201–210 of 293 posts
I hate this kind of anti-woke reactionary stuff. ... but for aspiring writers, there is a problem. On the one hand, writers should write what they know. They shouldn't try to assume they know some minority's lived experiences. On the other hand, literature should be inclusive. That means including minorities, and not just as peripheral characters. We don't need more My Magical Gay Friend stories. I haven't heard a go…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is like saying it’s factually wrong to call Indian people POC because it erases the existence of White British people in India.
No, it isn't. British in India were colonizers who sought to divide and subjugate the Indian population. The PoC who live in Europe aren't there to colonize it. They are part of the population and therefore the culture.
I think the author here misrepresented the JK Rowling thing quite a bit. The idea is not to "scour" her texts for hidden anti-trans sentiment. The idea is that Rowling makes money off of selling her books and has built an empire, and the resultant power is now used by her as a platform to propagate anti-trans speech. Quite a different issue and also quite novel (pun unintended). Death of the Author is a concurrently…
But why is it considered anti-trans speech, when a villain is "a male serial killer known to have worn a dress"? Surely, in many other books the serial killer is a straight male. Why are their authors not accused of anti-heterosexual speech? Are we promoting some sort of discrimination against straight males? Are they the only ones allowed to be evil?
Basically, there's a long and sordid history of the Cross Dressing Predator as a literary and film trope and this has been used against trans people heavily.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i’m not familiar with JKR’s anti-trans speech. got a quote?
The tl;dr of it is that she's commented about biological femininity as a real experience distinct from trans-females. That offends the ideological extreme of the trans movement which has labelled her a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But why is it considered anti-trans speech, when a villain is "a male serial killer known to have worn a dress"? Mostly the cultural effects of the Hays code and decades of queer-coding villains as evil or sexually depraved in fiction and popular culture. A fictional male serial killer tends not to simply "have worn a dress," that specific detail, like all details in fiction, is intended to communicate something to…
> that specific detail, like all details in fiction, is intended to communicate something to the reader/viewer Except the details of being white or male - those are not intended to communicate anything?
Not typically. Being white and male (and straight, and Christian) is considered so normative in Western society and culture that it's basically a blank slate, "default human." How often is a white character's race specifically mentioned, unless it's to form a contrast with some other non-white character's race?
It almost never happens, because white male characters are often just there. Every deviation from that norm has to be specifically mentioned and pointed out, and unless the author is part of the group or culture being portrayed, is usually done through stereotype.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Might be this is the kind of thing you’re looking for: https://www.glamour.com/story/a-complete-breakdown-of-the-jk...
> On June 6, 2020, Rowling retweeted an op-ed piece that discussed “people who menstruate,” apparently taking issue with the fact that the story did not use the word women. “‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud? I'm still not convinced this is anti-trans. I mean it's reality so for people to want to cancel her over this is ridiculous…
If you read Rowling's comment inclusively then it's a clumsy, ambiguous complaint about shifting language norms that is harmless and warrants a clarification. If you read the comment exclusively -- which I think is fair given Rowling's other statements over the years -- then I find it hard to read in a charitable light. It is, I admit, entirely possible that Rowling doesn't hold trans-exclusionary views and has merely, accidentally chosen ambiguous wording over the years and is pig-headed enough to be unwilling to clarify but I do find this _unlikely_ considering that she's a famously clear author who is willing to clarify (and extend) her body of work for years after the fact.
I think the author here misrepresented the JK Rowling thing quite a bit. The idea is not to "scour" her texts for hidden anti-trans sentiment. The idea is that Rowling makes money off of selling her books and has built an empire, and the resultant power is now used by her as a platform to propagate anti-trans speech. Quite a different issue and also quite novel (pun unintended). Death of the Author is a concurrently…
I think that society has become so complicated that people have become detached with reality and started inventing useless solutions to rather minor problems. Now, if you so much as touch something that is problematic, you automatically become problematic, and the solution for this is just to complain about it as loudly as possible. Correct or not, JK Rowling's thoughts about femininity are likely shared by the vast…
https://www.mit.edu/afs.new/sipb/user/ayshames/Python/LORETT...
I thought and still think it's funny, "Where's the fetus going to gestate Stan, are you going to keep it in a box?" But now I'm afraid to laugh or reference it in public. The movie is probably going to end up on a list, and its fans made to feel bad for being horrible people. I think I can both laugh at Stan, who's not real, and accept and support misgendered people, who are.
I've noticed this too. The recommendations I'm now getting from my audible account are full of newly-published titles promoting wokism and other morally and intellectually bankrupt junk rather than the classic titles I typically go for.
Why is anything classifiable as "wokism" automatically morally and intellectually bankrupt junk? That sounds an awful lot like simply dismissing a broad category of opinions that may contain a reasonably moral/intellectual subset, much like the thing that wokism is being accused of right now.
Because any one with minimum education in history can recognize wokism as the new cultural revolution being adapted for americans. It is not only junk it is also a vile ideology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A Bugs Life is an abominable appropriation of insect culture. You're not an ant so you lack the authority to write or read anything that represents ant culture.
I know you are being sarcastic but if ants could communicate this is exactly what they will say. The movie represents nothing from their culture and makes shit up. The difference is minority people can fight back.