys” (Gillette). This statement clearly says that these same old excuses that have been used to excuse inexcusable behavior should not be tolerated anymore. The climate that the #MeToo Movement has created surrounding the release of this advertisement emphasizes the importance of coming out from behind these excuses and to stand up and take responsibility for your actions and the actions of others. Gillette uses a celebrity presence that is inline with the message of their advertisement to further the logic of their argument. A clip of Terry Crews, a respected former NFL player, actor, and advocate for sexual assault survivors rights from C-Span is shown in the video saying “Men need to hold other men accountable” (Gillette). Crews being in the video rhetorically communicates to the audience that if powerful, respected men stand behind this change, then there is no reason for you not to. Crews presence shows the audience that being on the side of change does not threaten your masculinity. Instead, it communicates that this is the responsibility of every single man, this is what you, as a man, are responsible for. As a former NFL player, the most toxically masculine sport of all, Crews standing on the side of Gillette tells the audience that the “manliest of men” do this and that if you really, truly are “manly” then you will too. The video ends with the voiceover saying that “the boys watching today, are the men of tomorrow”. This perfectly wraps up the logic of Gillette’s advertisement because not only does it tell the audience that the men of today are the role models for the young boys and, obviously, we want to set a good example of what it means to “be a man”, but it also taps into the third artistic proof, ethos. Ethos, which is “the sociology of character” (Herrick, 81) is based in good sense, goodwill, and virtue. The message of the advertisement communicates through logic and the emotions of the audience that Gillette has the best interests at heart for all men. Gillette wants all men to respected and looked at as powerful, influential members of society that are using their power and status for good. By challenging the stereotypes of what it means to be a man, Gillette is telling their audience that doing so is for their own good and for the good of all men to come. By changing what the stereotypical definition of “masculinity” is and transforming it into men who act compassionately and empathetically, the goodwill of men will be restored and all of society will be renewed as more and more men begin to follow these behaviors.

However, while Gillette is reconstructing what masculinity is, they are also neglecting women’s role. Other than when videos and situations of women being put down and sexualized as being shown, there is only one other time when a woman is depicted as not the victim and that is a little girl, being held by her dad who is telling her, “I am strong” with her repeating it. Even in this adorable interaction, it is assumed that the little girl will grow up to be strong because her father told her she is. The little girl cannot realize she is strong on her own, she needs a man to tell her that she is. While this video was put into the advertisement to positively encourage men, especially fathers, to not undervalue their daughters and the other women in their life, it can also be interpreted as women are only as strong as the men in their life tell them to be. The intentions of the Gillette advertisement were good, even great, their positive message reinforced the gender norm that unless they are told otherwise, women are weak and inferior to men. The assumption is that little girls will not think they are strong unless their dad’s tell them they are and that is not the case. Each individual's strength and power, regardless of gender, comes from within each individual. Arguably, women should not have be told they are strong in order to actually be strong, society should respect women and men equally to begin with instead of letting gender norms dictate how women are treated and viewed.

Gillette’s target audience is not women, it is men which is why the message is targeted at what they believe is the true role of men. In this sense, the advertisement is productive because it challenges the stereotypes ingrained within society surrounding what it means to be a man and it pushes it’s audience to re-define what being a man means to them. However, from a woman’s perspective, the message is not productive because it is not acknowledging the fact that women should not be treated differently from men in the first place. The advertisement does not show women in power at all, it does not show them equal to men or their own ability to stand up to those who harm or abuse them. Instead, it shows men coming to the woman’s rescue and protecting them, just like the stereotype (one of many) that men are the protectors, not the protectees because the protectee is the woman’s role. While Gillette does a good job of redefining what it means to be a man, the same is not done for how women should be looked at. Women still play the role of the victim that wait for a man to come to their defense which further constructs the gender norm of women being incapable of standing up for themselves.

Works Cited:

Herrick, James A. “Aristotle on Rhetoric.” The History and Theory of Rhetoric, vol. 5, 2017, pp. 69–81., doi:10.4324/9781315404141-4.

Hsu, Tiffany. “Gillette Ad With a #MeToo Edge Attracts Support and Outrage.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 15 Jan. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/01/15/business/gillette-ad-men.html.

Smith, Tovia. “Backlash Erupts After Gillette Launches A New #MeToo-Inspired Ad Campaign.” NPR, NPR, 17 Jan. 2019, www.npr.org/2019/01/17/685976624/backlash-erupts-after-gillette-launches-a-new-metoo-inspired-ad-campaign.

“The Best Men Can Be.” Gillette®, P&G, gillette.com/en-us/the-best-men-can-be.

Gillette . “We Believe: The Best Men Can Be.”

0 notes

drink-n-watch · 6 years

Text

In my time I’ve watched a few CGDCT shows as well as their Cute Boy counterparts and I find the comparisons between the to amusing and occasionally eye opening. I’m not sure how many of you routinely watch both genres. I was curious to see if those that do noticed the same this as me.

First let me start with a HUGE DISCLAIMER. I have some more sensitive readers (especially when it comes to this subject for some reason) so I want to make this very clear. This is observation not judgement. I don’t think one type is better than the other in any way. Both have brilliant and horrible examples of their respective genres. Moreover, I don’t think these observations tell us anything at all about the fans. The only conclusion we could possibly draw is that the studios that produce these shows think their audiences like certain tropes.

ready!!??!! Here we go!

We can’t deny that in conception and marketing, bith CGDCT and CBDCT shows are created to appeal to a particular demographic and in a particular way. There is an idea of non-explicit sexual appeal that’s always present. Again, I’m not saying that’s way you enjoy in them. And if it is, I don’t see anything wrong with that. I watch both genres and there’s a reason I chose these shows entirely on visuals and never even bother to read the synopsis. Finally, (this post is going to be ¾ disclaimer) these are general observations. Of course, exceptions exist. And my perception, like everyone else’s is subjective.

I almost feel obligated to write something deeply offensive now. After all that, the rather innocent and neutral post I have in mind seems like a bit of a letdown.

So here are the general commonalities I’ve noticed :

go on…carefully….

Reasonable expectations

Most cute girls shows I’ve watched center on characters that have fairly realistic goals and adventures. School girls with club activities that could conceivably exist IRL for the most part. Even when it’s more outlandish, it does at least seem potentially possible. Their goals are often in line with those expectations. Win a pageant of festival. Give a great performance. Have their club recognized as official. Get good grades and make friends. The mindset of the characters is generally realistic and the type of thing you could expect out of the “average”.

Even in something such as Gabriel Dropout which features angels and demons, the preoccupations are how to get your parents off your back and do decently at school while spending most of your time playing video games… relatable!

By contrasts, cute boys want to take over the world! They’re not just joining a school music club, they are international best-selling idols who are going to dominate the pop charts in every country. Their plans are intricate and complicated and completely out of reach for the common man.

And even if they are not peculiarly impressive (and they are, more on that later) their aims are still lofty. They can’t simply get good grades, they have to get the best grades, then leverage that to gain control of a multinational company, so they can use the almost unlimited resources to search for their long-lost sister. Some anime exec somewhere saw a soap opera and thought – girls like exaggerated, we’ll give them exaggerated!

track and field club: princes! – tennis club: princes…

Girl next door vs Prince charming

This understated vs completely overblown approach also seems to apply to character concepts. Cute girls generally opt for an idealized version of the everygirl trope. They’re beautiful (because all anime characters are generally beautiful) but within the context of the story they’re cute, and most of their friends are just as cute. They come from average backgrounds and have the types of life that seem common in Japan. They are special in how normal and down to earth they seem.

While the boys are…well…extra. They are super rich, artist, play boy geniuses. Or angelic innocents with a heart of the very purest gold. They routinely save orphans from burning buildings. They are extremely talented at everything. They also always have difficult family situations. Very very difficult ones. Forget everyboy they aren’t any boy you’ve ever met.

or don’t, it’s ok…

Fanservice

It’s no secret that cute girl shows routinely feature heaps of fanservice, implied or explicit Yuri and occasionally stray into eroge territory. By now, this is almost a specific feature of the genre. Even the most innocent offering will usually find a way to show underwear or bathing scenes.

Traditionally cute boy shows tended towards non-physical fanservice. By this I mean the characters act in ways that are in line with audience fantasies rather than getting caught in various states of undress because anime. This is in fact slowly changing. More recent shows follow the cute girl formula more closely and series find excuses to show us muscled young men shirtless or add in onsen scenes. There are still slight differences in presentation (most commonly agency usually remains firmly with the characters) but the trend is definitely towards equal opportunity objectifying.

However, in many ways the shows are also incredibly similar. True, shows aimed at women tend to be more traditionally comedic with jokes and punch lines meant to make the audience laugh while those aimed at men tend to be more cute, with images and situations meant to make you go awww. But a lot of tropes and base storylines are common.

Wether it’s true or not, these shows represent what production companies think we want in romanticized partners. They are supposed to represent an ideal. We can parse this and try to ferret out the sociological basis. However, what’s been trotting in my head lately is what this means when applied to the harem genre.

See the (reverse)harem genre covers a lot of the same ground and often we can see parallels in the characters. As such, I am really intrigued by how Harem MCs compare. In my experience, reverse harem main characters are actually pretty close the the cute girl prototype. A little shyer and less proactive but generally, they are good humoured, optimistic girls, incredibly devoted to their friends and quite single minded in their goals which tend to be reserved when compared to the boys around them. Even in visual design, they would often fit in a CGDCT show with very little alteration.

On the other hand, harem protagonists are nothing like cute boy characters. Even interestingly fleshed out ones like Hachiman or best boys like Ryuuji and Yūta, are archetypes we either don’t see at all or that are relegated to barely there supporting roles. And looks wise, they would simply not make the cut at all. After all, harem mcs are everymen and everymen are plain. (Is it just me or do they often “look like delinquents” for some reason…) Cute boys are the visual definition of elaborate. They tend to be so detailed and ornate in design that I occasionally get a little fatigued looking at them.

why does he have a dog collar over his tie?

So what does this mean. Well in my original conversation, I had dumbed down my take away as this (warning, this may be super insensitive, it’s what got me in trouble). Production studios seem to think that boys want-expect little to nothing of girls beyond agreeableness, while girls want-expect absolutely everything. Mind you this isn’t a morality call, I don’t think either is good or bad. I also don’t think either is particularly accurate. But it’s an intriguing assumption to base your stories on. Especially if entire genres get dictated by those base assumptions.

This becomes particularly interesting with the cross gender disconnect. Why would one archetype be considered perfectly fitting for an audience surrogate and not the other. Pretty much all reverse harem fans I know (all 2 of them) will agree the the protagonists are nonsensical unless they are parodies of the genre (shout out to Haru and bestest girl Chyio). But they also aren’t particularly bothered by these characters.

We could speculate all day about why these character choices are made and so consistently enforced and how they affect storytelling and fan reaction. maybe someone better suited could even theorize on how they affect our real life interaction and expectations. I warmly invite any of you with an interest in the subject or a love of researched and analytical posts to share your own thoughts. For now, I will leave it at this.

These are my personal observations from my very limited sample size. I’m not entirely sure what to make of them yet but I do believe that people who like one genre should give the other a try. They may be surprised!

great cleavage

Asking for Trouble; My Observations on Cute Girls and Cute Boys In my time I’ve watched a few CGDCT shows as well as their Cute Boy counterparts and I find the comparisons between the to amusing and occasionally eye opening.

#Bad idea #CBDCT #CGDCT #Irina pretends to know things #moe

0 notes

insearchofthemarshhare-blog · 7 years

Text

Transcription of the interview with Sister Assumpta on 19/12/17 at Canterbury Convent in Dungeness.

TDL: I'm here this afternoon with Sister Assumpta from the Canterbury Convent in Dungeness, good afternoon sister.

SA: Hello

TDL: Hello! Right, so if we should begin, do you believe that art should have the same status as other subjects within the covent?

SA: I do not, I appreciate art and I think that art can take you to different levels that other things can not but within the convent we do many things in that way. Silence is my favourite. Silence is the thing that takes you to places that art cannot.

TDL: What sort of places do you mean when speak of silence, where does silence transport you to?

SA: silence takes me to a place that I can only describe as a living Heaven, a living heaven is a place where you can occupy without the evilness of things that are unnecessary in order to live a fulfilled life.

TDL: Do you teach the students to occupy this practice of silence?

SA: I try within their work to make them understand that through silence and the making of their work they able to achieve similar heights. Unfortunately students are now unable to that in quite the same way that I would hope but, they are certainly able to recognise within others when it is a strength. It is something perhaps they will only find in 10, 20, 30 years time.

TDL: So how do you, as far as lesson plans are constructed, how do you incorporate Silence in your teaching techniques?

SA: In my teaching technique I would probably not be able to be as silent as I would like to be, but once the instructions are given I expect students to undertake those instructions in total silence. They are not allowed to wear headphones, listen to the radio, speak to each other, they must sit in complete silence. It's almost like a meditation with the marks, with the work that is being produced.

TDL: Thats incredibly interesting, do you find that some government legislations have directly affected your means of teaching, especially in this way?

SA: Oh, absolutely, whether I am in agreement with some of them, or disagreement with some of them, is a very very different matter. I understand the need for - understand modernity - but unfortunately within my own thinking my own belief of what is art and what is not art is very, very different. I think the wonderful Michael Gove was beginning to get us to a place that began to address and rebalance where art education had gone. We have gone down a path where art has become anything, and that must not be allowed.

TDL: So sister, how would you retract this modern, contemporary view of art, how would you draw it back to the vision of Michael Gove?

SA: The vision of Michael Gove to me talks about that need for skill, it must come from the idea of skill. If you cannot draw what are you doing, doing art? And what are you doing going to art school? Because if you are at art school and you cannot draw you are a fraud in my view. I have a wonderful book here called painting for pleasure and I have highlighted some bits within this book that I believe that myself and Michael are of the same mind and the same way of thinking. Art was developed in order to narrate, in order to tell lowly beings and communciate to lowly beings what higher beings existed. So that idea of obedience was the thing that was promoted through the art, so within paintings like this which I believe is 12th century, we have the madonna and the child

TDL: (sorry sister I'm just going to interrupt you, for the record we have the virgin of Vladimir in front of us circa 1125 and it is in trechykov gallery in Moscow)

SA: and a beautiful piece that I have had the privilege to see first hand. When you see it first hand you see the touch of the artist, you see the narrative that is being put forward and for all women to have this gentleness, this motherliness even if they are not mothers. Whereas now what we have in society is modern art that sees the woman as this,

TDL: (just for the record we have Olympia which is in the Louvre, the model is a victorine Merent, I'm not sure if I'm pronouncing that correctly)

SA: now in order to try and readdress how far down that path of filth and dirtiness we have gone with art I have taken in my own reigns to travel the world to rid us of such pornographic images so that women instead of being seen because of their tits and their fannies can now be seen as women. The madonna is the person within each woman that we should strive to be.

TDL: So sister, am I correct in thinking that the perfect women is the madonna, which is that who is clothed? Theres no nudity, there's no naked body...

SA: ..Absolutely not! Why, when you walk around an art school now they have a female or sometimes even a man standing there in all their glory, why is that seen as ok? It is not! It is not seen as alright in my eyes, and modern art in this way is completely down the wrong path, it is taking people to a lower than low place where is what we need to be doing is like the madonna is taking us to heightened levels.

TDL: So, for a lot of people art is a tool for conversation, it allows narratives and understanding of modern society. How would you approach the workings of art? How does art communicate contemporary life to you, how would teach that...

SA: ..Who ever said it had to?

TDL: What is art for you then? What is it's purpose?

SA: Art should be about a skill, a skill and a beauty that we are trying to communicate, if all we do is communicate what is filthy, what is dirty within the lives that we lead we will never get anywhere. People will learn nothing, what is the point of the painting of the Madonna and the child if now we say that this is the new Madonna, we are in a very very wrong place and we need to reeducate our young people.

TDL: Sister, forgive me if I offend you, but as a self-governing religious educational establishment you've always employed moral, family-appropriate christian views so how do you incorporate contemporary sexual cultures and gender roles in the convent. How do you....

SA: ... we don't!

TDL: You don't?

SA: We don't! Why would we?! Why would we even attempt that? Why would we?!

TDL: You know, many educational establishments are adopting methodologies to help encourage students to be able to converse sexual identity and I was just interested to ask...

SA: ... ah ah you see now! This is where we have the Pandoras box don't we? Because as soon as we suggest to them that their sexual gender may not be in the right place or hanging in the right direction that we can remove it, or we can add bits or we can take bits away. Oh no, as soon as we start to educate them in that way we are dictating is that is how they should think, whereas if we stopped talking about that we would be talking about their skill, about what they're trying to communciate about something higher and it's not all Me, Me, Me and Mine and My bits its about the whole world.

TDL: Is it fair then to say sister that your means of educating is focussed on student-learnt lessons, is that fair to say?

SA: No!

TDL: No?

SA: No! They know nothing! Why would I?! Why when I am the one that has developed this skill, I have dedicated myself to developing that skill. I know when something is drawn and it is right, if they don't know it why would I let them decide and tell me that something is right? We would go nowhere if that were the case and that is the big mistake that many of the modern art schools are making.

TDL: Sister have you found any changes in the institution now that you've allowed male students to...

SA: ..well I think that was the nail in the coffin in some ways, we had our girls well sorted really, they knew what was right and what was wrong. As soon as the boys come in the room, suddenly their eyes are no longer in their meditative state, their eyes are wandering around the room and you should see the eyes of the boys! They eye of the boys are never on their work they're always on the lair of the girls and that is why I see it as my life's aim to cover everybody up.

TDL: Sister, I've head that you've been quite vocal in the notion of separating female and male students...

SA: Absolutely!

TDL: And do you think that's beneficial to their learning of these skills?

SA: I certainly do, because if we didn't then all that would happen is by the end of first term half the girls would be up the duff I think is the term, and the boys, they would be saying "it wasn't me, it wasn't me, wasn't me" and that is where we would be.

TDL: That leads me on to my next question sister, do you teach sexual health in the convent which would possibly help prevent pregnancies...

SA: Well I probably do in my way, it may not be in the way of the current world in that anything goes, and that anything can be allowed to got out and dangled at any time, But, I do think that my belief in absolute abstinence , ABSOLUTE ABSTINENCE in it's own way is about sexual health, because if you're not sticking one thing into another thing then nothing will be passed on.

TDL: And do you believe sister that abstinence is the answer?

SA: Oh! I do! I do! Absolutely! And I do not really like to talk about these things or even think about these things and that is why my silence is so important because it means that I do not have to think about these things, but as soon as you let your mind go there and you imagine all the filth and the squelching and the nastiness that goes on with all of that, then then, I have to bring myself back to my silence.

TDL: So sister, thank you so much...

SA: Oh! Already?! There's so much more!

TDL: Is there more that you would like to speak about?

SA: I just wanted to say, well, this is only part of my life, this is only part of what I am, if I hadn't been a nun in the way I am do you know I was auctioned for the sound of music. I was. And because I didn't get the part I decided to just become a nun anyway so I could wear the costume.

TDL: That's incredible..

SA: I know

TDL: So you have put so much effort and diligence into research to become a nun..

SA: I have!

TDL: So it's fair to say that you've found god?

SA: I suppose I have, I suppose I have, in some ways.

TDL: That's a very interesting to discourse to acting because I imagine had you got the role it would've been a lifestyle of depravity and temptation...

SA: It would!

TDL: How would you have overcome that?

SA: I think I would've embraced it in the same way I have embraced the life of the covent, I think that I would have done my duty and embraced the debauchedness in my own way, in fulfilling the way I like to do everything. I would have entered into the spirit of it in the way that would have been expected of me, in a way that ultimately the person that got the part did not.

TDL: That's incredibly interesting, so sister you're clearly very enthusiastic about fulfilling your roles, if legislation were to change or if the convent's viewpoints were to change, would you find yourself changing with them or would you still employ the pedagogy silence, of teaching through...

SA: Oh yes I think so! Once I am in these doors there is no room for changing things and what is the point of changing things that are working perfectly alright as they are. It is quite important that we recognise our roles, our role is to look after the priests and those men that are next to god and I have accepted that.

TDL: Sister, thank you so so much, employing silence and craft and artisan skills to the very lucky students of Canterbury convent, so thank you so so much for your time sister.

SA: (in a whisper) I would like to answer but its now the silence time, it's time for silence.

0 notes

d3-v0id · 7 years

Text

this is supposedly a reaction paper for school but fuck the patriarchal system so

When I was still a kid, I was given Barbie dolls, dollhouses, kitchen equipment-like toys, and the usual; all for the sole reason that “those toys are for girls.” When I was around 8 years old, I was started to be taught how to sit properly because apparently, sitting with my legs spread out is improper for only boys sit in that manner. Also, my adult relatives would tell me to keep my voice on a low volume because girls shouldn’t speak loudly for it would be “tactless”. When I was in grade 6, my parents found out that I have friends whose sexual orientation isn’t straight. We had a sit-down conversation about how, according to the Bible, men are for women and vice versa. Another incident was when I was 13. I was really clumsy then and what they told me was, “Kababae mong tao, lalaki ka kumilos. Tomboy ka ba?” Last but not the least, the most popular experience for every woman up to date, being catcalled. I’m wearing shorts; I get catcalled because I’m showing too much skin. I wear a shirt and jeans; I still get catcalled. So, where should I actually stand?

This all roots from patriarchy that gave birth to its sons, double standards and gender roles. I got aware of such terms when I was in grade 8. Social media was an eye-opener for me because it gave me awareness not only to those terms but also feminism. At first, I thought it was only empowerment for women. As I grew older, I realized that its goal was to have equality with respect to all the genders. I never knew I was a feminist until I knew that feminism exists. I have always been fighting for equality between boys and girls. I used to always question my parents why boys could do this while girls aren’t allowed to and vice versa. For instance, when it comes to kids playing toys, how come a car is strictly to be played by boys only? I mean, what does it have to do with the sex of a person? They’re mere toys for God’s sake! When those toys were created, did they already have a label which states, “Cars: for boys only.” or “Barbie dolls: for girls only.”? I don’t think so.

This basis is just created by humans and it saddens me that instead of trying hard enough to correct such notion, even women, themselves, become victims of hegemony that they acquired and started living out double standards as well. Mothers have started telling their female children the all-too-familiar “kababae mong tao” line. Society has been teaching women not to wear clothes that show too much skin. Schools and churches have started creating dress codes. Some schools even address the dress code to girls alone because wearing sleeveless tops and shorts might “distract boys”. As for catcalling, we are only ever catcalled because we wear clothes that imply that we are “asking for it”. We get verbally harassed because of a sorry excuse that “boys are boys”. In this patriarchal society, it’s as if rape is okay because we wanted it just because we wore what we think is comfortable for us. It’s as if it’s our fault that men think in that manner. The funny thing is that no one ever taught men not to objectify women. No one ever told them whether a woman is “asking for it” is not dependent on what she wears.

Other than that, women are also degraded in such a way that it is expected that she can’t do what men can and if she does, she still gets the lesser credit for it. There’s also this invisible rule wherein boys are taught at a very young age that they shouldn’t cry but girls can or women should be housewives and let their husbands do all the work. Besides the fact that women are being downgraded and deprived from maximizing their capabilities by society’s gender roles, men too can be victimized by this. Men are victimized for a lot is expected from them. Doing the opposite of what is expected from them or what is too feminine for them may lead to them being judged by society thus, their ego will be stepped on. So, they would rather do whatever is in accordance with the invisible law of gender roles. Today, I am actually glad that some names of occupations have been changed for them to be gender neutral to make jobs sound suitable for both men and women. But I do hope for parents’ hegemonic thinking to change that one’s sex should never hinder one person to feel. Sensitivity will never ever define one’s sex. Everyone must get rid of their mental notion that some things are considered as feminine or masculine. Everything can be done by any of the sexes, by any of the different and multiple genders.

From society’s gender roles, people are deprived from their freedom to choose however they want to express themselves, whoever they want to love. Homophobic people believe that men are created for women only and vice versa. They criticize people for being gay, lesbian, and all the other existing genders. They even associate God saying that what God wants is for them to stick to their biological sex. These people end up being discriminated and sometimes, assaulted. The worst case scenario for them is death. They don’t have the full freedom to practice their sexual identity. For some schools like ours, girl to girl relationships aren’t allowed and it’s quite saddening how at an early age, people are given the mindset that one is caged to love anyone ONLY from the opposite sex because that is what’s socially appropriate. Also, one must not cut her hair too short because that might indicate that she’s lesbian or that “she’s acting like a guy but she isn’t a guy”. But honestly, so what? It’s as if how you are as a person and how you cut your hair could measure your level of intelligence.

See, feminism isn’t about fighting against the inequality between men and women. It’s about standing up for equality among all the genders in general. Furthermore, it doesn’t degrade men. What it does is empower all the other genders enough to convince this patriarchal society that all sexes and genders are equal. Men aren’t superior. We are all in the same level with one another.

I actually don’t know what kind of feminist I am but all I know is that I really want patriarchy and everything else that comes along with it to be eradicated. If not fully, at least, convince majority of the world to raise boys and girls the same way so that when they grow up, they will know better not to conform to society’s double standards and gender roles.

For now, social media is an eye-opener for a lot of people when it comes to patriarchy, objectification, double standards, gender roles, and the LGBTQ+. Or, at least, that is what I’m seeing. Yes, there are still people who posts misogynistic comments on other people’s posts but more often than not, a lot of other people will defend the person who owns the post and go against the person who commented. If not misogynistic comments, they will also say something about how women shouldn’t do this and that because this and that are a man’s job and duty. They’d also say something that is meant to discriminate those who are part of the LGBTQ+. Again, a lot of other people will post comments as well correcting the person who commented negatively to disrespect.

For me, that is a step forward in destroying this patriarchal society. Through social media, you will see how some people still imbibe the patriarchal mindset but a lot of other people, the majority, are aware and are against the said mindset and the aforementioned kind of society. People, especially from our generation, can be seen stating their stand against our fucked up patriarchal system and it really makes me happy because when this generation grows up, they’ll know how they’ll raise their children. They will most probably be the kind of parents who, instead of telling their daughters not to wear revealing clothes for them not to be catcalled or objectified; they will be the kind of parents who will teach their sons not to disrespect women just because of how she looks and what she wears. This generation will teach their children that they can wear whatever they want to; if girls can wear pants then boys can wear skirts. This generation will teach their children that society shouldn’t dictate how you should be as a person, but society probably won’t because by then, society is composed of our generation, a generation who destroyed the old fucked up nonsensical patriarchal fucking system that’s full of utter bullshit. This generation will tell their sons and daughters that it’s okay to love people from any of the genders. In our generation, women can go ahead wearing whatever they want and that doesn’t mean they’re doing it for men. Women can go out wearing short skirts and cropped tops without being catcalled because she’s not a subject for objectification and men respect her. In our generation, it’s okay for girls to open up the door for boys. It’s okay for men to do household chores while women go to work. It’s okay for girls to be interested in cars and boys in dolls. In our generation, there is no such thing as patriarchy, nor double standards, nor gender roles.

Now that this generation is the most aware, we have nothing else to do but be an eye-opener for other people to little by little erase the patriarchal notion and eradicate the patriarchal system. We must stand up for what we believe in at all costs, spread awareness through social media, join organizations that benefit all the genders, and the like. We can only do so much as individuals but these little things could contribute to the correcting of society’s system in a big scale if most, if not all, of us are enlightened that patriarchy and its subsystems shouldn’t be the case in our daily lives.

There is no specified set of rules and duties for any specific gender. Anyone and everyone is free to do whatever they want regardless the gender. Anyone and everyone is free to love whoever she wants to. And that doesn’t make him/her/it/they any less of a person. Because in the end, we’re all just humans and with only our skeletons left of us, knowing our sexuality or gender wouldn’t matter.

#annabananasthoughts

0 notes