#i do my best to try and check my own racism and biases in terms of writing and creating fan works

[icyrambles]

hi hope it's okay to reblog this, but i wanted to ask some questions out of genuine curiosity on some of the stuff mentioned in this post. and before i started i wanted to say that i agree with the general sentiment of your post; fandom has, and continues to have a very bad racism issue in terms of both actual poc and coded poc characters, something that is often brushed aside and ignored by the majourity of fandom. i believe it's important to address these issues and call them out, less they fester and become prevalent in the background, as well as the fact that fandom comfort in terms of tropes should come second to the safety and wellbeing of poc members.

however i did want to ask why some of the tropes mentioned in this post would be considered racist. specifically in regards to making jazz a decepticon, either former or an undercover spy. i could understand if it was just jazz who was getting this sort of treatment from the fanbase (because if it was just jazz then having one of the few explicitly coded black characters in fandom being on the team that regularly enslaves/colonizes other planets is really gross) but i've stumbled across "what if x character was a decepticon" in pretty much every corner of the fandom; ratchet, prowl, optimus, ironhide, the list goes on. it's generally just a really popular idea to ask the question of what if this autobot was on the other team, so i don't really understand why it's specifically racist if it's done to jazz.

and in terms of hyper violent jazz, i don't think i've personally stumbled across that version of jazz but considering in a lot of continuities he's head of special operations and a literal spy, i don't really consider it that big of a stretch to assume that jazz is willing to commit violent acts. then again i could just be misinterpreting the term hyper violence. if it's about jazz being like, blood thirsty i guess, then yeah that seems really far out of left field considering his appearances within most continuities as being a generally kind and caring individual.

again it seems like a lot of your issues seem to be with really popular fandom tropes that are often applied to most transformers characters, not just jazz. and that's totally valid, sometimes shit just isn't someone's cup of tea. but i think it's somewhat disingenuous to say that people are racist for writing jazz with very popular, and very prevalent fandom tropes that exist all over the internet. like do i think that people could do a little bit more thinking in regards to writing a black coded character with those tropes, yeah, absolutely, biases are everywhere and no author/artist is without them and writers should 100% try to research and check their biases if they're attempting to write about coded characters or really any character who experiences something that the writer themself has not experienced before

but considering jazz is a spy/head of special operations in a lot of continuities, having him be a spy for the opposite team or have him come from darker origins (like being a former criminal) doesn't seem too far a stretch for a fan creator to make and generally from what i know from my experience in fandom, a lot of the fun of playing in the sandbox with characters is asking questions of "what if x character did this" or "what if y character acted like that".

anyways i really hope this doesn't sound like i'm trying to pick a fight, i'm honestly curious how jazz being put into these common fandom tropes and/or experiences (like character traits getting flanderized) is an example of racism even if it happens to every other character within the franchise. and additionally do you have any thoughts on how people could realistically do these tropes? or if people simply shouldn't write jazz into any different stories that don't portray him as a direct 1 to 1 in whatever canon they're trying to write.

I think I've reached my last nerve with how TF fans treat Jazz on here and on AO3, and I feel the need to rant about it. Obligatory "not all Jazz fans" and "not all JazzProwl fans" disclaimer here... if this doesn't sound like it's describing the content you make or enjoy, then it's not. Honestly, I don't think this angry rant is going to convince anybody of anything, but I'm posting it because I want to make it clear that people see this and are aware it's racist.

Never let it be said that racism isn't thriving in the TF fandom on Tumblr and AO3, because so much Jazz fan content is the most blatantly racist shit. And it's nowhere near as bad on other sites that people here usually claim are more racist—I've never seen what I'm about to describe on r/transformers, for example. TF fans on here often claim to love Jazz so much and say he's one of the best, most unhateable TF characters along with Soundwave, but do they ACTUALLY love Jazz?

Tumblr and AO3 users when they see this great, heavily Black-coded hero: We love Jazz! Ooh, what if he was a slave? What if he was hyper-violent? What if he was a disruptive chaos gremlin? What if he was hypersexual? What if he was lazy and never did his work? What if he was a drug addict? What if he was a prostitute? What if he had an evil alter? What if he used to be/was secretly a Decepticon? What if he was a notorious criminal? What if he was literally some kind of bestial monster?

I've actually seen people on Tumblr asking if Jazz being a Decepticon or having an evil alter was ever canon. Well, let this be a PSA: none of this shit is fucking real! I've seen almost all the media Jazz is in, and none of this reflects how he's been portrayed, ever! Apparently people posting links and screenshots and GIFs showing what Jazz has actually been like in canon hasn't caused people to self-reflect, because this shit is still somehow super popular and even filtering doesn't screen even close to all of it! And I've seen in real-time people who are newer to the fandom getting tricked by all this racist fanon and then being drawn into it, thinking it reflects something when it doesn't! That's one of the things that bothers me most!

And then there's the other half of this, which is the immense popularity of JazzProwl. Putting aside how ridiculous it is that a ship between characters who haven't had a positive interaction in fifteen years is somehow the most popular ship in this fandom, half of all the Jazz content I see on sites like Tumblr also stars Prowl, as if Jazz isn't an arguably more prominent character with tons of unexplored stuff of his own going on. But that's the least of it. How the hell do I constantly see people uncritically post shit with this ship like Prowl trying to arrest or pull over a chaotic criminal Jazz? Or shooting at him? Or white savior, copaganda, anti-sex work garbage like Prowl as a cop rescuing prostitute/stripper Jazz from exploitative working conditions (I'm not making this shit up)? (Also, @ people who make content in which Prowl is Jazz's slave—I see you too, and you're not woke. You are still linking Black people to slavery as your first thought and then assuming it's subversive to flip the dynamic you'd expect to see. You're getting off on slavery and still including a Black-coded hero in your shit.)

Even the majority of the much milder content I see is still ridiculously OOC and plays into racist tropes in its own ways. Like how 90% of JazzProwl content shows a lazy, distractible Jazz endlessly trying to get Prowl to relax by disrupting his work or playing pranks or some shit. What media does that come from? Oh yeah, it comes from nowhere, because it's just old fanon that's been endlessly regurgitated by people who aren't realizing how making this up plays into offensive stereotypes about Black men and boys. Hey, if you people love this boring dynamic so much, maybe look at the canon relationships that are similar to it instead of forcing characters who don't fit it whatsoever into these roles without thinking about the implications!

And guess what? I've repeatedly seen literal proof that basically everyone who thinks they like this ship hasn't ever seen the characters interact in canon, too—every so often somebody on here will ask why JazzProwl is popular and ask for fans to share the canon media that made them ship it... and inevitably nobody can share anything, which is hilarious every time. Sometimes people will admit it's all fanon. In fact, the other day I saw a link to a fic from the very early 2000s that claims to be the super-influential, first JazzProwl fic ever making the rounds on Tumblr, and guess what? I looked at it and it was already super fucking racist, with Jazz being described as chaotic and not a hard worker and it had Prowl angrily shooting at him!!!

Jazz is one of my favorite characters and I'm so sick of this shit! Normally I love transformative works and new interpretations of characters, but in this case the fanon is so horrid and has always been horrid, so either try to examine Jazz in canon and portray him based on it, or be a fan of a different character! And fucking REMEMBER that this is a Black-coded hero, damn it! I saw a fic the other day that made me literally choke on my drink because it had Blaster (also a Black-coded hero) describing Jazz as a "spook!" THAT DOES NOT JUST MEAN SPY, THAT'S A RACIST, ANTI-BLACK SLUR!!! And this isn't even getting into how people in fic have Jazz talk! Jazz in all the media I've seen speaks very clearly and rarely has any kind of accent, but I constantly see white people attempting to write his dialogue phonetically in a way that feels straight out of Uncle Tom's Cabin. What the fuck is this?!

Also, petty, but the fans who make and consume this kind of content in my opinion don't then get to relentlessly criticize something like Earthspark, which has a cast and crew of people of color, by claiming it undermined its themes and is racist!

[symptoms-syndrome]

Alters and Race in White-Bodied Systems

I said I was going to write something up, so I’m going to try. I will try to make this as easily understandable as possible, so please let me know if parts are unclear. This will be a little long because it’s a complex topic, but I hope you try to read it if you can. I’ve broken things up into chunks and made the text large for each header so that it is more ADHD-friendly, and tried to use layman’s terms whenever possible.

Things I’m going to be talking about in this post will be:

What is race?

What are the types of racial oppression?

How do people in DID communities/spaces perpetuate racism?

How can I check myself and avoid perpetuating racism?

Final notes

When I can, I will link to sources. For transparency, I am a nonblack/indigenous, Korean-American mixed race person with diagnosed DID. When I use the term “DID” in this post I am referring to both DID and OSDD.

#1: What is Race?

Race is a social construct, created by white people. It is not based in any science, as science has disproven there are significant genetic markers that differ between different races. “Whiteness,“ especially, has been an idea that has changed wildly over time. (A good book to read about this is called How The Irish Became White.)

Socially, people are divided along lines of race, which are blurry at best. Things like “the one drop rule“ make it so that no person of color (POC, a noun not an adjective) can fully claim whiteness. Whiteness is primarily defined by “not being a POC.”

‘Whiteness,’  like ‘colour' and ‘Blackness,' are essentially social constructs  applied to human beings rather than veritable truths that have universal  validity. The power of Whiteness, however, is manifested by the ways in  which racialized Whiteness becomes transformed into social, political,  economic, and cultural behaviour. White culture, norms, and values in  all these areas become normative natural. They become the standard  against which all other cultures, groups, and individuals are measured  and usually found to be inferior (Henry & Tator, 2006, p. 46-47).

(In layman’s terms: Whiteness is created by society, and is now defined as “normal” and “default,” while actively oppressing people of color. People of color, by not being white, are seen as inferior. It’s a catch 22 of not being enough, and when you ARE enough, you’re not considered a person of color anymore, which is exactly what happened to the Irish.)

#2: What is Racial Oppression?

“Oppression” is a word a lot of folks throw around these days, and is commonly defined by what are called the “four Is of oppression.” These four Is are:

Internalized: This is oppression instilled in POC. Thoughts like “if I am more like my white peers, I will be more respected,” “I’m not like those people of color,” and pitting different POC against each other are all examples of internalized racism.

Interpersonal: This is oppression that is between individuals, and the most recognized form of racism. Interpersonal racism can look like calling people slurs, expecting POC to conform to stereotypes, etc.

Institutional: This is oppression built into the society and systems we live in. It can look like schools with higher percentages of POC getting less funding, differing descriptions for the same behavior (hyperactive white children being described as “outgoing” while a child of color is described as “disruptive”,) income inequality, and police brutality.

Ideological: Probably the hardest for people to recognize, ideological racism exists within our very thought processes. White people are told, directly and indirectly, that they are harder working, more deserving, more capable, more advanced, and so on. The inverse is applied to POC. A good example of this is the idea of “welfare queens,” or the idea that someone only got to where they are “by playing the race card.”

All of these interact with each other. Ideological racism is the basis of institutional racism, institutional racism is enforced by interpersonal racism, and progress towards liberation is inhibited by internalized racism, which is instilled in us by all of the above. Oftentimes, these are perpetuated in ways white folks don’t even notice or intend. Offhand comments and other microaggressions (more about those here, in a 2 minute video) can reinforce racism in ways that seem small or insignificant.

Now, onto the part folks are most likely here for:

#3: How Does This Relate to DID?

In DID, alters form for all sorts of reasons, and can look like anything. From demons to angels, fictional characters to animals or objects, the ways parts form can tell someone a lot about that parts beliefs, particularly when they differ from the body. In The Haunted Self, an example is given of a part that believes they are Superman because they cannot be hurt.

When race is involved with this, ideological biases come into play. Though you may not consciously make the decision to have an alter appear a certain way, ultimately, an alter is created by your brain and your brain alone (apart from, of course, the society that your brain/body exist in.) When you are a white person, and your brain creates an alter that appears to be of color, there is a reason. Even “positive” reasons can carry racism, such as splitting an Asian-appearing alter to help with schoolwork. Oftentimes, even without knowing, that reason is due to biases regarding race.

When an alter is created, it does not magically gain the experiences of someone who would actually live in that body. An alter that appears to be a POC has no idea what it’s actually like to be a POC, has no experience with racism, and does not experience any racism. Any racial experiences they may seem to carry with them are a white person’s perception of them, it’s a lot like claiming you know a show because you watched it through a neighbor’s window.

#4: How Can I Check Myself?

So, how do you never do anything racist ever again?

I’m sorry to say, but it just isn’t possible to be 100% non-racist. Even POC cannot be 100% non-racist or anti-racist, because we unfortunately live in a society that is constantly upholding white supremacy and white supremacist beliefs.

However, the next best step is being an anti-racist! Checking yourself for biases you’re upholding or racism you’re perpetuating is an important first step. This is an often uncomfortable and confronting process, and one that never has an end, but an important one. There are a LOT of ways you can do this, but I’ll just list a few that are relevant to DID.

Familiarize yourself with common stereotypes.

The easiest way to find where your internalized biases are with alters that appear to be a different race is familiarizing yourself with common stereotypes and ideas that our society has about POC. These are often tied to things like violence, hypersexualization, drug use, and other negative attributes, but can also be things that on the surface appear to be positive, such as being studious, people-pleasing, or frugal. Regardless of whether the stereotype seems positive or negative, either way it’s still perpetuating racism.

Ask yourself: Is my POC-appearing alter more sexual than others? Are they aggressive? Is my POC-appearing alter a monster (such as a demon or a zombie,) or otherwise less human, like an animal?

Keep an eye on your language

Obviously, if you follow my blog, I don’t support talking negatively about my parts. But in addition to this, when race is involved, it’s even more important. Words like “feral,” “aggressive,“ “sassy,” “soft,” and others can have a more racist impact when used on POC than when used on white folks. Additionally, your POC-appearing alter is not an actual person of color, so avoiding language like “my Asian alter”  and replacing it with (when race is relevant,) “my alter that appears Asian” can be also a helpful change. Lastly, and I would hope this goes without saying, but language like AAVE, slurs, and “broken” English are not yours to use if you have a white body. If you wouldn’t let a white person say it, you should not let an alter in a white body say it.

Ask yourself: Would I use this word if this alter appeared white? If I saw another white person talking like this, would I be okay with that?

Avoid cultural appropriation, be aware of culture

A lot of this may seem obvious, such as not wearing native regalia if you are not native, but other aspects of cultural appropriation may not be as obvious. Asian names, for example, are both incredibly personal, important, and significant in Asian culture, and stigmatized against in white society. I don’t know of any Asian folks who do not have a white name they used in school because teachers literally refuse to try and learn our real names. The issue of cultural appropriation is, at its core, that white people are treated differently for doing the same things that POC do, even when it’s originally something that POC created.

Ask yourself: Would someone of x race be treated differently from me doing this? Is this something that POC have been told they cannot do, even though I can?

#5: Final Notes

As I say whenever I do equity workshops, learning does not end here. I encourage you, if possible, to do more research on your own about racial equity! Clicking the links I’ve included throughout my writing would be a good start, and those links may lead you to others. Getting involved with local activism groups, meeting diverse groups of people with varying ideas, and reading would also be excellent ways to further your learning at your own pace.

Reading this may have made you uncomfortable. You might’ve read something and cringed, thinking to yourself “oh no, I do/did that!” in which case, forgive yourself. Learning is always a process, and no one is ever perfect. As long as you keep in mind what you’ve learned going forward, you are not a bad person for having done something racist in the past. We live in a society that at best doesn’t punish, and at worst rewards upholding the racist beliefs we all live with. Discomfort is a part of learning, and if you were uncomfortable and kept reading, I commend you. That’s hard.

This is all written by one person, with one experience and one life story. You may at some point in time talk to someone with an entirely different experience who may say totally different things than me. Use your best judgement.

If you read all the way through and found something useful, and you can spare any change, my cashapp is $beepollen98. Money would be used to prepare for my upcoming gender surgery! Obviously no pressure, I hope you learned something and feel a little more educated, and maybe even enjoyed reading!

As always, my DMs and asks are open if you found anything confusing, and/or have suggestions/questions.

[scripttorture]

Not sure if this would really be relevant, but you're the best resource I can think of for prison systems. In a secluded supermax prison with all male staff & all male prisoners, they suddenly get a single (like 19 or 20 y/o) female prisoner who "can't go anywhere else & needs to be kept heavily restrained." What's the warden's best option for making sure she's safe & treated with respect for the first few days/weeks till they can get female guards? Modern setting, mostly American style prison.

I feel like I know enough about this to be helpful but I’ve never claimed to be an expert on prisons and I think you should try to double check what I say. Partly because I think that the ‘best option’ in a case like this would be heavily biased by opinion and what you consider the best outcome to be. I don’t want you to mistake my opinion for fact or discount the idea that you might think differently presented with the same evidence.

 I also think this is the kind of case where there’s a big difference between what should happen and what would likely happen.

 It’s also worth stating at the outset that, in my opinion, the American prison system is set up in a way which inherently makes abuse more likely. And that makes a difference. When the system itself is already set up in a way which makes torture more likely the efforts of individuals within those systems are… less likely to be effective.

 We’re talking about a system where solitary confinement is the first rather then the last resort. Use of solitary confinement over the safe period (1 week) is routine, with prisoners in maximum security facilities often being kept in isolation for months or years.

 Which causes mental health problems to a disabling degree and drastically increases the chances of suicide or self mutilation.

 Rape is still common and while it’s often discussed in terms of attacks by fellow prisoners, a lot of attacks are by guards. Especially when you’re talking about women prisoners and juvenile prisoners. Incidentally it was only in 2012 that the US started recommending against cross-gender searches of women prisoners.

 And a lot of guards in American women’s prisons are men. I found figures of 40% based on data from 2007 and up to 70% for federal facilities from 2011. Both of these were cited figures from books I don’t have full access to. I can’t confidently say how accurate these figures are or how the authors came by them. I can confidently say that there are male guards in female prisons and that this has been linked to abuse (based on the testimony of rape survivors in American prisons).

 While we’re on the subject the kind of restraint use I think you’re referring to is torture. You can find descriptions of its use in Chinese prisons over here.

 Essentially humans are not designed to withstand long periods with little to no movement, or holding the same position for a long time. It is unhealthy. It causes a significant amount of damage to the body. Sometimes it’s lethal.

 Now if you didn’t know this that is OK.

 I’m here because I know a lot of this kind of information isn’t common knowledge and that it’s hard to find. There’s nothing wrong with not knowing something, we all learn sometime.

 We’ll circle back to restraint tortures and alternatives in a moment. For now let’s focus on prisons

 I think that the most likely thing to happen in an American prison is that this character would be thrown in solitary confinement and kept there.

 You can read about how harmful that would be here.

 I also think that it’s unlikely an American prison, having decided to house a woman in a male prison, would hire female guards specifically to accommodate one prisoner. And I think a woman in this environment would be especially vulnerable to physical and sexual abuse.

 You can read about that here.

 There’s an in-depth Reuters investigation on the deaths of women in American jails that you can find here. It contains a graphic description of a dead baby, born in a jail, as well as descriptions of systemic racism towards black women and abuse of the mentally ill. (Seriously if you’re a black woman and pregnant or a mother of a young child don’t read it.)

 If you want to write a female character being put into an institution designed for men in America… that’s what it looks like. Higher rates of preventable deaths.

 Here’s the thing though: You do not have to make the situations in your story as bad as they are in real life.

 There is nothing wrong with deciding that the characters in your fiction get treated with more care and respect then is the norm in real life. It might not be realistic but we are writing fiction.

 And there is a difference between a story which is unrealistic in favour of the torturer and one which is unrealistic in favour of the victim.

 Having said that: If you want to create a fictional, less abusive prison system for this story it will not look anything like an American prison.

 I have… some rather complicated feelings about the idea of setting the story in America and then presenting the prison system as better then it is. Remember that I am a pacifist and I was raised in Saudi Arabia. I say this because I feel as though the abuses in the American prison system are whitewashed in the media America exports.

 If I was writing a story set in Saudi which involved imagining a better, less abusive prison system I’d feel confident my readers would know this didn’t reflect the reality. I feel like they would understand without being told that I was trying to imagine a better version of my home rather then trying to accurately show the prisons there.

 I do not think that would be the case if you did the same thing in an American setting.

 I’ve talked enough about the negatives. Let’s move on to how we can make this idea work.

 The way I see it the big choice here is whether you want to keep the setting and the abusive use of restraints or whether you want the character to be safe and treated with respect while incarcerated.

 If you’re picturing the character being held in a way that renders her more or less completely immobile (like a restraint chair or a bed) then there’s a pretty decent chance she’d die within the first couple of weeks regardless of any other abuse. There’s a reason restraints aren’t commonly used in hospitals and mental health facilities any more: they increase the chances of sudden death. Even in young healthy people.

 There’s a case you can read about here that’s a decent example. Young, 27 year old man, partially restrained for ten days after a mental health episode. Dead from a heart attack in ten days.

 Obviously not everyone who is completely restrained for weeks dies of a heart attack. But bed sores exist. So do bladder infections caused by catheters and muscle wastage and a host of other ailments that are cured by simply letting someone move around.

 Honestly combined with solitary and the high chance of sexual abuse I think that full body restraint is probably throwing too many tortures into the story. Because all of these individually are complex issues and the harm each of them does is routinely downplayed. Handling all of them in the same narrative would be really tough and the restraints are the easiest one to get rid of.

 If you’re picturing something more like the restraint torture (constantly wearing hand and leg cuffs) described in the Chinese case I linked to above, survival is a lot more likely. That’s to do with the degree of movement victims are capable of.

 A person who is immobile with their muscles under strain is in a stress position. The death rates for those rise sharply after 48 hours. A person who is immobile when their muscles aren’t under strain (eg restrained to a bed with six point restraints) is not in a stress position. But they’re at greater risk of a heart attack or stroke and after weeks they’ll start to develop bed sores (assuming they’re not lying in a pool of their own waste.)

 A person who’s restrained in a way that lets them walk, but slowly, lets them stand, but not straight, is experiencing a restraint torture. They probably won’t get kidney failure (the cause of death in stress positions) and they’re less likely to get a heart attack or a stroke.

 There are still serious health effects. Muscle wastage and weakness afterwards is very common. Survivors of this particular torture tend to report chronic pain and joint problems. I’m not entirely sure what causes this but since it’s very consistent I’d guess it’s a physical effect of long term restraint use.

 Survivors also tend to report some mobility problems afterwards. There’s a loss of fine motor control and often some difficulty performing day to day tasks that require raising and lowering the arms. Like putting on a jacket unaided or hanging washing on a line or taking things down from a cupboard above the head. This could be due to nerve damage, damage to muscles or ligaments at the joints or both.

 These sorts of restraints don’t leave victims in a stress position; which is why they can survive for months or more rarely years while restrained (stress positions are only consistently survivable up to 48 hours.) But nonetheless they do leave victims in a constant state of pain. The restraints dig in. The position and inability to straighten is painful, especially for the joints. A lot of victims report being unable to sleep because of the restraints.

 And sleep deprivation causes it’s own problems which you can read about here.

 I might be on the wrong track here but generally no one has to be restrained. So the inclusion of that in the ask made me think this story might have elements of fantasy, sci fi or super hero genres: a character with a special ability that can only be used under certain circumstances.

 I had a problem with something like that in one of my stories recently. The character in question can manipulate how people think and feel using her voice. And I racked my brains trying to think of a way the police in the story could keep her imprisoned once they caught her. I looked up all sorts of sedatives, thought about solitary and all kinds of over the top abusive stuff that fiction teaches us is a go-to practical solution.

 I didn’t want to use them. I didn’t want her to be tortured.

 And then it hit me: her guards could just wear noise cancelling headphones.

 Sometimes the answer really is that simple.

 Think about this character’s power set, if that’s part of the problem here. Really consider what she can do and how she does it. Have you got an underlying chemical process going on? If it’s magic what’s the cause and effect for it? What are her limits? What is her range?

 Use that to think about when the power breaks down and why. And if you’re writing fanfiction based on a canon with poorly defined magical abilities…. Make something up to define how she does what she does.

 Focus and concentration is a commonly used way of doing this. I saw a brilliant program a while back where the main character actually had no idea how his powers worked and was as surprised and elated as everyone else when they did. I try to come up with strict, simple definitions of a character’s powers/abilities. Then I work to try and find inventive ways of applying that. Find a method that works for you and don’t be afraid to try a few different approaches.

 Unless you’ve written yourself into a corner, chances are this character (like mine) doesn’t need to be restrained or isolated.

 And if you have written yourself into a corner, you can write yourself out of it again. Either with the choices you make now or by going back and editing what you already have.

 On a similar note if you want this character to be in a better, less abusive system does she have to be in a male prison and does she really, absolutely have to be in America?

 Because if you want the lowest possible rates of violence and abuse today that means the Scandinavian prison system. You can find out more about it here and here for Norway.

 You can read more about global prison systems here.

 The gist of it is that there are huge systematic differences. Prison guards in Norway are trained for 2-3 years on specially designed course and the ratio of staff to prisoners is almost 1:1. (For contrast in the UK, which is closer to the US system training takes 12 weeks and the ratio is 1:4.) Prison guards in Norway are well paid, facilities are well staffed and guards are allowed generous breaks and holidays.

 This creates a system where staff are not overly stressed, sleep deprived or pressured to achieve unreasonable ‘results’. Training focuses on conflict resolution, this along with a less pressurised working environment this creates a better overall environment for staff and prisoners. Force is really considered a last resort and staff are provided with the tools, training and support necessary to make that a reality.

 There’s also effort put into the physical construction of these facilities: cells aren’t cramped, overcrowded or unsuitable for human habitation.

 I’m not trying to claim these prisons are perfect. There is still a big trend of prolonged solitary confinement use in Norway and other Scandinavian countries. There is still abuse in prisons.

 But- Well I can’t compare directly with US prisons because I didn’t find statistics using similar measures for violent attacks. However I can compare with the UK. With a prison population of about 3,200 Norway had 181 attacks on staff. The UK, with a prison population of 83,300, had a little over 10,000 attacks.

 I think if you really want to write something with the least potential for abuse then you’re better off imagining an international (or explicitly Scandinavian) institution built more along the lines of the Norwegian system.

 If you’ve got your heart set on an American, male prison being the only place this character can be then I think the ‘best’ thing a well intentioned warden in that position could do is throw her in solitary and have her kept on suicide watch.

 The safe period for solitary confinement is about a week.

 After that she’d start to show signs of mental health problems which would get worse the longer she was held. By about the 1-2 month point these problems are probably going to be permanent. Beyond that the chances of self harm and suicide attempts starts to rise. So does the chance she’ll have a psychotic break and start hallucinating. After a year you’re looking at multiple suicide attempts and chances of self mutilation. By which I mean things like trying to destroy your own hands, legs, face etc.

 The decision about what’s right for your story is always yours. You know these characters, the setting and the kind of narrative you’re telling best.

 Pick the options that best fit with what you want from the story and the characters. Because that’s the best decision for the story.

 But if you’re writing about an abusive system don’t gloss over the abuse. If you’re writing about a torturous practice in prisons (like solitary confinement) don’t ignore the life long damage it causes.

 I hope that helps. :)

Disclaimer

Available on Wordpress.

[aliciadelaplaya]

So what should TRF do, exactly?

Yet again there have been almost defeaning calls on SM for TRF to DO SOMETHING about the  Sussexes.  So, I’d like to address this question, maybe throw in something of a reality check.

Most people should know by now that it is not in HMTQ’s power to remove the Sussex titles.  This can only be done by an Act of Parliament, and primary legislation at that. 

This means that the “motion” has to be debated by both the House of Commons and House of Lords. 

Now, just think for a minute, a debate, in the house of commons, with all those Black Female Labour MPs banging on about removing the titles from the, supposedly, first bi-racial member of TRF. Goodness, if people thought that the Sussexes incoherent and contradictory mud slinging about “conversations” about the colour of Archie’s skin was damaging to TRF, how much worse would it be to hear elected representatives of the British people (however ignorant, biased and downright stupid) accuse TRF of racism in The Mother of Parliaments.  Now that would be seriously damaging. 

And of course The British Government has far more important things it needs to Parliamentary time for.

Also, there is some sort of notion floating around Social Media that if HMTQ asks Parliament, then it will immediately be given.  Anyone who knows anything about the hundreds of years that it has taken the UK to go from an absolute to constitutional monarchy knows damn well that a) HMTQ would never dream of asking and b) HM’s Government would in no way automatically acceed to any request made by the Sovereign. 

Some people seem to think that we live in some sort of medieaval kingdom with an all powerful Monarch. 

Yet,  there are still those who are jumping up and down, calling HMTQ and PC fit to burn because they are “Not Doing Anything”

OK, so put your money where your mouth is? 

What should they do? 

Exactly. 

Go on,

tell us. 

What would you do if one of your sons or brothers, daughters or sisters had got themselves ensnared with a dangerous narcissist? When every word of warning, every well-meant piece of advice does nothing more than drive them further into the arms of their addiction.

What would you do if their mental state before they met this person was a matter of family concern and now, far from your care, deaf to your entreaties, was publicly deteriorating to the point that they have become a world-wide laughing stock?

Tell us.  What would you do?  They are an adult, one who has not been sectioned, free to make their own choices, to lead their own life.  They are your family.  What do you do?

How exactly are you going to stop him talking about you, spreading lies and gossip?  Go on, tell us, we’re dying to know.

What would you do if your beloved family member had made it clear to you that if their spouse leaves them, they will kill themselves?  Go on, what would you do?

What would you do if you believed that anything your family did could be the cause of anger on the part of the narcissist and put your loved one in danger.  What would you do, exactly, to stop them? Please tell us.  There are a lot of people out there who would love to know.

“Cut them off” many people are crying!  But that is what we know PC has done, albeit after providing his younger son and his wife with a substantial gift to help set them up in their new lives, as per the Megxit agreement. 

Tell the truth about the surrogates?  Yes, we would all like that, we know that niether of those children were born of her body, that they are not entitled to a place in the line of succession.  Yet, however much we jump up and down and say that TRF is “public property”, the fact is, they too are still entitled to basic human rights, and one of those is privacy.  It is not for TRF to tell the truth about the surrogacies, it is not their story to tell.  It is for Harry and his wife.  One day the truth will come out, it always does.  The TRF can not be the ones to let the cat out of the bag.  They just can not.

OK, so people jump up and down saying that HMTQ and PC are showing weakness by not responding to all these attacks.  So tell us, what exactly would  you do?  Exactly, what would you have done when?

They said that you don’t own the rights to the word Royal (which is true)? When every single speech that woman made duing lockdown by Zoom has a dig at your family.  Would you respond?  How?  Exactly.

When they set up a photoshoot trampling over war graves, insulting the memories of both the US and the UK fallen?  What would you have done to stop it?  Go on, do tell?

I can’t be arsed to dig out the list of all the insults, swipes etc that these two have levelled at TRF, HMTQ, PC etc.  Geniunely because I’ve forgotten most of them, there have been so many, they have lost their currency, they have been devaluted.  Even the massive fall out from the “bombshell” whineathon with OW, was overtaken by more whinging, it’s a deluge.  How could the sitatuation have been helped if, as it was rumoured PC wanted to do, each accusation was thoroughly challenged.  Can you imagine?

How many of you own or run companies?  How many of you have had, in any shape or form had people complain to you about products or services?  How many of you have received unjustified/maliciious/ignorant complaints - 100% I would guess.  And what is the best way of dealing with these?  Do you engage and argue with every minor point, do you want to “win” the argument.  Does it make you feel better to win by beating the complainent over the head with your greater wisdom, teaching them a lesson, showing them for the stupid, ignorant people they are?  What happens if you engage?  It never bloody stops.  But if you reply thanking them profusely for the incredible amount of time they have taken to give you feedback, if you thank them for their custom, if you offer them a discount/money back.  If you ARE NICE TO THEM.  Guess what?  THEY HAVE NO WHERE TO GO!  NOWHERE. Believe me, I’ve done both and I can tell you hands down which is the most satisfying and, ultimately the most productive in the long term.

The situation is the same here, if TRF engages in any shape or form it will be playing directly into the Narcs playbook and the Sussexes will push back, it will excite them, thrill them, give them power.  It will be more fuel for their global whinging and victimhood. It will be more interminable articles in Hello and Page Six (Does anyone read these publications) Look at the few times TRF have pushed back and H has come in, all guns blazing with legal letters (and what happened to all that, we wonder).   Have you noticed that since the word got out that TRF were not going to stand by silently, the BS stories about HMTQ having zoom calls with the mythical child, buying waffle makers have stopped?

They are much more careful now when they try to bring HMTQ into their lunacy.

“Love me, hate me, but NEVER ignore me” is the Narcs motto and it will be driving Harry’s wife mad that they have been completely iced and are not rising to their constant baiting.  But some of the Megxiteers are.  Effectively, the Megxiteers are doing the Sussexes work for them.  That sure is some fuel for the narc.

It makes me laugh when the MSM and SM get their knickers in a twist about the latest fuckwittery coming out of Montecito (or whever they don’t live).  They want the child to be christened in Windsor with HMTQ present.  Don’t make me larff!  That is never going to happen.  This is absolute kite flying at it’s worst.  It’s poking the bear and all these ridiculous Royal Reporters nod their  heads and make seemingly wise podcasts about the prospect of this happening (and they can do it with - mostly - straight faces), as if it was actually a possibility when I’d like to think that they, like me, believe that H and his wife have been well and truly iced, they are personas non grata. 

When the wife buggered off back to Canada after the Commonwealth service leaving her useless husband to tell more lies on his own, rather than with her at his side, I was convinced then that she will never set foot on these shores again and I stand by that view now as I did then. 

So, the latest stick with which the megxiteers have chosen to beat TRF with is that the second child is now on the website as being in the line of succession.  Yes, it is an absolute abomination, yes, it offends every fibre of my being, yes I want to expose these two evil hypocrites for this egregregious fraud that they are perpetrating on TRF and the rest of the British people.  Of course, like most of you, I want to see justice done, and I want it done NOW.  But life isn’t like that.  and just as Caesar’s wife has to be above suspision so do our (much loved) RF.  Look how we all noticed the careful wording of the Baby congrats on the birth of the second child, they know, we know, but TRF have to play a staight bat, they just have to.

While, in the SM bubble we can all get ourselves wound up, upset, angry, sure that the monarchy will fall etc etc outside, in the real world, most people don’t give a flying fuck about Harry.  He’s an idiot, an ex-royal, gone, finished.  He is not important either inside or outside TRF.

HE IS IRRELEVANT.

And, if anyone is wondering while all this stuff about book deals is coming out  now. I give you this:

The Mail on Sunday appeal - will probably run into next year The Bullying accusations - will probably run into next year. Tom Bower’s book (this is a biggy) - to be published next year?

The Sussexes are aware they are losing popularity, that is why each pronouncement is more and more ludicrous and each Hello article more and more desperate.

The Sussexes are aware they are under attack by forces outside TRF, and they are making their pre-emptive strikes at the low hanging fruit, the soft underbelly of his family. 

TRF are doing exactly the right thing.  Keep Calm, Carry On and while ignoring them won’t make them go away, it will make them look increasingly ridiculous.

This is true strength, not to rise to the bait, to carry on regardless. Remember our Queen has a strong and deeply held Christian faith, turning the other cheek is part of that, whether we like it or not.   TRF should not, under any circumstances sink to the level of Harry and his wife. 

Let’s just enjoy the H show for what it is, a mentally unstable ensnared fool doing everything he can to ensure he continues to receive the favours (sexual and otherwise) of the narcissist he married.  Because, imho, that is what it’s all about. 

Remember the engagement interview.  “I hope she loves me as much as I love her”. 

Sorry mate, that ship has sailed and nothing, nothing you can do will bring it back.

[averyintrovertedfangirl]

Me, reading the tags: Hmm, lots of hatred toward Dean and Cas for being... *checks notes* white? and... male. Interesting, these are definitely very strong bases for disliking Destiel. Honestly, whatever. You guys may win this poll, but I still think Destiel wins Tumblr. I'm not going to hate on The Witch From Mercury, I don't know anything about it and I might even like it, but if spn fans were going around yelling YESSS KILL THOSE STUPID ASIAN GIRLS!!! I think that might be called out a lot faster. (I'm really glad people aren't saying that though.)

People seem to be voting against Destiel on principle, whilst admitting they've never seen either show but must do it either "FOR THE LESBIANS!!!" (I've seen a lot of tags saying they're voting sulemio exclusively because they're female - what, and therefore... better??) or "to watch destiel die" (because apparently, a ship from a show you don't watch annoys you that much). What, is it considered cool to hate Supernatural or something? Did Misha Collins kill your dog? Hating it because it was queerbait is one thing, but I think it's the writers you should be hating (and not even all of them, we know which specific ones we hate and which ones did try to give us the gay angel we sought after) and not the characters themselves. I'm definitely not going to say the fandom can't be annoying, cause I'm sure it can, but like. The fandom pushed for them to be queer, and tried to fight against the homophobes. If you hate Destiel because the writers were homophobic, a lot of the spn fandom would probably agree with you! we don't need to argue with each other!

If you read into a lot of scenes (I've seen posts doing it), it looks pretty clear that it wasn't one-sided, 'show don't tell' and all that. I'm not asking any Sulemio fans to bother doing that for a show you don't watch, but at least believe us when we say it maybe?

Now, I don't know how to say this without sounding like a bratty fangirl, but in my opinion Destiel is THE ship of all time. I'm not saying you can't like your own show more, because supernatural can be truly fucking terrible, but nothing will ever be like Destiel. Is it the best? Heavens no. The entire thing was crazy. But just... everything about it, it is iconic. I don't think you could dispute that. Everyone on tumblr knows it, everyone's heard of it (pretty much). I will (and already did) get shit for saying this, but Supernatural is at the foundations of tumblr, it's just an important part of the site.

But this isn't even about Tumblr. It's the AO3 top ships bracket, so all tumblr-heritage crap aside, I personally think Destiel deserves to win for being that popular and well-loved that it became the first ship on AO3 to have 100,000 fics written about it. I know this isn't just about numbers, cause if it was then you could just count up statistics and call it a day. But it reached that milestone for a reason; people love it!!

I know I'm coming from a biased place; I migrated here from Pinterest where my first introduction to Tumblr was screenshots of superwholock and the likes from 2013. Of course I'm gonna think Destiel runs this place. Thankfully, a couple of nice Gundam fans have explained some stuff about the franchise to me, because I'd literally never heard of it before yesterday. And I will say, it does sound very impressive! The popularity of it, and how old it is and how long it's been around as a whole, is pretty cool. I love the idea of married space lesbians. I might actually check it out, they wouldn't be this well-loved if they didn't deserve it.

So while I mean no hate towards The Witch from Mercury, I've gotta say this. Hating Dean and Castiel and insulting them for being white and male is, as far as I know, sexism and racism. I'm not just throwing those terms around to make it sound like voting Sulemio makes you "problematic" or whatever, that's not my point at all. I'm specifically referring to the tags that state that Sulemio is the better ship because they're lesbians whilst Dean and Cas are white men. A lot of people seem to think that you cannot discriminate against white or male people, and call it "reverse racism"/"reverse sexism". It's... not. It goes both ways. Reverse misogyny, sure. But there's a word for that: misandry. And I'm not saying it's ANYWHERE near as bad as women got it, but isn't this still... slowly and subtly recreating the problems feminists and people of colour had to face? and still do have to? Quietly insulting someone like "lol die white men" isn't any better than being like "ugh i hate teenage girls" or "black rappers suck lmao". I'm not saying you can't jest, but joking about stuff allows people to say the same things seriously. And some of you weren't even joking. All I want to say is, if your basis for literally hating a couple of characters is "they're white boys and too many people love them", I think you should reconsider your ideals.

Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

Tumblr Top Ships Bracket - FINALS

This poll is a celebration of fandom and fandom history; we're aware that there are certain issues with many of the listed pairings and sources, but they are a part of that history. Please do not take this as an endorsement, and refrain from harassment.

[bigskydreaming]

Have you seen Linkara's review of The Dark Knight Returns? He goes into why the view of Robin as a soldier, popularized but by no means invented by Miller, is so dangerous.

I have not, but I need to refresh my memory before I go check it out because I’ll either agree with it or be infuriated by it and I can’t remember which just at the moment but would like to before I restart that argument ten years later.

LOL, so like, I knew Linkara yeeears and years ago. We were both regular posters on Gail Simone’s messageboard on CBR like fifteen years ago, maybe longer. Pretty sure we even met in person a couple times at Gail’s annual SDCC breakfast meetups, but not sure. I do know for sure though that he and I were both involved in a three way argument about this very topic with another guy.....I just can not remember if he was the one who agreed with me or the one we were both fighting with about it, LOL. I THINK we were in agreement as while I wasn’t like.....as pro-DC as most YABSers were given that it was Gail’s board and I mostly hung out at the X-boards and just swung by YABS once a week or so BECAUSE I couldn’t stand all the ass-kissing that went on at that board so that DC writers and artists would hang out and post regularly, LOL, like I’m pretty sure I remember Link as being one of the less....vehement of the pro-DC camp.

(Tbh, one of the biggest ways in which I disagreed with Gail on stuff is I UNDERSTOOD her feeling a need to be civil with other DC pros even if she didn’t like them personally, I just....couldn’t manage the same and didn’t feel any desire to try. Like for example, not sure how many people know who Ethan van Sciver is, but he’s a long time high profile DC artist, best known for his GL stuff.....but he used to hang around YABS pretty regularly. EvS is ALSO a haaaaaardcore conservative, Trumpian, and all around terrible person. And he always was.

Like he’d play it civil back then but his opinions were downright hateful on a variety of topics, particularly towards marginalized groups, but he was good at picking just the right moments to half-assedly walk something back the second he took something ‘too far’ - so like, the end result was he said it and everyone saw and remembered, but before anyone could react he’d drop the mea culpa card and be like oh I’m sorry I know that was out of line, I was just caught up in the moment and it’s all good cuz this is all friendly debate anyway right? We’re just talking here.

And he’d pull this crap all the time but because he was a DC pro, people would let him get away with it and warn people off coming down on him so he didn’t feel unwelcome at the board. Now the painfully ironic twist here is that shockingly, totally unexpectedly.....fast forward to about five or six years ago where good old Ethan burns a shit ton of bridges and decides well why not make things a dumpster fire for everyone in my vicinity....and he became the driving force behind a bunch of alt right comic book fans starting their own weak ass version of Gamergate, only called Comicsgate. It never was nearly as....big...as Gamergate was, but it was still ugly. And the thing is, Ethan sicced his sycophants on other industry pros he’d worked with over the years but always disagreed with on politics.....like really let the ugly fly....and most of these pros included Gail as well as a bunch of the other DC professionals from back in the YABS days.

Because thing was....that was literally WHY he’d hung out at YABS so much back then, despite being so far in disagreement with most of the progressive leaning board. He was always just interested in stirring shit up, he never actually had the slightest interest in debate or seeing the other side of anything....he just knew how to play the right cards to get the right people to come to his defense and cool things off rather than run him off, in the name of keeping things civil and such...all so he could start it all up again a couple weeks later.

And this is literally why that kind of thing doesn’t work for me at all. Because he wasn’t really that subtle even then, most people knew all along exactly what he was doing, and letting him get away with shit that would have gotten anyone else banned purely because he was a industry pro just meant that his opportunities to subject anyone in his vicinity to just vile, hateful shit ended up more protected than all the marginalized posters on that board who didn’t come to it to see his shit but had to constantly listen to it anyway because people were more interested in making excuses for him than making it comfortable for everyone else.

And in the end, he ended up turning on the very people who’d protected him from everyone else ripping into his hateful viewpoints with the directness they merited. Which just. Sigh. To me just smacks of a whole lot of unnecessary years spent putting up with his barely veiled bullshit until he didn’t bother even veiling it anymore....even though the reality is NOBODY was ever buying into his veil of it in the first place and we all knew what was right behind it all along. Anyway. Not that it matters LOL, but good old Eth, was one of the primary reasons I decided not to go into comics when I had a couple of opportunities come up, as I decided to focus my efforts on Hollywood at the time instead. Lmao, I figured if I was going to have to keep my mouth shut about coworkers whose opinions I vehemently disagreed with in the name of professionalism, I might as well focus on the profession that would pay me more money to keep that to myself. Look, at least capitalism is useful when ADHD and trying to pretend to be decisive about life choices.)

Long ramble nobody asked for aside, like I said, I can’t remember Link’s take on this particular topic but it’s likely the one I agreed with for the most part. My own take has always been that Miller sucks and if he said it chances are I said he was wrong because he is about everything and my religion is people saying so and by people I mean me. My religion’s also big on self-actualization. Not sure what else, I did just make it up and I think I’ll probably just stop there so I don’t accidentally make it a cult.

But yeah. I mean, maybe it’ll surprise people given how critical I am of the abusive elements of canon, but I’ve never applied the child endangerment/child soldier argument to sidekicks. It’s obviously not that they don’t get hurt in these stories and even traumatized, it’s not that they’re NOT in danger as kids....it’s just why I put such an emphasis on it being their choice to fight crime and be heroes and NOT something that Bruce or any other mentor or parent pushed them into.

Because this is one of the reasons why death of the author more often than not just doesn’t work for me. Authorial intent matters. Readers are always free to interpret a text however they want, regardless of authorial intent....but IF a writer has a specific intent behind a narrative choice, chances are most interpretations that refuse to align themselves with that viewpoint aren’t really all that RELEVANT to the story the writer was trying to tell in the first place.

Don’t get me wrong. Those other interpretations can still exist. They’re allowed to exist. People can abide by them all they want. But if someone’s takeaway from a story is a deliberate choice to read it entirely different from the story the writer intended it to be.....like, their interpretation is all well and good, but it’s not actually at all a RELEVANT commentary on or review of the story the writer was actually writing. They’re not actually saying the writer did a poor job of telling the story or was wrong in how they did it....because they’re not actually talking about the story the writer was actually telling.

Thus their commentary on it exists. But it’s just not that relevant. Because nothing in it even CAN offer an opinion on how else the writer could or should have written that story....because the story they ARE talking about isn’t the story the writer was even interested in writing.

Now, there are some times when authorial intent DOESNT matter. And when criticism of it is entirely fair and earned even if it’s of something the writer didn’t consciously or deliberately write into their story at all. But these things are almost ALWAYS unconscious. Unlike what I was just talking about, where the writer was very consciously writing the story a certain way for a reason, and thus people who aren’t interested in reading the story the way it was written to be read just can’t offer up a commentary that says anything useful or meaningful about the story that was actually written...the flip side of this is when the writer puts things they don’t intend into the text, but still are very much there all the same.

And this sort of thing applies to things like micro aggressions or racism, homophobia, sexism....things where a writer didn’t sit down intending to be offensive or alienate their readers but still put in things that they don’t think to view as offensive due to their own privilege and lack of experience EXPERIENCING the microaggressions that marginalized readers might be all TOO familiar with and thus can’t avoid reading into a passage where the writer might not have INTENDED harm or offense, but delivered it all the same. Because they didn’t think to put it into their story, they weren’t TRYING to....but they didn’t think to avoid putting it in there either, even if it’s because they didn’t know to until it’s pointed out to them that it’s there.

And this also applies to when the writer puts into their story, via whatever viewpoint they’re writing from, things that herald from their own viewpoints, how they view the world, even in terms of unconscious biases or expectations....but things that readers can still interpret as something they vehemently disagree with, even if the narrative seems to condone it. Because a lot of these viewpoints are things where the way they’re written....even just not coming out as clearly not condoning or agreeing it can effectively be read as tacitly condoning it.

So to apply all this to the idea of child sidekicks and child soldiers:

They’re not one and the same, and thus treating them as one and the same or interchangeable is IMO an inherently flawed perspective that doesn’t ever have anything USEFUL or RELEVANT to the stories that most people are trying to tell with child heroes and sidekicks.

With the notable exceptions of Miller, Ennis and certain other writers who by their own admission usually aren’t even trying to write about superheroes but rather deconstructions of the genre as a whole.....the vast majority of comic book writers, even the ones I dislike LOL, aren’t writing about child soldiers when they write characters like the Robins. Because CONSCIOUSLY, with INTENT, they’re already trying to write something completely different:

Child heroes and sidekicks are almost universally written to be child (although to be really fair, for the most part they’re largely teen) empowerment allegories. They’re youth power fantasies.

They’re stories about kids, about teens, getting to be the ones to save the world. About kids who don’t need adults to save them because they save themselves or their friends. Kids saving other people, other kids, grown adults. Stories about child HEROES are written as metaphors of hope for the future and the promise of the younger generations, or power fantasies where kids who feel helpless and powerless in their own lives can read these stories and vicariously imagine through the characters the idea of one day having the power to save themselves or other people, what that would be like, what they’d do with that.

But here’s the important part, and why people interpreting these teen and kid heroes as child soldiers doesn’t really offer relevant commentary to stories that are written to be allegorical youth power fantasies, regardless of authorial intent or death of the author....

And that’s because the key ingredient here, the thing that’s not really up for debate or open to interpretation....is that these stories can ONLY ever be allegorical.

Because like I said before, child heroes and child soldiers are not the same thing. There simply IS NO REAL WORLD EQUIVALENT for child and teen heroes as comic books style them.

And that’s why the fact that with most every child hero in comics, no adult makes them be a hero. They choose that for themselves, it’s almost universally characterized as a self-determination or empowerment moment rather than one of coercion like Miller likes to characterize it. His choice to characterize Bruce essentially drafting Dick as Robin to fight alongside him does nothing to provide commentary on any other superhero story, no matter what he’s told himself or his fans, because his story is the only one where Robin was drafted!

You can’t condemn narrative choices that nobody but you has actually written and then act like you’re saying something about any narrative other than your own fsjsjfshfzgzfhgs.

And you also can’t claim that you’re just seeing in the text something that’s inherently there and the other writers didn’t just see to avoid like I was talking about being a valid critique....because what’s being commented on there isn’t anything that was written unknowingly. Other writers consciously wrote the same things as Miller in terms of a child engaged in all that violence....but they deliberately wrote those moments to be metaphors of a kid that gets to save themselves and other people and CHOSE that, which is inherently opposed to the interpretation of a kid who is ONLY in harm’s way because he was forcibly drafted by a more powerful figure or force who cares neither what he wants or if he gets hurt.

These two ideas are mutually exclusive. They can not coexist in the same narrative because a character can not be powerless and self-empowering about the exact same specific choice. And thus anything that’s said about one of these narratives is inherently unable to say anything that’s relevant about the other....because the other is not written by its writer TO BE the kind of narrative that particular commentary is dissecting. It’s not TRYING to be that narrative, so no review of it can possibly say how flawed it’s execution is of an idea it’s not actually trying to execute.

And the differences between child heroes and child soldiers are not just limited to choosing that or being drafted and these other differences are equally key.

The biggest being that child heroes can not be seen as ‘basically’ the same thing as child soldiers.....UNLESS you are also perceiving adult heroes as basically the same thing as adult soldiers. And not even law enforcement or police or temporarily deputized or whatever else you want to spin it as....SOLDIERS, specifically. You don’t get to bring up something as charged as child soldiers and then get vague with your terminology when the close scrutiny that brings to your analogy stops working in your favor.

If sidekicks are child soldiers then you must in conjunction view adult superheroes as soldiers. And not in the abstract one man war on crime way Miller likes to consider Batman in his attempted deconstruction of superheroes. ACTUAL soldiers. If there’s no room in your comparison for child heroes to differentiate from real world child soldiers, there’s no wiggle room for the adults either.

And again, except for Miller, Ennis and specific others who by their own admissions are not TRYING to view superheroes the same way most other comic writers are, but fail to see that genre conventions are largely interpretive and thus seeing room for different interpretations of superheroes isn’t actually a commentary on how other people see and write those same heroes....like except for these select few, most writers are not writing superhero soldiers unless they’re Captain America or Captain Atom. Yes I know there are other superhero soldiers but let me be pithy. Even those aren’t really the same as their real world equivalents.

See, real soldiers don’t make distinctions about whether or not they’re willing to use guns. Their personal views on killing are not prioritized over whether they’ve been told to use lethal force to accomplish their objective. They have a chain of command. No matter the rationalization, they pledge their loyalty to singular nations and the aims and objectives of those specific nations over the abstract of acting in defense of the whole world.

Now again, maybe that applies to Captain Atom, but for the most part can you say the majority of comic book writers are TRYING to write Superman, Batman, Green Arrow, Wonder Woman etc through that lens? No. So while Miller really thinks he said something when he wrote his Batman with guns, fighting in the Middle East, killing people left and right, none of that actually ‘showed’ people that at the end of the day, Batman is no conceptually different from a real world soldier like. No all he actually did was write his own take on Batman, and said look, he’s a gun toting murderous asshole, huzzah I have deconstructed the modern superhero!

Like. Shut up Miller. Honestly.

But seriously. Superheroes do not have a real world equivalent and neither do child heroes. Even when it comes to nonpowered ones like the Batfam, they’re still deliberately written in a larger than life, four color perspective that requires a suspension of disbelief at the front door. We ALL know and understand that they aren’t a blue print for how to go out and be a real world vigilante. Even real world vigilantes exist. But they don’t look anything like the Batfam and it’s disingenuous to pretend they do for the sake of teh discourse. Nobody honestly believes that there is even the OPTION of going out one day and deciding to become a comic book style vigilante like one of the Batfam. It’s why even they’re termed superheroes despite the lack of superpowers. On a CONCEPTUAL level it’s understood that the stories being told about them require an extrahuman medium. You can not simultaneously write characters according to a mythic scale but then attempt to interpret that very writing on a real world one. It doesn’t work.

Which brings me to my final piece of this pie. Or puzzle. Idk I’ve been doing this response for awhile I forget what this is.

And that is again, the difference between interpreting a story in a way the author probably didn’t intend and understanding when a story isn’t meant to be interpreted in the way you’re trying to.

And this difference is how I can understand and reconcile the idea that it’s not inherently abusive for Bruce to allow his kids to fight crime at all, even though that would inherently be child endangerment in the real world, but at the same time, I can view him as abusive in other ways that don’t make allowances for the differences between real life and comics.

Basically it boils down to: CAN this specific element of a story be duplicated in real life or mirror a real life action or idea? Is there a direct parallel to a real world equivalent at all?

I can view Bruce fighting crime or saving the world alongside a child Robin without viewing that as child endangerment or inherently abusive, even when Robin gets hurt in the process....because there is no real world equivalent to those parts of a story. NO ONE, child or adult, is going out there and doing those things Batman and Robin style. Even the people who dress up in their own real life vigilante personas basically just do niche neighborhood things like walk people home from the bar. And even people doing real life vigilantism in terms of taking out criminals, like, that’s usually more of a personal revenge thing and not one where they’re trying to attract attention via a costumed persona. When you think real world Batman and Robin, nothing comes to mind for a reason.

And thus this says nothing inherently abusive about their dynamic, even according to real life parallels of child endangerment, because it’s not a real scenario. And thus it’s not TRYING to say anything about real life. It’s innately allegorical. It’s power fantasy emphasis on the fantasy.

In contrast, when you have something like Bruce hitting one of his kids.....no matter who the characters are, that specific interaction and the dynamic it presents DOES have a real world equivalent. That’s just parent/child abuse. And thus even if the writer didn’t intend for it to be interpreted that way, it’s still a valid interpretation. If it looks like a parent hitting their child, you can call it a parent hitting a child.

Batman and Robin fighting killer mind controlled plants together? Can’t happen. I’m not going to call it child endangerment when it’s not a realistic scenario and not meant to be, and I’ve already been presented with a valid alternative interpretation of this being a child empowered to help save people alongside his superhero father. There’s no point in condemning a dynamic that CANT be translated to a non allegory in real life.

But Bruce hitting his son? A father no matter how good hearted normally, being affected by extreme stress or grief or something else that makes his behavior take a turn for the worse and reach a point where he physically lashes out even if he never would have in the past? Nothing remotely allegorical about that. That story has too many real world equivalents to dismiss as having nothing to say about abuse in real life. Even if the writer didn’t intend for this to read as abusive because they were thinking of how much worse Dick has been hurt fighting alongside Bruce and never held that against him even though technically it was Bruce letting him get hurt....doesn’t matter. That interpretation still requires viewing through a lens that can’t exist in reality. No kid can ever excuse a parent hitting them by thinking of how much worse they got hurt taking down their local mob together and if he didn’t blame his dad for that cuz he wanted to do it to help people then how can he blame his dad for hurting him in a moment of anger? Umm. Doesn’t track see? They’re not the same thing at all.

Or another one that really bugs....I’ve heard people defend shipping a Robin while underage with an adult by saying if they’re old enough to make the choice to risk their life and have that choice respected, they’re old enough to choose who they want to be with. Umm. No. That’s not just apples and oranges that’s genetically modified grapes and seventeenth century cannonballs.

That logic doesn’t apply because neither of those things is the underage character choosing ANYTHING. They’re fictional. Everything they choose is just what their writer wrote them choosing. But again, one of those choices is one that an underage reader CANT choose in real life and have respected by every adult in their life, and thus will never have a bearing on their life as anything BUT an allegory they have to interpret and translate into something actionable they can apply to their life and choices. The other choice is them being written as presented with an option that’s actually a textbook real life grooming technique and something abusers use to justify the relationship they’re trying to cultivate with a minor by saying aren’t you mature for your age, aren’t you old enough to know what you want or to do this or that in which case you should be old enough to make this choice?

See the difference? Putting on a cape and going out to fight robots? Not directly applicable. Saying yes to the grown man saying he wants to have sex with you and thinks you’re old enough given this other choice you’ve made that highlights your maturity? That’s a choice that can be presented both to a Robin or a real life minor, but a writer justifying that choice for that Robin by saying well he’s already previously made this other choice that has no real life equivalent.....that creates a pretty misleading interpretation to people reading that story and not stopping to think through the distinctions between what KINDS of choices the writer is presenting these characters with and then justifying via their narrative.

And while I haven’t watched the video you’re referencing, anon, I would definitely agree that this is an example of how viewing child heroes as child soldiers is....not great. Aside from being cynical, misusing the idea of death of the author and helping to validate Miller’s choices and thus ego which is NEVER a good look LOL....it also intentionally or not paves the way for putting fictional types and MEANS of harm on an even playing field with real life ones and acting like it’s all one and the same with no distinctions to be drawn. And this doesn’t actually offer anything substantive or constructive about holding characters accountable for reasonable expectations of harm, when the sources of harm have no reasonable equivalent and thus only exist in the medium of being a youth power fantasy in which the child involved is fictional and can’t truly be harmed, with the harm done the second the scene ends and where the character can be back in fighting form the very next scene. Thus the only lingering element there IS the power fantasy.

Nope, all it actually does is muddy the waters in the REVERSE, and make it so it’s actually easier to justify or rationalize types and means of harm that DO have a real world equivalent, but by pointing to examples from a fictional medium and emphasizing the fictional character’s lack of being harmed while de-emphasizing the fact that the writer has full control over depicting this in a solely positive light that doesn’t ALLOW the fictional character any angle from which to voice that this CAN result in harm when not written for fictional characters according to a writer’s specific intent.

And that’s that about that. My opinion: you have it.

[homenum-revelio-hq]

Welcome to the Order of the Phoenix, Tori!

You have been accepted for the role of HESTIA JONES! We really enjoyed the balance and realism you brought not just to Hestia’s flaws, but to the flawed world in which she (and everyone else!) lives, and we’re looking forward to all the tension this lovely little firecracker will add to the Order! We are so excited to have you as part of this roleplay!

Please take a look at the new member checklist and send in your account within 24 hours! Thank you for joining the fight against Voldemort!

OUT OF CHARACTER:

NAME: Tori

AGE: 24

TIMEZONE: EST

ACTIVITY LEVEL: Well, due to classes and my internship being online now, I have lots of free time. I’ll definitely be able to check and reply throughout the week. Weekends I will be able to as well, but I  spend those days with my spouse, so I may not reply as frequently.

ANYTHING ELSE: Rape/non-con/dub-con is definitely something that needs to be tagged for me. I’m okay with most other things.

CHARACTER DETAILS:

NAME: Hestia Jones

AGE: 18

GENDER, PRONOUNS, and SEXUALITY: Cisgender female, she/her. Hestia is currently a bit…confused, is how I’ll put it, about her sexuality. Those types of things were taught and not mentioned a whole lot, so her attraction to women makes her feel a bit uncomfortable. And scared. But she’s interested in them.

BLOOD STATUS: Half-blood

HOUSE ALUMNI: Ravenclaw

ANY CHANGES: Nope! I love Lana as the FC!

CHARACTER BACKGROUND:

PERSONALITY:

Hestia is very good at thinking outside the box. Whether it comes to her ideas at her internship or fashion or even at the Order, she doesn’t do well with just sticking with the status quo. At the internship, this was easy. There were so many laws to be changed and there were all right and legal channels to go through. Her supervisors even encouraged her to keep digging! In the Order, she tries to speak up, but because she’s a low-level member, her ideas fall short. It’s frustrating. But she keeps going back to the drawing board to come up with something new. She’s not one to back down from a fight or to give up so easily.

She’s also very independent, even from a young age she liked doing things herself. She hates asking for help and admitting defeat. Her supervisors always write “Shows great initiative!” on all her reports. She’s not afraid to tell people how she feels or what she thinks should be done. She’s not afraid to get ahead of the curve, to get ahead of the trends.

Although, because she’s so full of ideas of what to do next, Hestia isn’t the best listener. It’s like she zones out the minute someone tells her what’s actually going to be done. Or what she could be doing better. At 18, Hestia thinks she’s an adult and that her ideas are just as good as anyone else’s. And sometimes that means everyone else is wrong in her eyes.

She also has a bit of internalized-homophobia and internalized-misogyny as well. It’s the early 80s and no one really talks about gay people, about those who may not be straight. At least not in a positive way. And with dealing with her own feelings of same-gender attraction, she’s trying to repress it. She has a mean jealous streak and it shows when she sees anyone who is out talking about it. How dare they feel so comfortable when she doesn’t? She’s trying to deny her own feelings and Hestia isn’t the greatest at dealing with that. It’s given her a big compulsive streak as well. She’ll go out drinking with other interns and black out, as if that’s going to help with anything. But at least it means she doesn’t have to think about her own feelings too much.

With the internalized-misogyny it’s a bit more difficult. Hestia hates the “I’m not like other girls”. The ones who think they’re better just because they’re not into fashion or doing their nails, because they’re too busy reading and being introverts. And she does kind of look down on women who aren’t as feminine.

Despite those things, she is rather welcoming and definitely is still in the fight against the oppression of muggleborns, halfbreeds and the others. She would never look down on someone because of blood or even species.

BRIEF OVERVIEW OF FAMILY:

Hestia grew up an only child to a muggle father, Alexander, and witch, Natalie, surrounded by all the love she could ask for. Or, at least, that’s the way she saw it. Her parents were always supportive of her aspirations and her goals. Even if her father didn’t quite understand everything that she talked about. Her parents also both worked a lot and had very well-established careers. Hestia never went without anything. But her parents made sure that their daughter didn’t grow up too spoiled. They taught her to work hard and to never stop being curious.

Hestia did grow up seeing some of the racism that her parents, and herself at times, faced. And it made her even more empathetic to the cause of fighting oppression. The fact that her parents changed their names to something more “normal” made her angry. The fact that they couldn’t truly be themselves. While her parents didn’t instill this fight in her, she has it because of them indirectly.

OCCUPATION:

She is still a law intern in the Department of Magical Law. It becomes a struggle to go in each and every morning, knowing that she’s lying to everyone there on what she’s doing. On who she is. But currently it’s the most moral way to change the laws. The Order certainly isn’t holding any protests or petitioning the Minster, that’s for sure. Still, she hates holding this secret in and sooner or later she’s afraid she might just spill the beans.

ROLE WITHIN THE ORDER/THOUGHTS ABOUT THE ORDER:

She’s a low-level member and quite frankly, she’s tired of not being heard. Of being looked down upon because she’s not in the inner-circle. As if cliques at Hogwarts weren’t annoying enough. She knows she’s smart and more than capable with a wand, so why won’t they listen to her? Would it be so terrible to listen to the low-level, and quite young, members?

She also just has a lot of complicated thoughts, because she’s still working for the Ministry. If they found out what she was a part of they’d…well, Hestia doesn’t want to think about that. Going to meetings and headquarters gives her so much anxiety that she’s hardly able to sleep at night. Is this the right thing to do? She’s never been one to follow what people tell her to do, to behave how people want her to, but this? This is something else entirely. And it feels like no traction is being made. Voldemort and the Death Eaters just seem to be getting stronger and more powerful. Hestia joined to make a difference, but all she’s doing is getting ignored.

Hestia also sees the wear and tear it has on members like Fabian, who rushes head first into danger. Who looks like he’s dead behind his eyes. If this organization is doing so much good (supposedly!) then why is Fabian on the edge of suicide?

SURVIVAL:

Hestia’s safety net is her internship, is the Ministry. As much as the Order hates them, she needs them to stay alive. If she doesn’t have that, then she’s not sure what she’ll have. Where she’ll go. If something happens to the Order, she’ll keep her internship and hopefully get a job at the Department of Magical Law. Having a secret life isn’t ideal, but she’s glad her more public life is the one with the Ministry. Hestia is 18 and thinks that maybe she can still change laws and the Ministry from the inside.

RELATIONSHIPS:

Hestia is very busy between the internship and the Order, but she tries to spend time with her friends. To go out to the pubs with them (and maybe drinks far too much). She’s not interested in a full-fledged long-term relationship at the moment, but she wouldn’t mind some company. A friends-with-benefits situation. Hestia has no idea how her friendships are staying above water with everyone so stressed and worn-out all the time. Maybe it’s because alcohol hides that for a moment, or maybe they’re all just very good at pretending.

OOC EXPLORATION:

SHIPS/ANTI-SHIPS: I ship chemistry above all else. I don’t really have any anti-ships besides no chemistry.

WHAT PRIVILEGES AND BIASES DOES YOUR CHARACTER HAVE?

I like to think that since Hestia comes from a fairly well-to-do family, she doesn’t really get poverty. She doesn’t understand that some people can’t just shop all the time or get their nails or hair done. Obviously, she’s around some Weasley members, but she just doesn’t get why they don’t just work harder. Like her parents.

I mentioned above her internalized-homophobia, so there’s that as well.

Part of her has a hard time looking at the bad parts of the Ministry, because she works there and Amelia is so supportive. She’d rather just keep her head in the sand when it comes to the not-so morally upright things they do. I think of the line from Rogue One where Jyn says it’s not a problem if you don’t look up [and see the Imperial flag]. That’s Hestia about the Ministry most of the time.

WHAT ARE YOU MOST LOOKING FORWARD TO?

Getting to explore her emotions and feelings about working for both the Order and the Ministry. How complicated that is, how it compromises her at times. It’s a very interesting dynamic.

PLOT DROP IDEAS (OPTIONAL):

This might be something the Amelia mun and I work out, but I absolutely want Amelia to find out at some point. And to explore how that changes their relationship. Or even if someone else finds out Hestia is part of the Order.

ANYTHING ELSE? That’s all!

[musicgoonmail]

In The Cross Alone I Glory

In This Edition

In this week’s edition, I share what’s new with my book reviews, resources on Asian Americans and Racism, and my thoughts on taking an extended break from leading worship music at church.

I think I was successful this week at stepping away from social media and focusing just a little bit more on my family. Thanks for taking the time to spend with me here in this newsletter. You can always reach me by replying directly to this email.

Book Reviews

SOLA Network: Video Resources on Race, Racism, and Jesus

Article: How To Clearly See Who You Are

Extended Play

Lightning Links

Playlists

Coming Soon

Weekly Review

Book Reviews

This batch of books was mixed with everything, including an academic textbook, a commentary, and a research book. I predict that The Story Retold is going to be on a lot of best-of-the-year book lists. And I reviewed something new and nerdy: A Concise Dictionary of Theological Terms.

Intervarsity Press is giving away free eBooks that are resources for justice and by authors of color. IVP will continue to pay the full royalties to the authors. Get them here and the offer is good through June 12.

In case you missed it, don't forget these 2 free eBooks. First is Christ and Calamity: Grace and Gratitude in the Darkest Valley by Harold L. Senkbeil. I have not yet read it, but his book, The Care of Souls, was one of my favorites from this year. You can read my review here. Second is Humble Calvinism by J. A. Medders. This was one of my faves from last year, and you can read my review here.

A Concise Dictionary of Theological Terms by Christopher Morgan and Robert Peterson

7 Big Questions Your Life Depends On by William J. Edgar

The Spiritually Vibrant Home by Don Everts

1 Corinthians (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries) by Thomas R. Schreiner

The Story Retold by G. K. Beale and Benjamin L. Gladd

SOLA Network: Video Resources on Race, Racism, and Jesus

I created a “Race, Racism, and Jesus” playlist on our SOLA Network YouTube Channel with a variety of resources from our growing video library. It's good to know that SOLA was talking about these issues even before our current events and before I started helping out.

This week we also published our Top Anti-Racist Resources for Asian American Christians. Our perspective as Asian Americans must also be examined to see that we have our own biases, prejudices, and sin issues to deal with. As Jess and I have a transracial adopted son, our hope as parents is to always run to Jesus.

Article: How To Clearly See Who You Are

I didn't write anything on my website yet, so you are the first to read this, but I am happy to take an extended break from leading worship music at church. I was already planning this due to the birth of our second son, but the Coronavirus pandemic and move to video worship enabled an extension on my leave of absence. I've always wanted to test myself on this, and I don't yet know if I've passed, but worship leaders must always check their pride, desire for control, and want of recognition. It's good to get away from the spotlight.  

There are many more dimensions to leading worship via video, but I carefully took the time away to test my heart. I am happy to see others using their gifts and talents to serve God. What I will tell you is that I miss singing together with the congregation, I miss making noise, and I miss playing music with my friends. When it's time to record our original worship songs, I'm going to come at it with all of this in mind - and hopefully the music and my heart behind it will be for the better. 

Here is a throwback article that helped me think this through: How do you clearly see who you are? You take tests.

Extended Play

I have two articles I would like to highlight for you. First is What Hath Gondor to do with Geneva? Keith Mathison helps us understand his love for Tolkien. "By reflecting the truths of the Scripture story within a fictional world populated by humans and hobbits, elves and ents, he helps us see those truths again with new eyes."

The second article, oddly, is an obituary - Died: Francis I. Andersen, Scholar Who Used Computers to Study the Bible by Daniel Silliman. Andersen found the "awesome reality of a living God" in the grammar and syntax of Hebrew Scripture. "Today, the Andersen-Forbes database is used by Logos Bible Software, with a syntax search engine and phrase-marker graphs that open up the grammatical structures of ancient Hebrew."

Throwback: In The Cross Alone I Glory

Movie: Asian Americans on PBS

TV: Community

Article: What Hath Gondor to do with Geneva?

Article: Died: Francis I. Andersen, Scholar Who Used Computers to Study the Bible

Book: George Whitefield: The Life and Times of the Great Evangelist of the Eighteenth-Century Revival - Volume I

Music: Stop by Earth to Jupiter

Lightning Links

These quick hits are exclusive to my newsletter readers. Some struck immediately before writing this newsletter. I don’t necessarily endorse the positions or lives of these authors. Some may contain adult language.

Disneyland plans to reopen July 17, and Downtown Disney earlier

Din Tai Fung’s Original US Location in Arcadia to Close After 20 Years

The tragic lie behind the beautiful dream of Terrace House

Myka Stauffer and the Aggressively Inspirational World of "Adoption Influencers"

ABC Casts Its First Black 'Bachelor'

Playlists

MUSICGOON: 7 songs I enjoyed this week.

SVRGNLA: Jess and I love these songs.

ETJ: Music that inspires my band.

DIDD: A crowd-sourced worship playlist.

TGIF: SOLA Network friends and faves.

This is FCBC Walnut: The songs we sing at church.

Coming Soon

Trillia Newbell edited the excellent book Beautifully Distinct - conversations with friends on faith, life, and culture. I reviewed it on my website, and we're trying to schedule a date for a podcast/video interview soon. It was cool to just be connected and get in touch with her.

On our church Instagram, I’m asking some of our worship leaders to go LIVE and play some songs. I'll be coordinating that and maybe we can turn it into something awesome. Sometime next week I'm going to hit the 1-year anniversary of posting every day on my Dive In Dig Deep Instagram. What a year it has been!

Weekly Review

SOLA: George Floyd and Me / Prayer is Activism / Conversations on Race: How We Can Be Beautifully Distinct

Thank God it’s Friday: Intervarsity Press: Free eBook / Charlie Dates: I Can’t Breathe / Trip Lee: The Paradox of Being Human

SOLA Network: Video Resources on Race, Racism, and Jesus

Article: How To Clearly See Who You Are

Book Review: A Concise Dictionary of Theological Terms by Christopher Morgan and Robert Peterson

Book Review: 7 Big Questions Your Life Depends On by William J. Edgar

Book Review: The Spiritually Vibrant Home by Don Everts

Book Review: 1 Corinthians (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries) by Thomas R. Schreiner

Book Review: The Story Retold by G. K. Beale and Benjamin L. Gladd

Recommended Reading: Who Is the Fairest in the Land? Lessons for Young Men on Attraction / For Better or Worse: The Surprise Blessing of a Simple Wedding / Why Intercountry Adoption Must Remain a Viable Option / What If Marriage Isn’t Making Me As Holy As I Had Hoped?

[niimki-blog]

Birth of resistance and change: A painful process.

Today I have many thoughts churning in my head. Many current events place some in priority over the usual fare. Today I want to address some thoughts about revolution, resistance and the hope for progress and the cost of it all. I have a lot of people that I am in contact with that continue to be upset with recent political and social events in this country. Some have moved to being fearful, others are angry, some are confused. All are concerned. One area of profound concern is how to deal with the people who have moved this country into this position. That may include family, friends, loved ones, neighbors and co-workers. I am not sure I am the best person to give such advice. I have lost several very old dear friends to the conflicts we are currently immersed in. I lost my oldest brother to the this kind of adversarial perspective challenge many years ago before his death. I had taken a stance opposing military actions in the first Gulf War in an email I sent out. I knew he may not agree, but I felt I needed to make my feelings known. The result was horrific and his final words to me included “ I have no idea what you must be actually smoking in those Sacred pipes you have, but your views are causing our Father to roll over in his grave”. I had no response. I tried for years to figure out a way to address this divide. I was not successful. He crossed over without us ever being able to remedy our conflict.

 I bring this story up because I really do understand the type of loss that many others are just now going through. I have lost (and continue to lose) many people in my life. There are some that would tell you I burn a lot of bridges. In reality, and trying to be as honest with myself as I can, I don’t think I have burnt many bridges at all. I have almost always TRIED to leave the door open somehow. But at some point ANY relationship may have to separate for a period of time, or, like myself and my brother, permanently. Our ideals, our believes are sometimes all we have. With regard to these views, I fully realize I am as at fault as any of the people I have broken ties with. I am stubborn. I am relentless in the pursuit of my ideals. I am very direct about my views. Although I am MUCH more diplomatic then I have been in the past, I am still not someone who is good at playing down my emotions on some topics. To that purpose I like to have people around me that help me temper that edge and give me the ability to be more reasonable. 

I see the world as a series of problems. I see what may be some solutions, and I also see opposing views on those solutions. I see great things dividing many people. I also see small, insignificant divides which we should be trying to set aside. We have great tools to enable us to reach out to each other, to manage and discuss topics and to help us generate reality based plausible answers for all of these problems. Compromise will have to happen and it can if we allow it to. But there are things that are in the way. I need to make a point here: The following hindrances I see are not meant to be used for finger pointing or blaming. These issues are exist all sides of the current positions. They are also not listed in any order relating to priority or magnitude. 

First we are rife with misinformation. Everywhere. We are all subject to it, being crippled by it and it is being spawned and used intentionally and unintentionally to keep the issues from being examined in rational ways. I am no hypocrite, I get drawn into this as well. The knee jerk reaction to spread some bit of information sometimes outweighs due diligence to vet the information. Many people do not even know how to do this. And of course sometimes we are just lazy. We ALL need to do better. The people (on any side) that INTENTIONALLY do this know what they are doing. The term is simple. It is called propaganda and it is seen as a tool for the manipulation of the minds and hearts of people drawn around a conflicting view point. None of it is helping anybody make clear judgments however. Are there bits and pieces of truth in it? Sure. But the harmful after effects of the emotional value taints the value of the information presented. We need to watchdog each other on this. And we need to use respect in how we do that also. Which bring me to my second point. 

Secondly, we need to not be as picky with each other as we are. This is especially true with people who are supposed to be on the same side. In the social media today, there are people who will rush to make a comment on the spelling of a word. Or to dismiss a person’s argument based on grammar or some other minor point. We dismiss each other with labels (Libtard comes to my mind as I have had that thrown at me too many times to count). These things do nothing but gum up the process of any actual real discussion. And we are ALL prone to do it! Again out of some drive to win, we throw the most under the belt punches at each other. We try to best our opposition by using advantages (or disadvantages), cultural differences, lifestyles, backgrounds, age and any other manner of perspectives to ridicule, challenge or dismiss views. In the story I started with about my own brother, the part that made me disengage was the part about “smoking something in my sacred pipes”. My brother and I had different mothers. His mother was a full blood Native American woman. My brother was a half-blood Native American. Although he never knew or followed any of his culture, he was proud of his identity. I have a small amount of Native blood in my own lineage from my mother, but it is a long way from the blood quantum he possessed. However, for whatever reason, I am drawn to and find much connection to the cultural aspects of the Native community. I have made that cultural part of myself for a long time and it is very sacred to me. So for him to attack that was especially painful. This is the type of opportunism that can end relationships and certainly stop any form of communications between people trying to address a problem. And again, we all may find ourselves drawn to such attacks, myself included. Although you can win a fight doing this, the cost is high and no progress is likely to come out of it. In the end such things will shatter us all. 

Thirdly, there are powers that be that WANT us ALL to fail. We HAVE to acknowledge and remember this! They thrive on our failure. As individuals, as a society, as a country. Everything. They thrive on strife. They thrive on suffering. If there is such a thing as evil, this is it. It has many names and faces. Greed, racism, ego, nationalism, pride. All these things work against us and manipulate us towards failure. The tentacles of this stretch out in every direction. They are in people, companies, religious movements, racial groups, and of course governments. There are very few areas that this evil has not made some amount of intrusion into. We ALL get caught up in our self-interests. We become easily manipulated because of it, prone to fear because of it, emotionally misdirected and overly invested because of it. And these irrational perspectives spread WAY to easily. We need to challenge this in ourselves and each other when we come to the table to try to move forward.

So. Where does all this leave us? For me, much of the die may be cast. I am already in a radical left position on most things. I grew up during the 60’s and 70’s and watched as protests played out all around me. I grew up with bodies on the TV screen and the denouncement of a war, racism, environmental causes, etc was a daily din of perspectives and information everywhere. My parents were both fairly conservative, but they also were compassionate people, who also saw things from a pretty reasonable perspective. I watched my straight laced father openly protest the cutting of great old oak trees in our home town. I listened to my mother make statements about the inequality of race in discussions with her friends. I watched my proud veteran father waver on his views concerning war when they started bringing home young men he had coached him and he saw the damage that had happened to them.  And I saw them as people who worked in their community to help people, to make things better. I saw them as principled people who taught those same principles of fairness, honor, dignity, respect for others, pride in what you do and how you live, to me. At a young age, these things galvanized me. I was taught to stand up and stand strong against things. Moving through the rest of my life, I sought an education, I sought my own spiritual development and I have pursued my own understanding of the world around me. I found that I champion causes well. I found that I had connections to the Earth and can draw power from that. Thanks to my strong parents and the allowance for me to speak my mind, I have been able to continue to do so. Today that seems more necessary than any other time in my life. But the conflicts that are looming in front of us are great. The peril of failure will have repercussions on us all. I have no idea what our exact roles will be. We will hopefully be able to get back to communication, find ways to work together on our problems, and challenge ourselves and each other about our biases productively. But that evil is persistent. It is powerful and its tentacles go very deep. We must challenge it in ourselves, check ourselves continually, use the perspectives of those around us to make sure WE are on track. Be willing to adapt and change when possible, to negotiate when not. And, sometimes, we may have to generate more loss. That will be, and should be, the hardest decisions we make. I hope that our present course can continue to avoid as many losses as possible. But we must also manage to keep some resolve in difficult time. 

Going forward I have every intention to continue to stand strong, stand up and stand my ground. I will continue to try to address my own hypocrisies and I hope others do the same. I hope that others who are resisting are mindful to stay safe, take care of themselves and those around them. I will miss those that I have had to leave behind. But I have good memories and will continue to hold on to those. Perhaps someday we may stand together again. In this life or the next. 

Going forward we must continue to fight the good fights as we may need to. And we should attempt to embrace peace when we can. To unite as we can. To build together as we can and have. Balance prospers all.

[writingguide003-blog]

Thinking About Implicit Bias: Teaching Writing With a Social Justice Lens | TWO WRITING TEACHERS

New Post has been published on https://writingguideto.com/trending/thinking-about-implicit-bias-teaching-writing-with-a-social-justice-lens-two-writing-teachers/

Thinking About Implicit Bias: Teaching Writing With a Social Justice Lens | TWO WRITING TEACHERS

Thinking About Implicit Bias: Teaching Writing With a Social Justice Lens

Every time I attend the National Council of English Teachers (NCTE) Annual Convention, something inspires me to look a little harder and think a little more deeply about aspects of our curriculum. Maybe the impact came from some controversial conversations about gender and sexuality biases that happened at NCTE.  Maybe the impact was accentuated by post-conference tweets and Twitter chats, or maybe the emphasis on student voices, including those of LGBTQ teens resonated with me. In any case, I returned home with a resolve to be more aware and reflective of my own biases, as well as more inclusive when it comes to the elements of curriculum that are within my control.

The big question is how.

One important resource to explore is which is a non-profit organization that studies hidden biases. Through this website, we can participate in interactive quizzes that measure reactions to various stimuli and provide us with information about our own implicit biases–and I have them. And, when I am working with individual, uniquely different students, I should know that. Sometimes the first step toward doing better involves increasing awareness.

Another website to explore is Teaching Tolerance. Specifically their is a great starting point. Initially, the post references Project Implicit, but then it offers definitions of terms, impacts, and lots of explanation and ideas for addressing and dealing with implicit bias–where it comes from, what it causes, and what we can do about it.

After spending time grappling with some of the concepts within these resources, I felt better prepared to handle issues that arose during a recent conversation with fifth-grade teachers about transgender people and their rights to bathrooms. We wound up talking about what it means to have gender-neutral classrooms– Jessica Lifshitz is a fifth-grade teacher in Illinois, and her post about inclusion and sensitivity has important reminders about small changes that matter a lot in terms of classroom management, practices, and routines. If you haven’t read it, please click  And then, really ask yourself:

Tricia Ebarvia has created another resource that has helped me identify my own implicit biases. She is a high school English teacher and a Heinemann Fellow for the last two years. Her post about is a must-read. In terms of inclusive practices, she has created a series of eight questions to ask ourselves about not only our classrooms and who is represented within it, but also within our own literary lives. Her questions include:

These questions and reflections about them exist also within Initially, some of your responses to these questions might not feel comfortable–mine didn’t! Please don’t panic. If you find the time to go through your classroom library and find it doesn’t represent a variety of voices, you can begin to address it, without a full-scale overhaul.

Perfect can’t get in the way of good.

There are times, I know I fall short in terms of recognizing my implicit bias and doing better. I’m embarrassed to share my own recent behavior. My 16 year-old daughter Cecily had several friends over. When I asked her who was coming, she responded something along the lines of Jessie and her new Indian friends. She went on to name them, and I struggled to remember any of the names–the names all sounded so similar to me. I was running an errand when everyone arrived, and I went down to the basement to meet them when I got home. In my defense, there was a big crowd, and they were in the middle of a game. They said hello, but only dutifully, and I made a quick decision to not engage in introductions. I said hello to Jessie (who I know well) and headed upstairs. As I reflect on this experience, I’m not sure I would have paid close attention to names and faces regardless of color– I’m overwhelmed by more than say five teens in the basement. I just want them to know that I’m home and I’m checking on them. But still… given my resolve since NCTE, I wish I’d taken the time to listen to their names and pay attention to their faces.

This work is hard.

Dr. Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility, was interviewed on NPR in August 2018. In , she advises:

Start from the premise that, of course, you’ve been impacted by these forces. There’s no way that I wasn’t impacted by the forces of racism in a country in which it’s embedded and infused. And so just start there. And then try to figure out, OK, how have those forces shaped me and how are they manifested in my life and my relationship. That’s a very different question. That’s a question of how rather than if I’ve been impacted.

Over the next several days, my co-authors will share posts that have practical resources and ideas to help all of us take this on. This work is a process and a continuum, a marathon and not a sprint. But definitely one that needs us to take first steps. As we think about our implicit biases, maybe the most important thing is that we increase our awareness and act from a place of humility and reflection– with a willingness to take a look at parts of our belief systems and behaviors that are uncomfortable, at best. When we know better, we do better. And isn’t that the goal?

Websites to explore:

On 2/4/19, we will host a Twitterchat that addresses this important topic. Please join us at 8:30 p.m. EST, using the #twtblog hashtag.

At the end of the series, we have a special giveaway that members of the community who comment on any of our posts will be eligible to win.

GIVEAWAY INFORMATION:

This giveaway is for a copy of Being the Change: Lessons and Strategies to Teach Social Comprehension. Thanks to Heinemann for donating a copy for one reader. (You must have a U.S. mailing address to win a print copy of this book.)

For a chance to win this copy of Being the Change: Lessons and Strategies to Teach Social Comprehension, please leave a comment about this or any blog post in this blog series by Sunday, February 3rd at 6:00 p.m. EDT. Betsy Hubbard will use a random number generator to pick the winner’s commenter number. His/her name will be announced in the ICYMI blog post for this series on Monday, February 4th.

Please leave a valid e-mail address when you post your comment so Melanie can contact you to obtain your mailing address if you win.  From there, our contact at Heinemann will ship the book to you. (NOTE: Your e-mail address will not be published online if you leave it in the e-mail field only.)

If you are the winner of the book, Betsy will email you with the subject line of TWO WRITING TEACHERS – BEING THE CHANGE. Please respond to her e-mail with your mailing address within five days of receipt. A new winner will be chosen if a response isn’t received within five days of the giveaway announcement.

Share this:

Source

Thinking About Implicit Bias: Teaching Writing With a Social Justice Lens

[healthylivingandchill]

Representation matters. When beauty is a standard and the only standards of beauty are Eurocentric — and aggressively mired in sexist, cissexist restrictions of the gender binary — we all lose, especially those of us who do not, cannot, and will not conform. It breeds a culture of toxicity, other-hatred, and self-hatred that we must fight. We can fight it with radical self-love, inclusivity, a conscious celebration of difference, and respect.

There is nothing wrong with looking like the so-called norm, if you do — as long as you don’t perceive it as a badge of superiority, or expect others to conform and validate you. And if you don’t feel comfortable with the incessant restrictive images of a limited standard of beauty — skinny, white, muscled/curvy, abled, gender conforming — you’re not alone. These toxic standards didn’t begin with eugenics, but they didn’t end there either.

Here are seven steps to move away from Eurocentric beauty standards, and towards radical self-love.

Note: I am a US citizen. I am mixed-race and descended from immigrants, so I have some understanding of non-US contexts, but my experiences are from the US. I cannot speak with authority to how this manifests specifically in other countries. If you have an informed perspective on that issue, we welcome it.

1. Identify the history of toxic, limited beauty standards.

It’s still noteworthy every time we feature a TV show, movie, or ad campaign that isn’t cishet, white, gender conforming, and abled. Some folks think that us queer/nonwhite/nonconforming folks are everywhere now, but that’s only because their own representation is such a norm to them, any deviation feels like a conscious affront. Cishet, white, gender-conforming, and abled is not the default human. We must recognize that representation of non-normative folks in media and politics does not actively actually represent a significant percentage of our humanity.

History is filled with white-washing: the erasure of non-Western cultures and identities and the Westernization or Western-centricity of media, politics, beauty, and societal standards; whiteness as an emblem of purity, class, and validity. America was forged with genocides, physical and cultural. From the forced cultural assimilation of the Indigenous peoples to the dehumanization of Black lives in the slave trade to the respectability politics that emerged from Jim Crow through today, the standard of “civilization” has been defined by the white colonizer. So has the standard of “beauty.”

Those descended from non-white cultures are emasculated, assimilated, disrespected, or fetishized, often all at once.

Patriarchal, Eurocentric standards capitalize on beauty and its perceived relationship to value. Standards of attraction are created, centering the cis-het, white, abled, upper-class conforming body, and hatred and anxiety are bred against those which cannot conform. This is rooted in racism and ableism. This is rooted in xenophobia, imperialism, and white supremacy — the ingrained understanding of “us vs. them,” who is civil and valid vs. who is savage and lesser. Capitalism and white supremacy exploits this anxiety, extorts money for products that promise, not just that you will look “better,” but that you will finally fit in.

You don’t have to.

2. Question beauty.

What is beauty, honestly? What does it mean? Now that we’ve addressed the toxic, patriarchal underpinnings of Eurocentric beauty standards, it’s time to recognize that there are so many different forms of beauty. True beauty is not, of course, inherently evil or dangerous — only the limited, oppressive Western standards. Recognize where beauty is and is not a valid vehicle for your soul, your goals, your heart, your mission. Beauty can be a reclamation, it can be a degradation, it can be a reduction. Recognize the intersectional privileges of facial symmetry — account for class and physical and mental ability when it comes to style and presentation.

3. Redefine what beauty can mean.

Investigate beauty standards around the world. Have you seen the videos where someone asks artists from all over the world to “make them beautiful,” and they come back different from each country, or where someone depicts how beauty standards change over the decades? To some, beauty means comfort. To others, it means showing off what they love most about themselves, or performing their identity in a way that makes them feel most whole. Recognize the mutability and ever-changing process of beauty. And recognize the ever-changing standards of “the most attractive.” Recognize capitalism’s role in that process — if there was an actual finite standard, they wouldn’t be able to keep profiting off of new products and trends! Seek for something deeper than beauty — or don’t! Sometimes, and in some cases, and especially right now, when there is actual evil openly designing destructive policy, beauty doesn’t matter. At least when you define it narrowly in terms of “aesthetically pleasing.” Seek what makes you feel like your best self. This can change. It can change daily. Do what you can to get yourself out of bed in the mornings and keep fighting. Value the beauty in yourself where you find it. Is it in how you love what you do? How you excel at a sport, or can create with your hands? Is it in how you cook for your loved ones, or in your patience towards your child when they’ve painted the kitchen wall with spaghetti sauce again? Is it in the hormones you take, the clothes you choose to wear how you wear them? Is it in your courage, your perseverance, and/or how you love yourself enough to take a break and sleep in sometimes? Is it in how you fight — in your self-defense gym, for your own human rights, in a courtroom towards justice? Where is beauty for you? If beauty is value, what do you value in yourself? Investigate your unique beauty. Define it for yourself. That is conscious, radical self-love.

4. Celebrate what you find.

Actively and enthusiastically encourage other forms of beauty, outside of the limited scope of facial symmetry and paleness. Recognize the fullness of personhood. Recognize how silly and painful it is to judge yourself or others by the width of your nose or the texture of your hair. Recognize that others may have different standards of beauty than you, and as long as they’re not oppressive, that’s not just okay — it’s healthy, and standing up for them means you’re standing up for all of us. Recognize that others value themselves, their bodies, and their hearts differently than you might. Listen to them. Respect them. Reach outside narrow norms, and encourage other forms of definition.

More Radical Reads: 10 Ways the Beauty Industry Tells You Being Beautiful Means Being White

5. Encourage transformative definitions of beauty in your life.

Day to day, every day. Undoing ingrained, toxic stereotypes and replacing them with openness and understanding is a process, and it requires presence. It will get lighter, and it will make you fuller. Be conscious about how Eurocentric standards of beauty are influencing your assumptions of other people and your dynamics with them. Do you make assumptions about people based on the shape of their body, the size of their body, the color of their skin, their visible differences, the way they speak your language? Even if you think you may not, be conscious. Pay attention to language, to how you interact with others. Recognize implicit biases in perceptions of celebrities, major figures, and each other.

Encourage a perspective of healthy-self love with your children and your parents and your loved ones. When it comes to significant others, love yourself enough to not settle for less. If they’re not receptive, move on.

6. Encourage a broader definition of beauty with your purchases.

Put your money where your heart is, where the truth is. Support businesses that actively try to create products for a diverse set of humans, and for non-normative businesses. Avoid giving your money to businesses that reinforce toxic, unhealthy standards. That’s how we’ll get there. Shape the market. As best as you can, within your means. If your budget doesn’t permit for radical support, get the word out.

More Radical Reads: “You Sure Are Hot FOR an Asian Girl” and Other Ways Words Devalue People of Color

7. Create.

Go out and make art. Go out and speak truth. Create work that redefines beauty. Create work that challenges standards. Create work that is unapologetically defiant, unapologetically ugly, unapologetically yours, and consider where the value lies. Check your personal privilege — and use it. Remember that Eurocentric beauty standards have been a tool for destruction and dehumanization throughout history, and you refuse to be a part of that tool. Destroy internalized misogyny, ingrained racism. Put forth a startling asymmetry that encompasses a deeper poignancy towards the complexities of existence than any stale advert could. Revel in the unbalanced. Stand up for those who suffer because they don’t fit the cookie cutter style of the minute. Call out how foolish it is to value these human lives less in an era that is always battling fascism and hate, which is every era. Celebrate what matters. Choose to look how you want to look. Choose to respect and consciously support those who look different than you. Choose to understand. Choose to have no patience for a value system that asks you to conform to a standard you do not believe in, that you had no hand in creating. Create yourself.

That is beautiful. And so, so much more, at exactly the same time.

The body is not an apology. We take up different spaces on this earth. We each have different values, different gifts to offer, different parts of our souls we call our own. We do not all look alike. We do not believe alike. We do not need to. Do not ask for an apology when someone else’s body does not look like yours. And do not apologize for yours.