klutz.geek.nz

not radical on tumblr, but fairly radical everywhere else.

trafalgarslaw:

klutzygeek:

trafalgarslaw:

Did you ever notice that when someone goes: ‘Hey this woman has done something awesome!’ most people will agree that yes, awesome. And that’s that.

If someone goes: ‘Hey, this person of colour has done something awesome’, most people will go: ‘Yeah, but they only could because white people gave them the resources or education or whatever.’ or they will flat out deny that it was awesome or will claim that it only became awesome when a white person started to do it

If someone goes: ‘Hey, this neurodivergent/disabled person did something awesome’, most people will make inspirational porn of it and use it to shit on other neurodivergent/disabled people who can’t do the same.

If someone goes: ‘Hey, there’s this kid who did something awesome’, most people will go and heap all the praise and rewards on this child’s parents or teachers and claim that a child could never have done this on their own.

So, tell me again how being a woman is the most oppressed person to be. Yeah, being a woman might carry less privilege than being a man, but at least society is willing to concede that yes, women can be people and they can be awesome without having to either praise someone else for their awesome or shame every other member of their group for lacking the awesome.

I really don’t agree that women have as much privilege as presented in this simplistic summary (plenty of times when people are like “psh she shouldn’t be doing that she’s a woman”, or “she’s only doing that to impress her man” or whatever, if we want to take this metric on its own and ignore all the other shit that various marginalized groups get); but the points brought up wrt the non-neurotypical and age-related part of this are what I’m reblogging for. I’ve met both of these a few too many times (being an old-beyond-my-years kid for most of my life, the latter especially), and I appreciate that someone’s actually mentioned these two groups.

As directed at radfems, I agree to a point: that is, please remember that feminism that does not also acknowledge the struggles of non-white, non-cis, non-whatever women is not feminism at all. Beyond that - the thrust of this is well meant but it veers off into territory I’m really not comfortable with.

Uh. From what I understand, white, neurotypical, able-bodied cis-women are actually an extremely privileged group, all told.

Of course, being a woman can be pretty shitty, but it’s not the be all and end all of oppression.

It’s like, I see people going on and on and on about how women have it so hard and we should focus on feminism to the exclusion of everything else and it pissed me the fuck off. It’s like people don’t realise that only being a woman doesn’t make their lives all that bad.

Being a woman of colour or a young girl or a trans*woman or a poor woman or a disabled woman or a neurodivergent woman is where shit gets really bad and radfems have a serious tendency to ignore this.

I know that society will occasionally say that a woman should not have done something or only did something to impress her man or whatever, but they usually don’t dispute that whatever was done has happened.

I did put this pretty badly in terms of language, but… yeah. If someone is ‘just’ a woman, without being oppressed on an other axis, they carry a shit-ton of privilege over people who are oppressed otherways and I kind of wanted that pointed out.

Sorry if I fucked up too badly.

Yeah, this makes a lot more sense with that clarification. Don’t worry too much about it - I knew what you meant, but as you know it came across a bit differently, and the internet is very good at picking up on that. Essentially it comes down to that little bit in the middle of your reply there: that it’s really really dangerous to “focus on feminism to the exclusion of everything else”. Because then it becomes the marginalized oppressing the more marginalized, and that always really really frustrates me.

Recently I came across what may have been (it’s unclear if my perception is correct here, but I’m fairly sure it is) an LGBT organization who, in its blurb about scholarship recipients, misgendered the one trans* recipient. Argh! And it’s, you know, things like this happen. LGBT groups or feminist groups or charity organizations demean or ignore trans* people or poor people or disabled people or people they deem too young to believe in the movement/ help out/ know their own sexuality or even people who just call them out on things they’re doing wrong.

I was utterly overjoyed to be asked about my preferred pronouns for an LGBT meeting coming up - that is the first time in my involvement that anyone’s ever bothered to ask, and it’s telling that this particular group is supported by an intersex-supporting organization, hosted on ground celebrating people of color, and aims to welcome youth. That when we take into account that not everyone fighting for a particular cause is like us, we end up stronger and more diverse and less divisive for it. And that’s what should be taken away from your post (and what I believe you intended): not the “zomg women aren’t oppressed? fuck you.” but the “hey, we need to bear the not-like-us members of our group into account too.”

trafalgarslaw:

Did you ever notice that when someone goes: ‘Hey this woman has done something awesome!’ most people will agree that yes, awesome. And that’s that.

If someone goes: ‘Hey, this person of colour has done something awesome’, most people will go: ‘Yeah, but they only could because white people gave them the resources or education or whatever.’ or they will flat out deny that it was awesome or will claim that it only became awesome when a white person started to do it

If someone goes: ‘Hey, this neurodivergent/disabled person did something awesome’, most people will make inspirational porn of it and use it to shit on other neurodivergent/disabled people who can’t do the same.

If someone goes: ‘Hey, there’s this kid who did something awesome’, most people will go and heap all the praise and rewards on this child’s parents or teachers and claim that a child could never have done this on their own.

So, tell me again how being a woman is the most oppressed person to be. Yeah, being a woman might carry less privilege than being a man, but at least society is willing to concede that yes, women can be people and they can be awesome without having to either praise someone else for their awesome or shame every other member of their group for lacking the awesome.

I really don’t agree that women have as much privilege as presented in this simplistic summary (plenty of times when people are like “psh she shouldn’t be doing that she’s a woman”, or “she’s only doing that to impress her man” or whatever, if we want to take this metric on its own and ignore all the other shit that various marginalized groups get); but the points brought up wrt the non-neurotypical and age-related part of this are what I’m reblogging for. I’ve met both of these a few too many times (being an old-beyond-my-years kid for most of my life, the latter especially), and I appreciate that someone’s actually mentioned these two groups.

As directed at radfems, I agree to a point: that is, please remember that feminism that does not also acknowledge the struggles of non-white, non-cis, non-whatever women is not feminism at all. Beyond that - the thrust of this is well meant but it veers off into territory I’m really not comfortable with.

Apparently it’s PTSD awareness month in June. So.

Here’s to all the people who fight crippling pain to get a chance at living a normal life again.

Here’s to all the people who’ve learnt to wake up and pick up the pieces after dissociative episodes or convulsive episodes or god knows what, and keep going.

Here’s to the people who can’t remember what happened but live with the results every day.

I want to talk about this one for a bit.

I have huge holes in my memory. I can’t remember much of my childhood, apart from distinct feelings of isolation and being different. I have a few snapshot memories, ranging from a kindergarten birthday party through to getting the shit ‘disciplined’ out of me, but not many. And for my ninth year, when the most scarring by far of the trauma happened, I have a mixture of extremely vivid slow-motion memories and large blocks of none at all.

I can’t answer the one question that gets asked most frequently: “Were you actually raped?” I can’t. I really don’t know. The vivid flashbacks I get would indicate I was, repeatedly, and maybe once with a knife, but I have no memories to fact-check those against. I don’t know if they’re true flashbacks - I do have a vivid, and rather masochistic, imagination. And for years and years, that really bothered me.

But the thing is, it really doesn’t matter. I’m not gonna go on about how forgiving those who harm you is therapeutic or whatever bullshit, because that’s not it. The point is that, regardless what happened, I am here today and I am dealing with the consequences. Whether or not one particular act occurred does not legitimize or diminish my experience. I utterly hate it when people do think that rape is the metric by which to judge trauma. Some of the other stuff that I actually know happened is much more fucked up, and anyway each of us is affected differently by the same events. It’s not like someone suffering from flashbacks and hypervigilance because they nearly drowned is less of a person than someone suffering the same because they were assaulted. What actually happened does not negate the way it affects me now.

Moving on is about not letting my past define me, something I’ve really struggled with. I’m not “the victim.” I’m not “the one who was abused as a kid”. I’m a person. A person who just happens to have PTSD.
So I can’t define my past. So what? Because it’s been years now, and I don’t receive any actual benefits from being able to detail exactly what happened, I don’t really care.

And if I’m not looking back, I’ll be in a better place to move forward.

dcoetzee:

As reported by Wired, a 9-year-old Scottish girl named Martha (aka “Veg”) who is passionate about food started a blog called NeverSeconds to document the dismal nutrition and portions of her primary school lunches.

The ensuing media storm led to school lunch reforms, and garnered her an audience that she used to promote a charity (Mary’s Meals) that funds school food in Africa. The local council for her region, Argyll and Bute Council, has banned her from bringing in her camera or taking pictures of her food anymore. From her final post:

This morning in maths I got taken out of class by my head teacher and taken to her office. I was told that I could not take any more photos of my school dinners because of a headline in a newspaper today. 

I only write my blog not newspapers and I am sad I am no longer allowed to take photos. I will miss sharing and rating my school dinners and I’ll miss seeing the dinners you send me too. I don’t think I will be able to finish raising enough money for a kitchen for Mary’s Meals either.

I can’t imagine what inspired such a loathsome decision - perhaps shame that their low-quality lunches were being made an example in the international press - but this kind of suppression hurts Martha and everyone she was trying to help, and as a child she has essentially no legal recourse. If she were an adult member of the press, this could not have happened.

I strongly believe that children and teens will in the future become more active players in the economy and in activism, possessing real-world skills, producing valuable content, and inspiring change, and they need rights to protect them against adults like the Argyll and Bute Council who seek to silence them.

Her blog is adorable, guys. Check it out! And, yes, kids can make a difference etc if they’re taken seriously and not either made fun of or suppressed. People need to learn to stop going on about “the children are our future” and then dismissing them.

D spent a ridiculous amount of time reading and responding to youtube comments

dcoetzee:

Tropes vs. Women in video games is a proposed project by Anita Sarkeesian of Feminist Frequency which plans to analyze the way female characters are characterized in video games. Her Kickstarter, originally targeted at US$6000, has now raised $120K, 20 times the original target. Why? A big part of it is because of media attention driven by the viciously abusive response of some gamers on YouTube to her ideas, in the comments section of her proposal video. The Escapist, Kotaku, Jezebel, and GamePolitics report on this.

But I’m not here to talk about the people who threaten rape and murder, call her a kike, tell her she’s ugly, or tell her to kill herself. Although this behavior is unacceptable, the YouTube community also pretty consistently downvotes and rejects this type of extreme comment. This article is here to respond to critics who (to their credit!) disagree with her proposal more or less politely, and the most common arguments they make.

5. Sex sells. Games cater to male fantasies, that’s how they make money.

Every marketer knows that sex and nudity get people’s attention, but sex alone cannot carry a game to commercial success. BMX XXX, a 2002 action sports title, was designed around sexual humor and nudity, and was a colossal critical and commercial failure, selling less than 100,000 copies across all platforms. By comparison, the Portal franchise, games whose female protagonist was silent, fully clothed, and for the most part unseen, sold over 8 million copies. Contrary to popular belief, men look for more in a game than good boob physics.

BMX XXX (left) versus Chell, the protagonist from Portal (right).

There are some successful games out there that lean heavily on sexist representations of females, helpless eye candy who have no significant role in the plot other than to motivate men. Would less men buy these games if the females played a more active role? Princess Cassima in King’s Quest VI was a classic damsel in distress, but ultimately she plays a critical role in bringing down the antagonist. Small changes can make a big difference, making games less predictable and teaching women that they are not powerless.

4. Don’t just complain about it, do something about it. This money should be spent on creating a new game with good female characters.

This is about as silly as telling Siskel and Ebert to stop complaining and start their own movie studio. Modern games cost tens of millions of dollars to produce and operate, requiring a staff of dozens to hundreds of people. The money raised in this campaign, despite exceeding all expectations, would not pay the salaries of one good developer and one good artist.

Criticism serves a role in the marketplace and has real power. It influences consumers and other critics and what they look for in a good game. When enough consumers start to complain, when a needless sexist element in a game could mean a critical and media backlash, game designers in big studios sit up and take notice.

3. Women don’t play games because they don’t want to, not because they’re sexist.

First of all, women do play games. According to the Entertainment Software Association, 47% of gamers are women. And we’re not just talking casual games. Liquipedia lists 26 professional female Starcraft 2 players who have played in tournaments, including Ailuj who played on the main stage at MLG in 2011. These women are hardcore professionals and could wipe the floor with 95% of male players. Women play strategy games, play FPSs professionally, play MMORPGs, play every game that you think of as a serious game.

Professional Starcraft 2 player Ailuj and Mousesports CounterStrike squad

Second, the point of addressing sexism in games is not primarily to attract more women to gaming. Games instill attitudes and behaviors in players, beginning from a young age, and sexism in games (against either gender) can lead to mistreatment between male and female gamers later on. Like, say, the frequent threats of violence and offers of sex that female FPS players get. If female characters are treated with more respect, real-life females will be treated with more respect.

2. Who would want to play as an ugly woman? You’re trying to take all the fun out of games.

Counterpoint: who would want to play as an old, green, wrinkly alien dude? Apparently many players of Soul Calibur IV and Star Wars Episode III on PS2. Why? Because Yoda is awesome.

Besides that, a female character can be both sexy and still be a deep character who is a good role model for women. A good example from film is Katniss from The Hunger Games, whose beauty is only reinforced by her independence and intelligence. Feminist Frequency produced two videos focusing primarily on Katniss being a good female character. I would love to play a character like Katniss in a game.

1. Games are also sexist against men! Only addressing sexism against women is sexist in itself.

Probably the most common argument. Are games sexist against men? Well yes, like all media. TV Tropes has an extensive list of sexist tropes, many of which are sexist against men in particular. However, that does not mean that a project that addresses one issue and not another is sexist - Anita is not claiming that sexism against men does not exist. To the contrary, in her video “What Liquor Ads Teach Us About Guys” she says “men aren’t suppressed or exploited by sexism, but they do suffer as a result of it.” In her video  on “Toy Ads and Learning Gender”, she talks about how toy ads and the gender roles they reinforce discourage boys from learning valuable interpersonal skills.

More to the point, however, is that Anita’s interests and background lie in feminism, which has immediate relevance to her life. Far more blacks marched with Martin Luther King Jr. than ever marched with Cesar Chavez, and that’s only natural. The problem of sexism in games against men can be left to those who are more passionate about that problem, and I’ve considered working on such a project myself. Sadly, the concept of such an exciting project has been somewhat delegitimized by trolls launching their own Kickstarter and showing little respect towards the issue - but someone else could still do it right.

There is a downside to the practice of treating separately tropes that affect men and women: many tropes are sexist against both but in different ways, and it’s instructive to put them side-by-side. For example, many people don’t believe a man can be raped by a woman, for two reasons: because women are weak and couldn’t overpower a man, and because men are perverts and always want sex. However, again, there’s no reason that someone couldn’t create a series that integrates both of these together in a useful way. This would not be redundant, since Anita’s series would still focus on feminist aspects in more detail and give her unique point of view.

Keeping the high ground

In addition to the comments above, I encountered some people who were very supportive of Anita’s work, but themselves fell into discrimination in defending it. Accusing people of being misogynists for favoring a different approach in getting the message out, or for not donating to support, is wrong. Accusing people of being basement-dwelling virgins who have never had a girlfriend is both wrong and sexist in itself (there’s nothing wrong with single male virgins, or people who choose to live with their parents to save money). Many people were quick to blame YouTube attacks on visitors from 4chan or 9gag, although there was no clear evidence of this, and only a small minority of participants in these forums are abusive misogynists. In supporting equal rights for women, we have to keep the high ground and avoid stereotyping other groups in turn.

Comments welcome!

I haven’t done street photography in a while - four months since the last time I’ve attempted it. That time I was in the city, in a very crowded place where plenty of people were photographing the festivities. A single young female-presenting person taking pictures with a beat-up old compact was hardly worth remarking on.

This time, I decided - to capture the Auckland spirit on Auckland Photo Day - to shoot candids in my (somewhat lower socioeconomic) suburb. It’s full of that heady mix of camaraderie and wary aggression, something I felt was intrinsically Auckland, and sought to photograph.

No sooner did I have the lens cap off my (new) camera, simply walking into the central shopping district, that two six-foot-something guys started following me so closely one stood on my heel at one point. “Hey, look at this pretty little thing with a fancy little camera.” I gripped it closer to my chest, picking up the speed, instantly nervous. (Perhaps it’s the anonymous rape threats I’ve received of late that made me hypervigilant, but I certainly was afraid.) They kept following me for a while, making audible sexual comments, but disappeared when I moved into the busier area around the shops.

I did get into my element after that; I know the area and the people well, and got a few photographs and some conversation in. But it did throw me quite a bit. And, when I had an opportunity later that day to head out after sunset to get some more photographs, I passed it up.

Until now I’ve always regarded my looking like a young girl as a pretty glaring plus in the world of public photography. People just smile at the cute little person and walk on, or at worst look at me strangely. I don’t get accused of being a pedophile for carrying a camera near children (which at least a couple of my friends have, and one was seriously injured for cutting across a playground on the way elsewhere), I don’t get accused of being a terrorist, I’m generally not seen as a threat and that opens doors. It’s pretty good going being a girl in photography! You’re seen as an artist and not a stalker (I know, what more could I want, heh.)

Cameras, I think, just make people nervous. Their actions could be captured - and in this age, uploaded to god knows where. And if you look intimidating, which, for an adult male, is much more likely the case in society’s eye than it is for me, hostility is the reaction. On the other hand, if you look easily intimidated, you’re less of a threat - but perhaps also easier to threaten. I’m not sure how to balance the intrinsic audacity of street photography with keeping myself safe, both physically and in terms of away from triggers.

I skipped the opportunity to do another shoot after sunset.

tommorrisdotorg:

Tomorrow, the government’s public consultation on equal civil marriage closes.

You can fill it in here.

If you wanted to go do something nice today, spend half an hour going through the consultation and responding. I did so as early as I could, and every response counts.

You know how it is when someone buys you a gift: a nice card, maybe a book token or a box of chocolates. Yeah, it’s like that, except the gift you are giving is support for equal rights for gay people under the law.

Here’s why it will be appreciated if it actually happens (and I’m not going to count any chickens until it’s on the damn statute books).

The state currently endorses discrimination against gay people by not allowing gay people to get married. It’s that simple. State endorsement of discrimination permits discrimination by wider society: in the workplace, in public life, in schools and elsewhere. Lack of equality and basic rights is a cause for a variety of mental health problems.

How can we have programmes in schools and youth clubs saying to gay and lesbian teenagers that society loves and values them for who they are, when actually society doesn’t? Without full civil equality, society simply sees the stereotypes: the sex-crazed hedonists, the leather daddies, the butch lesbians, the fabulous Gay Best Friends, the sissy as comedy relief etc.

Opponents of gay equality say that allowing gay people to marry destroys “traditional marriage”. No, no, no. That died a long time ago, and it wasn’t done by gay people but by more enlightened views of female sexuality that stemmed from feminism, and from the availability of cheap, reliable contraception. Heterosexual couples could now turn childbearing into a choice rather than an accident. If traditional marriage is the shotgun marriage of a woman finding herself unexpectedly pregnant and having to be forcibly partnered off with a man who doesn’t necessarily love her in order to meet social and familial expectations, we’ve got good reasons to be glad it’s dead and buried.

Marriage is now a romantic institution: one of the few romantic institutions left in a world run by markets and money men, incidentally. It’s yet to be convincingly deconstructed by either postmodern theorists or merchant banks. If you think marriage has any value, it’s because love has value. Behind my cynical exterior is someone who believes in love. Love is the foundation of all that is good and noble in humans: family, charity, care for each other, the desire to create and to share, in the fight for justice when we are wronged. Love requires above all honesty and truth. Marriage is the public telling of that truth to all. And gay people have some truth that needs telling.

The choice here is between segregation and equality, between fear and love. Please choose wisely.

Go respond to the consultation today.

Reblogging for any UKers, but also simply because Tom’s wording here is utterly superb in general. We Kiwis may be leading our own push for marriage equality soon, and these words are relevant regardless of geographic location.