Ana Mardoll's Ramblings: deconstruction (feminism)

Showing posts with label deconstruction (feminism). Show all posts

Storify: Margaret Atwood and SFF

Storify is shutting down in May and has informed users that we have to migrate our content elsewhere if we wish to save it. This is one of my old threads.

[Content Note: Sexual Assault]

[redacted username] Is Atwood avoiding the term SF in her career because she's a snob?

No, and I hate when guys do this without recognizing that SFF is rife with sexual assault.

Also: Atwood isn't currently avoiding the SFF term. That's an old take that won't die. She did at one time disclaim the label but has since said she didn't understand the genre well enough to see how it applied to her work.

Storify: Ian McEwan's Nutshell

Storify is shutting down in May and has informed users that we have to migrate our content elsewhere if we wish to save it. This is one of my old threads.

This is the book in question.

@sazza_jay: who asked for this

Ana: ....narrated by an unborn fetus.

Storify: Vulture, KatR, and The Black Witch

Storify is shutting down in May and has informed users that we have to migrate our content elsewhere if we wish to save it. This is one of my old threads.

Vulture, KatR, and The Black Witch: How a personal grudge ended with an NY Magazine outline ginning up harassment against indie and small press authors.

Part 1: Summary for people who don't want to read the long version.

TL;DR: The Vulture piece by @katrosenfield appears to be a grudge piece designed to harass people who objected to her calling WOC a "groupthink mob".

FIVE of the people she hate-links to were people who've criticized her in the past for loaded language against WOC and queer people.

SIX of the people hate-linked in that article are friends-of or friendly-to those five authors who criticized her in public.

In total, ELEVEN of the people Kat hate-linked to were folks she has an axe to grind with, or friends of those folks.

The Vulture article feels like a harassment hit-piece which casts harmed WOC and queer people as the "real bullies" for objecting to harm. An ethical reporter does not write a piece like this and "accidentally" only link to people who've criticized her behavior in the past.

Storify: The Black Witch

Storify is shutting down in May and has informed users that we have to migrate our content elsewhere if we wish to save it. This is one of my old threads.

Thread 1: The Review

Y'all. THE BLACK WITCH is BAD. This is important reading. Review: The Black Witch by Laurie Forest

You want some extra nitpicks? Because the GIANT TRASH HEAP wasn't trash heapy enough? I got them.

"Gardnerian", as in the white-coded mages descended from "Kelts" and fae in this book? Gardnerian Wicca is a real religion.

"Wandfasting", as in the magical mage marriage in this book? Handfasting is a religious wiccan ceremony very much like marriage.

The Tragically Chaste Gay Guy in this book is named Trystan, which of course sent me thinking about Tristan and Isolde. Bodes well for him!

There's an Athenaeum without Athens, an Amazon race (Amaz) without Greece, and the warrior woman is named Diana.

Storify: Redeemed Racist Protagonists

Storify is shutting down in May and has informed users that we have to migrate our content elsewhere if we wish to save it. This is one of my old threads.

[Content Note: Racism, Rape]

Redeemed Racist Protagonists:
Tweet thread on The Black Witch, on American Heart, and on similar books.

@jules_chronicle: Can we all agree that if your MC's big character arc is deciding that marginalised people are people, that your story needs to go in the [trash emoji]? I am so so appalled by this American Heart announcement. I can't believe anyone, anywhere, thought this was an acceptable book.

A Redeemed Racist protagonist is as harmful and valueless as a Redeemed Rapist protagonist, in my opinion. We are repeatedly asked to identify with oppressors as misunderstood woobies, while very much ignoring their victims. Any redemption arc for them is going to necessarily run up against either forgiveness and acceptance from their victims (gross), or writing victims who DON'T forgive the protagonist, earning the wrath of many readers whether the author intends that or not (even grosser).

Storify: Food Policing and Food Morality

Storify is shutting down in May and has informed users that we have to migrate our content elsewhere if we wish to save it. This is one of my old threads.

I want to talk about Trump ordering his steaks well-done or burnt or whatever. I want to say up-front that I am TOUCHY about this, so... I... maybe please don't @ me if we're friends but you disagree?

I have multiple food allergies. My grandfather, who I gastrointestinally took after, DIED from our allergies. I never met him. I also have lived with disordered eating. I also-also live with a spouse who just... has very different taste buds. We've both worked in food service. I've taken LOTS of professional cooking classes. We know how food is "supposed" to be/do.

So with that in mind I will say this: STOP MORALIZING FOOD CHOICES PLEASE.

Storify: Modern Witches and Social Justice

Storify is shutting down in May and has informed users that we have to migrate our content elsewhere if we wish to save it. This is one of my old threads.

After seeing a man compare "Politically Correct culture" to witch trials of the past, I wrote the below series of tweets.

I'm still angry about that asshole's "PC culture is like witch trials" because THIS IS MY PET PEEVE.

The thing about witch trials, TO START WITH, is Salem is not a good example but it's the one Americans all know of. They know of it because it was romanticized during the McCarthy era as a sort of modern parallel that arguably fit poorly.

For the vast majority of witch trials, the victims were people who didn't fit into the community's white patriarchal ideal. And for the vast majority of those trials, the accusers and people running the show were privileged rich white men. So to try to jam "PC culture" into that framework doesn't work. At all. Period. Ever.

You can see hints of this in what ACTUALLY went down in Salem (not the romanticized version). Several of the "young girls" doing the accusing were white women in their late 20s and 30s. One of the reasons the Salem trials snowballed were because the property of the accused was seized by the authorities.

So the vision of Salem as a hapless community terrorized by young girls and helpless (due to their religion) to stop, is... no. Greedy, selfish, PRIVILEGED adult men and women used the system to kill and steal from the weaker members of their community. Which places modern people married to the use of their racial slurs on the side of the abusers, as usual. Not the victims.

When I say witch trials historically weeded out members of the community who weren't a white patriarchal ideal, btw, I mean it. Women who couldn't reproduce were regularly targeted. Infertile, elderly, very probably trans women, disabled women. People of color and people of different religions were targeted very often. Wealthy women who weren't attached to a man and family (widows, especially) were common targets to seize their property. Very likely queer people of all stripes were targeted as well. People who didn't fit a cis, hetero, allo, Christian, white mold.

This is important, both because those "PC POLICE!!" parallels piss me off, but also as why modern pagans BETTER NOT be bigots. We don't get to claim spiritual kinship with our forewitches only to turn around and perpetuate the same hatred. And this goes ditto for feminists who like to call back to our witchy mothers: you can't pick only the white cis allo ones.

If you won't support women of color, ace and aro women, trans women, disabled women, DON'T INVOKE WITCHES. So if you're carrying a "we are the daughters of the witches you failed to burn" signs, you BETTER be intersectional. Because we CURRENT witches who've failed to burn are subtle and quick to anger. (Props to JRR Tolkien.)

(as a side note!)

Every time I do Wiccan / Witch threads, I get sweet children in my mentions asking if Love spells exist. My dear hearts: There is no spell that can make someone love you, and even if there were it would not be ethical to use it.

There ARE spells to make you noticeable to others, the same way you might change your hair or clothes or scent or style. Those might be worth a look. Or you could experiment with your hair or clothes or scent or style. Or you could use your words. Telling someone "hey, I LIKE-like you" seems hard, but it is easier and more direct than most spells, I promise.

Above all else, be aware that "thanks, but no thanks" is a valid option for your love interest and respect that. Always.

Storify: Appropriation of Religious Tools

Storify is shutting down in May and has informed users that we have to migrate our content elsewhere if we wish to save it. This is one of my old threads.

Appropriation of Religious Tools: Harry Potter, Wands, and Stop Mis-Using the Concept of Karma

Headline: Witchcraft shop refuses to serve Harry Potter fans because it sells 'spiritual tools' not toys for young Muggles

As a witch, I totally support this store owner and omg the IN-ARTICLE comments are shit. LIKE? Zak, a 20 year old man, is baffled to have something denied to him. Is that legal? Mariella, who is 21, says wands aren't toys GOSH they're actually more like Happy Meals WITH toys. ARGH.

Religious witches have been hurt the LEAST of all the groups Rowling has appropriated from, and she had the most justification for it, like, this is in NO WAY on par to the racism in the series. At all. Full stop. But still, I support him refusing service to Potterkids.

@alexandraerin: No different than a Catholic religious store not selling crucifixes to people who want to vampire LARP.

YES. Religion institutions are allowed to not facilitate the desecration of their tools. No one owes you communion wafers either! These are HANDMADE wands that he has a limited supply of and wants in the hands of actual witches. C'mon.

"He'd sell thousands of wands if he served us"--THEY'RE NOT MASS PRODUCED.

@kingdomofwench: And also, this shop owner is awesome and those entitled whiny Potter fans need to stfu forever and find a diff wand ffs. It isn't hard. They just want these because they can't have them.

YES. That's the thing--there are a zillion wands they can buy, but they're angry to be denied THESE wands. And they want the religious experience of the books: homemade wands that pick you and then you have a bonding ritual. So, YEAH, they pretty much DO want to use this man's religion as a toy or game or roleplay and I pity them not at all. And this is the thing that gets me. We're supposed to ENJOY being a "ren faire booth", as you so aptly put it. (said to @Postnuc_mama)

@punningpundit: I have seen lots of high quality wands sold at Ren Faire to potter fans. I think actual pagans are selling them.

I'm totally okay with selling "real" wands to non-practitioners IF THE MAKER WANTS TO. Consent. ("Real" in scare quotes because to me, all wands can be REAL. It depends on the user, not the maker.)

I am VERY disappointed in @BookRiot's take on this. These are hand-crafted, limited-supply religious tools. By demanding he sell them as toys, you're denying access to real witches.

He also engages in a religious ritual AS PART OF THE SELLING EXPERIENCE, and they want to roleplay that. It's disrespectful. That's like demanding that a pastor baptize and serve the host to someone wanting to roleplay a vampire hunter.

Can we talk about the appropriation in your post, @BookRiot? "If you give joy to a Potterhead, you’re going to get a major karmic kickback." Karma is a key concept in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, and Taoism. Are you a practitioner of those? Karma is NOT in Wicca. (We have similar concepts but do not appropriate that word.) Why do you exhort a Wiccan to earn karma?

REALLY tired of white people appropriating every religion they can get their hands on but it's okay because they're excitable fans. KARMA IS NOT YOUR WORD TO FLING AROUND WHEN YOU WANT TO THROW A HISSY-FIT.

"Maybe you’ll learn they have some questions you can help them with." I cannot deal with the level of entitlement in this post. REALLY?

"a good way to combat [stigma] is by educating people." GET OUT.

"How do you expect to do that when you are turning away people who might be somewhat ignorant about the details of your faith?" GOOD LORD.

"You’re effectively preaching to the choir by only serving people who already think the same way as you do." JESUS TAKE THE WHEEL.

Privileged people just refuse to accept that the world does not exist to cater to their every desire. Sit the bloody hell down. Wiccans and Pagans often aren't interested in proselytizing and converting others.

@butterflyzan: Why are they assuming we are out to convert anyone??

Because if you're a Weirdo Crayzee Religion you MUST want to spend every day explaining it to people!

@butterflyzan: Yeah, no. I just want to practice in peace, not be fired and/or burned alive for it. Oy.

@NathanOfOz: Christian supremacy is so ingrained that some ppl have a hard time imagining non-evangelical religions.

Things that Harry Potter fans could do instead of buying religions implements from a creator who doesn't want to sell to them: Make their own!

@kingdomofwench: YUUUUUP. If they want to rp it, they could *do it for themselves*. But noooooooo. seriously though they could buy other wands, or make some with hot glue and paint like that Pinterest tutorial I keep seeing, and set up their own little choosing ritual rp for themselves. Instead of stealing and stomping on our religion.

But then who will roleplay the expert who gives them their wand JUST LIKE HARRY.

Storify: Trigger Warnings

Storify is shutting down in May and has informed users that we have to migrate our content elsewhere if we wish to save it. This is one of my old threads.

These panels are from Captain America: Sam Wilson #17.

Several people have asked me about this, so we need a thread on Trigger Warnings. Trigger Warnings serve many people for many reasons, but this heavily includes people with PTSD, who are trauma survivors. Trauma is built into the name there: post-TRAUMAtic stress disorder. When I say trigger warnings are for trauma survivors, that's a fact.

Trigger Warnings are also "for" many other people, but trauma survivors figure prominently in the demographic being served. For a person with PTSD, a "trigger" is something that can take them (often unwillingly) back to a place of trauma and distress. Trigger Warnings serve to WARN readers about upcoming TRIGGERS (hence the name) so they can prepare themselves if they wish to read. Sometimes the "preparation" is simply knowing the material is coming. Sometimes it's waiting to read in a safe space where they can cry.

Trigger Warnings do not mean that the material is bad, or problematic, or that trauma survivors shouldn't read it. You have seen Content Notes--an umbrella term which includes Trigger Warnings--all your life on movies and movie previews.

"Rated R for graphic sex, violence, nudity, and language" is a content note.

"The material we are about to air on the news may not be suitable for young viewers" is a content note.

"This is a Ginny/Harry fic, not Hermione/Harry" is a content note.

"This is a capital-R Romance novel with a proper Happily Ever After" is a content note.

In short: You have very likely been exposed to content notes and trigger warnings your entire life.

A "safe space" may avoid certain topics entirely, but most simply enforce warnings for content. They don't set content off-limits. Indeed, your average Safe Space probably deals with heavier topics than most spaces. But they deal with them CAREFULLY.

Final note: I want to be clear that "trigger" is a multi-use term, not JUST used by people with PTSD. There are other trauma survivors who don't have PTSD and people with mental illness who use the word "trigger" in slightly different ways. That usage is valid, so I do ask people not to police them. But, yes, anyone saying "LOL TRIGGURED" is using it wrong.

I leave this note because some folks have been like "if you don't have PTSD you can't use the word!" and I don't agree with that. Mental illness and health are complicated and there's some overlap re: "exposure to thing that hurts me in mental health-related ways". ANYWAY, that is what trigger warning is and why mocking trigger warnings = mocking trauma survivors (among others).

UPDATE: I really want to stress that this thread is about MOCKING trigger warnings, not about POLICING the use of the word "trigger". A lot of people who have triggers don't have a full mental health work-up saying so. A trigger can sometimes send me into a full panic attack or can other times just make me really emotional or other times nothing. It varies.

Most of the people using the word "trigger" are using it in good faith, in my experience. I'm uncomfortable with policing the word use. I policed my own self for years, fretting over whether I was triggered "enough" to use the word. That was unhealthy and unhelpful for me. This thread is about why it's cruel to mock trigger warnings (with a freaking comic-weapon that looks like a grenade, ffs), it is not a thread policing usage and adoption of a useful and valuable term for discussing mental health. Thank you.

Storify: DDOS Attacks and Social Media Callouts

Storify is shutting down in May and has informed users that we have to migrate our content elsewhere if we wish to save it. This is one of my old threads.

Good morning, loves. Today I'm going to talk about harassment on social media using the metaphor of network hacking. Pull up a chair.

There was a lot in the media this week about the DDOS attack that indirectly hit Twitter. I saw a lot of "what's a DDOS again?" "DOS" (we'll start without the extra D first) is a denial of service attack. The goal is to disrupt a service from its intended users.

In ye olden days, you could DOS attack a network by flooding it with messages. Ping-ping-ping-ping-ping until the network can't deal. Network designers got smarter from that and created networks that would selectively ignore a spamming signal. That was a good thing! If one computer was malicious or broken, it couldn't take down the network. The network just muted it.

So then the DDOS was born: a distributed denial of service attack. Hackers gather a LOT of computers (usually through trojan viruses) and they count down to spam a network together as a unified whole. This is massively effective because the attack is distributed across multiple attackers. The network can't just mute one and be done.

Networks can't function when hundreds or thousands of signals are screaming at it over the valid traffic. But... we expect humans to.

I keep seeing this cycle play out, where a target is inundated with traffic they're not expecting. Maybe in good faith, maybe not so much. Eventually--maybe a few days, maybe a few hours--they're snippish or make a mistake or lash out. This becomes the impetus for new interactions. People who didn't witness the first mistake get tagged in, often without context. They add to the signal.

A network CAN'T function normally or healthily under these conditions. It's NOT a matter of trying really really hard. The only way to restore normalcy is to take the network offline entirely (delete account, make new one, go private) or block the signals. And, hey, maybe some folks are okay with that for some people. I don't want Actual Satan on Twitter either, I guess.

But I think it's important to understand that this is a pattern of ATTACK. There's no "Distributed Denial of Service Constructive Criticism". It's not an 'attack' because hackers are mean. DDOS attacks can happen by accident! It's an 'attack' because the system CAN'T HANDLE IT.

I'm against harassment because it's violence. But I'm also against most (most! not all!) large-scale callouts because they don't work. Unless, again, the goal IS to drive the victim away. In which case they work very well, but I wish people would be honest about their goal.

I've seen a lot this year about how [target] blocked [multiple people] during a well-intentioned DDOS attack. Well... yeah?? I don't care who it is nor who they blocked; that's the only way to restore normalcy when pings are coming in. Even if the pings are good, correct, helpful traffic (DDOS messages can be!), the network can't function in a flood.

Storify: Subtweeting People Who Aren't Doing Enough

Storify is shutting down in May and has informed users that we have to migrate our content elsewhere if we wish to save it. This is one of my old threads.

Hot Take: I no longer see value in subtweeting People Who Aren't Doing Enough, in part because you are also that person.

Oh, you are probably Doing Enough on the subject you're subtweeting on, but You Weren't There for Fight #24,765. I looked. You weren't. If you weren't there for the 24,764 fights BEFORE that, maybe you're a bad ally, maybe your plate is forever Too Full. Iunno. If it bothers me that much, I'll unfollow you. Subtweeting at you and hoping you'll notice seems like an effort in unsatisfying rancor.

Not everyone can come in for every fight. Feminism stuff, trans stuff, disability stuff, fat acceptance stuff, mental illness stuff, rape stuff. Sometimes people gotta walk away for a month or a year or longer. And they shouldn't have to leave twitter to do that. They can fluff, imo. Twitter is a social networking tool. Sometimes people activist Over There and just need to Fluff Social here. That's okay.

Storify: Marginalized Groups Do Not Agree On Everything

Storify is shutting down in May and has informed users that we have to migrate our content elsewhere if we wish to save it. This is one of my old threads.

Daily reminder that marginalized groups will never agree on broader terms FOR said group, and we try to navigate respectfully around that.

Some people in fat activism are truly, legitimately, validly triggered by being called "fat". I've heard from physically challenged people who are deeply, fairly, validly triggered by "disability" hashtags. There are valid in-group fights about the reclamation of slurs. People who can't visit sites with b*tch, c*nt, or tr***y in the name. I've known LBGT+ people who were truly, deeply, fairly upset at having the umbrella term "queer" applied to people in those groups.

In an individual case, always-always-always ask first. ("What words would you like me to use?") In group cases... I honestly don't know if there's a way around this problem. It's a bigger problem than just me. Because literally every word in every language hurts SOMEONE. Validly, legitimately, fairly. I don't know, you guys. It's a problem.

And here's where people are gonna get mad at me, but *deep breath* If you don't like a term being accepted widely, by all means talk about that. Change minds on your timeline. If you don't like a term being used on/about you, by all means speak up. People better respect that, or they're being jerks. But coming into my mentions to argue widely-accepted in-group terminology that I haven't applied to you? High spoons, low reward.

I am not on the in-group terminology board for any of this. Not for fat, nor queer, nor gay, nor trans, nor disabled, nor crip, none of it. Movements change over time. People speak out. Language evolves. Words come in and out of vogue. Participate in that, yes. Absolutely. BUT.

Example: I'll add something with regard to how I use Assigned Gender At Birth, with the caveat that not everyone does (or should!) agree with me. To me, Assigned Gender At Birth is a historical statement abt what people did. It has no bearing on my body. It does not reference genitals. While I was a baby and unable to express my preferences, certain people assigned a gender to me. They were wrong.

But "AFAB" doesn't read to me as "born with a vagina". I don't know (or care) what criteria people used to assign a gender. A gender was assigned. They could have drawn lots for all I care. They made a pick, and that pick was either right or wrong. Now, other people may validly find that term harmful, which is why you should ask before you use it. Always ask!

That's about it. EVERY group has disagreements on terminology. It is literally impossible for everyone to agree, ever. All we can do is our best to listen and help each other. But sometimes you still disagree and that's just how it is. *sad shrug* But if you're coming at me over a term and you don't have an alternative term to suggest I use, I don't know what to tell you. My activism for trans rights -- which includes self-activism! -- requires that I be able to communicate. Words are necessary for communication.

Another day, another reminder: Regular reminder that members of oppressed in-groups do not agree on everything. A privileged person's job is to listen to those multiple voices and learn. Their job is NOT to pick a side and start clobbering.

Example 1: there are a LOT of rape survivors in the world, and we have many varied opinions on "rape fantasies" in erotica, porn, etc.

Example 2: there are a LOT of trans folk who were appalled by the sharing of that recent medium post re: transitioning as Our Narrative.

Example 3: disability activists are going to disagree on a LOT of stuff, like assisted suicide and language and everything else, tbh.

So try not to get so excited at learning a thing that you share it as the ONLY way. I know it's easy to do!!

Another day, more reminders: I am not going to give up nouns as a concept.

I was just informed that we shouldn't use the noun "ally" because "it makes things about you". That is how nouns work, yes. I have to put a NAME to a GROUP of people with SHARED CHARACTERISTICS in order to tell them NOT to do a harmful thing. Making something "about you" is integral to telling you to stop causing harm. Centering is not, in itself, a harmful thing to avoid.

For the record, I tend to use ally as a verb because I view it as a process and not a state of being that you achieve, but nouns have value. Learn why parts of speech exist. I am a professional writer with an actual shiny university degree in this subject. Taking activism thoughtlessly up to eleven like this ("don't use nouns! they're centering!") is rampant foolishness posing as expertise.

Storify: On Childhood as a Privilege

Storify is shutting down in May and has informed users that we have to migrate our content elsewhere if we wish to save it. This is one of my old threads.

[TW: Child Abuse]

In the gentlest possible way, I want to talk a little about childhood and abuse here.

Childhood as a concept is not some absolute that spans all cultures and times. Many societies have treated children differently. But it is important to understand that treating a child IDENTICALLY to an adult can be itself a form of child abuse.

That does not mean that you can't treat a child with respect, etc. I use the word "IDENTICALLY" up there for a reason. There are extremely valuable conversations to be had about children and rights and responsibilities in our society.

But it's important to understand that WITH rights come accompanying responsibilities in many cases. And there are valid, non-stigmatizing reasons to not want to load children up with the same responsibilities as adults in all cases. "Identical treatment" is not somehow fair or desirable in all cases for all situations for all groups. Nor is it stigma or prejudice to note that some groups need accommodations or have different challenges than others.

We talk about "centering" a lot in social justice, and privilege, and invisible defaults. It is important, when we talk about oppression, not to center against an invisible default as though that's the Only Way. Very young children can make profoundly unsafe decisions. Adults have a responsibility to prevent permanent harm or death. An adult who allows a child to make deadly decisions without intervention is neglectful.

So again there are valid conversations to be had about oppression and children, but I want to avoid centering adultness as the One Way. There is also a race intersection that white activists need to be aware of: children of color are often unfairly perceived as adults. Children of color are legally tried as adults, shot by police as adults, and sexualized as adults as a form of racist oppression. Please be aware of these intersectional concerns as you pursue activism!

It is not okay to hurt other marginalized groups in an enthusiastic rush to help the one you're advocating for. Coming back to this, that is also why I'm a little uncomfortable with the term "adultism". Reminder that *isms require system-wide oppression. So while I am very much onboard with discussing the real marginalization of children in our society, please let's be intersectional.

I also-also want to note that nothing of what I am saying above is new or novel. There have LONG been ethical concerns with how to market to children, for example, and over education vs. propaganda. Not to mention MAJOR concerns over how our legal system should intersect with children, and guardianship, and criminal records. I don't like to see those snarls swept simplistically aside, which I realize is easy to do in a 140-character medium. :)

So I urge people to be careful with terms like "adultism" when childhood itself is a privilege denied to many. And when "adulthood" is sill wielded as a weapon against children from marginalized groups. Be aware of that, please. Thank you!

@alketrolyat: [re: voting] it's not FAIR to make young kids make decisions that might affect them for yrs when they don't understand them. And then there are votes for more complex issues, like bonds and funding, at local levels.

YES, I think possibly some people forget that "voting" isn't just a once-every-4-years presidential thing. And those things (growth, learning, play) are a privilege denied to SO MANY. The presence of a childhood has historically been a GOOD INDICATOR of oppressed class status. School. Television. Marketing. Commercial. Candy cigarettes. These are COMPLEX issues!

PS, this was not a thread specifically about suffrage for children, but since people are talking about it, I have this to add: Please spend at least 10 minutes on voting disenfranchisement of disabled and POC adult voters for every 1 minute you spend on white children. We're disenfranchising people of color in Texas right now and I see very little talk about that, either in news articles or on the twitters.

I expect a lot of white activists feel like the situation is obvious and feel helpless to help, but we still need to make noise about it! And coming up to November, we need to organize to make sure that people have options to get to the polls and won't be turned away. That's hard work and it's not sexy, but it's GOT to be done. Please help do it, if you can.

Storify: Apologies (Giving and Getting)

Storify is shutting down in May and has informed users that we have to migrate our content elsewhere if we wish to save it. This is one of my old threads.

Sometimes I wonder if we need lessons on how to apologize. EVERYTHING is easier with practice, and apologies doubly so I think. Sometimes people mess up in public on twitter and ask me what they should do. Here's my advice.

A good apology, imo, is short and direct. Not a long rambling explanation, just a clean break so the other person can escape if wanted. If you apologize right, most people will ASSUME you meant well / had good reasons, so belaboring that actually hurts your case, ime.

Some 1-tweet examples of apologies that I think are good.

"I'm sorry. I didn't know that. Thank you for explaining to me; I will do better in the future. I apologize for hurting you."

"You know what? You're right. I screwed up, I wasn't thinking right. I'm really sorry and I apologize for hurting you."

"I still feel like maybe there was a misunderstanding, but I'm very sorry for my part in it. I can see I hurt you and I apologize."

"I don't know that I agree, but I will take what you said on-board and try to do better. I apologize for hurting you and I am so sorry."

@lainasparetime: I like the format that goes around - here's what I did wrong, here's why it was wrong, and here's what I'll do in the future

I've seen this one before, but I don't personally care for it. Ymmv, but in a 140-character tweet, to someone who is hurting and angry, "here's what I did wrong" will often lack nuance and make things worse.

I also really reject the idea that an apology MUST be a learning experience for someone. Sometimes we need time to process! Sometimes we'll process and we won't agree! It's okay to be sorry for harm caused but still decide you don't agree with the other person. I've been yelled at in the past by friends who felt like my apologies didn't illustrate that I'd "learned my lesson". I won't do that, tbh.

I come back to the fact that in-groups won't always agree on everything. And sometimes that causes harm. Something I've had to say "I'm sorry that I hurt you, but I'm still going to use that term. My feed is probably unsafe for you."

Sometimes SJ groups are sensitive to the concept of "non-pologies" but (imo) can start wielding that as a weapon. A failure to agree with your point is NOT a non-pology. You can be apologetic for harm caused but still not agree. And sometimes the disagreement is fundamental enough that the relationship has to end. That's sad, but it doesn't mean they were insincere.

It's important to understand that Being Hurt doesn't equal Being Right. We sometimes forget that in social justice aware groups. And it's even MORE important to remember that apologizing for the harm you caused doesn't equal Being Wrong on the topic in question. There are people who are genuinely, legitimately harmed when I talk about assigned gender at birth in the context of bathroom access. Their hurt is real and valid, but that doesn't mean the topic and verbiage is a simplistic Right/Wrong binary. Triggers can be anything.

When we teach that Being Hurt = Being Right, then people apologize LESS because they don't want to be (and perhaps aren't!) Wrong. And we create a situation where Harm is questioned with hostility because the presence of Harm includes a moral victory. Harm is real and shouldn't be questioned and sleuthed. If someone says you harmed them, take that as real and apologize. That apology means you validate their harm and you're sorry for causing it. It doesn't mean you have to readjust all your beliefs to theirs.

So maybe I should have said: We need lessons in giving *and* getting apologies.

You don't have to accept an apology, btw! You can decide "no, I'm done" and not interact with that person again (or for a time). But--and here's the sticky part where some people may get mad at me--you are STILL responsible for your own actions. Just as Being Hurt doesn't equal Being Right, it's also not a free pass to respond however you want.

I've asked people to leave my mentions before but because they had been hurt, they felt justified in hurting me. That's not okay. Barring very rare situations, you are always responsible for your own actions. Being harmed isn't a free card to commit more harm, imo.

So here is my wrap-up advice.

1. If someone says you've hurt them, believe them. Don't tell them they shouldn't be hurt. Hurt doesn't have to be logical. Hurt is hurt.

2. Understand that you can apologize for the hurt without ceding the argument or having to chuck your worldview in favor of theirs.

3. Apologize briefly and sincerely for the hurt and withdraw to give space for healing away from you.

4a. I recommend NOT doing a 10-tweet thread recapping what you did, and why, and why it was wrong, and how to do better.

4b. I've honestly NEVER seen that help de-escalate a situation, and it can come off VERY badly by centering your Learning over their Hurt.

4c. Others' mileage may vary, but when I'm hurt I don't want to hear what YOU learned today. I want you to apologize and leave me alone.

4d. Rarely do I want you to leave me alone FOREVER. Just for, like, a few hours until I've calmed down.

5. Speaking of, remember that an apology doesn't mean your friendship is OVER FOREVER because HARM and WRONGNESS.

5b. You're not perfect and neither am I. We're going to need to apologize to each other from time to time. That's NORMAL.

5c. Which is another reason not to belabor the apology, in my experience.

5d. Since apologies are inevitable, anticipating the next tortured apology can make the relationship so much more strained.

5e. And long tortured apologies can make people hesitant to point out harm because they don't want to suffer the apology.

5f. I feel most relaxed with people to whom I can say "oh, that kinda hurt?" and they'll be like "oh! sorry, I didn't think" and move on.

6. If you're on the receiving end of an apology, you can choose whether to accept it or not, but don't be an abusive asshole.

7. Know that you WILL fuck up in life and that doesn't make you Bad. It makes you an imperfect person just like everyone else.

7b. If you can excise your feelings that Hurt = Bad, then it will be easier for you to apologize without exacerbating harm.

7c. That's a big "if". I know anxiety disorders won't cooperate. Goddess knows @elibyronbaldrsn has suffered through my LONG apologies.

7d. But it might help to practice on your cats. (Oh, I see I hurt you, Fluffykins! I am sorry. *and stops there*) Or journaling.

7e. And remember that the apology isn't about you. It's about the other person. You canNOT undo harm. You can minimize further harm.

@civilwarbore: yep. Your choices in that situation as the hurt party are p much accept the apology or walk (or a combo).

8. This.

Here are some apology RESPONSE examples.

"What you said really hurt me, but I appreciate your apology. I need some time to de-stress but I'll see you around."

"Thank you for the apology. I need some space for awhile on this topic. I encourage you to read up on it, and good luck."

"I see your apology, but I can't accept it at this time. Please don't contact me anymore; I know where to find you if I want to talk again."

"Okay. My request that you not @ me anymore still stands."

And obviously there are warmer ways to accept apologies. :) My point here is there are non-abusive ways to maintain space and boundaries.

Lastly, try to give people time to grow. Social justice is about growth, but it doesn't happen overnight. I've seen "she still doesn't know what she did wrong!" so many times. It may be true! But has she had time to process? If not... let her? If someone has stopped actively causing harm (a big first step!), let them process rather than demanding a perfect recounting RIGHT NOW.

I think it's okay to apologize in stages. The initial "I see I hurt people, I'm sorry, I'm going to stop right here and have a quiet think", and the later follow-up on "here's how I'm not going to cause that harm again." That may take time to process. Growth often does.

You don't owe them a read of their follow-up. You don't owe forgiveness or association or friendship, to be clear. You own them nothing. But I've never seen value in demanding instant on-the-spot learning and growth, because I don't (personally) think that's possible. Ymmv.

@LouisatheLast: It's really hard to reflect and take time and grow when your back is to the wall with a mob howling for an apology

Pretty much this. And that doesn't mean they're insincere. Humans respond badly when confused and alarmed. For me, the goals are:

1. Active harm needs to stop.
2. An immediate apology for harm caused.
3. A thoughtful follow-up as needed.*

#3 being appropriate in the cases of enormous public fuck-ups. Not necessarily for close personal interactions, but maybe sometimes!

Extra-lastly (ha, I'm sorry for the length of this thread), it's important for me to focus on MY own actions in the face of an apology. If I feel like an apology is insincere, I can just walk away. "Okay." and mute/block the person. That's empowering to me.

Anyway, that's the end of the thread. I hope this was helpful to folks.

Storify: Jughead, Aro and Ace and Queer

Storify is shutting down in May and has informed users that we have to migrate our content elsewhere if we wish to save it. This is one of my old threads.

[Content Note: Bigotry against ace and aro identities; violence; rape.]

Jughead's ace and aro identities shouldn't be erased in the Riverdale show

If you care about queerbaiting and straightwashing, it's important to understand the Riverdale show is doing so, by erasing ace/aro identities

Jughead is an established ace and aro character, but the show has refused to write him as such because of stigma against asexuality. This is as important as any other time television or movies turn a queer character unqueer. Even if you're not into the show, this matters. The hashtag for this is #AceAroJugheadOrBust and I'd appreciate if people would read through and RT voices there.

Again: This is important. Just like when trans characters are made cis or gay characters are made straight. Erasure kills. A lot of trans kids are ace and/or aro. #ProtectTransKids doesn't stop with the allosexual/romantic ones. Please elevate their voices.

Storify: Bisexual Visibility Week

Storify is shutting down in May and has informed users that we have to migrate our content elsewhere if we wish to save it. This is one of my old threads.

[Content Note: Graphic Sexual Descriptions, Abuse, Cheating]

Thread: On Gay For You (GFY) narratives in Romance / Erotica fiction and bisexuality.

So I keep seeing more tweets about "Gay For You" (GFY) narratives and here's my take which some of you have seen before. I am bisexual. At the same time, "Gay For You" is a thing I have said and felt and written about myself at points in my journey.

It is VERY TROUBLING for me to hear that my narrative, my life, my story is a trope that doesn't exist and was made up by biphobic people. Does that mean that GFY can't be written in harmful biphobic ways? No, it can be. Does that mean straight writers can't harm us? Many do. Does it mean that we need more bisexual representation? Yes, we do. Does it mean that we need less biphobia in general? YES, WE DO.

Every time there's a harmful stereotype about bisexual people, there's this movement to erase/correct it in ways that erase many of us. So you can't write greedy bisexuals, because biphobia. And you can't write poly bisexuals, because biphobia. Don't write cheating bisexu--

Biphobia has erased me all my life, and now I have to submit to further erasure because biphobia exists? How does that help bisexual people? "Ana, we need to erase the inconvenient parts of your bisexuality otherwise it gives the biphobes ammunition to talk smack about you." No???

Storify: No History Lost

Storify is shutting down in May and has informed users that we have to migrate our content elsewhere if we wish to save it. This is one of my old threads.

[After the Durham Confederate Statue was taken down.]

We're gonna see a lot of "I'm sad a piece of history has been lost" takes today so let's cheer those people up!! No, it wasn't. THREAD.

First of all, read this thread about how and why Confederate memorials were mass produced as shoddily as possible.

Storify: HBO and Confederate

Storify is shutting down in May and has informed users that we have to migrate our content elsewhere if we wish to save it. This is one of my old threads.

There were no sympathetic Confederate slave owners. There weren't any "good" slave owners in the Confederacy. This is partly a definitional issue: one cannot be both "good" and a Confederate slave owner. But it is also a statement about how white supremacy polices itself, INCLUDING its white members.

One of the Dear America books (overall a good series but with a racism problem and very white authors) features a "good" Confederate slaver. The author actually imagined that a "good" Confederate slave owner would have public school for slave children to teach reading. This comes, I suspect, from modern white people imagining what they would do if they were born in a slave-owning family. "Well, I might accept slavery as normal, but I'd be a good master and open a school." Without any understanding of Slave Codes in law.

Every slave-holder in the Confederacy was BOTH fully complicit AND policed to remain so by the rest of the white supremacy. White supremacy doesn't prop itself up and then nicely ask its members to please not dismantle it. White supremacy wrote itself into LAW and made sure any white qualms of conscience were quashed. (Still complicit. Always complicit.) Any fictional property about the Confederacy, written by white people, is going to want to show "good" white slave owners. There were none.

Because: A) being a good Confederate slaver is a contradiction in terms. B) acting "good" to slaves was illegal and policed by white society. Slave Codes were often inconvenient to white slave owners! But they were enforced to protect white supremacy at all costs. This HBO show cannot show slavery accurately because they will never commit to understanding how white supremacy works.

They'll want to make "good" white slavers for the white audience to empathize with. "Good" people socialized to accept bad things. And it doesn't work that way. Confederate slavers were **regularly** confronted with the disconnect between their morals and actions. They KNEW they were doing bad things and they did them anyway. They were not "good", not even in some amorphous heartfelt way.

And I understand the place white people come from where we want to wank off to "what if I were born into that situation?" But that wankfest of rolling around in guiltfeels shouldn't be given a goddamn HBO series that will hurt Black people right now. We have white privilege NOW. We can use it NOW. Write letters. Yell about this show. Elevate Black voices. Call HBO. Threaten to cancel.

"What would I have done with white privilege back then?" is best answered by "What am I doing with my white privilege right now?"

Storify: Tech Girls and Imposter Syndrome

Storify is shutting down in May and has informed users that we have to migrate our content elsewhere if we wish to save it. This is one of my old threads.

I'm having an anxiety attack so who wants a thread about how Positive Tokens can cause harm if they aren't followed up w/ nuance? Let's set the stage:

- I'm a feminine person in STEM.
- I have an Electrical Engineering degree.
- I've done coding for pay.

I've been thinking a lot about how a lot of ensemble casts will (goodly! but stick with me!) put a girl/woman in the Techie/Q role.

Storify: Tech Girls in Fictional Rep

A storify on how (certain types of) positive representation can't be the only solution to Imposter Syndrome. Then a rant on Firefly happens.

index