#types of misrepresentation | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

cripplecharacters · 2 years ago

Text

Media Representation and Writing Characters with Facial Differences

[Large Text: Media Representation and Writing Characters with Facial Differences]

A writing (?) guide (?) consisting of an explanation of what facial differences are, some basics about the community of people with facial differences, a terminology guide that is extremely subjective, a very long explanation of the real-life effects of misrepresentation of facial differences, a subjective guide on why most tropes surrounding facial differences are awful and unoriginal, and the part that people actually want to see (I hope at least) AKA "types of characters I do actually want to see". As always, this post is meant for people who have no experience with the subject, and not in any way an attempt to tell writers with facial differences on what to do in their own writing.

What Does "Facial Difference" Mean?

[Large Text: What Does "Facial Difference" Mean?]

"Facial Difference" (FD for short) is an umbrella term for any kind of scar, mark, or condition that makes your face visibly different. This encompasses anything from not having parts of the face or having less of them (e.g. anophthalmia, anotia, hemifacial microsomia), having "more" to the face (e.g. tumors, neurofibromatosis, cranium bifidum), conditions affecting how the face moves (e.g. facial paralysis, ptosis, nerve damage), ocular differences (e.g. hypertelorism, nystagmus, strabismus), conditions affecting the colors of the face (e.g. rosacea, vitiligo, pigmentation conditions in general), a "look" that signals a specific disability (e.g. Down Syndrome) and approximately a million more things - scars, burn marks, craniofacial conditions, ichthyosis, visible cancers, and a lot more.

Despite popular opinion (popular ignorance would be more accurate because no one knows about it in the first place) people with Facial Differences have both a movement (Face Equality) and a specific word for the oppression we experience (Disfiguremisia). There is even the Face Equality Week that happens every year in May. This is a real thing that has been happening, and we are generally going unnoticed, even in the "representation matters" circles, the body positivity movement, disability spaces, and so on. There is an alliance of organizations dedicated to this called Face Equality International, who can help you learn about the real-world community and movement. They even have sections specifically about media representation, which is foreshadowing for how important this topic is to the community and for how long the "explaining the issues of representation" part of this post is.

And of course, if you have a facial difference/disfigurement, you can do whatever the hell you want when writing. Call your characters how you call yourself, subvert the tropes you want. I don't want to preach to people who already know all of this firsthand. This post is meant to explain some things to people who don't have experience with having FD.

Terminology

[Large Text: Terminology]

There is a lot of words to describe people with FD. Some of them are alright, most of them are awful.

Please keep in mind that all of these terms (except for the... last one) are used by real life people. This isn't me saying "you can't say that about yourself" (more power to you, I don't care) but rather to educate able-bodied people that some words they refer to use with aren't as neutral as they think (at least not to everyone).

"[person] with a facial difference" - generally the most polite and widely accepted way to refer to us. That's what is generally used in the Face Equality movement, sometimes alongside the next term which is...

"[person] who has a disfigurement" - an alright term that is sometimes used interchangeably with the one above. However, many things that involves the term "disfigurement" to me sound kinda medicalized and/or like lawyer speech. It's not offensive, but just generally used in more official ways. Still better than almost anything else.

"A disfigured [person]" - starting to steer into the "uhh" territory. Describing a whole person as disfigured is, to me, just weird. I get that some communities push for the identity first language, but this just isn't it most of the time. Could be way worse, could be slightly better.

"[person] who has a deformity" - "deformity" is such a negatively charged word that I don't understand how people (without FD) still use it thinking it's neutral. This sounds awkwardly medicalized in a "case study from the 80s" way which is definitely not a good thing.

"A deformed [person]" - pretty much the jackpot of bad terminology, the term deformed, the calling of an entire person by it, it has everything I hate about writers describing people like me. The only one that I think is even more awful is...

"Horribly/gnarly/nasty/monstrous deformity/scar/mark" - again, I'm impressed by what some people think is neutral wording. If you're searching a thesaurus for synonyms of "scary" to describe your character, it's time to just stop writing them. This is about using ableist terminology, sure, but I just can't imagine that someone calling their character that actually will represent FD well. It shows the negative bias and attitude of the writer. I can't imagine someone who writes like this actually likes the people they're writing about.

However, there is also one pretty awesome and simple way to describe them.

Say what they have. Specifically. Really. Assuming you know what condition your character has (which you should) it should be very easy. "She has Treacher-Collins Syndrome." "Xyr forehead has a port wine stain on it." "They can't fully open one of their eyes." It's clear and actually lets your readers know what you mean. You don't have to throw around euphemisms to describe someone not having a nose. When talking about a specific character (as opposed to a social group with similar experiences), this is the best option. If you're in doubt, just name the condition.

Tropes and Current State of Representation

[Large Text: Tropes and Current State of Representation]

If you have read basically any of my previous posts about FD then you probably know what I'm about to say in this section. Still worth a read though. I hope. Warning that this is long, but you probably expected that already.

One thing I will note at the start is that I'm aware that a lot of writers were already turned off from this post just because of the terminology section. I know that artists love describing people like me as ugly deformed monsters. It's literally a tale as old as antiquity, and that's how overdone and stale it is. Visibly disabled = ugly. I get it, I heard it a thousand times before, I hear it majority of the time someone is excited to tell me about how horrible and gross their OC's scar is. But now some guy from that group is telling you to like, maybe stop calling your disgustingly deformed character that.

I want to make it very clear that FD representation in media is not treated like a real thing that's worth anyone's time, even by the most "representation is so important!" writers. I guess it's too inconvenient to unpack the amount of baggage and uncomfortable implications this would cause. It's too good of a device in writing; everyone knows that if a guy with a scar shows up that it means he's evil, the easiest way to make a villain visually interesting is to make them a burn survivor, and if you need a tragic backstory for a serial killer just give them a congenital disability that caused literally everyone in the world to treat them horribly, so of course they started killing people. It's such a good moral signifier that literally every book and tale has done - pretty is good, ugly is bad. Dichotomy is so helpful.

What is less helpful in the real world is that what is considered "ugly" is generally very tightly bound to what visibly disabled people look like. Ugly Laws weren't just like, coincidentally including disabled people and disability activists aren't still forced to speak out against being put in those "Ugliest People" lists by accident. This is all to say that facial differences are considered to be "ugly" completely uncontested, and you probably have this bias too, as the vast majority of people do. The whole "the character is ugly, then they become evil, if they're evil, they become ugly"... you need to be conscious to not do that. Don't make them evil if they're visibly disabled because it will always end up being the same old trope, no matter how many weird excuses and in-universe explanations you give. I want to put it in people's heads that you are writing about a community of people who are technically visible in real life, but have no large voices that the general public would listen to when it comes to how we are seen. The general public relies on media to tell them that.

Putting people with FD in your books or your art seems to suddenly be intimidating for a lot of artists when they realize that not only is facial difference a real thing, but people who have it can see what you write or draw (and your other readers will take some things out of what you write, subconsciously). When an author is faced with the fact that maybe they are doing harm with their writing, they either: suddenly don't want to do that anymore at all, or say: "I don't care! I'm going to be very innovative and make my very evil OC be deformed!", which is kinda funny to me that people actually seem to think it's edgy and cool to repeat the most tired Hollywood tropes, but that's the best we can get, I guess.

The attitudes that people have around the topic of facial difference and the whole "media impacts reality" are very interesting to me in general. On one hand, when I tell someone that I was bullied or ostracized because of my disabilities, no one is ever surprised. On the other hand, everyone is for some reason uncomfortable when I say that this doesn't just... appear out of thin air. People are taught from childhood that facial differences and the people who have them are scary, untrustworthy, or literal monsters. Media is a major factor in that. Like, looking back at it, it makes sense that my parents told me not to stare at other kids because they would get scared. After all, I looked like a kindergarten version of the bad guy from some kid's book. Other kids were able-bodied and looked like the good guy, I was visibly disabled and looked like the bad guy. That's the lesson kids get from media on how people with visible disabilities are: evil, scary, not to be interacted with. So they avoided me because of that while I had adults telling me to not even look in their direction. Dichotomy is so helpful, right?

And this doesn't magically stop at children. When I post a self-portrait or a selfie, I deal with multiple grown people comparing me to sometimes an animal, usually a specific character from a movie, sometimes even making my face into a meme right away. But if people don't generally see people with facial differences on the daily, then how are there so many specific reactions and so many similar problems that we go through? If it's so rare, then how are people so quick to tell me the character I remind them the most of- Yeah, media. It's always media. It's almost funny how everything circles back to one thing.

I want you, the author, to understand the impact of misrepresentation of facial difference. If you feel uncomfortable because you have done these tropes before, good. That's a sign of growth. If you want to help instead of harm, you need to get over your (subconscious) biases for a minute and think about how a person with the same condition as your character would feel like reading about them. Maybe you are even currently realizing that that one OC with scars is just five harmful tropes glued together. Maybe you are going to reblog this and tell me in the tags that somehow your character decided to be like that, as if they have free will instead of being written by a biased human being. Or, as I said earlier, a lot of people will be annoyed by this post and keep doing their thing. Which is like... whatever, I guess. Who cares? There are a dozen huge movies and TV shows every year that do this. It's so basic and normalized that whatever reach this post will have will change very little. I have been signaled "we don't care what you think about how we portray people like you" my entire life, I'm frankly more surprised when people do actually claim to care. You can, practically speaking, do whatever because the FD community is fully ignored by everyone and even if I'm disappointed or annoyed, I'm just one man and I know (from experience) that most people won't have my back on this topic. It's too ingrained in our culture at this point to challenge it, I suppose. I mean, there have been multiple media campaigns telling writers to treat us as people, and they had practically zero impact on the writing community. But, even with my absurdly pessimistic view on this subject, I still decided to write all this. Sure, there are no signs of the industry changing and the writing community doesn't seem to care much, but I still naively hope that maybe the right person will read this and at some point in the future I will be watching or reading about a character that looks like me and actually have a good time, and even more naively that maybe people will gain some amount of awareness of the damage that has been and still is happening to people with FD through media, so that the next time they see that the villain has facial scars for no reason they will think "damn, this sucks" the same way I do. And very, very naively, I hope that people who read this will start seeing us as people. Not villains, not plot devices, not monsters.

Sad part over (?), now the fun (?) part. AKA the tropes! Yay.

"Dramatic Reveal of The Deformity".

Use of the word "deformity" very much on purpose here. This is arguably the most common trope when it comes to FD, and it's always awful. At the very best it links FD with trauma and talks in a Very Sad Voice about how having a FD is the worst thing imaginable, I guess ("X did this to me... now I'm Deformed For Life..." type of scene) and at worst it does the classic revealing that the main villain actually was a burn survivor under his mask, because of course he was. In media, people with FD are evil. If they're not, then it's because someone very evil did it to them (the most evil thing of all - causing someone to have a facial difference. the horror!). It can't be a thing unrelated to someone's morality, there's gotta be evil somewhere around it. There is literally nothing good about this trope. Showing FD as something to hide? Check. Dramatizing FD? Check. Placing the way someone's face looks as the worst thing possible? Check. General treating FD as some kind of circus attraction to stare at with your mouth open? Check.

"Wearing a Mask*."

I made a whole post about this one actually, that's how much it annoys me. Putting your character with FD in a mask is so overdone, lazy, and boring I'm not even offended as much as I thought I would. It's like - really? Again? For the millionth time, the character with FD is forced to hide their disability? Is the author scared? What is the point of giving your character a visible difference if all you're doing is hiding it? And yes, I know that your character chose to do that for reasons that you as a writer somehow can't control. It's always so strange how it's the character that's in control and the writer is in the passenger seat when it comes to annoying tropes.

Since I originally made this post I've come to discover that this is way more common than my pessimistic ass thought back then. Here's a whole tag for this trope.

*"mask" here refers to anything that covers the character's facial difference (e.g. eye covering, surgical mask, whatever. It's about hiding it and not a technical definition of "what is a mask").

"Good Guy has the Tiniest Scar You Can Imagine, but Don't Worry! The Villain is Deformed As Hell."

A genre on its own. In the rare instance that a positive character has a facial difference, they have a curiously limited choice - you can have:

the thinnest, definitely-very-realistic straight line going through the eye (the eye is always either perfectly okay or milky for reasons the author couldn't tell you),

the same exact line but going horizontally across the nose,

and if you're feeling spicy you can put it around the mouth,

regardless of location, just make sure it doesn't look like an actual scar (certainly not a keloid or hypertrophic one) and is instead a straight line done with a red or white crayon. Interestingly, villains have unlocked more options which stem from scars, craniofacial conditions, burn marks, cleft lips, ptosis, colobomas, anisocoria, tumors, facial paralysis, to pretty much everything that's not infantilized, like Down Syndrome. These are always either realistic or extremely bloody. I sound like a broken record by now, but no, your morality has nothing to do with your physical appearance and being evil doesn't make a visible disability get more visible. Shocker. And don't get me started on...

"The Villain turned Evil Because They Have Scars."

Nice. Disabled people are evil because they're disabled, truly a timeless classic for able-bodied writers whose worst fear in life is being disabled. In case that needs to be said, having a facial difference doesn't turn you evil, doesn't make you become a serial killer, doesn't make you violent, doesn't turn you into an assassin with a tragic backstory seeking revenge for ruining their life. If anything, having a FD makes it more likely for other people to be violent towards you. Speaking from experience.

"The Villain Just Has Scars."

An impressive attempt at cutting out the middleman of "clumsily and definitely not ableist-icly explaining why getting a scar made them evil" and not even bothering with a tragic backstory or anything. They are evil, so of course they have a facial difference. What were you thinking?

"Facial Difference is a Plot Point."

As anyone who's read A Book will tell you, the only way to get a facial difference is to be in a very dramatic fight or an extremely tragic accident who will become a plot point and thus the facial difference is now Heavily Emotionally Charged and a symbol of The Event/The Tragedy. If you look at media, congenital FD isn't a thing, illness-related FD doesn't exist and boring domestic accident or a fall causing FD has never been seen. It has to be dramatic and tragic or else there's no point in them having it. A true "why are they [minority]" moment, if you will. You can't just be, you have to be plot relevant.

"Character gets a FD but then Gets Magically Cured Because They're Good."

Truly one of the tropes that make me want to rip my hair out. Curing your character with FD sucks just as much as curing a disabled or neurodivergent character. Who is this even for? That's not how real life works. This is some actual Bible shit, that's how old this trope is. The only thing you're doing here is making people think that those who do have FD just aren't "good enough". Every time I see it, I wonder what the author would think of the congenital disorder I have. According to this kind of in-universe rules, was I born evil and just never got good, or..?

"Character with FD has Self-Esteem Issues and Hates Their Face."

I admittedly mocked all the previous tropes because they're absurd, ridiculous, offensive, boring, all of the above, and have zero basis in reality. This one however... ouch, right in my own tragic backstory. This is unfortunately a very real experience that a lot of people with FD go through. I even have a hunch there wouldn't be as many if the general public didn't think of us as monsters, but I digress. Yes, a lot of us have or had self-esteem problems, and a lot of us wished that we wouldn't have to go through all the BS we were put through because of it. Thankfully for you, you don't have to write about it! Seriously. You don't need to. As one million people have said before me, "maybe don't write about things you haven't experienced" and I agree here. I have yet to see an able-bodied author get anything about this right. Instead of the deeply personal, complex experience that involves both you, everything around you and the very perception of what others think of you that this is, somehow writers keep giving the tired "character crying and sobbing because they're 'ugly' now", because the author thinks we're ugly. Or maybe they're sad because all the other characters with facial differences are evil, and they didn't have the time to prepare their evil monologue for when they inevitably become evil in the sequel? Who knows.

"The Author Doesn't Know."

The author not knowing what their character actually has going on medically is common to a ridiculous extent - this applies to all kinds of disabled characters as well. You don't need to name-drop the Latin term for whatever your character has, but you need know what it is behind the scenes. You need to know the symptoms. You need to know the onset and the treatment or lack of it. Please do your medical research.

Things I Want to See More of in Characters with Facial Differences

[Large Text: Things I Want to See More of in Characters with Facial Differences]

The thing you might have noticed is that I want Facial Differences and People with Facial Differences to be presented as normal. Not killers, not SCP anomaly whatever, not monsters, not evil mercenaries who have "revenge" as their only life goal. I'm aware that the term is tired, but I absolutely want Facial Differences normalized as much as possible.

I want to see more characters with facial differences...

who have friends that don't bully or make fun of them because of their appearance.

who have support from their family.

who know other people with facial differences - even if they're just background characters, or mentioned in passing. Marginalized people tend to gravitate towards each other, people with FD aren't some magical exception to this.

who are queer.

who aren't only skinny white cis dudes in general.

who are disabled in other ways. A lot of us are Blind, Deaf, both, unable to speak, intellectually disabled, having issues with mobility, and a million other comorbidities.

who are fantastical in some way - preferably not the "secretly a monster" way. But a mermaid with CdLS or an elf with neurofibromatosis? That's cool.

who are allowed to be cute or fashionable.

who have jobs that aren't "stereotypical bad evil guy jobs". Give me a retail worker with a cleft lip or a chef with Down Syndrome.

who are reoccurring characters that just happen to have a FD.

who are those stock/generic characters that aren't typically associated with FD. Hero's mom has septicemia scars? Cool. The popular cheerleader at school has alopecia? Awesome. The bartender of the place the heroes secretly meet up at has Möbius Syndrome? Goes hard. The kid that the MC used to hang out with before they moved somewhere else has Crouzon Syndrome? Great.

who have their FD be visible.

who aren't ashamed of their FD.

who are feeling very neutral about their face.

who are proud of how they look.

who got their FD in a very boring way or were just born with it.

who have facial differences other than small scars.

who's angst is fully unrelated to their FD. I love me an angsty teen character. Even more if they are angsty about their crush, or basically anything that's not their disability.

who have a significant other who doesn't do the whole "I love you despite your looks" thing. It just sucks. Sorry. I would hate if someone said this to me.

who are children and aren't implied to be "cursed" or "demonic".

in genres that aren't just horror or thriller. RomCom or slice of life, anyone?

who aren't evil.

who aren't criminals.

who aren't vigilantes/morally gray.

who aren't social outcasts.

I want to see stories with multiple characters with facial differences. I have nerve damage and facial asymmetry, and I am friends or mutuals with people with Williams Syndrome, Bell's palsy, Down Syndrome, neurofibromatosis, facial atrophy, ptosis... and a lot of other things. Your character would have (or, would probably want) some connection to their community. We aren't rare.

And, I want stories with the spectrum of facial differences shown. Of course, you can't represent the actual whole spectrum, but you can still aim for at least a few. Don't give every single character with FD the same scar-through-eye + eyepatch. It's not unrealistic to have a range in your writing. Here is a list of facial differences you might want to check out for inspiration. Don't be scared to give them something rare - no matter how uncommon, people still have it. My specific condition is allegedly extremely rare - I still want representation.

Closing Remarks

[Large Text: Closing Remarks]

Facial difference and the media is a topic that plagued me for the past two decades and won't stop ever, I think. It's a very unique relationship of a group of people who just aren't allowed to get into the industry and an industry that clearly hates them, loves to use their image, and defines how people see them all at once. There's this overrepresentation that is consistently awful and damaging to an absurd degree. Most people know more villains with FD than actual people. Certainly doesn't feel great to be one of the aforementioned actual peoples. But I hope that this will change - the negative portrayals that are plaguing the FD community will slowly fade out and a newer wave of portrayals will come in, hopefully this time realizing that we are real people and care about us a bit more.

The thing with facial difference is that it's pretty much impossible to make a specific guide of what it's like and what to do in context of writing because it's an incredible vast category that includes conditions that are very different from each other. That's why this post was more focused on "why you should care in the first place" (sorry for the clickbait) rather than being a straightforward guide that would still be very lacking even if 20 different people were collaborating on it. I really, really encourage everyone who got through this rather long post to do their research on what they plan to write about, be conscious of their own biases, don't pull inspiration from movies because they're all hellholes full of tropes and just sit down for a minute, think of the real-world people with facial differences, and read what we have to say. I know that drawing a guy with a line across his eye is more fun than realizing you're low-key scared of or uncomfortable around the real-world equivalent, but sometimes you have to get over yourself and try to be a better person. Caring about the people you write about is, dare I say, essential. That will certainly make your writing of us better :-) (smiley face with a nose)

If you have any specific questions, feel free to send an ask

Mod Sasza

#mod sasza #face difference #writing advice #writing ref #writeblr #writing disabled characters #long post #writing reference #writing resources #writing guide #writing resource #writing tips #writing help #burn survivor representation

2K notes · View notes

literaryvein-reblogs · 9 months ago

Text

Writing Notes: Novel Editing

Below are 4 different types of novel editing. Revising in the right order is essential if you want your book to be in the best shape possible.

Developmental Editing

Comes first.

Involves looking at the story as a whole.

Also called structural editing, or content editing.

Base components. Plot, structure, characterization, pace, viewpoint, narrative style, and tense:

Plot: Sequence of events that take the reader from the beginning to the end.

Structure: How the plot is organized. Even if B occurred after A, the reader might learn about B before the events of A are unveiled.

Characterization: How characters are represented such that we can make sense of their behavior as we journey with them through the story.

Pace: The speed at which the story unfolds. Effective pace ensures readers feel neither rushed nor bored. That doesn’t mean the pace remains steady; a story can include sections of fast-paced action and slower cool-downs.

Viewpoint: In each chapter or section, readers should understand who the narrator is—whose eyes they are seeing through, whose emotions they have access to, whose voice dominates the narrative. It also means understanding the restrictions in play such that head-hopping doesn’t pull the reader out of the story.

Narrative style: Is the narrative viewpoint conveyed in the first, second or third person? The choice determines a narrative’s style.

Tense: Is the story told in the present or the past tense? Each has its benefits and limitations.

Notes: On Developmental Editing

Types of developmental edits:

Full-novel edits in which the editor revises (or suggests revisions) that will improve the story;

critiques or manuscript evaluations that report on the strengths and weaknesses of the story; and

sensitivity reads that offer specialist reports on the potential misrepresentation and devaluation of marginalized others.

Different editors handle developmental edits in different ways.

One might include an assessment of genre and marketability; another might not.

Some editors revise the raw text; others restrict the edit to margin markup.

Check what you’re being offered against what you want.

Developmental editing isn’t about checking spelling, grammar, and punctuation.

Line Editing

The next step in the revision process; it is stylistic work.

A strong sentence elevates story; a poorly crafted one can bury it.

This level of editing revises for style, sense, and flow.

Also called substantive editing or stylistic editing.

Editors will be addressing the following:

Authenticity of phrasing and word choice in relation to character voice

Character-trait consistency and unveiling

Clarity and consistency of viewpoint and narrative style

Cliché and awkward metaphor

Dialogue and how it conveys voice, mood, and intention

Sentence pace and flow, with special attention to repetition and overwriting

Tenses, and whether they’re effective and consistent

Told-versus-shown prose

Notes: On Line Editing

Types of sentence-level edits:

Full-novel line edits in which the editor revises (or suggests revisions) that will improve the line work;

line critiques that report on the strengths and weaknesses of the line craft; and

mini line edits in which the editor revises an agreed section of the novel such that the author can hone their line craft and mimic the edit throughout the rest of the novel.

Different editors define their sentence-level services differently.

Some include technical checking (copy editing) with the stylistic work, while some do the stylistic and technical work in separate passes.

Check what you’re being offered against what you want.

Line-editing stage is not the ideal place to be fixing problems with plot, theme, pace and viewpoint. Fixes are likely to be inelegant and invasive.

Copy Editing

The technical side of sentence-level work.

Editors will be addressing the following:

Chapter sequencing

Consistency of proper-noun spelling

Dialogue tagging and punctuation

Letter, word, line, and paragraph spacing

Logic of timeline, environment, and character traits

Spelling, grammar, syntax, punctuation, hyphenation, and capitalization

Standard document formatting

Notes: On Copy Editing

Some editors offer line editing and copy editing together in a single pass. That combined service might be indicated by what it’s called, e.g. ‘line-/copy editing’. However, it might be called just ‘copy editing’ even though it includes stylistic work.

Check what you’re being offered against what you want.

Novel copy editing is best done in a single pass:

When an editor works on separate chunks of text, inconsistencies are likely to slip through.

One pass of a sentence-level edit is not enough to ready a novel for publication. Final quality control is necessary.

Proofreading

The last stage of the editing process prior to publication.

Every novel, whether it’s being delivered in print or digitally, requires a final quality-control check.

What a Proofreader Does

Looks for literal errors and layout problems that slipped through previous rounds of revision or were introduced at design stage.

Authors preparing for print can ask a proofreader to annotate page proofs. These are almost what a reader would see if they pulled the novel off the shelf.

Others ask proofreaders to amend the raw text, either because they’re preparing for e-publication or for audiobook narration.

Proofreaders are more than typo hunters

They check for consistency of spelling, punctuation and grammar, but also for layout problems such as (but not limited to) indentation, line spacing, inconsistent chapter drops, missing page numbers, and font and heading styles.

The art of good proofreading lies in knowing when to change and when to leave well enough alone.

A good proofreader should understand the impact of their revisions—not only in relation to the knock-on effect on other pages but also to the cost if a third-party designer/formatter is part of the team.

Notes: On Proofreading

A proofread is rarely enough, no matter how experienced the writer. It’s the last line of defense, not the only line of defense.

Be sure to clarify with an editor what you want and which mediums the editor works with. Proofreading designed page proofs requires an additional level of checking that a raw-text review doesn’t. And some editors work only on raw text, some only on PDF, and some only on hard copy.

Proofreading is about quality control. The proofreader should be polishing the manuscript, not filling in plot holes or trimming purple prose.

PROOFREADING CHECKLIST

Author:

Title:

Prelims

Title page. The title of the book, the author’s name & the publisher are correct

Copyright page. Check that author name and date of publication are correct, and that the copyright statement is present and correct

Dedication. The spelling/punctuation style are correct & consistent

Acknowledgements. The spelling/punctuation style are correct & consistent

Foreword. The spelling, layout and punctuation style are correct and consistent

Preface. The spelling, layout and punctuation style are correct and consistent

Table of contents. Check against all chapter titles & subheadings in main text for consistency of spelling/capitalization; Check page numbers against main text

Figures, tables, maps, plates. Check against all entries in main text for consistency of spelling/capitalization; Page numbers against entries in main text

List of contributors. Check consistency with chapters in main text Are the names spelled correctly and rendered consistently (e.g. A. B. Smith, AB Smith, A.B. Smith, Alan B. Smith etc.)?

Pagination. Check that all prelim pages are numbered consecutively and correctly in Roman (i, ii, etc. unless brief specifies Arabic); Check that size and position of page numbers is correct and consistent

Running heads. Check that running heads in prelims are correct and consistent (size, font, colour, position on page)

Main Text

Pagination

Check that all text pages are numbered consecutively in main text

Check that size and position of page numbers is correct and consistent

Check that first page of the first chapter starts on a recto (right-hand page)

Check that all odd page numbers are on rectos

Running heads

Check that running heads match chapter heads (or abbreviated forms of them)

Running heads are correct/consistent (size, font, colour, position on page)

Running heads and folio numbers have been removed from landscaped figures and tables

Check that running heads have been removed from part- and chapter title pages

Chapter titles and headings (incl. subheadings)

Consistency of font, spacing, colour, size & position on page for each heading level

Check that capitalization is correct and consistent for each heading level

Check that each chapter drop is consistent

Check that space above and below is consistent within heading level

Lists

Check that spacing above and below lists is consistent

Ensure line spacing of list entries is consistent

Check that bullet style is consistent within list type

Check that end-of-line punctuation is consistent within list

Page depth

Check page depth is consistent throughout

Look out for uneven page depths on facing rectos (right-hand pages) and versos (left-hand pages)

Page margins

Is the text area consistent throughout/adequate for printing/readability purposes?

Notes and cross-references

Ensure all notes are cued/numbered consecutively by chapter or through the book

Check that the note numbers given match the in-text note markers

Check each note appears on the appropriate page; if footnotes run over to the next page, there should be a short rule above the continuation (or other indicator as given by house style)

Check any cross-references in the text to chapters, figures or tables

Highlight any cross-references that still need to be completed

Ensure that in-text citations are presented according to preferred style and can be located in the book's references or bibliography

More layout problems to look out for:

Uneven spacing and leading

Irregular indentation of extracts

Crooked lines, especially in captions and headings

Wrong or inconsistent typefaces or type sizes

Bad word breaks that might trip the reader (e.g. cow-orker, trip-od)

Widows and orphans

More than two end-of-line hyphens stacked on top of each other

Paragraph indentation (first paragraphs in a chapter or section are often not indented)

Hyphens that should be dashes (e.g. when used parenthetically/in number ranges)

Double spaces after full stops (periods)

Rogue spaces at the beginning and end of paragraphs

Extracts

Check punctuation of sources

Check that extracts are set consistently (size, font, colour, position)

Query any missing acknowledgements/permissions

Figures, tables, maps, plates

Check that quality is acceptable

Is numbering correct and consistent?

Is the design consistent (font, size, colour, spacing)?

Check captions against lists of figures, tables or illustrations in the prelims

Check spelling, punctuation/grammar of figure labels and table column headings

Check alignment of columns in tables and positioning of ruled lines

Check that all illustrations provide a credit/source acknowledgement and query if any appear to be missing

End Matter

Notes

Ensure all notes are cued & numbered consecutively by chapter/through the book

If notes are grouped at the end of the book, check the text and the page numbers given alongside to ensure they match the main text and the contents page

Check that the note numbers given match the in-text note markers

If running heads include cross-references to page numbers, check these are correct, or fill in if required

Glossary

Is the list in alphabetical order?

Check that the layout is consistent

Afterword

Check that the spelling, layout and punctuation style are correct and consistent

Appendices

Check that the layout is consistent

Check that the numbering is consistent and matches any in-text cross references and the contents list

Bibliography/references

Is the list in alphabetical order?

Has the preferred reference style been used correctly and consistently?

Pagination and layout

Check that all text pages are numbered consecutively in the end matter

Check that size and position of page numbers is correct and consistent

Page depth

Check page depth is consistent throughout

Look out for uneven page depths on facing rectos and versos

Page margins

Text area is consistent throughout & adequate for printing & readability purposes

Running heads

Check that running heads match chapter heads (or abbreviated forms of them)

Check that running heads are correct and consistent (size, font, colour, position on page)

FINAL NOTES

Authors need to take their books through all the types of editing.

That doesn’t mean hiring third party professionals for each stage.

Writing groups, self-study courses, how-to books, and self publishing organizations are all great sources of editorial support.

If you decide to work with a professional, invest in one who can help you where you’re weakest:

You might be a great structural self-editor but prone to overwriting. Or you might have nailed line craft but need help with story development.

Pay attention to the order of play when it comes to revision.

Fixing plot holes at proofreading stage might damage previous rounds of editing.

Source More: On Editing

152 notes · View notes

algebraic-dumbass · 3 months ago

Note

You seem to like Lockhart's Lament, and I really don't get it. Besides being (intentionally?) pretentious, I feel like it massively misrepresents what mathematicians actually do. We spend most of our time doing creative problem solving, working towards some fixed external goal. Not creative design, where the end goal is up to our own whims.

To take an example I've seen quoted, but fine particularly egregious: "A piece of mathematics is like a poem, and we can ask if it satisfies our aesthetic criteria: Is this argument sound? Does it make sense? Is it simple and elegant? Does it get me closer to the heart of the matter?" This is a massive false equivalence!! The first two are factual statements, either the argument is sound or not!! Yeah there's an element of communication which is more subjective, but comparing the soundness of an argument to its elegance completely lost my respect for him.

I mean, I like Lockhart's Lament because I find it explains very well what math actually is as opposed to what people who only did math without proofs (i.e. most people who quit math after highschool, in my experience) believe math is. Now I do agree with you that it is pretentious, and probably intentionally. Now, the full paragraph of what you quoted is

And I haven’t even mentioned the lack of mathematical criticism in school. At no time are students let in on the secret that mathematics, like any literature, is created by human beings for their own amusement; that works of mathematics are subject to critical appraisal; that one can have and develop mathematical taste. A piece of mathematics is like a poem, and we can ask if it satisfies our aesthetic criteria: Is this argument sound? Does it make sense? Is it simple and elegant? Does it get me closer to the heart of the matter? Of course there’s no criticism going on in school— there’s no art being done to criticize!

I think what Lockhart might be meaning here (or at least, that's how I interpreted it when I read it) is that students in school never get to experience what it is to "have an opinion" (broadly) about a piece of mathematics. I think that under the word "criticism", Lockhart lumps in "checking the soundness of an argument" and more subjective matters such as "is the argument elegant?". Both types of reflections on an argument are a part of a mathematician's work, though I do agree with you that putting soundness on the same level as elegance is misguided at best.

However, I don't think it's fair to throw away the whole thing because of one comparison. I believe this because I mostly see it as a convenient piece of writing to point to so people who have a highschool understanding of what math is can get a slightly better idea. Though it is rare for me these days, from what I remember from when I talked with non-math people about math is that they believe it is a set of predefined rules, and are often baffled you can even do research in it. For these people, Lockhart's Lament would be at least helpful. This is why I link it on my posts, obviously to anyone actually familiar to math it has little value, but I expect some non-math people to maybe stumble upon it.

As for the "misrepresentation" part, I don't know. I will concede I have not yet done actual research so maybe I still have a flawed understanding of how it happens. I will say I especially like the example of the triangle in the box as it (in my opinion) clearly demonstrates how (1) you do think about an abstract problem of your choice and (2) you solve it, not by pure creativity, but with some creativity and problem-solving involved. In fact Lockhart even says

On the other hand, once you have made your choices ([...]) then your new creations do what they do, whether you like it or not. This is the amazing thing about making imaginary patterns: they talk back! The triangle takes up a certain amount of its box, and I don’t have any control over what that amount is. There is a number out there, maybe it’s two-thirds, maybe it isn’t, but I don’t get to say what it is. I have to find out what it is.

This I think clearly underlines that mathematics is not creative design. The metaphor is useful to rid people of their preconcieved ideas of what math is and I believe that's why Lockhart uses it.

Again maybe I just have a very flawed understanding of what research is. What do i know. I'm just an algebraic-dumbass

(By all means if you have a better piece of writing I can reference to do the whole explaining-of-what-math-actually-is for me, do tell! I would be very happy to have other things to point to!)

#ask #algebraic-dumbass

48 notes · View notes

thaltro · 7 months ago

Note

helloo ! ive been wanting to ask if you have any specific tips or things to focus on while writing characters with DID ! im not a system myself but psychology in general has been a topic that ive always been interested in and want to depict it to the best of my ability + i love your art and wish you the best ^^

Good question!

Writing about DID/OSDD is incredibly difficult- even I a system probably couldn’t do it, but I can give you some advice regardless. Obviously saying “research” is expected, but finding good research on it is hard. As always I recommend as a starter for understanding the fundamentals of the disorder : “The Haunted Self: Structural Dissociation and Treatment of Chronic Traumatization” just look that up and I’m sure you can find it on the internet archive or docdriod. As a rule of thumb don’t trust system tiktok, tumblr, carrds, or any personal account to get the majority of your information from just because there’s an incredible amount of misinformation (of course there’s plenty others on there who probably know what they are talking about, but I’d always recommend using credible peer reviewed sources.)

With the research disclaimer thing out of the way here’s a few points:

-It’s a trauma based disorder, everything is structured around trauma. Not just a singular trauma but repeated emotional, physical, and typically sexual trauma that is experienced under the age of 10 (You don’t need all three, just a lot of systems experience a mix of trauma) To write DID/OSDD right you should be able to write child traumatization accurately and be comfortable with writing it.

-There is a vast amount of different experiences with DID/OSDD. There are varying levels of amnesia, alter presentations, system structures etc. not all systems use plural terms, have names for alters, or have much personality differentiation between alters. The experience of a Osdd1a system will be different to a DID system, so you’d probably want to look into the specifics of those differences and stick to one type of system.

-Try to avoid misconceptions and DID tropes in media. The most obvious one I can think of is “the evil alter” trope, there’s quite a lot of demonization of the disorder so you have to be critical when viewing media depicting it (fuck the split movie).

-unless it’s apart of a character arc avoid the uncritical idea that alters are just their source. it’s healthy for them to branch out and expand from their baseline purpose and identity.

As for things I’d like to see in DID/OSDD rep it’d be:

-representing extreme denial

-loss of time

-source separation would be cool

-fusion and dormancy being mentioned

A lot of media hyper focuses on Alters when that is only one aspect of system hood. I think I’d be cool to look at the other symptoms.

But overall, it would be a really hard task to write a system especially without being one. I’m not saying it’s impossible but it’s easy to fall into misrepresentation even if it’s well meaning (it’s easy to do that even if a person is a system, that’s why I’m too scared to write it) If you are going to do it, do a very thorough amount of research before you develop an idea of a character. I know I sound really upset at the idea, I’m not I do really like the idea of representation- but DID/OSDD is such a stigmatized disorder that you have to be so so so careful not to add onto the stigma. I do believe it’s possible to do it right though! I wish you luck and thank you for the compliment.

#thank you #did osdd

88 notes · View notes

twilightkitkat · 7 months ago

Note

Thoughts on origins Wolverine being the worst Wolverine? Also Logan putting it together and being very shocked because they are so different while being so similar

I personally love and subscribe to the headcanon that Origins Wolverine is Worst Wolverine. Not only does it match up and explain a lot of his psychological differences, but it just makes Logan's interactions with Wade so much more impactful.

I think that even after Logan remembered his past, parts of it were fuzzy. He remembered the major events, a vague overview of his life, but he didn't recover from the amnesia entirely. He didn't remember all of the small moments, all of the experiences. And even when he did they were blurred and cracked around the edges until something triggered a more vivid memory, typically out of nowhere.

And so while he remembered being part of the Weapon X Program, he didn't remember it in its entirety. Oddly enough, it was like his brain resisted when he tried to dig into those memories, the same way it did before he discovered his past with Stryker...

I think once he realized they were the same person, he'd be in complete and utter shock. He'd deny it at first, out of preservation, but once he connected the dots... it wasn't a pretty picture.

I think he'd take it extremely hard. If he realized that the guy who saved him in this world was the same one he pretty much killed in another, it'd fuck him up. He'd have nightmares about the grotesque misrepresentation that was his Wade before he killed him. A clone stripped of his autonomy, imbued with his DNA, and forced to attack his former teammates.

Wade from back then looked different than now, but his heart was the same. He always took challenges head-on and didn't hesitate or look back. He was always a quick fighter with an even quicker mouth. He was never afraid to look Logan in the eye, even when others cowered. He was never the type to bootlick or stick to the rules, and never ratted Logan out when he talked about betraying his mission when drunk.

The main difference was that he was so much... brighter, back then. He was unreserved and more free, not yet burdened by the weight of a mutation he never wanted. When Logan remembered how he used to act and compared it to now, Wade had become more subdued and closed off. He still presented himself as obnoxious, but he was self-conscious and held himself with a wariness he didn't before.

It'd hurt Logan a lot. To see what he could've been had Francis not taken hold of him. To think about the future he could've had and unknowingly fucked up.

To look at Wade and see a walking corpse flash behind his eyes.as

#kitkat #poolverine #deadclaws #deadpool 3 #deadpool and wolverine #logan howlett #wade wilson #deadpool movie #wade x logan #wade/logan #asks

83 notes · View notes

quasi-normalcy · 1 month ago

Text

So I think one of the things that really grates my cheese about Fandom Menace types (you know, besides the outrage-bait grift, and the reactionary politics, and the harassment of creatives, and the lies, and the distortions, and the misrepresentations, and the obnoxious thumbnails, and the shouting, and the deliberate bad-faith readings of everything, and the hypocritical double standards when it’s something they like, and��) is that, even when they’re critiquing something that I myself find badly written, they do so in the most boring way imaginable. Like, for me, part of the fun of long-lasting franchise storytelling is getting together with other fans to propose headcanons to justify the poorly written bits. Like, “Oh yeah, the ‘Miri’ Earth phased in from a parallel universe”; “Oh yeah, it’s just this one part of space that warp drive damages”; “Oh yeah, these Klingons look like that because of experiments with genetic engineering to get their ridges back.”

These people, though, foreclose upon that sort of generative creativity by just declaring things “dumb” and “non-canon” and then having a three having a three-hour-long circle jerk about how angry they are over it. Like, can you not see how that’s less fun than the alternative? Can you not see how interrupting all fandom conversations to bitch and moan like whipped dogs about how you’re angry and you hate it so much and people who don’t hate it as much as you must be mentally inferior fake fans just take the fun away from everyone else? Do you honestly think that watching an hours-long YouTube video of some cryptofascist man-baby screaming media critiques that all boil down to “It’s WOKE and is trying to DESTROY WESTERN VALUES!” is a worthy use of the finite number of minutes that you have allotted to be alive on Earth?

And of course, it’s the same chuds who poo-poo fanfiction and look down on the writers, because for them fandom isn’t a creative act, it’s an act of endlessly honouring and worshipping the bygone golden age of youth when America was a Real Nation and they were still capable of getting erections without pharmacological intervention.

28 notes · View notes

am-i-the-asshole-official · 1 year ago

Note

WIBTA for making a character with DID or OSDD as someone with no experience with the disorder? 😶❓ to find later

Hello. I (15nb) have many diverse original characters. Many of them have anxiety, ADHD, and/or Autism. I have all three disorders, so it's generally accepted that I can make characters like that. However, one of my characters who we'll call G, has a particularly unique backstory, that I think DID or OSDD could fit very well into. However, I do not have any type of dissociative disorder myself, so I am concerned that if I try to make a character like this I could portray the disorder innacurately and/or offend people with it simply based off the potential misrepresentation Thought I would ask this early on just in case. WIBTA

#aita #am i the asshole

134 notes · View notes

talenlee · 4 months ago

Text

4e: Who Kisses Whom?

Kisses are nice.

I don’t think I’m describing any outlandish or challenging idea here. I live in a society that treats kisses as, broadly speaking, nice, and good things. Sometimes they’re very important things like true love’s first kiss, and sometimes they’re sweet but silly, like sealing with a kiss, and sometimes they’re actually bad and that’s meant to be ironic because using ‘kiss’ to describe something bad is a misrepresentation of what kisses are, like a kiss of death.

What then do we glean of 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons, with its searchable compendium, if we search for the word kiss?

Traps

To clear out the fastest entry first, there’s exactly one kiss-named trap, and it’s the Kissing Maiden, from Dungeon Magazine 201. It’s part of an article about traps (shock, horror, I know) and trying to make the Dungeon of Undermountain feel more, well, diegetically interesting. It’s a pretty interesting take on the idea that traps in the D&D universe would be expected to work in a particular way, and there needs to be both a meaningful relationship to people operating in a space that makes sense to them (ie, avoiding triggering the traps) while still making the traps dangerous enough to dissuade people who shouldn’t be there.

It’s one of the interesting parts of 4th edition to me, that traps are treated as both an attrition mechanism but also a threshold. If you can’t survive four or five traps in a place that has, say, ten traps, then statistically speaking, you’re just going to be naturally selected away from going there. On the other hand, the more complicated and dangerous a trap is, the more it defies your immediate expectations away from ‘it’s a pit’ versus ‘it stabs you,’ the more you have to make sure the effort is worth it.

A Kissing Maiden is a floor trap that uses a lever under tension to, when you step on it and trigger it, swing basically a column up to smack into you. The column is sometimes spiky, but sometimes it’s an image of a maiden, kissing, hence the name. There’s no deeper reason explanation at work there, just, you know, maybe sometimes, they might design this trap to look like a lady, who kisses you with her hard stone lips and breaks your nose.

From this trap, we can extrapolate that: People who made this trap are weird about women.

Creatures

There are two creatures which wear the name ‘kiss’; the Bloodkiss Beholder and the Flamekiss Hydra.

The hydra is a, well, it’s a hydra, a multi-headed creature that can take a lot of actions, but also, in addition to that, it can breath fire. If you cut one of its heads off? There’s an explosion, because it’s a creature full of flammable stuff that makes it capable of breathing fire. I think this idea rules, but you might notice that in this case, ‘flamekissed’ is a poetic way to describe ‘this giant multi-headed lizard sea monster thingy is going to burn your boat down,’ which is an interesting time to bust out the poetic language.

Bloodkiss Beholders are named after a thing they do, where if you get too close to it, while bloodied (ie, you are injured and probably have blood available for people to get to it through wounds of some sort), it latches onto you and starts slurping out of you. The Bloodkiss Beholder is a deviation of the original Beholder notion, which on the one hand, is pleasantly ridiculous if you think about it as a biological creature that has to evolve and amazingly obvious when you think about the way a species that uses its own self-image to reproduce might have accidentally weird tangents of evolution, complete with obvious, ridiculous deadends. The Bloodkiss Beholder is an orb with an eye, yes, but rather than having bunch of little eyes on stalks, it has a bunch of tentacles with clawed, fanged mouths on them.

Okay, so kiss here, meaning ‘it does stuff with its mouth and we’d rather not talk about it.’ Kiss gets to be a euphemism here probably used by people who are weird about women.

Items

The types of items that get called kiss-things are the Spiderkissed Weapon, a weapon enchantment that links the weapon to Lolth (and turning the damage into poison damage, a thing you don’t want to do), and a Serpent’s Kiss Bow (which … makes the bow brutal and adds poison on crits, which is… honestly better than just giving you poison damage).

Then mixed into that is our first and possibly only proper representation of a kiss as a poetic way to not just go ‘hey, it’s about mouths in a vague way.’ It’s an alternative reward, which is a slotless ‘magical item’ that represents a story event that happened to you, where a character in the story is given some kind of reward for a quest that isn’t just ‘you found some gold in a box and got to carry it off to a store.’

In this case, the kiss is from the Golden Mistress, an as-undefined-in-the-item description entity, a god or demigod or maybe just a powerful figure in a local story, who bestows on you a kiss that gives you protection from things that would attack your will. It’s a lovely use of a kiss here because it represents a moment of intimacy, which is memorable and also, potentially public; someone powerful kissed you, and in the process they left a lasting impression that is going to help ground you. That’s cool! That’s an entirely nice representation of a kiss! There’s also, thrown in here because it’s a single thing, the Halfling Background Avandra’s Kiss, which is a god of the halflings left some kind of auspicious sign at your birth.

Unfortunately one of these is still linked to Lolth which means once again there are people being weird about women.

Powers

Finally, the most common place to see kiss is in character powers. The Nightshade’s Kiss, Winter’s Kiss, Sune’s Kiss, Kiss of Death, Venemous Kiss, and Storm Countess’ Kiss mix-up of powers. None of these are from the same class – three from classes, the Rogue, Assassin and Warlock. The rest are from paragon paths – which also means that no single character choice is going to get ‘more kisses in’ than anyone else. They’re not, you might not be surprised, about kissing things. They’re about attacking things and implying a light or deft touch in the doing of it.

Conclusion

I thought when I started this out I’d find some artifacts or blessings or locations or maybe even factional groups with descriptions like ‘sun-kissed’ or ‘star-kissed’ kinds of creatures. I imagined that maybe the term ‘kiss’ would show up in a lot of magical items, because it’s a term we use for – well, for subtle ways to reference mouths and their use because we, well, we are often weird about women.

I am pleasantly surprised how restrained 4th edition was in this.

Check it out on PRESS.exe to see it with images and links!

#DnD 4e #Dungeons &amp; Dragons #Games

34 notes · View notes

anakinskywalkerisfave · 8 months ago

Note

Hello! I want to ask you something about Star Wars. What's your opinion on "love isn't attachment" interpretation of the Jedi Code that has been going around?

I think it’s a misrepresentation born out of an effort to make the Jedi Order seem perfect, instead of the noble but flawed institution that we see in both Disney canon and the Star Wars EU. It is a blatant disregard of both the general canonical and legends continuity that the Jedi Order did not allow love. Love is a type of attachment, at least in the Jedi's eyes, otherwise they would not be separating young children from their families.

And no, if the chosen one is doing just fine with his latent force powers, I don't think they're recuiting toddlers because they would otherwise "have no control" and be "a danger to others." Take that crap somewhere else, because I'm not buying it.

If they don’t care about loving people (ie your birth family), then why do we never see Jedi (aside from obvious exceptions like Anakin or Ki-Adi-Mundi) mention their family or keep in any form of touch with them? Why would they accept only very young children? Notably children whose memories of their time with their family would largely or wholly be lost due to childhood amnesia*, and therefore would not remember their attachment to their families and the love of their family. Regardless of whatever media tries to retcon the no love thing as love being acceptable and that attachment was a different thing, the most important canon (the movies) does not support this at all.

(*Childhood amnesia refers to the inability of most adults to recall memories from before the age of 3-4 years. It also refers to the fragmentation of memories from early childhood, especially from the ages of 3-6. This is paraphrased from the Wikipedia article on the subject.)

Also, if love (platonic or romantic) actually is allowed, then why would this official movie poster for Attack of the Clones exist? (Someone on youtube literally tried to argue with me that despite it being an official poster, it “didn’t mean anything." 🤨 By that logic, a movie advertised as R-rated can be assumed to be appropriate for children. Jedi apologists are truly dedicated to spiting their English teachers and anyone who tried to teach them about critical thinking or analysis.)

Bonus Round: Star Wars EU Edition

(read the paragraph on the right, starting at "Love is also a strong passion," and I also suggest reading the character's annotations on the side.)

They literally explain love is forbidden. While they say "those who obsess," in practice, it applies to any love, not just obsessive. (Also, it is a parent's job to prioritize the needs of their child. It's not "obsession" to put the child first, that's what you're supposed to do.) They are literally being told that wanting to contact their birth families is a cause of concern and that any attachment will cause you to "lose sight of your path" and are a cause for expulsion from the Order.

Once again, they are not allowed to connect with their birth families. The HoloNet calls it monstrous because it is. Separating a child from their parents is incredibly damaging, especially in early childhood*, (the age of recruitment into the Jedi Order) which is obvious, but this is the same fandom where I see people try (and fail) to justify child soldiers and using a slave army.

Sources about the detrimental effects of separating children from their parents:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/psychological-damage-inflicted-by-parent-child-separation-is-deep-long-lasting/

https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2018/06/psychological-impact-early-life-stress-parental-separation

This excert is from a section called "Misperceptions of the Jedi" from The Jedi Path: A Manual for Students of the Force.

"This charge springs from the pain of emotional attachment. It's also technically false." If I had my child taken from me and had no way to get them back, I don't give a shit if you have legal authority. You are effectively a kidnapper. The child isn't being removed from their parent's care because of abuse or any other legitimate reason. It's because they want to indoctrinate them and it's far easier when they don't remember anything before being taken to the temple. So they don't have a pesky attachment or concern for their mom left in slavery, for example!

Anyway, Luke's Jedi Order from the EU >>>>>> the old Jedi Order

#jedi order critical #fandom screwery #star wars meta #prequel trilogy #star wars eu #star wars

67 notes · View notes

sephirthoughts · 6 months ago

Note

🧡🖤💕

(from this ask game) BWAAHAHAHA

i'm doing FF7 cause you didn't say i couldn't

🧡: What is a popular (serious) theory you disagree with?

If there's any lore theory I fundamentally disagree with, it's probably not all that serious a theory. I tend to take lore with a grain of salt, because it's a video game series made by a ton of people over many years, and soemtimes things have to change and be retconned. I like to know my stuff and be accurate, but that's because it helps ground me concretely in the story world, for when i write.

Mostly, my disagreements come from people misreading characters and creating a whole fanon misrepresentation of them and then spreading that fanon as if it's actual canon, and tainting the general perception of a character for people who don't know better. This does not apply to headacanons, obvious OOC, crack, and jokes. I don't care what people want to imagine with the dollies we're all sharing. Let's just have funsies.

🖤: Which character is not as morally good as everyone else seems to think?

(fucking strap in because i wrote way more than i intended to)

Lucrecia Crescent.

All I see in fandom is her getting painted as this benevolent holy mother who would have been a warm and wonderful and nurturing caretaker to Sephiroth, if only that bad bad man Hojo hadn't ruined everything.

To quote Benjamin Franklin: Fuck off with that.

There is nothing NOTHING in canon to suggest Lucrecia would have been a warm and nurturing mother, aside from her being a woman. That is misogyny (yes, it's still misogyny even if you personally think a stereotype is positive). We also have Sephiroth's 100% delusional fantasy ideal of a "mother," which is all in his imagination constructed from a single photograph and his childlike desires.

The rest is baseless presumption.

HOWEVER. When i say she'd not be the idealized holy mother character that Vincent, Sephiroth, and fandom want her to be, it's not a criticism of her. It's a criticism of the role being projected onto her by Vincent, Sephiroth, and fandom.

Things that are canon facts:

Lucrecia was a scientist. Not just a scientist, a brilliant, dedicated, highly motivated scientist. She LOVED her work. She was competitive and passionate to the point of being obsessive. Anyone who has known any brilliant scientists can tell you, this is pretty much the standard personality type among those who succeed in any meaningful way.

She was never ever shown to be the happy hausfrau type. Lucrecia's character was marked by her determination and drive, not her motherliness. She was friendly with Vincent and she wasn't a total monster, that's all.

Assuming that a woman scientist would have the inclination to abandon her life's purpose and turn into a nuture-dispenser, just because she gave birth, is the kind of misogynist bullshit I thought we'd moved past back in the 1990s. The FF7 game devs are absolutely misogynists (love you devs but yes you are) but that's a whole separate dissertation. We in fandoms have no excuse for this type of 1950s gender-role presumption.

Lucrecia may very well have adored her child. That's certainly likely. Would that make her a good mother? Highly unlikely.

Before we go any further, there is one thing that i need to make sure we are abundantly clear on:

NOT BEING A WONDERFUL MOTHER IS NOT A CHARACTER FLAW, NOR IS IT A MORAL FAILING

Motherhood is not the end-all be-all of feminine existence, nor should it be. Some brains are not built for parenthood, and these brains often tend to be the ones built for science. No one faults brilliant male scientists for being distant and distracted, neglecting their family life in pursuit of their work, and not being good at affection/nurturing. No one should fault Lucrecia for it, either.

Lucrecia Cresent would not have been a good mother, and that is ok. She is allowed to be single-mindedly dedicated to science, at the cost of her relationship with her son—much like her mentor Grimoire Valentine—which she certainly would have been, based on every single thing we know about her.

Fact: Lucrecia made the choice to experiment on her own fetus, in vitro. That takes balls. Lady balls. It also takes a level of scientific detachment and objectivity that crosses over into callousness. Her pursuit of her work is the most important thing, to her. The risk to her unborn infant is a price she's willing to pay at first.

After Hojo kills Vincent and reveals his true colors as a monstrous bastard, she certainly questions her decisions. As the baby grows and her delivery date nears, she starts to feel more connected to it and starts to regret her choices. These are very normal reactions and do not change her character fundamentally. She's not a moustache twirling villain, she's just a human and a scientist.

Only when the baby is taken away, and she realizes she's basically being imprisoned by a madman, does she seriously begin to show concrete character growth.

She is racked by remorse and genuinely tries her best to unfuck the ratfuck she caused. She makes a MASSIVE scientific breakthrough, finally realizing the goal of Grimoire's research. Unfortunately, it's far too late, and only makes everything worse.

BUT what does she do then?

She does NOT stay and suffer with Vincent. She does NOT go in search of her SON. She gives up and tries to commit suicide (she can't kill herself because of Jenova for some reason, so she winds up running off to become a very lovely statue) because she can no longer face the overwhelming guilt of the suffering her choices caused.

That is an understandable and human and inherently selfish decision. One could say it was a fluke born of desperation at the end of her rope, but if we look at the whole situation objectively, she has made nothing but inherently selfish decisions, all the way down.

Does that make her a bad person? I don't think so. "Bad" in the moral sense is a subjective judgement, that is ultimately irrelevant in this particular case. Selfishness is human.

What is relevant is that it doesn't make her a bad character. In fact, it makes her a far better, more nuanced, real, three-dimensional, deeply compelling character, than she seems to be when she's being beatified in fandom or sexist-stereotyped by the game devs.

TLDR: Lucrecia does not get a free pass from me for participating in highly unethical and wildly inhumane genetic experimentation on human beings, including her own child, just because she regretted it later. But she doesn't get a villain stamp for being a person unsuited to the traditionally constructed role of "good mother" either.

And she CERTAINLY doesn't get stuffed into the holy refrigerator to be a serenely smiling icon of virtue and perfect love, just because she happens to have ovaries, but would also be far too old to be viable as a reproductive machine, and thus must elegantly and gracefully exit the stage, so that the involved male can move to greener pastures. Except oopsie-doopsie that's exactly what the game devs did.

💕: What is an unpopular ship that you like?

WEISS/NERO MY BABIES

it's only unpopular because most people didn't play Dirge and don't know who Nero and Weiss are, and also there are a lot of cowards who don't like gay incest ships, even when they are 100% canonical, like this one.

square enix bestowed this brocon shipcest gift upon us, and it is our duty to appreciate it, by producing as much smut about it as we can

thank you for the ask!!! i'm coming over there to see if you answered mine BEWARE!!!

#ask box #inbox games #for funsies #lucrecia crescent #vincent valentine #weiss the immaculate #nero the sable #weinero #ff7 #final fantasy 7 #final fantasy vii #ffvii #dirge of cerberus #ff7 remake #ff7 rebirth

40 notes · View notes

cripplecharacters · 3 months ago

Note

hi, so I’m probably undiagnosed ADHD and I wanna write a character who is diagnosed ADHD and the problem I’m having is with meds. How I was planning to write them is that they’re a drummer and the character doesn’t always take their medicine when they are going to drum because it makes them feel like a bit slower and almost have like a delayed response or something. I’m still working at the kinks, but I feel like that could come off as really insensitive towards how ADHD meds work and like I don’t fully know how ADHD meds make you feel because I’m undiagnosed and I don’t wanna write it wrong and all of that.

-🥁

Hello!

That's... not really accurate to how ADHD meds work at all. Though this would be insensitive, my main concern is the inaccuracy and the harmful misinformation that this is spreading.

First thing: ADHD medication -- like any daily medication -- isn't something that can just be taken when you want to take it. It's one thing to forget a dose every so often but deliberately missing doses on a regular basis is very harmful.

Not taking it regularly can cause the medication to be less effective for your character and can cause them to be hit worse (by their symptoms and their withdrawal) every time they miss a dose. It can also cause the medication to just... stop working for your character as they develop a tolerance for it.

I take Concerta (also known by the name Ritalin) and when I miss a dose, I certainly end up feeling it.

For me, the first thing I notice is just a weird feeling. Like something in the world is different. It's hard to describe but, to other people, I'm told that it looks like I'm spacier and in my own world.

I have a very hard time focusing and can't last more than a few minutes without spacing out -- even if I'm actively involved in a conversation. It makes it impossible for me to attend my lectures and take notes, let alone take a test or an exam.

Because I also have anxiety and several other mental conditions, this also has a major impact on them. The increased rejection-sensitive dysphoria (RSD) that I experience triggers an increase in my anxiety (even if I've taken my anxiety meds), which in turn causes an increase in my dissociative symptoms.

The brain is a complex organ -- one we don't fully understand yet. Nothing happens in isolation.

Aside from the ADHD-specific side of things, there's also the withdrawal.

While it's not as bad as the withdrawal from my venlafaxine (the meds I take for my PTSD, anxiety, depression, and dissociative disorder. Three cheers for medication that multitasks!), withdrawal from my Concerta is still not great.

When I miss a dose, I end up sleeping almost the entire day. I just can't stay awake. I also get a horrible headache that can't be touched by Advil or Tylenol and I end up with no appetite (though apparently most people experience the opposite -- an increase in appetite). I also experience an increase in my depression.

Though it will of course be different for everyone (especially if your character is on a different type of medication), what I'm getting at here is that ADHD medication doesn't work like this. You can't pick and choose when to take it.

Taking ADHD medication doesn't make you feel "slower" or have a "delayed response" or anything like that. In fact, those feelings are more likely to come from missing a dose.

Something else that needs to be considered here is that ADHD medication is constantly portrayed as being bad/evil/negative and especially as something that's only done to dull the character with ADHD and make them more "palatable" to those around them. It's shown as something that stifles their creativity and forces them to become exactly like everyone else.

This can't be further from the truth.

Although it is true that ADHD is often over-diagnosed and over-medicated, the effect that ADHD meds have on those who need them can be life-changing.

These harmful misrepresentations of ADHD medication have major consequences in the real world. Not only do they undermine the struggles of having ADHD and reinforce the idea that ADHD is just being hyper/unfocused, they also discourage people from seeking the treatment that can help them.

When I was first diagnosed, I didn't want to go on medication and my parents didn't want me to either. They thought it would make me dull and lifeless and kill my creativity. Even after I'd done my own research and decided to try it, my father spent weeks telling me that ADHD was just "western propaganda" and didn't actually exist.

I see this same attitude in teachers, other parents, and even doctors all the time.

Although some people can be quick to diagnose a child with ADHD and medicate them when there may be another cause for their behaviour, overcorrecting in the opposite direction helps nobody.

If you want to write a character with ADHD and especially one that's on medication for it, please do your research first. You don't have to have ADHD or be on medication to do that. This article [Link] discusses the impact of poor ADHD representation while this one [Link] talks about what happens when you miss a dose of ADHD medication.

In short: please don't do this. ADHD isn't just the "silly hyper can't sit still" disorder and the medication for it is an actual treatment that helps so many people. Treat it as seriously as you'd treat any other disorder.

Cheers,

~ Mod Icarus

#mod icarus #anonymous #🥁 anon #adhd representation

145 notes · View notes

fandomfucker · 1 year ago

Text

Space-Poly!TJD x Fem!Reader

Request: poly relationship between judgment day and reader. The reader is keeping a secret from their partners. The secret is that she is a little. The reason why she is hiding it is because she thinks that they will hate her and leave her like her last partner did. One day when they are all out and she is home by herself she slips into little space and she is in little space for an hour until they get back and Damian goes to check on her and he walks in on her in little space. She's all freaked out. Damian is the only one who knows what little space is. They all explain that it's adorable and that they love her for who she is. Her main caregiver is Damian but they all take care of her when she is in little space. She has a stuffed tiger named Maengho.

A/N-I want to preface this by saying that this is NOT SEXUAL however it is about little space so if you don't want to read it, don't. I would also like to go ahead and apologize for any incorrect information/misrepresentation, I did research on it and tried my best. Please enjoy and sorry for the wait ❤️

Word Count: 2,051

Reader's POV

Alright, Love. We'll be back later, okay?" Rhea informed me as she held my cheeks between her hands. I nodded and smiled up at her as she bent down to kiss my forehead before grabbing the keys to her truck and walking toward the front door.

Finn, Dominik, and Damian, my other three partners, all filed after her. They all gave me a small kiss and a quick goodbye as the four of them left to go film some Judgment Day promos.

Once the door had been shut behind them and I had seen Rhea's truck speed away down the road, I breathed a deep sigh of relief, a small weight being lifted off my shoulders.

Work had been really stressing me out lately but with my partners all unaware of my strategy for coping with stress, I hadn't been able to do anything about it. But now they were out of the house for at least a little while and I was free to do whatever I wanted.

After going and grabbing one of the little bottles of apple juice we kept in the fridge, I happily skipped back to my own room, immediately heading for my walk-in closet.

Shortly after we had all moved into our house together, I had set up a small space for me to be a little in. Basically, somewhere for me to decompress while acting and having the same overall headspace as a child.

The closet wasn't massive but it was just big enough for me to set up what was essentially a giant pillow fort.

The walls were lined with fluffy pillows, half of them the really big tube ones, and the floor was littered with thick fluffy blankets.

I had only a few stuffed animals but they were all my favorite ones. There were about 12 in total, my favorites of favorites were ones from Build a Bear that I'd made with people special to me, my number one being Maengho. He was a tiger I'd gotten all of my partners to build with me a couple of months ago after we first moved into our house.

Fairy lights hung from the ceiling and walls, creating a homey effect that I adored. I also had a small TV mounted on the wall, above a nightstand type of dresser I stored my little clothes in. It was mainly just Disney Princess nightgowns but I also had some My Little Pony pajama sets and a Rainbow Brite sweater for if I was cold enough or just wanted to be extra comfy.

I had some tutus and dress-up jewelry for when I felt like it, but I just enjoyed wearing pajamas more than anything.

Ripping my hair out of the ponytail I'd stuck it in, I plopped down onto a flower-shaped pillow on the floor, beginning to dig through the dresser for a specific Tinkerbell nightgown I knew would be in there.

Not bothering to stand up, I just changed into the dress while sitting on the floor, opening the closet door only for a minute to throw my regular clothes out into my room.

I grabbed the small remote off the dresser, and turned on the TV, turning it to Disney+. My favorite movie of all time since I was a baby was actually The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh so I turned that on as I adjusted the pillows and blankets around me, making myself comfortable.

Sitting criss-crossed apple sauce, and laying a fluffy pink blanket across my lap, I sat Maengho on my lap before setting my little lap tray that had all my coloring stuff stored in the side pockets in front of me.

Opening up the Lisa Franke coloring book, I flipped to a new page, deciding on a picture of two baby penguins in a basket.

For over an hour, I sat in my closet, fully immersed in my little space as I half-paid attention to the movie, coloring in my penguins with vibrant colors.

I was so immersed in fact, that I hadn't heard the garage door open or the calls from my partners soon after.

The door swung open, making me jump and causing me to draw an unwanted line down the center of my paper.

My eyes were wide with fear as I looked up to see all four of my partners looking at me in the doorway, confusion and concern etched on all of their faces.

Damian's POV

Y/n sat on the floor with a stuffed tiger, wearing a Disney princess nightgown, coloring. We all just kind of stopped in our tracks and stared at her in confusion as she looked up at us.

Her eyes were wide and slowly started to become filled with tears. She curled into herself, hugging the tiger, Maengho I remembered, tightly to her chest as she dragged her blanket up to cover her entire body and half of her face.

The tears started falling as she silently cried. I realized what this all was as I gently crouched down to better get on her level.

She began to bring her knees all the way to her chest and curl into herself even further as I reached out a hand to her. I retracted my hand before I scared her to death and took to just speaking to her softly instead.

"Y/n? It's sweetheart, we're not upset."

She lowered the blanket slightly from her face as she looked at me. Her lip quivered as her gaze shifted between me and the other members of the Judgment Day.

"You're not?" She asked timidly.

I shook my head 'no' in answer, glancing back to the other three to see that based on their facial expressions alone, they had no idea what was going on.

Turning back to Y/n, I spoke to her softly and quietly so as to not scare her any further. "Tell you what, us four are gonna go back down to the living room for a few minutes to talk, okay?" I made a circular motion indicating us wrestlers as I spoke.

"Do you want anything in the meantime? Or do you want me to bring you anything from the kitchen?"

She slowly shook her head at that, speaking so quietly I almost didn't hear her. "We don't have anything here."

I gave a nod in understanding a gave her a small smile before standing back up and turning around to push our other partners out of the way as I shut the closet door behind me.

None of them made any move to leave the room until I started making shooing motions with my hands.

Once back downstairs, I had them all sit down on the couch as I stood in front of them to explain what exactly was going on.

Reader's POV

Curious, I waited until I couldn't hear my partners' footsteps anymore before quietly retreating from the safety of my closet.

It was me and Maengho against the world as I held the top of his head to my mouth and tiptoed towards the stairs. I went down as far as I could, keeping to where they wouldn't see me.

I leaned my back against the wall, holding Maengho tightly as we eavesdropped on my partners and their conversation about me.

"Okay, so it seems to me that Y/n is a little. I don't know her specifics but basically, she gets in the headspace of a child to escape reality." I heard Damian explain to them.

There was silence as the others absorbed that information.

"Wait, shouldn't she be a part of this conversation then?" Dominik asked him.

Damian took a second to think about it before responding. "Yeah, we'll have a larger conversation including her, obviously, but I wanted to go ahead and give you guys a basic understanding of what we're getting into. If anyone has a problem with it they can leave."

"That makes sense, but I'm still in." Finn agreed.

"Me too, but I think the first thing we need to do is take her to the store and get her some food and whatever else she wants. We don't want her to feel uncomfortable and like she has to hide this part of her." Rhea vocalized.

"I second that." I heard Dominik speak up, ever the Mami's boy.

"Let's go then!" I heard Damian exclaim as they then all began to make their way back upstairs to my room.

Panicking, I shot up from where I was sitting on the stairs, making a beeline back to my fort.

However, in my haste to make it back before they realized I'd been listening in on their private conversation, I somehow missed the last step entirely.

My toe caught the edge of it, sending me sprawling across the rough carpet of the second-floor hallway. "Fuck!"

Four sets of footsteps pounded up the stairs and the sound of my name being called in a panic was all I heard.

Feeling a warm hand on my shoulder blade I rolled over with a groan, seeing Damian kneeling next to me. "Are you okay, princesa?"

I managed to nod my head with only a slight grimace before I asked the question that burned me the most. "Are you guys really okay with me being a little? Because I know it's a lot and it's fine if you hate me and my last partner left because of it and-" I was cut off just as my eyes began to fill with tears again.

"Of course, we're okay with it. We just don't know that much about it yet and need to learn." Finn told me softly.

Dominik nodded along, "Yeah, we all love you no matter what. But, first things first, we need to take you shopping."

"I don't have any clothes I like to go out in," I spoke, my voice muffled slightly due to my face being pressed against Maengho. I was a bit taken aback and overwhelmed by the amount of utter love and acceptance they were just immediately showing me.

"That's okay, Love. Do you wanna borrow some of mine?" Rhea asked me. She was crouched in front of me, with one of her hands rubbing my knee soothingly. I perked up at this, my head shooting up to meet her gaze and nodding enthusiastically. She laughed slightly as she stood up and then held out her hand to pull me up as well.

I loved wearing Rhea's clothes any chance I got because not only did they just look cool but they actually fit for the most part, unlike the boys' clothes. And they smelled like her.

Borrowing just a pair of her sweats, I paired it with an old Muppets t-shirt that I had.

After I had finished changing, Damian gave me a piggy-back ride downstairs, having me take a seat on the second to last step of stairs as he put my shoes on for me.

I giggled and kissed Maengho goodbye, not wanting him to get covered in Walmart germs before grabbing Damian's hand and skipping out to Rhea's truck.

I sat in my usual seat, the middle in the second row with Damian and Finn on either side as Rhea drove and Dom rode shotgun.

Once we got there, Dominik, ever the gentleman, helped me up into the cart so I could sit in it as they pushed me around, following my points and vague gestures toward the things that I wanted.

They got me cookies and cream ice cream, paired with gummy bears of course, along with dinosaur chicken nuggets that I had to promise to share with Dom. Rhea had even snuck off at one point to surprise me with bubbles for the bath.

We picked up some other snacks and stuff for me to have when in little space before making our way back home.

Upon returning home, I changed back into my princess nightgown before giving my partners puppy dog eyes for ice cream, to which they eagerly obliged, just wanting to make me happy.

So, happily, I ate my ice cream, doing wiggly happy dances in my seat as my feet swung back and forth beneath me.

When we had been looking at new furniture for the house, my partners had thought it hilarious to get dining room chairs just tall enough that my feet couldn't reach the floor.

My partners watched on from their own seats at the table, each of them with a smile on their face. They were all so different from my last partner it was insane.

There were still conversations to be had but for now, everything was perfect.

#the judgement day #the judgement day x reader #the judgment day x reader #the judgment day wwe #the judgment day #wwe raw #wwe #tjd x reader #rhea ripley #rhea ripley x reader #dominik mysterio #dominik mysterio x reader #damian priest #damian priest x reader #finn balor x reader #finn balor

263 notes · View notes

evidence-based-activism · 6 months ago

Text

Equality of Violence

I've talked many times in the past about why and how the way we talk about domestic violence is ineffective and biased. In particular, about how the type of violence traditionally imagined when you consider domestic violence is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men and self-defensive violence is overwhelmingly perpetrated by women. About the issues with the commonly used and widely criticized conflict tactics scale and how current self-defense laws are biased against women. (Posts: one, two, three.)

I also want to address the common MRA talking point, that if women "want equality" then "men should get to hit women". Even ignoring the intensely patriarchal perspective that violence is something we should strive for rather than abolish, this belief is predicated on misunderstandings (or misrepresentations) of self-defense law and the physical differences between men and women.

---

To start with, we should have to understand what aspects make violence self-defensive.

To use my previous explanation:

Many systems will only categorize something as self-defense if the threat is immediate and the response proportional. This makes sense when you have two similar individuals. For example, consider the situation where two men get in an argument at a bar. The first man punches the other, who punches back and accidentally kills the first (head injuries are unpredictable!). This would be considered self-defense because the threat was immediate (present physical violence) and the response proportional (a punch in response to a punch). In contrast, if the second man had used a broken bottle to stab the first man (disproportionate response due to use of a weapon) or waited for later and attacked the first man as he left the bar (non-immediate threat), the act would no longer be considered self-defense.

In other words, if you can walk away from the situation without needing to employ violence, then that isn't self-defense – it's retaliatory violence. If you escalate the situation and use more force than necessary (e.g., a weapon), then that also isn't considered self-defense.

In general these standards are reasonable (e.g., it would be unreasonable and ill-advised to allow for continual escalation). Unfortunately, the way these requirements are implemented is discriminatory against women in at least two ways.

---

This discrimination is the result of one essential fact, women and men have substantially different physical capabilities. This necessarily means that, on average, a "fair" fight between a man and a woman is not truly fair. Women, on average, are smaller and have less physical strength than men. A woman who hits a man is unlikely to cause injury, a man who hits a women is unlikely to not cause injury. This difference is illustrated in the vastly different injury rates and severity for women and men as a result of domestic violence (see linked posts).

And men understand this difference. It's why they divide their combat sports into weight classes, because they know perfectly well that a fight between two people with a fifty-plus pound weight difference is not fair. It's only when they start advocating for their "right" to hit women that they seem to "forget".

---

The first issue with "equality of violence" is that female victims of domestic violence are unable to defend themselves in an immediate and proportional manner. A woman who is beaten by her husband cannot defend herself using only her hands, any more than an 100-pound average-strength man could defend himself from a 200-pound weight-lifter.

As a result:

Women’s self-defense is often “disproportionate” (e.g., her husband has a history of severely beating her and is about to do so again, she takes a knife from the kitchen and stabs him) or in response to a “non-immediate threat” (e.g., a women has tried leaving her abusive husband but has received no help from family or the authorities, realizing she cannot escape him while he’s alive, she shoots her husband while he sleeps). In both these cases, the woman has killed her abuser, but this may not be considered self-defense by the legal system or research studies.

Failing to consider women's differing physical capacities in legal self-defense cases is a form of legal discrimination against women. These women are responding to an immediate threat, it just that this immediate threat has been ongoing for years (or more). And they are using a proportional degree of force, it's just that in order to achieve this proportionality they must employ some sort weapons/equalizer.

This applies even to less extreme cases. Take the following example: A women and her husband are in an argument, it has not turned physical yet but has in the past. The woman tries to leave the conversation by walking away, but her husband follows her to continue the argument. He blocks the doorway to the room so she can't leave and crowds her personal space to intimidate her. In response, she shoves him away from her and tries to leave the house.

This situation, had it been reported to the police, would have recorded the woman as the primary aggressor, because she was the one to "make it physical". These sorts of conceptualizations ignore threats of implied violence and previous violent history, and inflate women's "perpetration" statistics. In reality, the woman was responding to an implied threat of violence in the last way available to her.

This example, leads into the second issue with "equality of violence". Many men's rights activists argue they should be "allowed" to shove the woman back (or to punch a woman after she hits him). Aside from the aforementioned misrepresentation of the woman's violence as aggressive rather than defensive, this also ignores the fact that the husband shoving his wife would have been retaliatory, not defensive. In particular, there is no immediate threat to the man (i.e., he could leave the situation without any risk to his/someone else's personal safety), therefore his violence cannot be considered defensive.

---

This often applies even in situations where a woman may be considered the first aggressor. For example, consider this example: A man and his girlfriend are in an argument, which is getting increasingly heated and caustic. After a remark from the man, the girlfriend slaps him, which, given her average level of strength, upsets but does not injure him. He slaps her back, which, given his average level of strength, results in minor injury (e.g., a black eye/split lip).

In this situation, despite the fact that the woman hit first, the man's violence was still not defensive. Why? First, because he was in no immediate danger. He could have walked away with no threat of danger; his decision to hit her back was motivated by a desire to "get even" not a need to protect himself or anyone else. In addition, despite using the same "type" of force (e.g., bare hand, similar action) which would likely be considered legally proportionate, his response was not truly proportionate because he is capable of employing substantially greater force – and causing greater injury – than his girlfriend.

And please note, I'm not suggesting that it was "okay" for the woman to hit her boyfriend. When possible, walking away from a situation and/or deescalating it is the wiser, safer, and (usually) more ethical decision.

I am suggesting that our legal and social conception of self defense desperately needs to take this sort of physical disparity into account. This isn’t even purely a male-female issue. The same physical differences that place women at a disadvantage in physical confrontations with men also apply to children (against adults), some disabled men (against non-disabled men), some disabled women (against non-disabled women), and others. Failing to consider these differentials is a form of legal discrimination against the vulnerable.

---

In conclusion, I often see the first issue (i.e., the fact that women's defensive violence is often not considered as such by the legal system) brought up in feminist spaces, but, surprisingly to me, I rarely see the second issue (i.e., the fact that an "equal" level of violence from a man is often not truly defensive) mentioned.

In summary, the legal definitions of "proportionate" and "immediate" in the conception of self defense is discriminatory against women because:

Women are, on average, not capable of applying the same degree of force with the same means as men. This means that, in order to protect themselves from male violence, they may be forced to (legally speaking) escalate the situation so as to escape or avoid threats to themselves.

Correspondingly, men are, on average, capable of employing a much greater degree of force (and causing injury) while still being legally considered proportional. As a result, "proportional" violence from men is often much greater and more dangerous than the violence employed by women.

The requirement for an "immediate" threat is often used to illegitimatize women's escapes from long term abusers, and simultaneously justify men's use of violence in situations that don't actually require them to employ violence to leave.

All in all, these factors legitimize men's retaliatory violence against women as "defensive", and rejects women's defensive violence against their male abusers as "preemptive".

#feminism #male violence

48 notes · View notes

juniperhillpatient · 6 months ago

Text

to expand on that last post a little because Yellowjackets has a really interesting take on the idea of “ghosts” & their narrative use as processing grief. I think Jackie represents a type of ghost that’s much scarier than the literal idea of a ghost of a loved one simply watching you from beyond the grave, & there’s not too many examples of this type of “ghost” but the ones I can think of are super interesting.

I would say Norma Bates fits the criteria & the Yellowjackets writers clearly know that, having Shauna holed up chatting with a corpse & doing her makeup, arguing with her & gossiping with her is a pretty direct reference to Norman Bates living with his mothers corpse & treating her like a living person in Psycho.

Much like Norma, Jackie isn’t actually present & while Norman & Shauna remember Norma/Jackies personalities & mannerisms, the “ghosts” are slightly off, not quite acting exactly how they acted when they were alive. (Granted this is more implied in Psycho unless we’re talking about Bates Motel given we don’t meet Norma when she’s alive but I think it can be inferred either way). They’re saying the things that exist as a manifestation of someone else’s consciousness.

And that, really, is a horrifying prospect.

Imagine being violated like that & misrepresented even in death. It’s a total loss of autonomy for the “ghost.” Jackie was consumed in more ways than one by Shauna.

Norma is more uncertain in terms of truly labeling her a victim but similarly she was flawed in life & she became those flaws & nothing else in death.

An adjacent example that I just think is fun to bring up in this context is Alice Palmer in Lake Mungo. Shes pretty different to the above examples because there is an undoubtable supernatural element in her story & an actual ghost but the horror doesn’t stem from the ghost herself but the idea of an evil misrepresentation of a dead girl. The first twist in the story is that Alice’s ghost isn’t Alice & her brother was faking a haunting. To be clear he was grieving & desperate to have her back & I don’t think he’s evil for coping in a weird way but it is horrific from the perspective of Alice, never truly able to be seen as herself. Her story is only ever told by other people. The most haunting moment of Lake Mungo is often attributed to the recording on Alice’s phone where we see the vision of her death but to me it’s the ending. The family tells themselves & everyone else that Alice has found peace to comfort themselves but in reality she has not & probably never will. What a horrifying concept! Everyone in your life has moved on & made up a story about you that isn’t accurate at all, & you’re trapped forever, the only one able to perceive your true self ever again, forever alone.

Jackie is shown on a huge projector while an announcer from the class says she would want Shauna & Jeff to dance together (Jackie would be FURIOUS). Shauna says Jackie would want the girls to eat her (the fuck she would) & Jackie’s ghost mocks Shauna with things the real Jackie never would’ve said with a mean girl demeanor that has nothing to do with the real Jackie only Shauna’s own insecurities.

Norma Bates may have been a cruel & overbearing mother & she may have intentionally or not been emotionally incestuous toward her son but that’s all we’ll ever know about her - how she impacted her son, how HE was fucked up by her. Her own agency in the story is totally lacking & she becomes a symbol more so than a person.

I’ll lastly bring up another example that came to mind when I was ending this post. Billy Loomis haunting Sam Carpenter through hallucinations in Scream. It’s an interesting example because the new Scream movies get some crap from original fans for the “anti heroification” of Billy Loomis but you gotta remember - he’s not ACTUALLY a ghost. Scream 3 also uses the idea of ghosts that aren’t actually ghosts with Sidney thinking she’s being haunted by her mother (in reality there is no ghost & Sidney is struggling to accept the person her mother was rather than the saintly woman on a pedestal in her mind).

Billy is Sam’s subconscious. Sam was destroyed by the knowledge that her father was a serial killer. That & the idea that her mother cheated. The events of Scream 5 in a lot of ways allow her to take some of that power back. The real Billy Loomis was a deeply disturbed teenage boy with crippling mommy issues, not some badass supervillain who would’ve supported his daughter in taking down his predecessors. But that doesn’t matter as much as the way SAM perceives the ghost. And Billy’s “ghost” ends up helping Sam survive & come into her power as a new kind of final girl. This one is super interesting because it’s a spin I don’t think I’ve seen before on this type of “ghost” & a really interesting one, having this mocking ghost of someone long gone distorted into something that doesn’t represent the person they were used in a way that is viewed somewhat positively by the narrative.

I just think ghosts as a manifestation of grief & a way to “remember” someone dead while actually masking the “true” memory of the real person & massacring them in death by distorting them into something they never were is such an interesting brand of horror & narrative use of “ghosts” with sooo much potential.

#ghosts #horror #tropes #jackie taylor #norma bates #alice palmer #yellowjackets #lake mungo #psycho #meta #billy loomis #sam carpenter #scream 5

35 notes · View notes