#white ‘’radical feminists’’ will do the same and throw black people and trans people and anyone who isn’t a middle class ww under the bus | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

snarkesthour · 3 years

Text

Happy St George's Day!

· In the midst of a pandemic when schools are all closed, the government votes to not allow free school meals to schoolchildren during school holidays, despite this being the only meal many of them have each day

· Marcus Rashford, a footballer, led the drive to feed the nation’s children, 49% of which live in poverty, and forced the government to provide food for them during the school holidays

· Instead of previous years when vouchers were given to parents that can only be spent on nutritious food, members of government give contracts to friends to provide a week’s work of food costing £5 to schoolchildren for a price of £30. Food is unhealthy and would not last a week

· Parcels also expect parents to cook two tablespoons of rice at a time in the oven and bake their own bread every day, ignoring poverty-stricken families possible lack of access to such equipment

· Wife of conservative MP attacks poor families for eating unhealthy food when healthy food is cheaper, ignoring the fact that not all families have access to equipment needed to store and cook it

· Nigel Farage, head of the Brexit party came out strongly against the government for their stance on starving schoolchildren. Not a good look.

· Another MP came out and said that poor families should not receive government assistance because the money would be going direct to brothels and crackhouses and the parents would spend it on drink and drugs instead of feeding their kids, a dangerous and persistent stereotype of working class people

· For the first time in its history, UNICEF is feeding kids in the UK – the 5th richest country in the world – and the head of the House of Commons accused them of “playing politics” and said they should “be ashamed of themselves”

· J.K. Rowling came out hard as a TERF (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist), writing a book about a serial killer that dresses up as a Muslim woman, which isn’t subtle when you look at her history of transphobia and other “-isms”

She also publicly supported an author who wrote a book about the destruction of Europe by waves of Muslim immigration

· Speaking of J.K. Rowling, the government’s response to the Gender Recognition Act.

· It is now impossible for under 16s to receive reversible puberty blockers

· Wait times at NHS Gender Clinics, of which there are only 7 in the country, have doubled, with wait times now up to 60+ months (5+ years)

· Keir Starmer, head of the Labour (left wing) party says he doesn’t want to get involved in trans issues

· With the loss of Labour, no major party supports trans rights

· Self ID is no longer allowed, meaning every step of transition is medicalised and involves the trans person having to prove that they are “trans enough” at every stage to panels of cis people

· Government wants to invalidate non-enrolled deed polls, essentially making available a public list of every trans person in the UK

· Hate crimes have quadrupled

· Anti-trans campaigners are now setting their sights on trans adults’ access to hormones

· A petition was formed to counter this and was reviewed by the government, who determined that nothing was wrong with the GRA except that it might have been a bit lax.

· The Guardian newspaper ran child labour and child starvation supporting stories

· Internal border now along the border of Kent and lorry drivers must produce travel papers (Brexit Passport) to cross it, placing the county of Kent in a state of “no man’s land”

· Government fails to lockdown on time, every time

· Government refuses to ban conversion therapy in the UK

· Scotland adopts Human Rights of Children, which requires the government to better support children and families, especially those who are poor, disabled, minorities or young carers. England does not

· The government declared that sleeping rough is now grounds for deportation

· Schools reopened several times despite being warned not safe to do so

· The government banned NHS workers from speaking out about COVID

· Do Not Resuscitate orders proposed for those in care homes, with learning disabilities and who are autistic

· The government cut pensions as the COVID death toll rose

· The government learnt about new South-East COVID strain in September and didn’t come forwards until December

· New COVID strain targets kids, teens, and young adults, and yet none of those groups are allowed vaccination unless a serious pre-existing condition is had, even if they are key workers

· Downing Street says UK should be model of racial equality because government report says no institutional racism in the UK

· Report also says young people are young and foolish for thinking it exists and that minorities are superstitious and irrational and are sabotaging themselves out of success

· It came out that the government was given the independent report and rewrote it to the version that was released to the public – the version that says racism doesn’t exist in the UK

· The rewritten report also refers to the slave trade as the “Caribbean experience”, like those enslaved were on holiday

· Woman in London abducted, murdered and dismembered by off-duty cop and when socially distanced vigil goes ahead, police wait until dark before trapping women, arresting them, using excessive force on them, and also destroying memorial

· Bill passed in government that allows undercover officers to commit serious crimes such as murder, torture and rape

· Plainclothes police to now patrol nightclubs and bars due to aforementioned murder by police officer

· Bill passed that bans any protest at all, no matter how quiet, unobstructive or small it is, including single-person protests. Bill also includes a 10 year sentence for damaging a statue, which is a longer sentence than for rape

· TV programmes critical of the government have been cancelled

· Universities have been told what to platform and schools have been told what to teach, including banning material speaking about BLM and calling for “overthrow” of capitalism

· Voting has been supressed, mainly those who are working class or POC

· During protests in Bristol, press was assaulted and pepper sprayed by police and two legal observers were arrested

· Being Roma/Traveller and living the traditional Roma/Traveller lifestyle is now illegal under that same bill that bans protests. They also have to register as such and receive a licence or risk losing their vehicles

· Hours before Eid, lockdown across the UK with no warning whatsoever, meaning people woke up the next morning after visiting relatives to find themselves “criminals”. The country was opened up specifically for Christmas though

· Conservative (right wing) party blamed BAME (Black And Minority Ethnic) communities for dying of COVID more than white people

· Landlords have been protected extensively and renters blamed for living in close quarters or having to take public transport to work

· Conservatives have launched investigation into possible corruption in Liverpool Council. Liverpool is a Labour stronghold and if corruption is found then the Conservatives can seize control of the council. No evidence of corruption is present as of yet

· Military threatened to stage a coup if Corbyn (then head of the labour party) became Prime Minister

· Government orders all government buildings in England, Wales and Scotland to fly the Union Flag every day to boost patriotism

· MPs call for the curriculum to require teaching the history of the Union Flag rather than Britain’s many atrocities

· The first fortnight of April saw a mini heatwave with temperatures up to 20°C immediately followed by snow, and this is ignored in favour of debating “vaccine passports” in order to visit the pub

· UK allows for international summer holidays despite being warned it will cause a third wave, such as the situation in Germany

· Government placed asylum seekers arriving in the UK in army barracks where they were to sleep 24 to a room with no open windows or air circulation, and when COVID inevitably ran rampant, the Home Secretary accused the asylum seekers of not following COVID protocol, such as social distancing

· Several accounts of self-harm and suicide attempts were reported from the asylum barracks and were dismissed

· UK to deport unaccompanied minor asylum seekers

· UK refuses entry into the UK for radicalised teen failed by system who joined ISIS. Case is difficult and controversial because teen wishes to return to the UK temporarily to fight for her citizenship after the UK broke international law by stripping it from her, despite her not having dual citizenship. Argument given was that her parents were from Bangladesh and so she could apply for citizenship there. Bangladesh refused. Teen is now stateless and living in a refugee camp after losing several children, unable to fight for her citizenship to be reinstated.

· Rioting in Northern Ireland, which included the first use of water cannons in 6 years, a bus being hijacked and burnt, a press photographer attacked, and people throwing bricks, fireworks and petrol bombs at police, not to mention some of the clashes happening over a peace wall in west Belfast, completely ignored in British media and then later drowned out by non-stop news of Prince Phillip’s death, obscuring any important news from being heard. Riots were over Northern Ireland’s being a part of the UK

· MPs take vote on whether China’s treatment of Uighurs constitutes genocide. They decide it does, but that it isn’t their job to do anything further

· Home Office released their spending for the 2020 fiscal year. It’s a mess, including over £77,000 at an eyebrow salon in March alone, and £6,000+ in Pollyanna Restaurant which doesn't appear to exist.

· When people started questioning the spending, the Home Office sent a tweet fact checking themselves

· Country reopened over the summer for Eat Out To Help Out, a scheme to boost the economy. COVID cases rose sharply and the government then blamed people, but mostly working class people, for not following restrictions such as only leaving the house when absolutely necessary, after telling them it was safe

· Foreign NHS workers denied COVID vaccinations

· GCSEs and A-Levels were cancelled due to COVID-19 and expected exam grades were to be used instead. Private school students received grades much higher than they were expecting, and state school students received grades much lower, some grades falling as far as an A to an E. This was because the government couldn’t imagine state school students being smart enough to receive the high grades they were predicted to get; after much uproar the grades were scrapped, and a new method was introduced

· BBC offered staff grief counselling following Prince Philip’s death, but not after having to report on the ever-rising COVID death toll

· The COVID-19 Infection Survey closed in mourning for Prince Philip, with workers to contact participants to reschedule visits for “as soon as possible” when they return to work

· Census workers told to pack up and go home and were placed on immediate unpaid leave due to the death of Prince Philip, but told they must make up the hours later

· Conservative MPs lobbied for a new royal yacht after voting to keep schoolchildren hungry (see first points)

· The BBC’s complaint page crashed over the amount of complaints they got of their coverage of Prince Philip’s death. It was covered non-stop for over 24 hours and the page came in at over 100,000 complaints before going down

· BBC also fast becoming politically biased despite their requirement to be apolitical, after cutting out the audience laughing at Boris Johnson on Question Time, displaying Corbyn as a communist figure in front of a prominent piece of Russian architecture, and providing a platform for a Conservative MP to tell a stage 4 bowl cancer patient that her life wasn’t valuable on live television

· On the COVID-19 pandemic, the BMJ, (British Medical Journal) said about the government that “science was being suppressed for political and financial gain” by “some of history’s worst autocrats and dictators”

· Not only did Boris Johnson launch Eat Out To Help Out when he was warned it was dangerous, lifted lockdowns too early when he was warned it was too dangerous, reopened schools when he was warned it was too dangerous, but when scientists said the second COVID jab should be delivered within 3 weeks he decided that was too tall an order and it should be within 12 weeks – after a period of radio silence, suddenly the science fit his plan. No scientists came forwards to defend it

· The Home Secretary, Priti Patel, blamed protestors for protests that became violent from police attacking protestors, bullied staff members under her, bought members of staff in her department, said it was “disgraceful” to topple the statue of Edward Colson, a slave trader, in Brighton because it undermined anti-racism protests, held treasonous meetings with Israel with the plan to divert aid money, and threatened to starve Ireland in order to get them to agree to Brexit

· She also wants to set up Australian-style asylum processing centres on British islands, but the islands she wants are in the Atlantic ocean and over 4000 miles away from the UK. This is because she wants to help asylum seekers enter the UK legally, completed ignoring or oblivious to all the reasons that asylum seekers might not be able to do that, and for the fact that to seek asylum you must essentially walk up the border and ask for it

· The bungling of the Track and Trace system – the government spent £10bn on a system to track and trace the spread of COVID-19. All data was stored on an Excel spreadsheet which developed a technical glitch and many results were lost before the system was scrapped

· As Autism Acceptance month began, the BBC ran a story saying the autism causes fascism, and that an autistic person who had chosen to embrace the ideology was incapable of seeing that a neo-Nazi group he joined was morally bad because he was autistic

#st george's day #uk politics

15 notes · View notes

the-scottish-costume-guy · 4 years

Text

JK Rowling, transphobia and a hopefully helpful post.

A few days ago I posted on my Facebook (yes I have one sue me) debunking some of the things Rowling has been saying on twitter. Since she made a statement I felt the need to make another one... but this time Im sharing it here. Please note this is long, it is fairly opinionated in places but her statements have felt so insidious I want to share something in depth. If you are cis I implore you to read, but I understand this is long and a lot of people wont want to. No judgement.

Jk Rowling’s latest statement is a mess of valid concerns and fear mongering. At this point there can be no claim she doesn’t know what shes talking about - she herself has said shes been researching this for years. She throws in token acknowledgements to “real” trans people while framing the rest of her statements as concern for confused teens.So first things first - and something that might not be popular with some of my trans friends. I agree that teenagers should not be able to medically transition. It is a choice that should be made when the brain is fully mature. Hormone blockers are something I trust - and that are reversible. I have seen enough detransitioned people hurting to feel like we do need to be careful - especially with children who are trying to find themselves. I dont know about other people but during my teens I was coming to the crushing realisation that I wasn’t special. I was learning that no matter how well I painted someone else did it better, no matter how badly I hurt someone had it worse - I was learning about the wonderful mediocrity of life, and having anything that made me stand out gave a brief reprieve from learning to be okay with all these things. For me to be fair it was dying my hair outrageous colours and dressing in black leather during 30 degree summer heat - but its still something we cant forget. I KNOW a lot of kids claiming to be trans are - and I dont want to keep that from them, however I dont want to cause harm to the kids that are wrong. Continuing on, I’d like to address her comments about TERFS. Terfs are Self Described Trans-exclusionary-radical-feminists and the term does get thrown around a little too liberally at times. Terf is not and never will be a slur. No more than “White” is. It is about a group of people who have taken it open themselves to segregate another group - and calling that what it is, is not a crime. The reason Terf and transphobe have become synonomic is because the ‘radical feminists’ that subscribe to this have lost focus on nearly all other issues of feminism and sit squarely on “dropping the T” from the lgbt community and “keeping men out of womens bathrooms.” Terfs are overwhelmingly women - this is sadly simply a fact. Terfs are reviled because of how much it feels like a betrayal to the community. A group that fights for rights - except ours. A group that wants equality - except for us. Its different to the conservatives who hate us all equally - with Terfs we are singled out. Terfs are not, as Rowling claims, inclusionary to Trans-men. I’ve been met with a combination of pity, loathing, mockery and revulsion by people within this group. I’ve been told that I shouldn’t let homophobia push me into transitioning - only for all correspondence to abruptly drop when I mention Im marrying another man. I’ve been told my old body was beautiful - only for stunned silence when I agree. I was beautiful - I was curvy, I was a dancer and had a body to match - but I wasn’t Me. When their usual arguments against me fail - I’m met with hate. Im called anti-woman, traitor, homophobic. I even have some such comments saved on my blog. I have yet to meet a Terf who was pro-trans-man. Rowling claims that had she had the ability, as a confused teen, she may have sought to transition. I hate to tell her but she did have the ability and trans people didn’t pop into existence in the twenty-first century. I’m actually looking to do my dissertation topic in my final year on lgbt presentation throughout history - and in my overeager way I’ve already started researching. James Barry has been becoming a common name for years - a transgender surgeon who died in 1865. If Barry was able to at least socially transition from 1790 to 1860, I am fairly sure Rowling could have in 1980 - over a century later. Rowling also claims that groups of friends in schools all suddenly identify as trans at the same time. Speaking from my school experience - the queer kids group together. We seek out others like us, and we take strength from each others bravery to come out - often around the same time. We almost get a rush of resolve when one of our group musters the courage and strength, and some of us use that rush to bite the bullet ourselves. Its one of the beautiful ways the lgbt community is here for one another - and the influx of people identifying as trans is partially a factor of more people knowing the name of their feelings. Survivor bias will ignore the trans people through history without the knowledge or means to transition - and will claim they were never trans at all. Her initial statements about charities worry me in particular. As I said last time - we know sex is real, we just dont really like to be defined by it. She is worried that we’re going to “rebrand medicine” and ignores that medications for years have had warnings in their leaflets about “If you are or become pregnant” regardless of if the person receiving it has a dick or a vagina. We dont advocate for ignoring the differences in how people respond to heart attacks - and I for one would like research to be done on how hormones effect that. I dont actually know if I would respond more like a cis gender woman or a cis gender man if I were to have a heart attack or a stroke. But where possible we do want to change the language around some of these things. I have had a double mastectomy, but some Cis-men have these as well. This is not a gendered term. Why should a period be called anything else? Why call it a “womens problem.” I and Im sure many other trans people, support the research into how different medical and mental issues affect different sexes. I just think that should be extended further - and we know it should, as some medical issues affect people of different ethnicities in different ways and we don’t know how. I am truly sorry that Rowling has experienced abuse and assault of any nature. I am truly sorry that she has felt unsafe. But her feelings do not invalidate others experiences. Of the trans people I know, a saddening number have been assaulted, have been abused and in particular have experienced these things domestically. There is much work to be done on this in the UK. There are nearly no mens shelters for sufferers of violence to my knowledge. I, a trans man who have experienced some of these things in my teen years, would Not want to be around cisgender women even if I could be. A cis woman was responsible for much of the pain I personally suffered - and in fact one of the acts of violence she carried out against me was directly after I came out as trans to her. Trans women, even if they could go to male shelters, should not have to be surrounded by a group that put them in danger - in a place that is detrimental to them physically and mentally and is frankly degrading. The belief that allowing trans women into shelters for those escaping abuse is dangerous is sad. To be so afraid is deserving of pity. To let fear blind you to the suffering of others - to think its better that a trans woman face homelessness or a return to an abusive household because you personally would sleep better at night is the kind of passive evil we should be aware of in this day and age. It comes from choosing to see the word “trans” before “person.” Its from choosing to see a persons genitals before their humanity. Trans people are not dangerous - and cause no greater risk than any other demographic. Her claims that she can empathise with this fear are empty. A gender recognition certificate is not a ticket into womens bathrooms. Funnily enough you dont actually require a piece of paper to go almost anywhere. I do not have a gender recognition certificate and use male bathrooms, can enter male spaces as I please. All a gender recognition certificate does is change the letter on your birth certificate. It doesn’t even affect other forms of identification - my passport, my student id, my drivers license all already say male. I am not sure why so many people have chosen this as their hill to die on because its the least relevant thing to them on the planet. How often have any of you seen another persons birth certificate? Rowling says she and other ‘gender critical’ (a terf dogwhistle) people are concerned for trans youth. Well… she can take her condescending concern and direct it to matters that are relevant to her. Trans people want to be left alone. Its a simple request, and yet people endlessly seem to trip over the dirt level bar.

#transgender #jk rowling #terf #transphobia #lgbt #uk politics #I'm prob gonna get shit for this arent I

184 notes · View notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 3 years

Link

Why Is It So Hard for Democrats to Act Like They Actually Won?

Rebecca Solnit

November 19, 2020

When Trump won the 2016 election—while losing the popular vote—the New York Times seemed obsessed with running features about what Trump voters were feeling and thinking. These pieces treated them as both an exotic species and people it was our job to understand, understand being that word that means both to comprehend and to grant some sort of indulgence to. Now that Trump has lost the 2020 election, the Los Angeles Times has given their editorial page over to letters from Trump voters, who had exactly the sort of predictable things to say we have been hearing for far more than four years, thanks to the New York Times and what came to seem like about 11,000 other news outlets hanging on the every word of every white supremacist they could convince to go on the record.

The letters editor headed this section with, “In my decade editing this page, there has never been a period when quarreling readers have seemed so implacably at odds with each other, as if they get their facts and values from different universes. As one small attempt to bridge the divide, we are providing today a page full of letters from Trump supporters.” The implication is the usual one: we—urban multiethnic liberal-to-radical only-partly-Christian America—need to spend more time understanding MAGA America. The demands do not go the other way. Fox and Ted Cruz and the Federalist have not chastised their audiences, I feel pretty confident, with urgings to enter into discourse with, say, Black Lives Matter activists, rabbis, imams, abortion providers, undocumented valedictorians, or tenured lesbians. When only half the divide is being tasked with making the peace, there is no peace to be made, but there is a unilateral surrender on offer. We are told to consider this bipartisanship, but the very word means both sides abandon their partisanship, and Mitch McConnell and company have absolutely no interest in doing that.

Paul Waldman wrote a valuable column in the Washington Post a few years ago, in which he pointed out that this discord is valuable fuel to right-wing operatives: “The assumption is that if Democrats simply choose to deploy this powerful tool of respect, then minds will be changed and votes will follow. This belief, widespread though it may be, is stunningly naive.” He notes that the sense of being disrespected “doesn’t come from the policies advocated by the Democratic Party, and it doesn’t come from the things Democratic politicians say. Where does it come from? An entire industry that’s devoted to convincing white people that liberal elitists look down on them. The right has a gigantic media apparatus that is devoted to convincing people that liberals disrespect them, plus a political party whose leaders all understand that that idea is key to their political project and so join in the chorus at every opportunity.”

There’s also often a devil’s bargain buried in all this, that you flatter and, yeah, respect these white people who think this country is theirs by throwing other people under the bus—by disrespecting immigrants and queer people and feminists and their rights and views. And you reinforce that constituency’s sense that they matter more than other people when you pander like this, and pretty much all the problems we’ve faced over the past four years, to say nothing of the last five hundred, come from this sense of white people being more important than nonwhites, Christians than non-Christians, native-born than immigrant, male than female, straight than queer, cis-gender than trans.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito just complained that “you can’t say that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Now it’s considered bigotry.” This is a standard complaint of the right: the real victim is the racist who has been called a racist, not the victim of his racism, the real oppression is to be impeded in your freedom to oppress. And of course Alito is disingenuous; you can say that stuff against marriage equality (and he did). Then other people can call you a bigot, because they get to have opinions too, but in his scheme such dissent is intolerable, which is fun coming from a member of the party whose devotees wore “fuck your feelings” shirts at its rallies and popularized the term “snowflake.”

Nevertheless, we get this hopelessly naïve version of centrism, of the idea that if we’re nicer to the other side there will be no other side, just one big happy family. This inanity is also applied to the questions of belief and fact and principle, with some muddled cocktail of moral relativism and therapists’ “everyone’s feelings are valid” applied to everything. But the truth is not some compromise halfway between the truth and the lie, the fact and the delusion, the scientists and the propagandists. And the ethical is not halfway between white supremacists and human rights activists, rapists and feminists, synagogue massacrists and Jews, xenophobes and immigrants, delusional transphobes and trans people. Who the hell wants unity with Nazis until and unless they stop being Nazis?

I think our side, if you’ll forgive my ongoing shorthand and binary logic, has something to offer everyone and we can and must win in the long run by offering it, and offering it via better stories and better means to make those stories reach everyone. We actually want to see everyone have a living wage, access to healthcare, and lives unburdened by medical, student, and housing debt. We want this to be a thriving planet when the babies born this year turn 80 in 2100. But the recommended compromise means abandoning and diluting our stories, not fortifying and improving them (and finding ways for them to actually reach the rest of America, rather than having them warped or shut out altogether). I’ve spent much of my adult life watching politicians like Bill Clinton and, at times, Barack Obama sell out their own side to placate the other, with dismal results, and I pray that times have changed enough that Joe Biden will not do it all over again.

Among the other problems with the LA Times’s editor’s statement is that one side has a lot of things that do not deserve to be called facts, and their values are too often advocacy for harming many of us on the other side. Not to pick on one news outlet: Sunday, the Washington Post ran a front-page sub-head about the #millionMAGAmarch that read “On stark display in the nation’s capital were two irreconcilable versions of America, each refusing to accept what the other considered to be undeniable fact.” Except that one side did have actual facts, notably that Donald J. Trump lost the election, and the other had hot and steamy delusions.

I can comprehend, and do, that lots of people don’t believe climate change is real, but is there some great benefit in me listening, again, to those who refuse to listen to the global community of scientists and see the evidence before our eyes? A lot of why the right doesn’t “understand” climate change is that climate change tells us everything is connected, everything we do has far-reaching repercussions, and we’re responsible for the whole, a message at odds with their idealization of a version of freedom that smells a lot like disconnection and irresponsibility. But also climate denial is the result of fossil fuel companies and the politicians they bought spreading propaganda and lies for profit, and I understand that better than the people who believe it. If half of us believe the earth is flat, we do not make peace by settling on it being halfway between round and flat. Those of us who know it’s round will not recruit them through compromise. We all know that you do better bringing people out of delusion by being kind and inviting than by mocking them, but that’s inviting them to come over, which is not the same thing as heading in their direction.

The editor spoke of facts, and he spoke of values. In the past four years too many members of the right have been emboldened to carry out those values as violence. One of the t-shirts at the #millionMAGAmarch this weekend: “Pinochet did nothing wrong.” Except stage a coup, torture and disappear tens of thousands of Chileans, and violate laws and rights. A right-wing conspiracy to overthrow the Michigan government and kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer was recently uncovered, racists shot some Black Lives Matter protestors and plowed their cars into a lot of protests this summer. The El Paso anti-immigrant massacre was only a year ago; the Pittsburgh synagogue massacre two years ago, the Charlottesville white-supremacist rally in which Heather Heyer was killed three years ago (and of course there have been innumerable smaller incidents all along). Do we need to bridge the divide between Nazis and non-Nazis? Because part of the problem is that we have an appeasement economy, a system that is supposed to be greased by being nice to the other side.

Appeasement didn’t work in the 1930s and it won’t work now. That doesn’t mean that people have to be angry or hate back or hostile, but it does mean they have to stand on principle and defend what’s under attack. There are situations in which there is no common ground worth standing on, let alone hiking over to. If Nazis wanted to reach out and find common ground and understand us, they probably would not have had that tiki-torch parade full of white men bellowing “Jews will not replace us” and, also, they would not be Nazis. Being Nazis, white supremacists, misogynists, transphobes is all part of a project of refusing to understand as part of refusing to respect. It is a minority position but by granting it deference we give it, over and over, the power of a majority position.

In fact the whole Republican Party, since long before Trump, has committed itself to the antidemocratic project of trying to create a narrower electorate rather than win a wider vote. They have invested in voter suppression as a key tactic to win, and the votes they try to suppress are those of Black voters and other voters of color. That is a brutally corrupt refusal to allow those citizens the rights guaranteed to them by law. Having failed to prevent enough Black people from voting in the recent election, they are striving mightily to discard their votes after the fact. What do you do with people who think they matter more than other people? Catering to them reinforces that belief, that they are central to the nation’s life, they are more important, and their views must prevail. Deference to intolerance feeds intolerance.

Years ago the linguist George Lakoff wrote that Democrats operate as kindly nurturance-oriented mothers to the citizenry, Republicans as stern discipline-oriented fathers. But the relationship between the two parties is a marriage, between an overly deferential wife and an overbearing and often abusive husband (think of how we got our last two Supreme Court justices and failed to get Merrick Garland). The Hill just ran a headline that declared “GOP Senators say that a Warren nomination would divide Republicans.” I am pretty sure they didn’t run headlines that said, “Democratic Senators say a Pompeo (or Bolton or Perdue or Sessions) nomination would divide Democrats.” I grew up in an era where wives who were beaten were expected to do more to soothe their husbands and not challenge them, and this carries on as the degrading politics of our abusive national marriage.

Some of us don’t know how to win. Others can’t believe they ever lost or will lose or should, and their intransigence constitutes a kind of threat. That’s why the victors of the recent election are being told in countless ways to go grovel before the losers. This unilateral surrender is how misogyny and racism are baked into a lot of liberal and centrist as well as right-wing positions, this idea that some people need to be flattered and buffered even when they are harming the people who are supposed to do the flattering and buffering, even when they are the minority, even when they’re breaking the law or lost the election. Lakoff didn’t quite get to the point of saying that this nation lives in a household full of what domestic abuse advocates call coercive control, in which one partner’s threats, intimidations, devaluations, and general shouting down control the other.

This is what marriages were before feminism, with the abused wife urged to placate and soothe the furious husband. Feminism is good for everything, and it’s a good model for seeing that this is both outrageous and a recipe for failure. It didn’t work in marriages, and it never was the abused partner’s job to prevent the abuse by surrendering ground and rights and voice. It is not working as national policy either. Now is an excellent time to stand on principle and defend what we value, and I believe it’s a winning strategy too, or at least brings us closer to winning than surrender does. Also, it’s worth repeating, we won, and being gracious in victory is still being victorious.

[Rebecca Solnit’s first media job was in fact-checking and her last book is the memoir Recollections of My Nonexistence. She’s sent a lot of mail to her nieces and nephews during the pandemic.]

#words and writing #Rebecca Solnit #Recollections of My Nonexistence #feminism #assault on the Capitol #Corrupt GOP #Criminal GOP #abuse #words and writiing #my favorites #Nazis

1 note · View note

loavesofoaves · 4 years

Text

De Mort of the Author

This is why they say “Don’t meet your heroes.”

Over the past few years, it has become increasingly apparent that J.K. Rowling has some very terrible opinions that she only seems to get more and more vocal about. As a result, I’ve unfollowed her social media platforms for quite some time now, but still followed Harry Potter-related ventures like Fantastic Beasts (which…that could be a whole essay in how I feel about those) and her Robert Galbraith mystery series (which I have some opinions about that could also be a whole other essay).

(Oh, I can’t resist…for someone who claims to be all about feminism, J.K. Rowling is not great at writing women. There, I said it.)

Recently, it has come to light that she is a trans-exclusionary radical feminist, which I disapproved of, but after reading her blog post from today oh God is it so much worse than I thought. Instead of anything resembling any sort of empathy for her trans fans who have been so very deeply hurt by her support of TERF hot takes on social media, she is so terrifyingly committed to justifying her transphobia that it’s sobering. This, this is the hill that the woman who gave us the book series that defined a generation wants to die on? This was the woman who gave us Hermione who always stood up for justice, who gave us a metaphor for standing up to bigotry and eugenics through Dumbledore’s Army and the Order of the Phoenix, who created terrifying villains like Umbridge and Voldemort who were so very real. How can she not see that she has become the very thing her books preached against—a villain committed to eradicating a certain type of people from the world because they are different? The irony, the fucking irony.

And the cherry on top is she just had to throw ableism into her response as well by throwing in that autistic woman are more likely to transition as if that is something to be concerned about. If you don’t know by now, you should know that I am autistic. This hurts me so fucking much. Part of the experience of being autistic is being constantly gaslit about your ability to think intelligently and rationally because you are different. Telling autistic people that they don’t know what’s good for them because they are autistic and therefore insinuating that their decision-making capabilities and sanity are lacking is ableist. Being trans is valid, regardless of whether it’s a choice or always having felt one was assigned the wrong gender from birth, and trans autistic people are valid and it’s none of your damn business in how they express their gender identities. Again, from the woman who gave us Luna Lovegood, who I have related to deeply, this is so fucking disappointing.

And let’s not even get started that this is what she so selfishly chooses to focus on when Black oppression is at the forefront and we’re in the middle of a global pandemic that is disproportionately affecting Black and Brown people. Oh yeah, and it’s fucking pride month. Woohoo Dumbledore and retroactive representation!

So the good portion of the Harry Potter fandom has established that J.K. Rowling is hurtful and should not have a platform as a public figure. And I think a lot of us who love Harry Potter but are so deeply hurt by its author are wondering, What does this mean? Where do we go from here? Can I possibly still love these books while knowing the person who wrote them is deeply problematic?

I think there is a lot of pressure right now to divorce oneself from Harry Potter entirely, as if the series will taint everyone who touches it because of the author. And if removing it from your life will make you feel better and in a better place mentally, then let go. But I always get wary when people police what media others consume, because, let’s be real, mostly everything we liked from our childhoods is problematic in some way and even though it has gotten so, so much better in the books and shows and movies coming out now, who knows what we’ll be saying about stuff Steven Universe and She-Ra in twenty years? As The Good Place would put it, there is no such thing as completely ethical consumption.

I was an English major. Part of being an English major is reading a lot of books by old dead white dudes who had offensive beliefs. Let’s look at William Shakespeare. He created hundreds of words we still use today and wrote plays that have become ingrained in our culture. His works also contained sexist, racist, and anti-Semitic ideas. And people have reclaimed these plays, challenged these ideas—supported the work while also presenting it in a satirical and critical eye. A performance I saw recently of Much Ado About Nothing with an all-Black cast comes to mind (it’s no longer streaming for free on PBS, but I highly recommend checking it out at some point: https://www.pbs.org/wnet/gperf/much-ado-about-nothing-full-episode/10194/).

So yes, death of the author. The author had intent, sure, but once that work enters out into the world, it’s in the hands of the people, baby. And while, no, we will never look at Harry Potter the same way and will always read it with a more critical eye, I don’t necessarily think that’s a bad thing. In a post-J.K. Rowling world (which will happen completely at some point anyways), it will be interesting to see the new content the fandom generates, the new perspectives. Harry Potter fans are creative, brilliant, diverse, and resilient; they’ve brought us podcasts and porn and puppets. And that is the content that I am excited about, because it belongs to the fans, and the fans say TRANS RIGHTS loud and clear.

So personally, I will not be supporting any new work from J.K. Rowling, which, without making this a whole other essay, has spiraled down the tubes since the Harry Potter series ended. She wrote a book that defined my childhood, for which I will always be grateful, but it was time for her to say goodbye years ago and she is in grave need of time away to reflect on how her actions and writing affect others. I hope she realizes how deeply hurtful she has been one day, but I won’t hold my breath.

But I can’t just pretend I hate Harry Potter now purely for performative virtue signaling, and I think many others are in the same boat. If you are queer and/or autistic and Harry Potter was there for you when you needed it, don’t let anyone tell you that you can’t read it and reflect on it fondly. Do what’s best for your mental health, and as I said earlier, if you need to distance yourself from Harry Potter to heal, that’s also valid. While the series is far from perfect as time continues to reveal to us, it still represents characters and ideas that I still see as good and validating of my own personal identity, and I know many other fans feel the same way. It will never be the same, and let’s not let that be a bad thing.

#harry potter #j.k. rowling #fandom #trans rights #autism #CW: transphobia #CW: ableism #personal

7 notes · View notes

sophygurl · 5 years

Text

WisCon 43 panel Learning to Hear the Dog Whistle

[Just wanted to say this was one of the panels I suggested and I’m so glad it went through and that I was able to make it to the panel. This is something so many of us need to work on, and I’ve made it a practice to point out when I think someone has unwittingly passed on a dog whistle-ish message, in large part because I hope/want for others to do the same for me when and if I do it, myself. Anyway, I learned a lot and this panel was really good.]

Political dog whistles are meant specifically to target one audience who agrees with you, and perhaps to trick others into agreeing with your subtle and covert language. It's important for us to be able to recognize these dog whistles, often used by racist, transphobic, and other bigoted groups. How do we learn to listen for and recognize these whistles when they are used specifically to dodge our ears?

Moderator: Heidi Waterhouse. Panelists: Seth Frost, Keffy R. M. Kehrli

Disclaimers: These are only the notes I was personally able to jot down on paper during the panel. I absolutely did not get everything, and may even have some things wrong. Corrections by panelists or other audience members always welcome. I name the mod and panelists because they are publicly listed, but will remove/change names if asked. I do not name audience members unless specifically asked by them to be named. If I mix up a pronouns or name spelling or anything else, please tell me and I’ll fix it!

Notes:

Heidi started the panel off saying that the panel was obviously not full of all kinds of representation (example: the panelists were all white), so they were going to miss some stuff. The hope was that they could impart more generally how to recognize dog whistles. [They also had a lot of audience additions later on]

She also said that when we talked about racism and antisemitism, etc. - we’re talking about a set of behaviors vs. individual people. She suggests giving someone a chance to walk back a dog whistle you’ve just heard them use and asking them if they know what they’ve just said.

Seth said he knows more white supremacy dog whistles than even he’s comfortable with, and he points them out whenever he sees them.

Keffy doesn’t know as many as he’d like, but he lives on social media and finds it important to recognize them whenever possible.

Heidi took a moment to define dog whistles - intentionally coded language meant to be covertly used within a group or community. For example: “interested in ethnic heritage” ~might~ mean someone is really into their Scottish heritage and actually eats haggis on purpose, but it also might mean they’re a white supremacist.

Seth used an example of a time the host of a TV show he was watching had a spider web tattoo on his elbow - without context he didn’t know if it meant the host just really thought spiders were cool or if he was a white supremacist. For context, Seth would have needed to see other tattoos, or what his political affiliations were, etc. Another example is Norse stuff, which can be totally innocuous, but is also something white supremacists are co-opting.

Keffy brought up seeing the number 88 on people’s user names - it might mean they were born in the year 1988, or it could be a white supremacist signifier.

Seth added that many Nazi’s are not smart. They use this “bullshit numerology” where 88 = HH = Hitler. However, 88 is also a lucky number in Chinese traditions, so that’s another example of something being used in multiple ways and not knowing without context how someone is using it.

Seth also talked about the 14 words - a white supremacist mission statement. So “14 words” or even just the number 14 can be a white supremacist dog whistle.

Heidi brought up the fact that we’re using dog whistle in it’s negative sense, but all in-group communities have their own language they use to recognize one another.

One example Heidi noticed was a show Forged in Fire about blacksmiths. A lot of them wore Thor stuff due to that connection, but slowly over time less and less of them continued to wear Thor-themed things as they’d had it pointed out to them how white supremacists were using those symbols.

Keffy talked about one way to notice if something is being used as a dog whistle or not is to pay attention to who shows up when you see it. When, for example, TERFs swarm to a post using specific language, it’s time to look up the terms used and understand how they’re being used.

Keffy explained what TERF meant, and used scare-quotes around “radical feminist” because he doesn’t see them as being particularly feminist or radical - especially not in the sense it was used in the 80′s. [yup]

Keffy also mentioned the use of pattern matching. If someone is using XX or XY in their bio - well, that’s not bad in and of itself, but if you take a moment to look at their page and you see them harassing a lot of trans people, then you have your answer.

Seth added that watching how they interact with others can be important. If you think they’ve used a dog whistle but aren’t sure, it’s okay to put some distance between you and them to just observe who they’re interacting with and how.

Keffy said it can be important to have friends from many different groups, and if someone tells you that something is harmful to them - listen and believe them. We often learn by being told after accidentally reblogging or retweeting something, and that’s okay. You just have to believe that people know better about their own oppressions.

Heidi talked about how bigots were using the triple parenthesis around names of Jewish people to mark them on twitter - some Jewish people and allies started to use the triple parenthesis for themselves intentionally as a sort of “I am Spartacus” protest. There was a big discussion about this in regards to reclaiming vs. causing harm due to generational trauma. It was important, in that instance, to listen to the Jewish people whose trauma was being triggered, and to believe them about not doing this.

Keffy added that he stopped retweeting as much from people who were using it because his followers had told him it was a trigger for them.

Seth said, as a Jew and trans person, “If I ask you to stop using a hurtful thing, that’s a big show of trust”, so he thinks about that when people come to him in a similar manner.

Heidi posed the question of having scripts for when we call out our friends, or when it’s time to ping an ally to help us out.

Keffy said he’s not that organized to have a script, but he does have some friends that he’s asked to take over. Gave an example of taking T and shifting pronouns, had a friend with a more masculine sounding voice call the pharmacy to ask about it first due to concerns about not being taken seriously.

Keffy also talked about the term calling in, rather than calling out, which is a more personal and quiet approach. He’ll usually DM someone or talk to them privately about these things - unless the discussion has already spiraled out in public.

Seth also said he doesn’t have a script for this, but in person he’ll usually just comment with something like “oh that’s gross” and if asked why, he’ll explain with as few words as possible.

Heidi agreed, saying that person is probably freaking out internally, and won’t hear a lengthy response anyway.

Keffy said no matter how long he’s been working on social justice stuff, when he’s called out/in, he still feels shame or defensiveness or both. It can take time to work through that, so expecting a full discussion right away might not be realistic.

Keffy also advised that if you ask an ally to do this for you, make sure they’re actually getting the right point across.

Heidi shifted the conversation to how to support people being targeted. The first step is to believe them when they tell you something. The point of these dog whistles is to seem like they aren’t a big deal, when they are.

Seth agreed, saying they throw just that much doubt about how they’re being used, so that people aren’t sure if it’s something bad or not. He advised defaulting to at least a base level of politeness when asked to stop using something - you can just stop.

Keffy gave an example of “drinking the kool-aid” to refer to something being cult-like. Keffy gave some background on the phrase coming from what happened in Jonestown. The leader was very abusive and he did dry runs of giving his followers laced drinks. They were punished and even killed if they didn’t drink it, which made it safer for them to assume it was fake again and to just drink it. Knowing all of this, we can see that no one was really consenting to drinking the laced drinks. Hundreds of people died, and their family members and loved ones can be very triggered by the callous and casual use of this phrase popping up in what seems like otherwise-innocuous instances.

Heidi gave another example - death marches. These kinds of phrases are used so commonly that we sometimes forget, or don’t even initially know, the history of them or the gravity of that history.

Seth talked about the trouble with hearing dog whistles when other people don’t. It can be very isolating to have other people saying “no I don’t hear anything.”

Heidi said a panel like this could easily become a “you’re not aware/angry/anxious enough” discussion, but really the world expands more when we learn more about it.

Seth talked about the main stream media often using antisemitic language that they may or may not be aware of, or mean. Examples: coastal elites, bankers. Keffy added that it’s gotten to the point where if he hears George Soros’s name brought up, he just stops listening. [RIGHT?!]

Heidi put it to the audience to give more dog whistle examples for us to be aware of.

One audience member talked about the “from (whichever city is nearest)” being code for black, poor, and violent. It was pointed out that Chicago is used as code for this nationwide.

Another audience member talked about Reagan’s “welfare queen” mythology that was put together on purpose and is still ongoing today.

Someone else in the audience asked how to tell if someone is trying to recruit you as an ally or just accidentally passing on a dog whistle they weren’t aware of.

Heidi advised looking for other clues in their language and interactions. Keffy added that this is why dog whistles are so insidious. The welfare queen myth became a meme that people began to believe in. So if you explain the history and context of it’s origins and watch how people respond to it - bigots often respond to these sorts of things by telling on themselves. You can tell in the reaction how they meant it once it’s pointed out to them.

An audience member gave another example - the peanut gallery. It has racist origins due to segregation - black people had to sit in the balconies and the myth was that they were unruly and tossing peanuts into the theater.

Another audience member talked about “urban” being used as code for black people in a negative sense. This audience member is a white teacher of mostly non-white students and urban can be used professionally as just a definition but she has to be careful about usage due to it’s other association.

Someone else in the audience talked about intelligence, but I missed most of what they said about it.

Keffy added on to that, by adding that IQ is just racist, and if it’s not being used to be racist, well then it’s still ableist so it’s still wrong. [good points]

An audience member talked about how eugenics is used as a dog whistle for “less intelligent people shouldn’t breed.”

Another audience member talked about gas stations and other places often owned by immigrants proudly displaying signs saying “American owned”. This is code for saying “this is the white gas station” for racists and xenophobes.

Someone else in the audience brought up the issue of faux dog whistles, such as the ok symbol. Another audience member replied that the problem is that they become associated with the bigotry anyway.

Seth added that everything is made up at some point or another.

Keffy expanded on that by saying the problem with “just for lulz” dog whistles is that this is how white supremacists recruit a lot of teens and young adults. It might not initially mean what it comes to mean, but it draws people in, which is the point of it.

An audience member brought up the dog whistles of merit, merit-based, and meritocracy - a commentary on reverse racism and affirmative action.

Keffy talked about commentary in science fiction genres about how there’s no more fun adventure stories because of all of these serious issues and social justice inclusion - codes for bigotry.

Heidi discussed ableism and how lots of times people just don’t know they’re using ableist language, but other times it’s done on purpose as gatekeeping. One example was putting “athletic” as what someone is looking for in a dating profile. Keffy added that you could do a whole panel on dog whistles in dating profiles.

Seth offered the example of people referencing Idiocracy as a dog whistle for eugenics.

An audience member brought up people talking about dueling accommodations - which is a real thing - but it’s often used to say that we shouldn’t even bother trying to accommodate people. Also gatekeeping through issues like service animals, claiming people aren’t “disabled enough” to use them, etc.

Keffy complained about things like signs saying “be healthy, use the stairs”.

An audience member talked about people casually claiming they have OCD or ADHD when it’s not true.

Heidi asked the panelists and audience to consider some transphobic dog whistles and gave the example “real women.”.

Seth said when people put “bio female” or “Webster’s dictionary defines womanhood as....” (which by the way isn’t even what Webster’s says but whatever).

Heidi talked about cis women even being attacked for seeming trans - both sides of the political spectrum tend to do this one.

Heidi also talked about fatphobia used in this way, such as making fat jokes about Trump - but that hurts all fat people.

Keffy brought up people who claim that cis is a slur.

I raised my hand from the audience to bring up people claiming queer is a slur as a way of excluding lots of groups beyond gay and lesbian, like trans people and asexual people. Keffy added that this is an effective dog whistle because it sounds social justice-y. Keffy also talked about “get the L out” - lesbians wanting their own group outside of the queer community.

Seth added the phrase “gender critical” as another one that sounds on the surface like a good thing, but is used by TERFs.

Keffy said they often tweak and claim terms that trans and non-binary people use to make fun of them or take power away from them.

An audience member brought up people using respect as a key-word to keep minorities from being angry and standing up for themselves.

Heidi brought up racist school dress codes, and asked people to add more dog whistles to the panel’s # - #HearTheDogWhistle. It’s a process to learn these things.

Seth closed by saying if someone tells you a thing is problematic - stop. Do some research. Even if it turns out you disagree with them in the end, it doesn’t hurt to stop and find out more. Respect other people.

#wiscon #wiscon 43 #dog whistles #hear the dog whistle #bigotry

1 note · View note

renaramblesaboutcomics · 7 years

Text

Wednesday Roundup 8.11.2017

First of all, shoutout and special thanks to my patrons on Patreon, who for as little as $1 per project each month are helping me to grow and expand what I do here on renaramblesaboutcomics and all my other blogs and projects including starting up my own comic. So special thanks to c. win, Erin Jenne, Iz, Keerthana Krosuri, OwlKnight, Rebecca Luu, and Steph.

Now, for this week in comics we have another full and healthy week of comics coming out from almost all the major publishers and then some! But how will they survive my new FIVE STAR RANKING SYSTEM. i mean it’s not that big of a deal, it’s the same as any five point rating scale but the point remains.

Tesladyne’s Atomic Robo and the Spectre of Tomorrow, DC’s Batgirl and the Birds of Prey, DC’s DC Essentials Catalog 2018, DC’s Justice League Day, Viz’s My Hero Academia, Marvel’s Old Man Logan, Dark Horse’s Overwatch, Marvel’s Runaways, DC’s Superman - Action Comics, IDW’s Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles/Ghostbusters II, DC’s Titans, IDW’s Transformers: First Strike

Tesladyne’s Atomic Robo and the Spectre of Tomorrow #1 Brian Clevinger, Scott Wegener, Anthony Clark, Jeff Powell

To say I have been curious about how Atomic Robo was going to deal with the current political and scientific landscape is sincerely an understatement, because I have been just sitting on edge, wondering if we would be getting another historical arc or at least placed in the not-so-distant past for context. After all, here in America that hasn’t really been an anti-science climate quite like there is right now. At least not within my own lifetime.

But, of course, I should have had far more faith in the foresight and boldness that Clevinger and Wegener have always shown in their craft. Which, of course, is a perfect description of their ongoing science-adventure epic Atomic Robo, because for as scientifically and fiction minded as the pulp adventures are, the fact that it is art is undeniable.

Art is about communicating concepts and ideas, and as scientifically minded as Robo and his team of scientists at Tesladyne may be, and as much as science based nerds like myself appreciate how the science is not bent or broken entirely for the sake of the storytelling, it is masterful at portraying science in a way that is accessible and, most important of all as it relates to Robo, humanizing.

While it’s a slow start to this new arc, what really drives it home is Robo’s frustration and sacrifice for the sake of his dream, and how ignoring the human elements has allowed the politics and general climate of the world around him to drown out his work and inhibit him. Even if the only insight we get to the hurdles is his humorous annoyance with the desert’s self-proclaimed HOA that is between himself, Elon Musk, and Sir Richard Branson, the imposing and overly restrictive hold of Red Tape and permit seeking is imposing all throughout the issue, even for the major parts of it center more around the wily antics and return of young Foley.

And of course, it wouldn’t be Robo without major hinting toward something larger and unexpected to come.

It’s not the most perfect introduction to an arc, especially not for Atomic Robo which has at times had some of the most engaging first issues of almost any long form comic I’ve seen, we are talking about a comic where the electricity-driven skeleton of Thomas Edison is a villain. So it is just short of the high bar that it has set for itself, but even falling short Atomic Robo manages to be one of the best comics of a given week. That for me is justification enough for a solid 4/5 Stars.

DC’s DC Essentials Catalog 2018

Straight up, I am not a fan of Catalogues and I’m definitely almost never in agreement with the books they choose for each of the catalogue’s sections. So it’s not like I’m going to be less than truthful with this guy.

But my harshness is probably best explained as to why I’m being harsh, after all most people would not care that much about what is essentially a free throw-in with someone’s pull list in the week. And, honestly, my answer there is that because it’s free, because it’s promotional and being pushed onto new readers, its viability as a good entry level or at least how helpful it is as a guide for interested new readers, increases exponentially here.

So how does it work on that level, especially with the release of the Justice League movie looming over DC currently? How likely will this persuade a new reader to start getting more submersed into the comic books it’s trying to represent?

Annnnnd the answer there is not great?

There’s a short comic at the start, introducing the Justice League and wow is it a testament to how out of touch the lineup is with the increasingly diverse culture of nerds and comic book fandom. Five beefy white guys, one white woman, and one black man. Like it’s seven years into the new DC Universe (technically) and you couldn’t trade anyone here out for some more, less milk toast characters by this point? Hal Jordan couldn’t be traded out for any other Lanterns at all? It’s annoying. And at least something the Justice League movie will be at least somewhat better at thanks to the very awesome casting of Jason Mamoa as Aquaman.

But that’s still only a small part of this issue. The rest of it, and by that admission the vast majority of this digital freebie is dedicated to the “essential reading” of DC as of 2018. And much like the lineup of their premiere team, DC has repeatedly proven in the last couple of years that they... don’t know what to suggest. Most notoriously there was the Essentials collection where they literally had a section for each of the male Justice League members and like. One book for Wonder Woman. That was embarrassing and if we had anything remotely similar it would be our first 1 star of the new rating system, but it’s honestly a much longer, much more thorough and comprehensive version of a reading list for DC and in that way, while still not a “standard” or “satisfactory” example of how to really capture the attention of new fans, and its choices aren’t always the most coherent alongside each other, it doesn’t completely fail at its mission by my estimate.

DC’s Batgirl and the Birds of Prey (2016-present) #16 Julie Benson, Shawna Benson, Roge Antonio, Marcelo Maiolo

The Benson sisters already have to win me over after the first arc of this series which I found terribly disappointing so far as uniting the team that I know and love as the Birds of Prey and not really being on board with the last issue for all the reasons I said in this review.

So I was somewhat apprehensive from the start but, honestly, if you follow this blog for a while you know I’m a sucker for giant superhero team-up storylines and am really willing to hold my sense of disbelief a lot more than even what I regularly do for comics.

....

So why are the villains of this team-up literally militarized paper feminists in.... well, in the United States the first thing that comes to mind when a lot of white people wear uniformed cloaks with hoods and masks is the KKK, of course these masks are old plague doctor masks that double for some kind of... gas. Okay.

But like. Considering the current environment in not just the US but the whole world... just putting into words “the real problems in the world right now are radical feminists” here and having our superheroes literally say “Not all men in Gotham”... If I’m being generous this is a whole lot of shady and uncomfortable. If we’re not supposed to read deeper into this, then why the surface level imagery and blanket statements that so immediately bring to mind current issues. If we’re supposed to read deeper why does it feel so unrewarding with none of the characters having enough time in a team-up this large to really experience the events any deeper than surface level.

And there’s still not even a mention of how this event would effect trans men or women, or how this disease is even supposed to be effecting only people who identify as men to begin with. It’s apparently scientifically based according to this issue and the continued mention of medical investigation from Ivy and the villains themselves. If someone claims it’s due to the Y chromosome then trans and nonbinary people would be effected differently on a case by case basis, giving the medical community a pretty quick idea of what was happening. Not to mention that XXY women and men, XYY men, XXX women, and so on should be effected differently. Now I’m not expecting a comic book writer to write a genetics dissertation for research on a comic idea but if they want to be a mature or adult comic in subject matter, then high school biology should not immediately tear their entire plot apart.

I just. Really feel like this book wanted an all-female superhero team-up and thought there needed to be justification for why the men weren’t around instead of it just.... being unsaid as to why there weren’t men on the team. And things have spiraled out from there. On top of that, the art is not strong enough to regain the things that are lost in what is a clustered and puddle deep storyline.

These sorts of team ups are best when the subject being dealt with is not so politically or culturally charged, or when there is very clearly a reason for each of the present characters to be in the exact positions that they are in. And so far this crossover hasn’t really managed to believably pull this off.

DC’s Justice League #1 - Justice League Day 2017 Special Edition Geoff Johns, Jim Lee, Scott Williams, Alex Sinclair

This issue is really a sampler for the larger issue that is Justice League (2011-2016) #1 which... I’ll be honest, has not aged the best of the Justice League origins that I commonly think of, and really the fact that this sample contains pretty much no Wonder Woman or Flash, it’s hard to really see why outside of this scene between Batman and Green Lantern which has become somewhat iconic in the superhero community, I don’t really get.

I mean, the scene itself is so anti-climactic specifically because it ends with Batman stealing Green Lantern’s power ring to prove that Batman Is Always The Best Period. And if you’re of my persuasion in the comic reading landscape, that probably means you just rolled your eyes as much as I usually do at those sentiments

This is probably okay for a new, entry level fan to pick up for free, but personally I feel like I’ve picked up this particular freebie now five times for different FCBDs or other marketing pushes DC has had in the past six years and it’s just not enough that I’d consider it worth more than sacrificing the literal $0.99 it would cost you to pick up the whole issue on the same website.

Viz’s My Hero Academia (2014-present) Vol. 10 Kohei Horikoshi

I have been making more of an effort lately to keep away from any spoilers to My Hero Academia, be it the anime or the manga, and while it’s not always the easiest thing to do on a content aggregator like tumblr, it’s an effort I’m particularly happy with myself for doing because I love this series. And one thing I love about this series is how it seems so familiar and yet, time and time again, I am floored by the changes and impact it makes through those choices. It’s honestly astounding.

And for this volume, that wait is paid off because of the unique choices that are made throughout it in dealing with Katsuki Bakugo, Deku’s childhood friend and rival who seems to be, easily, the most surface level and simple of the class of 1A, especially among Deku and his friends, and yet is continuously shown throughout here to have something much better and greater about him.

And while Katskui and his choices which ultimately subvert and turn on its head the trope that he seemed to so easily be fitting into throughout the previous nine volumes of content are the most interesting and engaging storyline of this book, he’s by far not the only one to shine in the volume. Deku, of course, being our main gets lots of great moments and we get to see him really develop his skills and instincts as a hero, but the entire gang of 1A classmates in this volume are really shown to grow from the characters we met back in the first volume of the story. They are reckless without completely losing sense and reason, they’re cautious without allowing written rules to inhibit them from what they know is right, and more than anything, they are all coming to recognize that something special in each other and especially in Deku and Katsuki which the two of them have been able to see all along. And it’s honestly all rather wonderful.

This volume also has more attention paid to the adult heroes and what they’re doing the serious responsibility they take in protecting and saving their charges. Which is a bit of superrealism sprinkled in this story that really elevates it above a lot of stories meant for young readers, especially shōnen.

The art’s always great, the story is not like anything else you’ll read East or West, and there honestly just aren’t characters like this you’ll see in other stories all with as much care and development as they have in My Hero Academia and that’s part of why it is so special and deserving of 5/5 stars.

Marvel’s Old Man Logan - Marvel Legacy Primer Pages Robbie Thompson, Andrea Sorrentino

Of the freebie samplers, the ones that I tend to be the most interested in, at least for this week, are the ones that offer something additional to the things we’ve seen before. And in the case of Marvel’s “Legacy Primer Pages” marketing campaign, that’s exactly what the aim to do and actually achieve.

These are good little samples because not only are they uniquely written for this event and with this very intent behind them, but they are more importantly written by a writer I already really enjoy, Robbie Thompson, and all have different artists which not only tap into the style of the books being promoted bout also have a unique flare compared to the other “Legacy Primer Pages.”

In this case, I’ve never been particularly interested in the Old Man Logan books, as I’ve never been the biggest Mark Millar fan, but this is definitely a sample which gives me a good enough taste of what the universe is about and what Logan’s history is in it that I feel like I could readily pick up the next issue. I won’t. But I could. And that’s a delivery on the whole premise of the series.

Even if it’s super annoying that these things are 3 pages long.

A star earned for each page, I say.

Dark Horse’s Overwatch (2016-present) #13 Michael Chu, Ryan Benjamin, Anthony Washington

It’s been far too long since I read a good comic with Ryan Benjamin on art, it’s been sincerely missed in my usual comic appetite. As I’ve gone over quite a few times, the Overwatch comics Blizzard has been putting out has really gone the extra mile in helping someone like me who likes Overwatch but doesn’t really play the games to feel really immersed into the world they’ve created. And it’s in that way that I really enjoy reading these.

This whole issue seems a lot more plot driven than the rest of the comics, it seems to be in the present timeline, it’s showing the moves being made by the Talon operatives after the events we’ve seen unfold in previous issues and in the cinematics Blizzard has provided. And just overall it seems to have a much tighter schedule with a lot more direction than what has been expected.

It’s a little concerning to me that so many of the Talon operatives are heavily pulling from the more diverse characters in the franchise, but that’s not something I suspect rests squarely on the shoulders of this issue, obviously, but it is something I can look toward the writer of this issue, and the overall creative head of Overwatch’s story as a whole, Michael Chu. And with Chu writing it also makes sense why this feels a lot more plot driven.

All fo this aside, it’s a very nifty, very cool spy thriller from the perspective of the team of Bond villains, which has tight control of the characters and dialogue, and a wonderful use of a great artist whose style is fun yet very believable and action oriented.

Marvel’s Runaways (2017-present) #3 Rainbow Rowell, Kris Anka, Matthew Wilson

When you’re really analyzing and critiquing something, one of the things you have to ask yourself is what more could I ask of it? And I think when you’re torn about your personal, subjective impression of something and the quality of what you’re looking at, it’s important to ask that question and really analyze how much of a difference that can make.

For me, that question is particularly interesting in Runaways because while I’lm personally fairly new as a fan compared to some, I am still someone who has read through and fully submerged myself into the history of the characters up to this point and have a vested interest in seeing how they end up as characters and as a story outside of just “where are they now” more than just someone who was being newly introduced to these characters from this issue forward. And in that way, I can honestly say that Rainbow Rowell and Kris Anka have put together one of the most beautiful, slow paced, and yet completely rewarding personable comics I have read in a long time.

There’s not a lot of action, there’s an ongoing plot and a sense of danger and risk for our heroes, certainly, but at the end of the day the driving force of this plot and this narrative as a whole is and will remain the question “can they still be a family?”

And in that way, as much as my apprehensions remain, as much as my personal biases on where characters should go or should have gone, are completely overwhelmed by how much thought and care is put into every conversation, every action, every beautiful panel of this comic. And it is also in this way that I am just so blown way and impressed by the insight this comic has.

There are nitpicks, like I think that Karolina should have probably been more receptive and affectionate with Gert even through her surprise, but it’s hard for me to get nitpicky when I’m just so glad a book so much as exists, and can say it’s one comic that I look forward to immensely each and every month.

Definitely glad that this comic is continuing to earn every ounce of my support, 5/5.

DC’s Superman - Action Comics (2016-present) Vol. 4: The New World Dan Jurgens, Patch Zircher, Ian Churchill

I remember back when I was reading every bit of comic book criticism and review that I could find a few years ago, one analysis that I found profoundly changed the way I evaluated comics and how I chose to consume them, was coming across an analysis of the culture around comics, and that was that for most committed comic book fans, which I most certainly qualified as, aren’t really focused looking at individual comics as narrative fiction, but like reading a newspaper, keeping peripherally aware of things that are happening within a given universe.

Now, the crux of that analysis was that readers who do this should stop and not feed the beast, opting instead for comics which are wholly good and further narrative and critical thinking.

But, I’ll be honest. I don’t really look to do that with comics either. I absolutely understand and support using comics as a means to relax, a comfort. A romp. And if you read certain comics like newspapers.... hell, you’re still reading more than like half the entire planet each week. I don’t read the parts of the newspaper I don’t have an interest or investment in, and I don’t read comics I’m not at least interested in as well.

I just drop them and stop buying them.

But there are hundreds of comics published every week in America alone, and to buy and keep up with all of them on an issue-by-issue basis, especially if the vast majority are “standard” or lower, doesn’t make sense to me. If a comic isn’t something I “have” to have each week, I move it to a trade wait and buy it that way. And I go over this now not because I want to convert everyone to my way of reading comics, but as an explanation for why certain comics I’m obviously enjoying are moved to this latter experience compared to their “peers”

For me, the events of Action Comics was something I was peripherally aware of through other comics and context clues, but wouldn’t read for myself until I got enough of a story to really sit down and read all together.

Which is a good thing, because as with the common theme of this week, long form arcs are super difficult to do well and so it’s more powerful to read a whole story together once it’s done. Action’s “The New World” story does that, but what it does even more than that is it reestablishes a context for the Super Family in the Rebirth universe.

The start of this issue, really the entirety of the first issue of this arc, is dedicated to showing us the new timeline with retconning the older Super Family and Jon’s birth and growth into the current DCU events. And this is one of those issues that by itself, if I had paid full price for what ended up being a wiki entry to the new universe, I probably would have been super ticked. But in a volume like this, with a whole new story set up by it and cause for moving forward, I find this to be a really good way of telling new readers and friends interested in Superman to read this volume and get a small history for context before moving forward.

And let me just say, as confusing and over the top as the Superman mythos has gotten in the past six years? This was a good call on the writers’ part here. Even if I think that first issue definitely suffers from exposition fatigue.

Now, unrelated to my scoring, I will say that this does upset me as a long time Superman fan because they bought back one of my absolute favorite characters from the previous universe, Chris Kent, but then completely undid everything lovable about him, made him a generic looking foil badguy to Jon’s Superboy, and for the time being seem to have no plans on having his heartbreaking and heartwarming story of finding an adopted family that loves and accepts him in Clark and Lois be revitalized and used to really meaningfully change the bad handling he received less than a year after his invention before. And it’s really disheartening and depressing on a fan’s behalf.

All that said, this is a solid comic and a pretty easy jumping on point for new and old readers alike. It cleans up a lot of the continuity confusion that has been brought on in the last two years for the Super Family, and gives us a lot of solid team ups within the family. So for me, this is a good 3/5 stars.

IDW’s Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles/Ghostbusters II (2017) #2 (of 5) Erik Burnham, Tom Waltz, Dan Schoening, Luis Antonio Delgado

Sometimes you enjoy a property so much that it becomes difficult to look at it with fresh eyes, and sometimes even worse that leads into a point where it takes a very special, a very extraordinary talent to come by and present you with something from that property that not only feels new and refreshing, but in many ways can almost feel like it’s a coming home of sorts.

When I read Burnham’s Ghostbusters or Waltz’s Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, I genuinely feel like it’s coming home to two of the teams that kind of helped me, like they helped a lot of kids, grow a real sense of self and exploration from a young age. There’s a line that’s sometimes difficult to explain to people when it comes to fiction but especially with comics and something as outlandish as the superhero and sci-fi genres, where the line is drawn between things that push the line for things to be ridiculously stupid into ridiculously amazing, but I think if there’s any comic that I would use it could very well be this issue.

The thing is, I mentioned before how I try to always think of a comic as being someone’s very first, and whether or not that would really provide them with anything that would entice a new reader to continue on. But I think there’s another perspective on that which can be just as relevant. And that would be the complicated question, if a comic has already found its audience, can it continue to reward and interest that audience?

And while I would always warn new readers when a comic doesn’t really meet the prior on average, I’m also comfortable with approaching a comic that knows its audience and, as a part of that audience, evaluating what I have gotten out of an issue. In that way, I feel like Ghostbusters/Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II is able to tap into something even decades-spanning properties like DC and Marvel are always juggling and struggling to maintain. It has an audience that Burnham and Waltz have personally been entertaining for almost a decade now, and so their main interests now are in rewarding those fans with the most payoff, the most development, and the most new spins on familiar faces that they can possibly give. And I think this is just another in a long list of examples of how they do that incredibly well.

This isn’t the only comic this week which is in the middle of a story, obviously, but I think of the available comics this one does the best job of doing something that I look at when examining an issue on its own. I ask myself, going into this issue from the last issue, what stakes are there and where (mentally or physically) are all the characters when the story starts, and do those things change by the end, and by how much. Sometimes, in a weak and drawn thin premise of a comic, those things don’t move the dial for the three or four middle issues that the story has, and it’s one of the reasons I am incredibly critical of long, 5+ issue storylines. They very rarely seem to fully payoff for what time and effort you invest in them by this measurement, especially in those middle issues.

Ghostbusters and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are not those kinds of series, and their crossovers reflect that comfort that their teams bring to the table for these events. There’s an understanding of how much change is needed to reward the readers, and even if this is one of the incline issues taking us on our way to the climax very early in the story, it still manages to focus on the things we need to change within an issue.

In this case, that is character development and it’s something that these creators do fantastically well even with a huge ensemble cast. We have a lot of touching and vital moments for each of the characters, seeing the different groups bond and play off each other. It’s more than just the eggheads, the leaders, the comic reliefs, and the hotheads (respectively) together, it’s about taking those personalities and having them play off each other in a way that makes the characters reflect on themselves and the issues they’re not addressing in their personal arcs without being heavy handed.

Basically, if I could, I would teach a graduate level course on how these IDW comics understand how to make an ongoing comic’s individual issues maintain story structure while still contributing to an overall narrative.

It falls short of perfect, I still think it would be very difficult to tell someone new or fledgling in either property to pick it up, and I think that for a lot of people waiting each week, even it’s only a week, can be difficult with the price of comics these days, but it also feels so completely worth it for those of us already on the train.

DC’s Titans (2016-present) #17 Dan Abnett, Minkyu Jung, Mick Gray, Blond

A lot of people over the years have come along to debate me on my assertion that monthly comics should fix their publication method or write comic arcs to be four issues or shorter, and while that’s never been a position I deter from it’s one I am more than willing to hear other opinions are. There are good examples of stories that go on for longer.

But most of the time they don’t. And you end up with pretty run of the mill issues that take up the majority of the middle of the arc and more take away from the momentum of the storyline that had been building than anything else. This isn’t a complete condemnation of this arc, but it is a point I’m willing to stand on for this issue.

We start this issue with the exact same circumstances that we ended it in. Wally I is dead and Wally II is... around. Evil Future Donna reveals herself as the leader and the ultimate betrayer (more on that in a second). Mel and Gnarrk are still mind controlled. Other villains from the Titans’ pasts are also fighting for Donna.

Annnnd that’s it. This is the ultimate example of a filler issue that takes away from the momentum that had been building the entire time before all this happened. None of the characters are in a drastically different place, none of the personalities are changed, none of the circumstances are changed. t’s a lot of exposition and evil pondering that gives us... what is basically the cliffhanger from last issue -- is Donna evil? Will Wally live?

The stakes have not changed and thus this issue doesn’t add to the story. If anything, issues that pull stunts like this, basically pushing the pause button for another month, add to the reputation comics have that they have no real direction or conclusion to offer, that they just are endless cycles of the same game. And I’m saying that as a fan of not only comics, but of this series and this storyline. And it really doesn’t help its case that it all but flat out states a reference to “Who Is Donna Troy?”, a storyline that on one end of the spectrum could be a perfect example of a one-shot story that is self-contained and gives a change to the narrative and characterizations it touches... and on the other end of the spectrum is an example of convoluted retcons, disappointingly missed stakes, and a generally forgettable multipart “epic” that bit off more than it could chew. So we really could be barreling toward one side or the other.

For what it’s worth, I’m not at all saying that this is a terrible issue, but it’s a perfect example of why my skepticism toward comics which stretch stories to 6 issues or longer has grown as thick and impenetrable as it has. Issues of a comic series, like episodes of an ongoing TV show, are best served when you can either watch them on their own, or have demonstrably changed the stakes from the start of the issue/episode to the end, making it matter whether or not it is placed before or after the previous part of the story.

It also doesn’t help that this is the third-ish twist on the “Who Betrayed The Titans” thing they’ve had going for this story arc which has.. basically just been using as many twists as possible to try to combat the Information Age and how covers and solicits are released months in advance, making the element of surprise so questionable. Why else would they throw off the trail by having the traitor be Lilith and then maybe Dick and then maybe Roy and then, oh wait all the clues and lead up had been red herrings it’s Donna.... from the future... who turned evil because everyone died.... and now she wants to kill them earlier... Oh, comics.

On its own, this comic is a solid, standard issue, 3/5, but it’s going to contribute to the overall story arc feeling lax in pace and honestly stretched pretty thin in order to make it to that oh-so-desirable trade length.

IDW’s Transformers: First Strike (2017) #1 John Barber, Guido Guidi

It feels like over the past two years, as I’ve excitedly expanded my library for the IDW Transformers comics, I’ve had to deal with the ongoing struggle of following my favorite characters as they jump around between the various titles, and no two characters probably personify that more than Arcee and Kup right now. While I haven’t picked up Revolutionaries yet as I wait for the trade, I’ve enjoyed the general premise of the book from a distance and wondering if/when we’ll get more tie-ins to Sins of the Wreckers, which is where my love for Arcee and Kup has really been fostered.

This stand alone issue for First Strike is in itself fairly interesting. Even without a lot of the background from Revolutionaries or even the more recent arc of Optimus Prime, I followed the characters and relationships pretty easily. A good part of that is thanks to how John Barber’s consistent voice across all of the Hasbro line of properties has led to a real feeling of being able to follow the characters first and filling in for the storylines after. Which is a really good note for a multi-series shared universe like Transformers (and many other IDW properties) have become.

But that doesn’t entirely make it an easy read for newcomers jumping into the adventure. There is a lot with Blackrock and that whole nonsense (aka the main crux of the issue) that was really lost on me, and that cheapens the issue significantly when it goes for a “power of friendship” basically ending like this one does. It’s something that may very well easily be rewarding for more avid followers of the Revolutionaries storyline but not so much for my own limited perspective. That’s not necessarily a problem with the issue so much as it is for me.

What is a problem for the issue is the more inconsistent aspects of the art. Now, any Transformers fan is probably pre-packaged with a high tolerance for inconsistent proportions. That’s.... just part of the deal when you’re a Transformers fan. But even with that in mind, the changes characters would have with their sizes in this issue was really getting to me, especially with the humans serving as a consistent marker for height throughout.

I also felt that while the character art wasn’t bad, the tones and colors felt too bright and inconsistent with the surroundings, often not shifting shades even as the environment changed, which probably speaks more to the amount of time crunch here and not the actual quality of the digital colorists. But it is still pretty distracting even if you can’t exactly put your finger on why the characters seem to stand out so much to you as you read.

In general the issue is standard in a lot of ways, so I can’t say it’s the sort of jump on point that if you don’t love Transformers already you’ll be jumping over the moon for or something. It’s a good stand alone for a larger appreciative whole. And for me that’s a pretty solid, if just below exceptionalism, 3/5

Hey there! We finish up another pretty stellar week in comics with lots of stories and characters, and another pretty great time from yours truly. And if you enjoy these write-ups or anything else I do whether it be the Roundups, my Rambles, my personal creative projects, or you’re interested in my upcoming podcast, you can help contribute through donations to my Ko-Fi, Patreon, or PayPal. For as little as $1 per project, you make all of this possible.

You could also support me by going to my main blog, @renaroo, where I’ll soon be listing prices and more for art and writing commissions.

RenaRoo Ko-Fi

RenaRoo Patreon

RenaRoo PayPal

#Rena Roundups #Wednesday Spoilers #SPOILERS #Action Comics (2016 )#My Hero Academia (2014 )#DC Essentials Catalog 2018 #Atomic Robo and the Spectre of Tomorrow #Overwatch (2016 )#Runaways (2017 )#Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles/Ghostbusters II #Titans (2016 )#Batgirl and the Birds of Prey (2016 )#Justice League Day #Old Man Logan

4 notes · View notes

nandinisniche · 7 years

Text

What Sarees Can Teach Cis Feminists About Trans* Solidarity

(This article was originally published on Medium on June 11, 2015.)

Stop Saying Caitlyn Jenner Is Doing Femininity Wrong

In the midst of America’s earnest “trans moment”, a strong call for opposition is making itself heard even in progressive — and feminist — media.

It’s coming from inside the house

Trans* acceptance was never going to be a slam dunk, not even with the stupendous combined charm of Laverne Cox and Caitlyn Jenner, nor with the help of that old reliable — airbrushed sex appeal — thrust at us from magazine covers to proclaim their inauguration into True American Womanhood™. Nothing about upending gender expectations is ever that easy.

So this is where we are. The more we publicly the celebrate transgender acceptance, the more anti-trans worms continue to crawl out of the patriarchal woodwork. This is no surprise. To do my bit as a cis ally to trans people, I was ready to write to, reason with, and educate the haters. What is surprising is that so many of the haters are fellow feminists.

Meet the TERFs

Like many Tumblr-toting Roxane-Gay-quoting internet feminists, I had been under the impression that the old guard Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists — TERFs — were a dying breed. The internet circles I lurk in are trans-friendly spaces, at least in name. My Twitter feed was full of trans-positive articles even before Laverne Cox hit the front pages of American media. My favorite reddit communities ban on sight anyone who suggests that trans men aren’t really men, or that it would be dangerous to allow trans women into ladies’ toilets.

But about a week ago, I began to see some startlingly transphobic articles being shared on my carefully culled Facebook feed. Several feminists that I admired were openly disparaging the manner and style and details of Caitlyn Jenner’s public transition.

Some of them went the unabashedly bigoted route, linking to articles like Matt Walsh’s screed, “Calling Bruce Jenner A Woman Is An insult To Women”. Such hatefulness and incoherence is easy to refute (though not defeat). It’s difficult for progressives to take a christian conservative cis white man seriously when he says Caitlyn Jenner is “Disgusting, frankly.” Chalk it up to yet another thing Matt Walsh is wrong about today, and move on.

Other feminists have taken the more subtly transphobic path, criticizing Ms Jenner for playing up stereotypes about femininity. Today an NYT op-ed by Elinor Burkett, for example, is outraged at Chelsea Manning for saying she feels more emotionally sensitive since transitioning, and takes Ms Jenner to task for looking forward to wearing nail polish openly in public after her transition. These attacks are so much harder to deal with because they grow from a germ of truth. Most women alive today grew up battling these stereotypical, insulting assumptions about femininity by the world at large: that women are “too emotional”, that women are obsessed with superficialities like make-up and nail polish, that women are biologically hardwired this way and therefore calling women silly or superficial is not sexism!When we see these insults being given new life by the statements of transgender women in the public eye, we wince.

Yes, I admit it. I winced too.

But then I remembered the sarees.

The story of the sarees

This is where I tell you a little about my roots. I am from India. I grew up in Bengaluru in the ‘80s and ‘90s, back when it was still Bangalore and quite a lot more socially conservative than it is today, though much more liberal than many other parts of India.

One of the fiercest battles I waged then was against the dress code imposed on me: traditionalism first, modesty a close second, to hell with my personal choice, and don’t even dare breathe the word ‘fashion’ for fear of being branded whorish[1]. Even after my family moved overseas, this dress code persisted, made me choke, made me seethe. My parents and I had screaming fights over my tight jeans. My underwear was scrutinized for possible covert sluttiness[2]. I wasn’t allowed to wear spaghetti strap tops even in my 20s.

I became quite the expert in the art of secret outfit changes when away at school and college. I also grew to hate the traditional Indian clothes that were constantly held up to me as markers of good virtue. Enforced modesty taught me to see every saree as a symbol of oppression[3].

Can you imagine my state of mind when I saw my peers both in real life and in the media embrace sarees as liberating fashion statements? I saw many South Asian women ‘reclaiming’ the saree as sensual, religious, feminine, traditional, and kickass all at once (and I doubt they had ever collectively lost their claim to begin with). Many desi girls and women overseas embraced sarees as defiant, joyous expressions of their minority cultural identity. I saw my school friends wear their sarees happily and stylishly, and I got thoroughly pissed off at them.

I thought they were stupid for welcoming their own oppression. I thought they were betraying me, betraying all the battles that I and every other Indian feminist had fought to escape our compulsory-desi-outfit shackles. I raged at them for giving ammunition to all the people who pressured me to dress traditionally: now they were able to point to all these other girls and say, See? See how happy they are in traditional clothes? Why can’t you be like that?

But most diasporan desi girls and women never fought the battles I fought, and don’t have the same associations with sarees that I do. Their life experiences allowed them to take a pleasure in sarees that will probably always be alien to me. For some of them, donning a saree was even something of a defiance.

I had a dance instructor in junior college who was called to the Bar in London, and at one of the formal ceremonies that followed, instead of wearing the expected black robes, she wore a lace-edged black saree. She said she was telling the British to stuff it. I was stunned. I believe that was the first time I allowed that maybe, just maybe, sarees are not oppression for everyone all the time.

Not just sarees

No doubt other ethnic and religious groups have experienced a similar dissnoance. I have an Iranian friend who chafes under the laws that impose headscarves on her whenever she goes back home, and her journey has been toward understanding why American hijabis exist: to understand that for some American muslimahs, wearing the hijab is as radical an act as it is for my Iranian friend to take hers off.[4]

The moral of the story

What the saree can teach cis feminists is this: context matters. Our life experiences matter. The symbols and methods we choose for self-expression have particular meanings for ourselves, and we should not insist that our meaning is THE universal meaning.

For some women, nail polish is a symbol of all the dreary, expensive, time-consuming hoops women are expected to jump through to adequately perform our femininity. For other women, especially those who have spent their entire lives longing for and being forcibly denied any expression of femininity, nail polish may be a powerful and triumphant symbol of self expression.

How can the former among us take offence at the latter? It is well within our rights to interrogate the patriarchal rules surrounding nail polish from a critical perspective, but how can we justify interrogating trans women like that?

Can we even imagine how it must feel to be ‘officially’ allowed to wear nail polish after 65 years of being denied it? I want to throw Caitlyn Jenner the glitteriest mani-pedi party when I think about it, and I’m the kind of person that’s owned exactly four bottles of nail polish ever in all my life. (So… I guess we will be hiring professional manicurists for the party because I would paint her knuckles as likely as nails.)

Beyond the cis perspective

So far I’ve only considered trans women’s choices from a resolutely cis lens. But what if we tried looking at the performance of femininity from the perspective of trans women themselves? Would we see merely choice and triumph? Or would we see something more nuanced, and decidedly darker?

Consider: violence against transgender women is an epidemic. Even though trans women are only 10% of all LGBTQ people who report incidents of hate directed at them, they are 45% of murder victims in the same group. Passing as female can be a matter of life or death for trans women. In light of this, is there any way to see cis feminists’ criticism of trans women for “trying to hard” to be feminine as anything other than terrifying, hateful, or at least deeply misguided? I don’t think so.

Consider: trans people are more deeply and thoroughly scrutinized for their performance of gender than cis people like myself can ever fathom. The pressure on trans people to surgically feminize their appearance in order to “pass”, or in order to be more acceptable as romantic partners, is extremely strong even when they personally would rather not get surgery. (Yes, that’s right, not all trans people want surgery.) This pressure and scrutiny has extremely damaging effects on trans people — for example, over 40% of transgender people attempt suicide, compared to 4.6% in the general population and around 15% among LGB people. Should cis feminists really be piling on trans people for supposedly “over”performing gender, thus adding to the toxic culture of overscrutinizing trans people? I definitely don’t think so.

A better way to fight

Here’s what I think cis feminists should be doing instead:

#1 (for the Meets Minimum Standards of Human Decency badge) Unequivocally support and encourage trans people’s chosen manner of gender expression. It’s a battle they have fought long and hard for, and feminists of all people should not be in the business of yelling them for somehow “doing it wrong”. They are doing it right, because they get to decide what’s right for them. Period.

#2 (for the Feminist 101 badge) Support the efforts of trans activists who want to build a safer and more equal world for transgender people. This means reading trans feminist writing (good places to start include Laverne Cox, Zinnia Jones, Model View Culture, and if you’re feeling academic, Radical TransFeminist). This means educating ourselves on the specific obstacles to equality faced by the trans community: safety, access to healthcare, equal opportunity in employment, equal access to public toilets, etc.

#3 (for the Intersectional Feminist badge) Recognize that if there is a reason why media portrayals of famous trans people is problematic, it is because of the way this affects THE TRANS COMMUNITY, not cis women! The inimitable Laverne Cox says:

A year ago when my Time magazine cover came out I saw posts from many trans folks saying that I am “drop dead gorgeous” and that that doesn’t represent most trans people. (It was news to be that I am drop dead gorgeous but I’ll certainly take it). But what I think they meant is that in certain lighting, at certain angles I am able to embody certain cisnormative beauty standards. Now, there are many trans folks because of genetics and/or lack of material access who will never be able to embody these standards. More importantly many trans folks don’t want to embody them and we shouldn’t have to to be seen as ourselves and respected as ourselves . It is important to note that these standards are also infomed by race, class and ability among other intersections.

In the spirit of #3, I highly recommend browsing the amazing Twitter hashtag, #MyVanityFairCover, where ordinary non-celebrity transgender people are creating their own “Call Me Caitlyn” style cover shots.

And finally, every time we feel anger or outrage stirring in response to something a trans woman says or does about her femininity, we need to remember the story of the sarees.

[1] & [2]: These were the terms used at me, and yes, they are extremely disparaging to sex workers.

[3]: Make no mistake: for hundreds of thousands of Indian girls and women, these clothes are indeed an oppression. Traditional dress codes are commonly imposed on Indian women to this day. I personally know far too many married women living in urban, upper class, highly educated joint families who do not have ‘permission’ from their in-laws to wear jeans.

[4]: Note that I am not suggesting that any choice whatsoever is feminist/radical just because it is a choice. Choice feminism is deeply flawed. What I am saying is, any symbol or act can be radical or oppressive depending upon personal and social context.

#trans solidarity cis cis-feminism caitlynjenner

0 notes