'Annie' is Black and Racists Go F*cking Crazy@2 hours ago with 22 notes
#racism #fighting racism #blatant stupidity #quvenzhané #annie remake
My real name is Tracey, and I'm a freelance editor (twenty-two books in the past two years), a sometime book critic and a novelist working towards publication. To date I've edited historical romance, Westerns, historical YA and a series of children's fantasy novels. I love accuracy in novels set in the real world (or in a world that resembles it), protagonists whose actions affect the plot (rather than those who wait for others to make plot-related decisions, female protagonists with hopes, ambitions and dreams beyond acquiring a boyfriend and complex plots that hang together well. (Oh, and I'm disabled.)
My icon is by Ravemasta. The girl is Vera Misham from Phoenix Wright; the quote is from MST3K's "Cave Dwellers" (Ep. 301).
It’s International Women’s Day here now so I want to give a shout out to all my disabled sisters
to the self diagnosed girls and the 10-drug-rounds-a-day girls
to the loud disabled girls and the girls who don’t verbalise
to the girls in recovery and the stimming girls
to the signing girls and the girls in hospital
to the girls in wheelchairs and the little girls
to the girls who stay in bed and the ticcing girls
to every disabled and ill girl
your experiences are valid, your words, however you express them, are important and you are absolutely fantastic
(via atalantapendrag)@8 hours ago with 2186 notes
@21 hours ago with 1683 notes
These are some of my girl rules when regarding and writing female characters:
- Girls have authority. Show leaders that are female and show leaders that aren’t female taking advice from women and girls. Every other piece of media and the world around us is sure to impress that girls don’t have authority- we don’t need it in media we create.
- Girls are subject to reality. There are enormous expectations on girls every day in every way, but our media tends to omit everything but an image of what girls ‘should’ be. For every beauty queen, there is their time spent and money devoted to makeup and clothes. For every lifestyle, there is the support of said lifestyle. Girls have homes, have chores, have jobs, have families, have triumphed, and have made mistakes. They pay understandable penalties for their actions, and enjoy success as applicable. They have a context just like male characters and we need to show it, because for some reason in much of our media girls seem to emerge from the ether fully formed, fit, toned, shaved, styled, with money in a wallet, super awesome karate powers, nice clothes— and no shown lifestyle or background to support it.
- Girls defy gendered expectations. In light of the above, we also have to identify what actually isn’t ‘reality,’ but society and what we feel is normal but is not set in stone. Girls can have any job and any background boys can, can look the same or have the same body type as any boy can, can perform any feat a boy can. There are female firefighters and female wrestlers and female loggers and female construction workers— and they are just as good at their jobs whether or not they have the same body type as their male peers. I don’t want to see any more women put on a cool crime fighting team and said ‘well they can be the spy or the scout because women are smaller than the muscular men.’ Women don’t have to be small, spies can be large, and a small woman can use her body to achieve the same results as a male bruiser. The same goes with women in any other profession- what qualities aren’t actually reality, but are just our expectations?
- Girls define themselves. In our culture, femininity is often perceived as a lack of, or a contrast to, masculinity— but this is a terrible idea and renders female characters dependant on male ones to have an identity. If a character says she’s a girl, no matter what she looks like, sounds like, seems like, she is a girl, and her traits are traits that belong to a girl. We can categorize traits as traditionally typical for cis males and cis females (‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’) but traits that belong to a character, are the property of that character. Girl power is just as much butch as it is hard femme. Girls define themselves, and are not to be defined by others.
- Girls have agency. Girls want stuff, and girls get stuff. They aren’t along for the ride, or are just one of a set: they have their own strong opinions and motivations for their actions. They’re able to decide what they want and to change their situation without judgement or being thought of as ‘inconvenient’ or ‘a nuisance’ by others. If they need something, they should be allowed to seek it or ask for it or even demand it, without being considered a burden. Girls can say ‘no’ to anything, at any time, and not have that be taken as a reflection of their worth, or an opinion to be persuaded.
- Girls are not mysterious. There is nothing mystical or wondrous about femininity. It is an identity. Girls do not act in ‘mysterious’ ways, there is no ‘female intuition,’ and women are not ‘impossible’ or ‘unfathomable’ or more difficult than men are. When we respect the ideas, the feelings, the speech, and the motivations of others, these ‘mysteries’ of women vanish entirely: a falsehood enforced by male privilege not understanding that women face different realities, implications, and social problems than men. We shouldn’t enforce a ‘mysterious’ or ‘mystical’ or ‘special’ femininity in our media, either- women are half the human population, not puzzles or unicorns.
- Girls are not tools. No plot should depend on someone being female. A female character can have something depend on her abilities (a cis woman’s ability to bear a child, for instance) but that says nothing about her femininity- no more than her ability to win a tournament or lead an army.
- Girls are not limited in their interactions. Girls talk with girls about anything they want. Girls talk with boys about anything they want. Girls talk with anybody of any gender or lack thereof about anything they want. They are not merely conjured up when they have something only the designated girl can say, or when they plot demands girly things. There’s no reason for girls not to be present at all times, involved in any conversations nearby. They don’t go on a shelf while others are talking.
- Girls are fun. They’re fun to be around, are interesting, are clever, are animated, and they have a lot to say that’s both meaningful and entertaining. Too often female characters and their arcs are more detailed, yet also more ‘serious’ or ‘tragic’ than the arcs of some of their peers. Often this seriousness has to do with a male character’s influence, arc, or demise. No thanks!
Of course, these rules apply to any gender, and nongendered individuals too. But female characters are often denied these things in media that we both consume, and media we personally create. Coded cis male characters do these things constantly, at length. Non-males? Not so much.
EDIT: I forgot a rule. It’s here.
one of the weirdest beliefs anti sj types seem to have is that people cannot be part of more than one marginalized group at once
trans AND black? nope.
disabled AND bisexual?? never.
asian AND intersex AND disabled? now youre just weaving tapestries of fantasy.
it’s like we’re spending “character points” or something to be what we are
male/white/abled/cis/straight is the ~default~ character setting and for every step away from that, we have to spend points. if you spend your points on being black and bi, you can’t ALSO be trans! that’s just not REALISTIC
Or we’re accused of trying to shoehorn in too many minority groups at once.@5 hours ago with 7378 notes
|student:||hey government can I have some money to go to university|
|uk government:||sure here you go. you'll have to pay it back but only when you're earning £21,000+ a year, and if you don't pay it off after 30 years we'll just write it off, don't worry about it man|
|scottish government:||nah man just go to uni we ain't gonna charge you|
|us government:||no. you gotta pay it yourself. upfront. your parents have to save up from the moment you're born. good luck, fucker. you have six months after graduating to start paying loans so you better pray to fucking god and jesus that you have a well-paying job by then or be prepared to be fucked up the ass without lube.|
I am getting sick of Eleven’s shitty actions being excused because ~the Doctor lies~. Yes, Seven was manipulative, and yes, Nine and Ten lied too, but it was always portrayed as a bad thing or difficult decision, it was never excused by “that’s just what he does”, and the companions were upset with him when he lied to them.
(via stfu-moffat)@14 hours ago with 796 notes
An interesting discussion broke out earlier today on Twitter about how we discuss feminism and Doctor Who. I was supposed to be spending the day studying for a midterm, but instead, I woke up to this Tweet:
.@WhovianFeminism Question: If Steven Moffat is sexist, why do feminists work with him?— Thomas Ahearn (@Slughorn42)March 2, 2014
It’s an argument that presumes itself to be a clever rebuttal of all feminist objections to Steven Moffat’s writing. If other feminists have worked with Steven Moffat and defended him against claims of sexism, people say, then clearly he can’t be accused of sexism and misogyny. But it’s actually a really simplistic way of ignoring and dismissing those critiques.
The fundamental flaw with this type of argument is that it doesn’t actually address the issues that those who criticize Moffat have raised. This argument instead turns the focus on the individuals involved and erases all complexity and nuance. Instead of asking me to engage with a particular person’s defense of Moffat, you are asking me to judge that individual person. You are asking me to judge whether they are suitably feminist, or whether they are the right or wrong type of feminist.
Furthermore, this type of argument assumes that the existence of one feminist who defends Moffat somehow negates the existence of another feminist who criticizes him. This argument also operates within a context where feminists are sorted into “reasonable” feminists and “hysterical” feminists, with many people assuming that the women who have defended Moffat are the “reasonable” feminists and that those who continue to criticize him are the “hysterical” feminists who are inventing reasons to be mad at him.
As a result, the argument becomes very simplistic. Rather than engaging with the critique and judging it based on its merits, someone can just say “Well, [X] feminist says this show is okay!” and safely dismiss all other critiques without actually engaging with them.
This argument has been making the rounds on the internet again, in part because Karen Gillan was recently asked about fan critiques of Steven Moffat’s female characters. She replied:
I just don’t understand that because I feel like I had a very rounded, interesting, flawed and layered character to play. And I wore skirts but Steven Moffat had nothing to do with that! He doesn’t care about costumes. So I don’t really understand that if I’ve got to be honest.
Instead of actually engaging with the merits of her defense, many fans have simply held up this statement that Moffat isn’t sexist. But it’s not that simple. Sure, we can agree that Moffat is not responsible for Amy’s skirts, and if anyone thinks its sexist that Amy wore short skirts, then I’ll defend Karen Gillan and Amy Pond till my last breath.
But that hasn’t been my critique of Amy’s short skirts, or her character as a whole. I objected to the way Amy’s scenes in short skirts were shot: most started at her feet and slowly drifted up her legs, an example of the male gaze objectifying female characters. I objected to the way other characters shamed, criticized, or objectified her for wearing short skirts. And I’ve been very uncomfortable with the way that Steven Moffat has discussed her body. In one infamous interview, Moffat indicated he wasn’t thrilled about hiring her because he thought she was “wee and dumpy,” but immediately changed his mind when he realized she was “5’11”, slim, and gorgeous.” She may be personally flattered that Moffat has complimented her for looking attractive, but what message does that send other girls who aren’t conventionally attractive about whether or not they could be suitable companions? And if you look in my Amy Pond tag you’ll see I have a number of other critiques about Amy Pond’s storyline that have nothing to do with short skirts.
Let me make one thing clear: this is not a personal attack on Karen Gillan or an attempt to discredit her. When I criticize her statement, I’m not trying to say that she’s a horrible, terrible person. I am engaging with her comments, and continuing a discussion about feminist critiques of Doctor Who. I am disagreeing but not dismissing. I am trying to think about her perspective when making these comments and then offering up my own, differing perspective.
This amazing, wonderful, outrageous fandom can have some of the greatest conversations about our show. We have blogs and forums and books and academic papers and podcasts and vlogs all dedicated to engaging with the source material and imagining it complexly. Yet discussing feminism in Doctor Who has become something so controversial and so emotional that critiques tend to be interpreted as personal insults and attacks.
I don’t care if you disagree with me. In fact, I welcome it. Disagreement forces me to think more critically about what I’m about to say and as a result makes my critiques stronger. But we need to stop trying to dismiss each other with simplistic attacks like: “Well Moffat can’t be sexist because feminists work with him.” It does nothing to advance the conversation and simply perpetuates the notion that critiques are personal attacks.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to go back to studying for that midterm…
(via charamei)@1 day ago with 226 notes