#to be feminist in any way get criticised less but that does not mean that barbie is not deserving of that criticism as well. which ik ppl

[rodrickheffley]

realizing that so many ppl on here equate a complaint about a piece of popular media to having expecations that werent met. you can complain abt something without being disappointed about it especially when its something that is hugely relevant to pop culture at the moment

[gameofthronedd]

It's entirely depressing(ly ironic) that some people who consider themselves feminist and anti-patriarchy, who are Team Black/Rhaenyra and slam those who criticise Rhaenyra as "misogynistic", also engage in and perpetuate misogynistic rhetoric (seemingly without self-awareness?)

Mentions below of strong language, SA & victim-blaming.

Namely Alicent-antis seem to have a serious issue with this (Sansa-antis, too).

For example, calling Alicent "Alicunt". Most women know that that word can be incredibly offensive, rude, shocking and, of course, dehumanising. Purposefully using it in a pejorative way to refer to a female character, particularly as a woman or someone who considers themselves anti-patriarchy, is insanity to me. If someone used a similar pejorative for Rhaenyra, would you jump to put down such a nickname? I'd assume (and hope) so.

A similar issue I've seen is making fun of, minimising/belittling aspects of trauma in Alicent's story as well as perpetuating a culture of victim-blaming. This ruffles my feathers quite a bit, actually. And unfortunately I've seen it quite frequently, too. People saying that Alicent should fight back and that she's less deserving of respect/sympathy because she "lets it happen". Things like that. Heck, I've even seen some people say that she didn't "fight back" against Viserys and therefore she wasn't maritally r*ped.

Responses like that are quite common, if not integral, in victim-blaming rhetoric and feeds into this narrative of SA victims having to be the "perfect" or "ideal" victim to be able to prosecute, get justice or even gain any sympathy or empathy. Victims of SA have their lives put under a microscope and if you aren't "ideal", then you get criticised. It's horrible and wrong, and shit needs to change, which is why it's particularly striking to see those fight so aggressively for Rhaenyra be so vicious towards Alicent, and engage in narratives and rhetoric that are highly misogynistic.

Obviously, there are lots of aspects to this. Everyone comes from different environments and has different personal morals. Basically, all I want to say is, simply labelling oneself as anti-patriarchy or feminist doesn't instantly mean you're devoid of the impacts of patriarchy. And, alongside that, supporting Rhaenyra as a character does not instantly mean that you're in the right/morally superior. We're all susceptible to bias and internalisation. Part of being human is acknowledging our flaws and addressing subconscious and internal biases and preconceptions, and trying to better ourselves (imo).

I don't want to sound like I'm standing on my soapbox or whatever. The alternative was saying that everyone who perpetuates victim-blaming and misogynistic rhetoric, even as a woman, is a piece of shit and I'm not quite that mean :)

[onewomancitadel]

I'm sure they didn't think of this when they were doing pseudoegalitarianism in R/WBY (which I honestly somewhat endorse because I do not want an explicit feminist treatise) because it was the furthest thing from what they were thinking about, but it does influence the scripts of a sexual dynamic, because patriarchy (and misogyny) is reproduced through sex. Literally and figuratively. And it has a very rich cultural cache - I don't tend to reject that as opposed to sort of implicitly embrace it. You can't really ad hoc invent a new language that nobody else speaks. So it means that you're suddenly kind of brushing against a bruise because what the worldbuilding is saying it is versus what it literally is, and this influences a litany of problems in the world too (everything from aesthetics to language itself).

An actual utopic gender egalitarian society would be so alien I think it would actually disturb a modern audience (this is where a lot of speculative fiction/sci fi is ripe), not least for something which is a fairytale gunsword anime show. What I take it to meaningfully mean is that it's not meant to be an explicit political treatise, generally the female characters are written to be equal if not have more screentime than the male characters (statistically parity is read as "more than equal" for women), and a motivating theme in the story is that the origin of evil is a woman, but she's also kind of heroic. I really mean heroic moreso in a protagonistic sense but I do think Salem is meant to be empathised with - but depending whom you ask, you can say the same thing of Eve and Pandora. (After all, hope came out last).

I don't think you really get any effect of the Heroine's Journey in R/WBY without real world gender disparity. So in that sense I kind of think the pseudoegalitarianism actually is a rhetorical effect - it forces you to make conscious commentary first. Less generously, I think it's also plausible deniability.

I also bemoan the way "feminist commentary" is employed in a lot of recent stories and the politically self-explanatory bullshit which usually ends up elding female characters as real people and compromising the fabric of storytelling itself to let a work breathe and have its own ideas beyond moral or political serviceability or didacticism; I generally do not like the fact that we went from objectification for sexual ends to objectification for political ends. The means haven't changed - further to that there's the issue that, like always, a "woman's story" is the all-women's story, never her own, except before it was an indictment and now it's supposed to be uplifting (and leaves many women behind in the dust, who are all human and flawed and different). It's not like this is all that inclusive either. I think this is all partly because they want feminists to shut the fuck up (which is happening now it's not trendy anymore) and partly because of feminists with political theory but lacking artistic theory. I've read plenty of feminist commentary on this front which makes everything look like a nail to a hammer, which is a particular hangover of second wave feminisms, I think, and the highly experimental period of burgeoning postmodernism which began to make everybody think about cultural systems and essentially propaganda reproduced implicitly through art, literature, cultural iconography, etc.; everything was fairgame to criticise.

I was thinking about this yesterday reading feminist criticism of Sleeping Beauty; she's passive and a forgettable character (of the Disney strain); the rape in the earlier iterations of the story is rape culture (I think this is close to accurate); she's a victim to circumstances and achieves nothing of import in the story, and so on. It was interesting to me having seen Sleeping Beauty (2011) as a teenager, an Australian film starring Emily Browning, which I am sure would have made these critics apoplectic; it's a modern retelling of the dark aspect of Sleeping Beauty, and her passivity to living life is key to the story. But it's not like she's narratively passive in the sense that she is not doing things or achieving things; she allows awful things to happen to herself because she's not really there and because she can. There's a bit of a strange feminine thrill-seeking to it that I think is normally categorised under the language of masculinity. It's one of the reasons I found it so diverting, and so interesting as a film, and because I think it's one of the most intimate films I've seen in the sense that it feels like you're being carried by her experience. Is it feminist? I really don't think that was an intention of the film. It's inured in another storytelling world - of King Solomon with his sleeping virgins - despite its literal grounding in modernity. In that way, I think it makes the fairytale world so magical and interesting - because you can really see the real horror of it, and vice versa. But the idea that these themes of Sleeping Beauty - sleeping past life, waiting for someone else to release you from your prison, waiting for life to start moving again - transcend a question of just "girl put to sleep, does nothing, forcibly kissed", or that rather gendered cultural language has these deeper ideas embedded in them is very powerful to me. I'm a writer first, but I think it is politically valuable to acknowledge why it is that these systems survive but also the way that they answer existential questions deeper than straight-up human malice.

And of course for me, where that is that entanglement with political ideals versus artistic ideals, it is at least a relief to finally articulate this and accept it. Not try to run from it, not try to write a story which is perfectly feminist, removed from all notions of sex in society - think about the comments I've received from men disturbed about the presence of cunnilingus in my stories - but to work within that and the richness of sex, and the taboo of sex, and the intimacy of sex and violence. Maybe that's why I like enemies-to-lovers, not because of trying to excuse that violence with redemption, but because they are culturally in tune with each other; to fuck someone is both to hurt them and to have sex with them.

It's an interesting question to me as well because smut is generally base and banal. Literarily it is "not done"; in the world of romance novels it is catharsis; in fanfic it can be erotica (the depiction of sex for the sake of depicting sex; character matters little here) or it can mimic that release structure in romance novels - in this sense, it is often considered removed from the 'real story'. There's the real story, and then the escapist, taboo, removed sex world, which the characters temporarily go to (this even includes the question of sexual attraction and libido; often sex scenes can feel kind of weird to me for this reason, because I had no idea they were even interested in that themselves). It's interesting because sex is at the root of experience for most people, even when removed from it that aberration of experience (as seen in society) is itself sexed and stigmatised, it's the libido (the libido of life). And yet the theory surrounding the writing of it is totally fucked.

But there are a lot of rewarding questions here to me. It's an intersection of all of my interests - where I struggle with feminist theory, where I struggle with writing, where I struggle with depiction and portrayal, personal guilt, also doing that thing of writing smut about characters in R/WBY trololol and what is considered "erotica" in this fandom (grossly misogynistic and vastly uninteresting) for which its reputation precedes it, then in a plain old worldbuilding sense. If it's pseudoegalitarian, it disrupts what "should" be the sexual script - everything about sex is gendered, who fucks and whom gets fucked, and how erotic or wrong or taboo that is, and who is supposed to get pleasure out of it and who isn't, and whom it is supposed to hurt for and where it begins and where it ends. But it's just not as fun without it - or rather, it's impossible to write it without that cultural cache.

[dxmedstudent]

Every Woman.

If you’re not in the UK, you may not have heard of Sarah Everard, and her disappearance this month in London. She was walking back home after an evening out, but disappeared along the way home. Some remains were found a few days later - but had to be identified from her dental records. I’ll leave you to draw conclusions as to why it was so hard to identify her. A current police officer has been charged with her murder. And since she disappeared, my heart has ached. The way it does, when I read another name, another disappearance, another woman found dead long before her time. The scope of the problem is so massive that it’s hard to imagine. It hurts, because she could be any person. It hurts, because harrassment is common. Rape is common. Femicide is depressingly common. The trafficking of children and women for sex is common. This particular scenario, a stranger attacking you at night and killing you may not be common, but it’s something we’ve been taught to fear since we were born. Her case is all my many female friends and colleagues talked about these past couple of weeks. It hurts because when people criticise her decisions (that she had a drink, that she walked out after 8pm, what she was wearing, where she walked), it  places the blame on the victim for existing. I can honestly say that despite all of us knowing all these ‘rules’, it’s impossible to follow them all the time. It’s simply not possible to live a life where you’re never out after dark, never out alone. And it should not be a burden placed on women alone. The truth is, she didn’t die because she was walking out at 9.30pm alone. She died because she was unlucky enough to cross the path of an evil person who decided to abduct and murder a woman that night. If it had not been her, it could have been some other woman.  If you’re not (or have never been) a woman, I don’t know how to explain how many precautions we’ve been taught to take, and how many ways we limit our own lives to create an illusion of being safer from gendered violence.  You’ll note I call it an illusion - the most common perpetrator of violence against a woman is her partner, failing that, males in her close family.  Way back, years before I was on here, I spent a lot of time in intersectional feminist circles - and I think  Over time, I had to limit my exposure because it was truly difficult to spend a lot of time acknowledging and engaging with the pain and suffering and the scope of the problem without it taking a toll. Not only is the subject matter dark, but some people get incredibly angry when women assert the desire to be treated with respect and not with violence. I simply wasn’t prepared to engage regularly with the threats and vitriol that ensue. It can be scary merely to point out that women experience violence. This is not the time to point out ‘not all men’. Because it’s not good enough that not all men kill and rape. Every woman lives in fear of violence - and I absolutely include trans women and gender nonconforming individuals here. When I bawled my eyes out on my boyfriend’s shoulder the other day because every woman’s worst nightmare came true for this woman, I felt so bad for what she had suffered, and the fact that we had failed her as a society. As he held me, I felt grateful that I have never had to fear violence from the men I know well but overwhelmed for sadness for those less fortunate.  I shouldn’t have to feel grateful that my partner doesn’t beat or rape me or the men in my life have never assaulted me - that’s the bare minimum of human decency. And yet many, many people don’t get to be that lucky.  But the fact that I trust the men close to me with my life doesn’t make the world safer. It doesn’t mean that there aren’t plenty of people out there who can, and do harm others. Many of these people hide in plain site - they can be popular, they can be powerful, they can be people who use their connections and their power and the stigma attached to victims to get away with truly horrific things. Statistically, many of us will know someone who has enacted intimate violence on a partner. Not all people who abuse or kill are men, but this is a time to focus on gender-based violence. It’s not enough that some men aren’t rapists and aren’t abusers. How the fuck do we avoid the ones that are? How the fuck do we bring them to justice? The first step is to emphasise that it is not appropriate. That these acts are unforgivable, and we will not tolerate or hide such people in our midst. I am surrounded by men who are kind and who have never done me any harm. I’m sure many of you are, or perhaps are such a person. But this is not a time to pat guys on the back for not raping and killng - as the men in my life have stated, they do not need praise for basic decency. I think often of how many people suspect, or perhaps do not know that a loved one of theirs is such a person. We have people in our midst who enact violent crime - these people exist and live among us all. They enact violence on women. They enact violence on people of colour. They enact violence on the LGBTQ population. They enact  violence against anyone who they see as weaker, and who they feel entitled to dominate. Today, I’m tired and my heart aches. I don’t know what tomorrow will bring. Truthfully, I don’t see anything changing quickly. I don’t see a way for women to feel more safe in the near future. Addressing systemic and widespread violence won’t get better overnight. But we have to try.

[werevulvi]

Finally someone i can relate to somewhat. I like the effect of mtf hrt for the most part but i don't want to forget (or pretend to not know) that i'm a bisexuabl male with a chemically modified body. I am fairly stranded communitywise (ironically gc spaces worsened my dysphoria so i couldn't remain in them) which always brings a cutting sorrow of not having a 'home' but it's kinda good to see people who are on a similar wavelength even if i'm never going to truly meet you. Keep thriving queen!

Hi! I can totally see why gc spaces make your dysphoria worse... I've been noticing that many gc circles (especially radfem) tend to be a bit (lot) anti-male, so if it's those you came across, it's no surprise to me that it made your dysphoria worse. And I'm really sorry about that! I can only imagine that hearing you're some kinda evil oppressor for just how you were born physically can make you hate being male even more. I don't view it quite so harshly. Sure, a few (or a lot) of males were socialised very badly and thus turned out crap humans.

But it's not because of their biology that they're crap humans, and I would never condemn anyone for just the way they're born. I've known horrible men, but also very wonderful men. And most MtF's I've met, I've struggled to relate to, but they've been decent people just living their lives. I don't hate males, I can't agree with that sorta sentiment. I hate how some aspects of male socialisation teaches many men to hate women, but that's hardly the same thing, and I think it's an important distinction to make. Those semantics really do matter.

Point is, it makes sense to me why feminist, and female focused gc spaces, would make a dysphoric male/MtF even more dysphoric instead of less. Let's be honest: they give you all the reasons to hate being male.

And then what other gc spaces are there? Well, the conservative right (many of whom also Christian) comes to mind, and although they're less likely to hate on men, they do have a tendency to be uncomfortably anti-gay and anti-gnc, which... I dunno about you, but that makes at least me incredibly uncomfortable, if not even badly upset. Even those who aren't outright hateful towards gays/lesbians/bisexuals and gender non-conforming people, the vibe is just not very welcoming. That kinda gender critical community is not gonna help any gnc/same sex attracted person feel good about themselves either.

(I'm clearly stating the obvious here, but I think it's important to point out these issues with gc communities, just in case you don't know why they make you feel bad, and in case you want to know. If not... I'm sorry for salting your wounds!)

And that's about it when it comes to gender critical spaces, aside from individual people who aren't really aligned with any specific ideology, but still criticise gender ideology harshly, and/or help raise the voices of those who do. Posie Parker, Benjamin Boyce, Joe Rogan, and Arielle Scarcella come to mind. They're gender critical to varying degrees, but not particularly conservative, nor radfem. Although I've rarely ever seen any gc stuff that's actually positive towards males, that doesn't turn around and say stuff like "I hate men" and "femininity is gross on men" or "don't be gay" etc the very next second. So if I had been male instead, and still dysphoric, I'd probably be having a very difficult time accepting my sex too.

As I've been saying (mostly to myself) lately: we're not broken, the world is.

I feel pretty stranded communitywise too, actually. I have like one foot in the radfem/gc circles and the other foot in trans circles, neither of which really like me criticising them. I mean, it's probably just very human to not like being criticised for one's opinions, but... yeah basically gc's sometimes think I'm either "still in the trans cult" for not wanting to get rid of my physical masculinity, or they think I'm a man pretending to be a detrans woman, and they don’t like that I disagree with some of their views. The trans masses on the other hand generally have far more issues with me, my opinions and my identity. They would have be beheaded for less than just looking a little suspicious!

But here's the thing: I think trying to not rely on a community to feel loved and accepted is probably very important. There will always be individual people who love and support you, and agree with things that matter to you. These individuals can come from all sorts of ideological backgrounds, but what ties you together is true friendship, not community, which only mimmicks friendship in an often political way. I'm trying my best to focus on those individuals in my life (which really is just a handful of people) instead of trying desperately to find a whole community that will love and support me. Because that's probably not gonna happen. I am too provocative with my womanhood, and will always keep questioning everything. I don’t actually want to settle ideologically. I want to keep evolving and learning. The way I view myself doesn't really fit into any set ideology, because it’s a combination of things that matter to me personally. It is tailored to fit me and only me. And I think that's what's causing the friction. I'm ideologically a freeloader, or nomad, and thus, I get along best with others who also ideologically freeload.

Alas... I still feel that "ideological homelessness" too, and it does hurt. I think it might just be a result of too much ideological couch surfing. I'm always a guest, but never at home. Thus, I am always treated as a guest, and viewed with more scepticism. Who am I to barge into THEIR community? However, I still have a home, ideologically. It’s just that I’m the only one living there. And I think that might be applicable to you too: you do have an ideological home, you just live alone. That can be lonely, but it also allows you to think more freely and be more genuine about your opinions. Thank you, I want you to thrive too! Meeting irl might not happen on random like that, no, as I'm suspecting you don't live on the same Swedish island as me... but if you think an online friendship might be worth a shot... it's totally okay to send me a pm! I will warn you though, that I have a tendency to ignore people for a few weeks here and there though, as my sensory overload gets the best of me... really a lot. It's a challenge to be my friend, but some have told me it's really rewarding once they do get to know me. It's up to you! But I get the feeling that we might get along well.

[dillydedalus]

october reading

i finished my masters thesis this month (yay!) so while i still read quite a lot for escapism i was also operating on no more than 2 braincells at any time, and one of those braincells was just. continuously screaming. so any incoherence or whatever here is. because of that.

i am sovereign, nicola barker a fantastically weird & enjoyable novella about a house-viewing gone wrong that eventually blows up the novella form. i don’t want to give away the meta aspect too much, even tho it’s not entirely unpredictable, but it is so very entertaining and delightful to read. had such a fun time with this. also has a great cover. 4/5

the lifted veil, george eliot i’ve only read middlemarch by eliot, so a 75-page novella about the supernatural sure was... different. it’s fine, but nothing special imo. i enjoyed the first chapter, which sets up latimer, a soft young man with the gift of foresight/telepathy and his fascination with his brother’s fiancee, whose mind remains opaque to him (....twilight???), but the second half is pretty meh. 2/5

the notebooks of malte laurids brigge, rainer maria rilke (read the german obvi) loved the beginning of this, where morbid, too-intense, death-obsessed author-insert malte laurids brigge walks around paris, seeing everyone carry their death with them, which then makes him think of the deaths he has witnessed in his childhood. the parts about his childhood in a danish noble family were also good, but it really lost me with the overtly poetic, weird historical/religious stuff?? feel like this might have been a victim of termin master’s thesis like maybe that’s not the time for poetic, fragmentary, modernist-ish novels. 3/5

wie der soldat das grammofon repariert, saša stanišić (read in german, english translation by anthea bell) i really enjoyed stanišić‘s memoir herkunft last year so i went back to his 2006 classic, about a kid called aleksandar growing up in yugoslavia and eventually fleeing to germany as a refugee during the war. it’s very similar to herkunft in story, although the presentation is very different. honestly overall i found it a bit Too Much, too long & too stylised in its structure. but like, i can see why it’s so popular. 2.5/5

i capture the castle, dodie smith i really liked this! cassandra mortmain is a very strong narrator, the atmosphere of the dilapidated castle and the dysfunctional family are great, & i was surprised by the crushing poverty of the family in the beginning - cassandra obviously attempts to cover this up both in her own head & in her journal, but for much of the first half or so i was genuinely really worried for the kids - and this makes rose so much more sympathetic in her resolution to escape poverty. i was less convinced by the whole love quadrangle this book got going on, but on the whole this was very charming, but often very melancholy in a far deeper way than i expected. 4/5 

the death of vivek oji, akwaeke emezi my second emezi this year, altho sadly neither of them have lived up to the glory of freshwater. this one is about (gender) identity, grief, trauma, love, and solidarity/community based on otherness, which are similar thematically to freshwater, but in a novel that is, i would say, both more stylistically conventional and more hopeful/uplifting (altho it is still very depressing in parts). i enjoyed this on the whole, but it just doesn’t grab you by the throat the way freshwater does, and the reveal/central mystery just feels a bit lacking. 3/5

gott wohnt im wedding, regina scheer listen, this book is probably more competent & historically interesting than literarily great BUT it’s literally (literally) set around the corner from where i live, i know pretty much every single place & business mentioned in it & the house troubles are extremely relatable, if a lot worse than what i am currently experiencing. anyway. this novel is centered around a house in berlin-wedding & the people who live in it & it's about the holocaust & the porajmos, current discrimination against sinti&roma, the history of the wedding, gentrification, familial trauma & all that. it’s very interesting historically, slow but still very readable, and like.... i just really love the wedding! it’s kinda shitty & depressing but i love it!!! 4/5 the only good indians, stephen graham jones note: the elk in this book is not what you, a european, think of as an elk. that’s a moose. anyway, this is a horror novel about four native american men who hunt for elk when, where and how they shouldn’t have and ten years later find themselves pursued by a vengeful elk spirit. i enjoyed this! the scenes where shit goes down were certainly very horrible & gruesome & very sad as well. 3.5/5

solutions & other problems, allie brosh this book really is out there & exists. anyway hyperbole & a half was like, one of my formative internet things and i still love it a lot. this book is second only to the winds of winter in eternally getting pushed back and back and back, so this even getting published was def a pleasant surprise. it’s still really funny, and the weird ugly drawings are still amazingly effective, but this one is. very sad. some really bad shit happened to brosh inbetween and it’s kinda a downer (i mean the first one had the depression saga but this one... is darker). 3.5/5

a supposedly fun thing i’ll never do again, david foster wallace .....i might have to stan dfw, just a little bit. like, i read infinite jest when i was way too young to appreciate it (still traumatised by the uh. creative use of brooms tho) & i have NO intentions of ever rereading it BUT this essay collection was so good that i may just have to read a lot of his other stuff. particular highlights are the title essay, about a cruise journey, and an essay about the illinois state fair, two things that feel particularly fascinating and offputting in equal measure in this year of plague, where even the idea of being in enclosed spaces with many people freaks you out. but i also really appreciated his essays on david lynch & television & fiction, even if i don’t agree with all of his takes. he just has such a good voice! funny, smart, precisely observed but always with a strange spin. 4/5, minus points for too much tennis, but oh well

gruppenbild mit dame, heinrich böll (group portrait with lady) marcel reich-ranicki criticised this book for being, essentially, a sloppy mess and that’s kind of accurate - it’s definitely too long & a bit draggy & böll (and the narrator/“author”) go on tangents and into details with indulgence & abandon, but it’s also... kind of brilliant? the way the “author” collects material and testimony on leni (the lady), her family, coming-of-age and the love affair with a soviet forced labourer that made her an outcast, constructing a documented history of her while leni herself remains ever elusive, the focus on structure, architecture, construction, the endless loops of self-justification (pelzer’s insistance that he is not inhuman, the real estate tycoon’s insistence that they just want what’s best for leni & that her resistance to profit-logic is abnormal)... there’s so much in here, and a lot of it doesn’t need to be there, but a lot of it does. 3.5/5 

sweet fruit, sour land, rebecca ley very lyrical, quiet, feminist climate dystopia. it’s good, well-written, very evocative of hunger and loss, a dystopia but really more about grief and identity, and i read it during the last few days of my master’s thesis and thus have absolutely nothing to say about it. 3.5/5

i also & this will be a shock, dnf’d burning down the haus: punk rock, revolution & the fall of the berlin wall, a book about the east-berlin/german punk subculture. it just felt like a longform essay artificially extended into a 400-page book & the writing was pretty basic in a music bro tries to be deep and like, subversive and shit kinda way. 

[thesustainableswap]

Part Two: How Does The Body Neutrality Movement Connect With Sustainability and Lower Consumerism.

This is a part two to my post for Got You Girl, ‘What Is Body Neutrality and How Did It Help Me?’ It’s not necessary to read that one to understand this post, but if you want more information and some backstory, follow the link!

I first heard the term body neutrality from Jameela Jamil, who expressed that she started to get more done when she stopped thinking about her body. She has been a huge advocate for body neutrality, and even changed the way we are advertised to on social media. This is why celebrities and influencers being paid to share a product now have to disclose that information. It means that we can see when we’re being sold something instead of believing that the product in question is a part of the persons day to day life. Remember all those waist trainers, detox teas, and vitamin gummy bears? Chances are the person advertising them is not using them.

Body neutrality and sustainability go hand in hand, because by being apart of this movement, it also means that you’re unlikely to feel the need to buy something in order to change or better your appearance. With the rise of social media, companies quickly learnt that they could reach their target audience by hiring influencers or celebrities to sell their products, and we’ve seen it all. From the Kardashians, to fashion models, to our favourite actors, there was a time where everyone who was ‘someone’ was advertising something. Combine this with gossip rags and online tabloids tearing others down for gaining weight or, god forbid, having cellulite, the masses bought into the idea that if they wore the same waist trainers that Kim Kardashian wore, or if they bought the lip kits that Kyle Jenner created, that they would become more like their idols.

Consumerism itself is fueled by tearing people down, to then sell them something to fix the issue. Most of these issues have been predominantly directed at women, though we’re seeing more and more advertising directed at men. The next time you open up or Instagram or Facebook, consider how many adverts you get that are selling you something purely to fix an issue you did not initially have. For example, a mascara that will fix you natural eyelashes. Then fake eyelashes to go on top of that for added length a curl. Then a clear gel to put on your natural eyelashes at night to help them regrow after the stress of mascara and false lashes has put on them… do you see a pattern here? I could have used any physical attribute as an example. There is always going to be something new on the market to fix you, despite the fact that you were never broken in the first place.

Matt Haig wrote on his Instagram account, ‘Consumerism wants you to feel guilty. That’s how it makes money. A new year won’t mean a new you. You are not an iPhone. You don’t need replacing every year… Don’t feel guilty about not dieting or exercising yourself into a temporary new form. Just be kind to yourself. Get to know the old you. Don’t throw yourself away like another piece of plastic trash. You are everything you already are.’

Guilt is what sells. Making you feel guilty, makes you feel like you need to be doing something to fill that void. Body neutrality allows you to turn away from marketing, because you don’t need it to appreciate and love yourself. I feel it is a movement that extends to material possessions too. By starting with being neutral with your body, you learn acceptance, and don’t need to try the latest diet or supplements to change the way you look. This, in turn, starts you realising you don’t need to update the electronics you own just because there’s a newer model. You don’t need to buy new clothes for each season. You don’t need to own something just because someone you look up to owns it. It’s about acknowledging what is working in your life now, and going with it, rather than chucking something perfectly good away simply because there is something newer.

There are some saddening figures on some of the big industries selling us quick fixes. In 2018 the weight loss industry was worth an estimated $189.8 Billion. Due to the rise of social media, millennials have taken over baby boomers at being the biggest buyers of weight loss products, and weight loss surgeries have increased by 5%. Despite this, people’s knowledge of food has increased and consumers are less likely to buy drinks with added sugar, sodas or foods that aren’t organic, which means diet companies are having to think differently. They’re not selling us meal plans anymore, not like Weight Watchers sold to our parents. They’re selling supplements, teas and coffees. Quick, short term fixes.

The cosmetic surgery and procedure market size has been estimated to reach $43.9 billion by 2025, while Americans, ‘Spent more than $16.5 Billion on cosmetic plastic surgery in 2018.’ The beauty industry too is a big industry, a $532 billion industry, if you needed to know, though this article highlights how consumers are leaning towards companies who offer sustainable ranges, don’t test on animals, use organic ingredients and have recyclable or circular containers (by circular I mean containers that can be sent back to the company to be reused or correctly broken down, not the shape.)

And while I fully respect everyone having their own choices, by getting surgery if they want to, or by buying make up, or by dieting, I do sometimes feel angry that these industries and their successes were built by criticising and destroying others. Which is why, for me, body neutrality has to be the way forward. Because it will tell these industries that we don’t need them to fix ourselves. Of course, you can wear make up to make you feel good, or get fit if it’s your choice, but don’t do it because you feel like you are not enough as you are, or because you’ve been shamed to the point of feeling like there is no other option.

Jameela Jamil started I Weigh to talk about all the things she weighs that is not a number, because we are so much more than the scales or our clothing size. To round this post off, I’d love for you to join me by sharing what you weigh. Even better, share what you weigh on your social medias and tag I Weigh. Spread the word on the body neutrality movement. Together we are many. Together we are strong. Together we are more than the faults that corporations have given us.

I weigh: A daughter, a sister, a partner, a friend, a singer, a blogger, a nounou (nanny), an animal lover, a music lover, plant based, zero waster, feminist, passionate about people and the planet, a sometimes runner, a foodie, someone who struggles with anxiety, a happy person.

Until next time,

The Sustainable Swap

[queerwelsh]

Bisexuality pages from ‘Freaky Queer,’ a punk, anti-war, working queer zine published in Cardiff in 1992. Transcript below.

Sources (that they used in these pages of the zine):

Off Pink Publishing, Bisexual Lives, London, 1988.

Lorraine Hutchins & Lani Ka’ahumanu ed. Bi Any Other Name: Bisexual People Speak Out, Alyson Publications, USA, 1991.

This whole copy of ‘Freaky Queer’ is available to read here.

PAGE 1: clippings of quotes on a photo of a man.

Bisexuality

“I’d rather be bisexual half the time than heterosexual all the time.” ♀️ 

“It is entirely for me as an individual to decide exactly where my attraction may lie and for nobody else to insist that I conform to their specifications. Bisexuality for me has nothing to do with ‘swinging’; it is about the ability to respond to someone without the obligation to leave well alone because of gender.” ♂️ 

“We must not think of ourself as second class gays, but as first class people. No bisexual I have ever known though of themselves as a second class straight.” ♂️ 

“We are not sitting on the fence - we are building a new garden.” ♂️ 

“If people could only accept that sexuality is infinitely variable and that it was never meant to be confined to the parameters it has been, then not only would MY life be easier but the world would become a much better place.” ♂️

“Like many people I was so scared of my own gay feelings that I found it easier to dislike in others what I disliked in myself. Looking back I must not criticise myself because the anger I felt then was protective in keeping safe a part of me I could not handle. I found that liking men did not alter my feelings towards women. In fact I got on better with women because I was more relaxed.” ♂️ 

“A heterosexual lover once said that she would always love the part of me that could belong to her, but she understood that to possess me entirely would be to smother the essential ‘me’ that made me so dear.” ♂️ 

“I feel VERY bisexual at the moment and very positive. I just wish there were more bisexuals around and that non-bisexuals would accept my choices more.” ♀️

“So what if I WAS sexually attracted to men as well as women? Did it make me any less of a human being? Was my friend any less of a human being for being gay? Why did I feel that intolerence towards gays was intolerance towards me? I wasn’t gay. I loved women too,

[CONTINUED ON THE SIDE OF THE PAGE:]

but if you loved men at all, you were a ‘poof’ or a ‘queer’ and that meant you were dirty and that you couldn’t love women. I mean, NO ONE is going to believe you can like both and not be ‘confused’. I’ve fantasised about men and women so much that I wouldn’t know which I preferred.” ♂️

“For me, being bisexual is a part of being open to myself. I have always tried to see things from both sides. I don’t understand why more people don’t acknowledge that both men and women can be sexy. I guess it’s because I like people.” ♂️ 

“I’ve always seen myself identified as loving both sexes. Until I came across the term bisexual I was a long time without a label. I’ve very ambiguous feelings about labels but despite the misconceptions about bisexuality, saying I’m bisexual seems less of a non-statement than saying I’m neither straight nor lesbian.” ♀️

“Since heterosexuality is so ingrained in the prevailing consciousness, it becomes almost impossible to get some heterosexuals to recognise that any valid alternatives exist. I think the word ‘normal’ was created by those people who are afraid to say ‘heterosexual’ just because their fear of the body is such that they dare not admit to sexual feelings.” ♂️ 

Handwriting at the bottom of the page:

“1st Bit: Nicked from “Bisexual Lives” (off Pink Press)

2nd Bit: Nicked-> ‘Bi Any Other Name’

PAGE 2: Clipping: ‘Myths/realities of bisexuality’ by Sharon Forman Sumpter (from Bi Any Other Name)

“Sexuality runs along a continuum. It is not a static “thing” but rather a process that can flow, changing throughout our lifetime. Bisexuality falls along this continuum. As Boston bisexual activist Robyn Ochs says, bisexuality is the “potential for being sexually and/or romantically involved with members of either gender.”

“MYTH: Bisexuals are promiscuous/swingers. TRUTH: Bisexual people have a range of sexual behaviours. Some have multiple partners, some have one partner; some go through partnerless periods. Promiscuity is no more prevalent in the bisexual population than in other groups of people.”

“MYTH: Bisexuals are equally attracted to both sexes. TRUTH: Bisexuals tend to favor either the same or the opposite sex, while recognizing their attraction to both genders.”

“MYTH: Bisexual means having concurrent lovers of both genders. TRUTH: Bisexual simply means the potential for involvement with either gender. This may mean sexually, emotionally, in reality, or in fantasy. Some bisexual people may have concurrent lovers; others may relate to different genders at various time periods. Most bisexuals do not need to see both genders in order to feel fulfilled.”

“MYTH: Bisexuals spread AIDS to the lesbian and heterosexual communities. TRUTH: This myth legitimizes discrimination against bisexuals. The term “bisexual” simply refers to sexual orientation. It says nothing about sexual behaviour. AIDS occurs in people of all sexual orientations. AIDS is contracted through unsafe sexual practices, shared needles, and contaminated blood transfusion. Sexual orientation does not “cause” AIDS.”

“MYTH: Bisexuals are confused about their sexuality. TRUTH: It is natural for both bisexuals and gays to go through a period of confusion in the coming-out process. When you are an oppressed people and are constantly told that you don’t exist, confusion is an appropriate reaction until you come out to yourself and find a supportive environment.”

“MYTH: Bisexuals are not gay. TRUTH: We are part of the generic definition of gay (see Don Clark’s Loving Someone Gay.) Nongays lump us all together. Bisexuals have lost their jobs and suffer the same legal discrimination as other gays.”

“MYTH: Bisexual women will dump you for a man. TRUTH: Women who are uncomfortable or confused about their same-sex attraction may use the bisexual label. True bisexuals acknowledge both their same-sex and opposite-sex attraction. Both bisexuals and gays are capable of going back into the closet. People who are unable to make commitments may use a person of either gender to leave a relationship.”

“MYTH: Bisexuals can hide in the heterosexual community when the going gets tough. TRUTH: To “pass” for straight and deny your bisexuality is just as painful and damaging for a bisexual as it is for a gay. Bisexuals are not heterosexual and we do not identify as heterosexual.”

“MYTH: Bisexuals are in “transition.” TRUTH: Some people go through a transitional period of bisexuality on their way to adopting a lesbian/gay or heterosexual identity. For many others, bisexuality remains a long-term orientation. Indeed, we are finding that homosexuality may be a transitional phase in the coming out process for bisexuals(?). It is important to remember that bisexual, gay, lesbian and heterosexual are labels created by a homophobic, biphobic, heterosexist society to separate and alienate us from each other. We are all unique; we don’t fit into neat little categories. We sometimes need to use these labels for political reasons and to increase our visibilities. Our sexual esteem is facilitated by acknowledging and accepting the differences and seeing the beauty in our diversity.”

PAGE 3: Bisexual Groups and other Contacts

BRITAIN

BI-MONTHLY - the magazine for bisexuals. Write to: LBG, BM-BI, London WC1N 3XX. Obtainable from alternative bookshops nationwide.

MEN’S ANTI-SEXIST NEWSLETTER exists as a forum for exchange of news, ideas, thoughts, feelings and information who are challenging sexism and particularly for people who wish to find for men alternative roles to those which society casts for them. Write to: MAN, 60 Rhymney Street, Cathays, Cardiff.

THE FEMINIST LIBRARY AND INFORMATION CENTRE works to provide information facilities on subjects of importance to women and the Women’s Movement. The possess many facilities including a newsletter every two months. The library is open to non-subscribers but membership is necessary to borrow books. Subscriptions vary according to income. Write to: Hungerford House, Victoria Embankment, London, WC2 6PA. Tel 01-930 0715.

IN HANDWRITING: WE AREN’T ALWAYS WAT WE SEEM!!! NICKED FROM “BI-LIVES” (OFF PINK PRESS)

LONDON BISEXUAL WOMEN’S GROUP, write to: BM Box LBWG, London WC1N 3XX.

BISEXUAL AND MARRIED GAYS GROUP, Phone: Nigel 01-558 5203 (5.30-10pm.)

SIGMA is a support group for relationships where one partner is gay or bisexual. Details from Gay Switchboard 01-837 7324.

BISEXUALS IN NALGO, write to: BM-BI, London WC1N 3XX.

EDINBURGH BISEXUAL GROUP meets every Thursday, 8pm, at the Lesbian and Gay Community Centre, 58a Broughton Street, Edinburgh EH1 3SA (no disabled access). Write to this address for further information or send an sae to join the Pen-Pal Scheme. The Bisexual Phoneline (see above) operates a contact serice.

MANCHESTER BISEXUAL GROUP, Write to: Box 153, Manchester, M60 1LP or Phone: Paul Owen, 061-228 3554 (2-4pm.)

[discyours]

What are your thoughts on contrapoints' new video if you've watched it ?

I had actually watched it before I got this ask but I wanted to rewatch it to make sure I had a good answer. Terrible idea, I spent way too much time on this, too much to justify shortening this out so I’ll put a cut out of courtesy to my followers. 

I did actually find myself agreeing with her on a few points, though I didn’t spend much time being excited about that since criticising “TERFs” is hardly a new or rare thing. Starting out the video with a dramatic reading of a Germaine Greer quote was funny in my opinion, but it did set people up for an obvious bias. Some radfems truly are that transphobic and that’s really important to acknowledge, but it’s hardly news to anyone in her audience. I would’ve preferred if she’d engaged with more moderate forms of gender critical feminism, though I can’t say it’s all that much of a surprise that she didn’t do so since the entire basis of her channel is essentially putting on a wig to create a strawman (that’s not to say that the points she argued against were never made by anyone, but she does get to pick and choose which ones she talks about rather than debating a real person).

It’s also quite telling that she only asked past gender critical feminists for their input, not anyone who currently holds those beliefs (though again, can’t say I’m surprised). I did actually like her explanation of gendercrit ideology (”The idea is that gender [femininity, masculinity, gender roles, all that] it’s all a patriarchal construct, and biological sex is the only thing that makes a person a man or a woman.”). It’s fairly rare to see people represent it even somewhat accurately, so props for that.  She then went on to mock questions about trans ideology as being comparable to “the Jewish question”, so,,, that strong start didn’t last long.

She explained that trans people are on the defensive against genuine questions because of the amount of transphobia we have to deal with from the government, the press, and oftentimes our family. It’s the reason we stick together and stick to unambiguous slogans that don’t concede anything (”trans women are women”). Which, cue 10 people unfollowing me, I don’t disagree with. I started this blog to talk about trans issues and at this point I’m about as trans-critical as troons can get, but even I don’t have the energy or desire to engage every single person I come across in their genuine concerns about trans people. The part Natalie leaves out however is that these slogans and chants are often part of an attempt to change legislation, where you don’t get to just state that trans women are women and refuse to discuss it when people don’t blindly accept it. Being on the defensive makes sense, but it’s incompatible with being on the offensive to change laws and social norms.

Moving on to CONCERN ONE: GENDER METAPHYSICS

This is one part where I actually strongly agreed with Natalie (well, as much as could be expected). She explains that sometimes, people use metaphors to explain feelings that are difficult to put into words, and that that’s how she understands the “trapped in the wrong body” language. Thanks to some groups who do mean this literally (thanks transmeds!) I don’t blame radfems for taking those statements seriously and attempting to debunk them, but I’m also really not fond of radfems jumping on just about any attempt to talk about dysphoria. A lot of the time these objections go beyond wanting to debunk something that is assumed to be meant literally, and beyond wanting people to think critically about their dysphoria; it reaches the point of expecting that they’ll simply reason people out of their dysphoria, since being dysphoric (and being trans) just doesn’t make any sense.

She also criticises brain sex theory much in the way that I do, and says she thinks of herself as a woman who used to be a man rather than having always been a woman. I’m too gendercrit to relate or agree completely, but compared to most trans people’s stance on this it’s pretty damn agreeable.

She finishes off this… chapter? With a quote about “living as a woman”, and while I have plenty of thoughts on that it’s elaborated on later on, so let’s move on.

CONCERN TWO: GENDER STEREOTYPES

Natalie explains that her clothes, makeup or voice don’t “make her a woman”, and that no trans woman thinks femininity and womanhood are the same. Rather, they’re using femininity as a cultural language to prompt people to see them “for what they are” (women).  

Obviously the question of what makes someone a woman has yet to be answered here (unless the quote from the last chapter was intended to but that’s pretty circular [go watch the video this is too goddamn long to copy everything]) so I’ll leave the “see us for what we are” be for now. But it’s absolute bullshit that no trans woman equates femininity to womanhood. How many trans women have explained that they knew from a young age because they liked to play with dolls and their mother’s makeup? There have literally been trans women claiming that butch lesbians are closeted trans men, and that an aversion to femininity counts as gender dysphoria. I do agree with her last point, though. I didn’t cut my hair when I came out because I thought that would “make me a man”, I did so because it’d help me pass. A lot of radfems are intentionally obtuse about the existence of cultural signifiers just to paint trans people as delusional gender-worshippers.

I am actually gonna quote her here because I think it’s important;

“I think butch or gender nonconforming cis women sometimes side-eye hyperfeminine trans women because they don’t identify with this version of womanhood at all, and they’ve had to struggle since childhood against a society that’s told them they have to be feminine. And I completely sympathize with that. I think there should be more gender freedom, less coercion less restriction. But also, I’ve had to fight against the same society that told me I should really, really, really, not be *this*. So, I feel like we should be able to form some kind of solidarity here.”

I was ready to be mad at the start of the sentence but I actually agree. I just think that solidarity is lost when trans women refuse to acknowledge that society’s insistence that they don’t be like *that* is about gender roles and hatred of gender nonconformity. There is great potential for solidarity between GNC females and feminine trans women, but trans women reject it because they don’t want to be seen as GNC males or acknowledge that other people do. They want to be treated as normal, feminine women, and not doing so counts as misgendering.

CONCERN THREE: ABOLISH GENDER

Natalie argues that, while potentially a good idea, abolishing gender is a Utopian project (/pipe dream), much like abolishing borders. That denying trans people their gender identity because “abolish gender” is much like denying immigrants citizenship because “abolish borders”. It’s targeting the people who are most vulnerable under the present system, and then leveraging that system against them under the pretense of abolishing it.

I’ll concede that abolishing gender (and frankly, radical feminism as a whole) is fairly idealistic. Most radfem goals are incredibly long term and while that’s a good thing in some ways (I’m quite happy to be with a movement that refuses to accept anything less than complete female liberation, rather than some form of feminism that insists it’s only needed outside the west [”We’re already equal! I can vote! Look at the pants I’m wearing”]), it also leads to quite a lot of abstract academic bullshittery, and unreasonable expectations of ideological purity.

I don’t think it’s reasonable to view individual trans people as personally responsible for accomplishing the very long-term goal of abolishing gender. But radical feminism is not about individualism (which a lot of radfems do seem to forget, to be fair). There are radfems who are supportive of trans people; Andrea Dworkin herself supported transition. Only as a bandaid for a much bigger issue (the existence of gender) but she at least felt that trans people should be allowed this bandaid, should be allowed to reduce their suffering in current society in whichever ways they can. Dworkin’s view on this is far from rare and some radfems are even trans themselves. But to get back to the part about radical feminism not being individualistic; while individual trans people are not necessarily an issue for gender abolition, the wider trans community and its current political ventures most definitely is. The entirety of radical feminism is not going to collapse from a singular tran getting a gendered hairstyle, but replacing laws to refer to gender identity rather than sex can absolutely be devastating in the long term (and in the short term, when you look at the amount of protections that female-bodied people lose as a result), and that’s exactly what the trans community is currently pushing for.

Natalie also criticises the fact that gender critical feminists don’t seem to go after, say, Kim Kardashian for promoting gender roles. That they attack trans women with barely any following rather than people with actual power and influence. And I disagree with that, radfems are definitely highly critical of women like Kim Kardashian. But the way Natalie makes this point exposes part of the issue; nobody is going after Kim Kardashian for wearing a dress because Kim Kardashian never made an active choice to start wearing dresses. She experienced female socialisation no differently than any other woman (or, arguably, far more strongly considering who her parents were), so there’s some sympathy to be extended there. She has more responsibility due to her platform, but it’s no easier for her to break out of gender roles whereas trans people, to some extent, knowingly stepped into another gender role.

CONCERN FOUR: MALE PRIVILEGE

Natalie argues that men don’t treat trans women like their equals. That non-passing trans women are not treated like men, but like monsters, and that “male privilege” is not a good description of that experience.

This is one of those things that’s really hard to argue against because there’s an inherent disagreement about gender. Natalie’s insistence that non passing trans women aren’t treated like men comes from preexisting notions that a man is more than simply an adult human male, which is where I disagree. Non passing trans women are treated like men, but that does not mean that men will treat you like an equal; much like straight men can still treat gay men like shit, white men can still treat black men like shit, etc. “Male privilege” has never been a good descriptor of gay men’s experiences with homophobia either, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t have any. There is more than one axis of oppression.

Moving on, Natalie brings up radfems’ skepticism about the whole notion of “passing”. I’m not going to bother to quote it because the entire part is good, but I do have strong feelings about this.

Her argument about gas station attendants and plumbers is completely on point, and I fucking hate it when people try to argue that anyone who reads trans people as their desired sex is simply being polite. It’s genuinely fucking impossible that everyone we run into has been indoctrinated into politically correct gender ideology, and the nerve a lot of radfems have to insist that our genuine life experiences are worthless next to their opinion is downright insulting.

Passing is, in fact, subjective. With my shift in perspective since becoming gender critical, my perception of trans people has changed too. People I used to believe passed flawlessly are now quite noticeably trans to me, but that’s not to say that that’s a result of “breaking free from trans ideology”. Relying on gender roles to identify people’s sex is in fact the cultural norm, and only actively attempting to view things differently (or spending large amounts of time around GNC people) changes that.

CONCERN FIVE: MALE SOCIALISATION

Natalie starts off by acknowledging that she has no idea what it’s like to be catcalled as a nine year old girl, or what that does to a child’s psyche. It did not start happening to her until she was an adult, when she knew what she was getting into and was ready for it. I just want to mention that separately because I just about cried when she said this. Sexual harassment at a young age is one thing I see trans women consistently failing to acknowledge, and an end has just come to the years of frustration I have suffered as the result of this argument going completely unaddressed.

She goes on to argue that socialisation does not stop at childhood; that it is a lifelong process. One example she gave is that her appearance is commented on far more now that she’s transitioned, and that that’s been something she’s had to get used to. I actually think that’s a good point and one that should be considered more, but I’m uncomfortable with the implication she brings when talking about resocialisation, as if childhood socialisation can be erased/redone entirely (which I don’t believe it can).

Then there’s the “trans women don’t experience socialisation the way cis men do” argument. Let me quote this and see if you can spot anything wrong;

“But also, trans women often don’t experience the socialisation the way cis men do. Many trans women are feminine and queer before they transition, and have always experienced a kind of femmephobia that is rooted in misogyny.”

The implication that feminine/queer equates to trans is really harmful, and once again she’s arguing from a different concept of what a man actually is. Not to mention that “femmephobia” is only a thing against men, as women are expected to be feminine.

“Some trans women also identified as women years before transitioning, and internalised society’s messaging about women more than society’s messaging about men. Now that’s still not the same as living in society as a girl from birth, but it’s also pretty different from the socialisation of most cis men.”

Interestingly enough, I initially wrote down “masculine cis men” rather than “most cis men” because that’s what the captions said. I wonder if Natalie realised her unfortunate implication that feminine = trans after uploading her video and decided to change it in the captions, since the words don’t sound all that alike.

She then talks about “stolen valor”, that she suspects that male privilege and male socialisation are such major talking points for gender critical feminists because they feel like it’s an injustice for people to claim their identity without experiencing their oppression. She compares radfems to transmeds; both groups supposedly believe that you need to suffer for your identity to be valid.

Fundamental disagreement about gender is affecting her understanding yet again. Identity-based thinking just can’t be applied to gendercrit ideology at all; the whole point is that gender identity itself is harmful, and that women who consider themselves as such because they are adult human females have extremely different experiences than people who feel that they identify with womanhood regardless of their lack of life experiences actually being female.

[”You didn’t suffer like I’ve suffered! You don’t know what it’s like”] “I’m tempted to strike back by saying that you don’t know what it’s like to occupy an identity so stigmatised that most of the people who are attracted to you in private are too ashamed to admit it in public”

Ever heard of butch lesbians, Natalie?

“You don’t know what it’s like to have a body so non-normative that you’re shut out of whole areas of society”

Cough

CONCERN SIX: REPRODUCTIVE OPPRESSION

I’m getting fucking tired at this point and I hate myself for even writing this long of a reply up until now. Basically, she pulls the good ol’ “not all women experience their womanhood the same way” argument, and then makes a fucking coat hanger abortion joke. I wish I had an in-depth reply to that but I don’t. I honestly don’t have the words to express how angry it makes me that someone who has never even had to deal with even the mere possibility of unwanted pregnancy thinks they have any place to joke about the horrific lengths women were forced to go to as a result of their reproductive oppression.

CONCERN SEVEN: ERASING FEMALE VOCABULARY

Through her assumption that feminism is a mere shield for gender critical radfems to hide their transphobia behind, Natalie is disregarding the actual feminist motivations behind opposing gender-neutral language. I mean, she literally does not even touch on it, she only says that nobody has any issue with individual women referring to themselves as women rather than “menstruators” (or, by her suggestion, “people who menstruate”).

Medical lingo is complicated, and I understand wanting to ensure that trans people do not lose insurance coverage when they change their legal sex. I don’t believe that changing all medical language to be gender neutral is the only possible solution there, but at the end of the day doctors are gonna know the difference between male and female anatomy even if their textbooks talk about “pregnant people”. Medical language is not the issue here, it’s the expectation that this language becomes commonplace everywhere, including in feminist discourse. That’s the point where female vocabulary is erased, and where it becomes impossible for women to discuss the reasons for their oppression. Menstruation and pregnancy are not “gender neutral” issues when it comes to institutional oppression, and we should not treat them as such.

Moving on, let me quote her directly:

“I have no problem with cis feminists discussing or celebrating periods or wearing pussy hats at political marches. […] I totally get why cis feminists would want to celebrate their reproductive anatomy in defiance of a society that routinely shames and subjugates them for it. The problem arises only when menstruation or reproductive anatomy are used to misgender trans men or exclude [women who don’t bleed].”

The assumption wasn’t that every individual trans woman takes issue with women discussing their anatomy, so “I don’t have a problem with it” is not an argument. I mean, you’re obviously free to say it to get people off your back about it, but it does not debunk radfem concerns when there absolutely are trans women who believe it’s “terfy” and “exclusionary” to talk about issues that only affect “cis” women. That last point is a funny one, despite all the inclusive language trans women regularly forget that menstruation is not a cis thing. And that’s an issue Natalie appears to suffer from too, unless this was unfortunate phrasing and we were just meant to assume that trans men talking about periods is not up for discussion. Either way, it’s clear that inclusive language is clunky to everyone, the mistakes that are acceptable to make just depend on which side you’re on.

CONCERN EIGHT: TERF IS A SLUR

Natalie uses an interesting definition of “slur” here: “a pejorative that targets someone’s race, religion, gender, or sexuality”. I say interesting because I can’t find it anywhere. I could find “an insinuation or allegation about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation.”, “an insulting or disparaging remark or innuendo”, “a derogatory or insulting term applied to particular group of people”, but not hers. Presumably because she made it up herself (and haf-assedly at that, did you forget disabled people exist Natalie?) knowing that all of the former definitions would, in fact, consider TERF to be a slur.

Now I’ll be honest, I’m not a fan of the whole “TERF is a slur” thing. I’ve seen someone use that to say “if you call me TERF I can call you tranny”. I don’t think being called a TERF (which I have plenty of experience with) should be considered to be comparable to being called a tranny or a bitch. TERF has become essentially meaningless and is an inaccurate term roughly 95% of the time it’s used, but it is meant to have a meaning (”this person excludes trans people from their feminism”), whereas other slurs don’t tend to have any message aside from “this person belongs to a minority and I want to insult them for it”. I’m not ignorant to the fact that it’s often used as a synonym for “lesbian” though, and that it absolutely is used insultingly and with the intent to ruin a person’s reputation, so I’ll stay in my lane on that.

After comparing “gender critical” to “race realist” and mentioning a general refusal to use these terms as to not legitimise bigotry, Natalie explains that she has very little patience for “TERF requests for linguistic decorum” because of the “maximally hurtful, harmful, and insulting” language that radfems use to talk about trans people (eg, referring to transition-related surgeries as mutilation, and the terms “TIM” and “TIF”).

I have some thoughts on this because, while I fucking hate these terms, Natalie’s disdain for them is hypocritical. She just acknowledged that using certain language legitimises the ideologies behind them, and that’s exactly why “TIM” and “TIF” were born. Referring to trans women as trans women while also insisting that woman means adult human female, something trans women do not fall under, did not work out well for radfems in the past. Conceding linguistic ground merely for the sake of respect essentially meant they’d instantly lose that argument, an argument that is in fact extremely important for feminism. I justify using technically incorrect terms (including pronouns) to refer to trans people because I’m trans myself, I understand what it’s like to be dysphoric and I believe that signaling that level of respect can at times be essential to get people to listen. But this is not an apolitical issue and as much as I despise being referred to as a “TIF”, I can’t blame that term’s existence on hatred.

Natalie concludes her video by being “real” about what the core of the gender critical movement is actually about: transphobia. Visceral disgust and hatred for trans people’s very existence.

And you know, for some people that definitely is the case. But this isn’t where I concede that I’ve been faking trandom to give credibility to my transphobia, or where I break down, admitting that I’ve based my entire political stance on pure self hatred (I mean lord knows I have enough of it, but nah that’s not what happened). The reality is that there are gender critical trans people (including trans women), and I’d dare suggest that we are not the only ones who believe in gender critical ideology for reasons other than transphobia.

In conclusion, this video is just another rebuttal against a strawman of “TERF beliefs” which never even attempts to treat them as genuine, only as ignorance that is easily educated away, or hatred that can’t be argued with regardless. I can’t say I’m disappointed with this video (it’s certainly not lower quality than I’d expect from contrapoints) but I am disappointed with the political climate where this is the furthest any outsider is willing to go to debate against gender critical ideology.

[raptured-night]

Hullo! I'm sure you've seen the recent news about Nagini by now. I'd be curious to get your thoughts?

Hi there, my friend!

First, let me start by apologizing for being slow to respond to this ask. When the news of Nagini first broke, I made a conscious decision not to comment and assert “my opinion” right away. Fandom dinosaur that I am, I’ve been around long enough to recognize that a common response when issues of racism or offensive representation are brought up is that too many of us white fans presume we can jump in to either explain (i.e. whitesplain) why “we” don’t see a problem or we try to go on the defensive in some fashion or form and accuse the people who are trying to draw attention to the issue of making fandom more “divisive” by being too “sensitive” or “just looking for something to criticize/be angry about.” As a rule, and because I do believe that a conscious effort to promote intersectionality belongs in all our social interactions, including but not limited to social media, I do make a point to remain silent and to pay attention to what is being said before I begin to voice any opinions of my own. Indeed, I feel that as a white woman in fandom it is important that I try to remain conscious of my privilege and the way that “my opinions” can often be given more priority and weight within fandom spaces than those of the people whose voices should be at the center of any conversations that are taking place (in this case, Asian fans of HP, specifically South Asian fans and East Asian fans). White (cis-het, etc.) fans have a very terrible habit of treating issues of racism and representation as if they were just another bit of discourse, no different than debating the relative merits of one ship or character over another, and so we weigh in as if we’re just as entitled to decide what is or is not racist, or what is or is not offensive representation as are the people whose race, culture, sexual orientation, etc. are being represented. 

However unintentional, I want to be careful that the simple act of asserting my opinion doesn’t become a tool of oppression or a measure of silencing or speaking over the voices of the people we should be listening to, first and foremost. Additionally, I often find that one’s first response to learning that something within a fandom they enjoy is being received negatively by a marginalized group and that it is offensive or harmful is to attempt to provide some kind of defense for why that isn’t the case, largely so we feel we will be able to continue to enjoy fandom content without feeling guilty or “problematic” for doing so. There is this fallacy of thought that you cannot be critical of the content you consume and also still enjoy other aspects of it that pervade within a lot of fandom spaces and it often goes hand-in-hand with the very worst examples of people using their privilege to silence or speak-over the people who should be at the center of any conversations being had (not to mention the way it contributes to the proliferation of white-feminist arguments and appeals to anti-intellectual rhetoric that would discourage any critical analysis of the content we consume by framing it as an act of hostility, censorship, or “reverse-oppression/divisiveness”). That being said, having taken my time to consider how best to respond to your ask, I do believe I’m better equipped to give what I hope will be an informed and thoughtful response to your question @idealistic-realism00 .

To begin with, I would like to highlight a very important point that @fandomshatepeopleofcolor  recently made and one that I have been seeing with some frequency as well. That is, the issue of people conflating criticism of Nagini that is independent of her in-universe portrayal in the Fantastic Beasts franchise with an in-universe critique. Often, a person may be arguing one issue only to have their argument derailed by in-universe focused defenses of Nagini that hold no real bearing on the larger implications out-of-universe (i.e. the real-world connotations) of Rowling’s or the movie’s choices in terms of casting or representation present us with. Ultimately, the problem in this approach should be self-evident, as it does become easier (even when that isn’t someone’s deliberate intention) to invalidate, dismiss, or ignore the valid criticisms that are being discussed and, I do believe, should be discussed within the Harry Potter fandom. Ultimately, if one person is focused on criticising the decision from a larger, non-fictional context and the other person is debating the merits or demerits for any of the decisions or backstory we do have in-universe then you have two people having two very different conversations. 

As such, I would like to begin by breaking up the critique of Nagini into two parts. I’ll begin first by focusing on the out-of-universe issues that are being discussed and why I do agree that they are not only valid but important for us (especially those of us who are not Asian and who do not have any of the learned or firsthand experience with the racism or racial microaggressions that Asian people face daily) to not only examine and reflect on but to also acknowledge for their real-world connotations without allowing our (i.e. white/non-Asian HP fans) own biases or privileges to convince us that we get to be/should be the deciding vote on what is or is not racist, offensive, or harmful to other people in our fandom. Once I have accomplished that, only then will I attempt to explore and highlight some of the core issues with Nagini’s in-universe portrayal (based on what information we have so far) that have been raised by those whose voices should be most central to this discussion and criticized as racially offensive, potentially sexist, and/or characteristic of poor representation. 

So, let me begin by addressing one of the leading arguments that I have seen against any criticism of Nagini and its fallacy. The insistence that we do not already have enough existing information to form an impression about what kind of representation Nagini might bring (i.e. good or bad,  harmless or harmful, inoffensive or offensive) or to acknowledge racially offensive connotations in her characterization. I support the arguments that vehemently disagree with this idea, especially as this response so insightfully observes, this notion contradicts the very purpose of releasing movie trailers, which is to formulate an opinion based on what content and what information we do have about whether we like the content based on what we have seen or if we would like to see more of it. Beyond that, as I have already said, out-of-universe critiques do not look to the in-universe content in order to arrive at a determination. It is the real-world connotations that we will be looking at and we already have a sufficient body of evidence to make a valid case for Nagini’s concept being a poor example of representation with a lot of racist overtones. 

Case-in-point, we know from what information Rowling has provided us with that she claims to have had this twist for Nagini in mind for twenty years and that she chose the name Nagini because of the connection to the Naga mythology, which she solely credits as having originated in Indonesia when, as has been pointed out to me, the Naga mythology originated in India and then spread throughout South Asia where it evolved with the different cultures. Now, a second argument I have seen circulating is that any attempt to critique Rowling’s writing or the franchise she has built constitutes as an unwarranted or vicious attack against her or should be relegated to the same corners of fandom hate as the antis who send people death threats. I would counter that this is nothing more than a further effort to silence inconvenient (and necessary) criticism and conversations and impose on fandom a laissez-faire attitude that can only further advantage the privileged members of fandom (i.e. white/non-Asian) over those who should be central to this issue. Moreover, the defense or “plea of ignorance” appeal that Rowling merely didn’t know what she was doing, didn’t mean to cause harm, or should be given yet another chance to grow is yet another argument in favor of privilege (not unlike the Affluenza Teen we are, quite literally, arguing that because Rowling is white and privileged we should excuse her inability to accurately and inoffensively represent other races and their cultures) and prioritizes what we believe Rowling’s “intentions” were over the impact that poor and/or racist representation and appropriation can have on the people who are being offensively reflected in her body of work. 

As this response by @diaryofanangryasianguy illustrates, it only makes us (re: white/non-Asian) complicit in supporting racist, colonial mindsets that permit a wealthy, white author to not only appropriate from the culture of another race and misrepresent them and/or their origins but to also profit from that misrepresentation. Furthermore, the argument can be made that this latest instance with Nagini only supports a pattern on Rowling’s part, one which this poster illustrates, of incorporating other races or cultures into her series and either misrepresenting them (e.g. her offensive use of Native American skinwalkers, spirit animals, and the very fact she portrayed Native American magic-practitioners as being less skilled or educated than their European counterparts until someone from Europe educated them on wands and their use, which harkens to Imperialist and colonialist thinking) or improperly crediting them. Indeed, Rowling has even insisted in interviews that when she uses mythological creatures in her world, she does attempt to conduct thorough research. Notably, when crafting her in-universe mythology for the “obscure” hippogriff, Rowling can be quoted as saying:

“But you’re right, yes, children, they know, obviously, they know that I didn’t invent unicorns, but I’ve had to explain frequently that I didn’t actually invent hippogriffs. Although a hippogriff is quite obscure, I went looking, because when I do use a creature that I know is a mythological entity, I like to find out as much as I can about it. I might not use it, but to make it as consistent as I feel is good for my plot. There’s very little on hippogriffs. I could read…”

This brings me back to the main issue, which multiple people have addressed on this site and elsewhere (source, source, source, source, source), which is the glaring fact that the origins of the Naga mythology are from India although, again, they did proceed to spread through South Asia and assume unique mythological characteristics among the different South Asian cultures, including Indonesia. Which means that Rowling is not only incorporating South-Asian mythology into her opus but treating South-Asian people as if they and their culture are interchangeable by crediting only Indonesia for being the origin of the Naga mythology when, as has been pointed out, its origins can be traced to India from which is spread and took on new form as it became a part of South-Asian mythology overall. Now, if Rowling has had this twist in mind for over twenty years, as she claims, and we know that she allegedly likes to “…find out as much as [she] can about [mythology]” before she uses it then we must acknowledge that the issue and criticism is certainly valid and that is just based on what information we already have. So, I reiterate what others have said when I say that Asian people and their culture are not interchangeable and should not be treated as if they were. If Rowling can devote the time, effort, and energy into thoroughly researching mythology as obscure as the hippogriff (which has Greco-Roman origins) for her series then there is no excuse for her failure here to accurately represent the Naga mythology and to clearly communicate that she is not erasing or failing to acknowledge that while the origins of the Naga mythology may have begun in India and spread through South Asia, she is choosing to focus on Indonesia’s unique Naga mythology specifically rather than just seeming to credit their culture alone as the point of origin for the Naga myths. 

Again, just based on that information alone, we can make a valid argument that there are issues of racism and offensive representation for Nagini that have larger real-world connotations. Not all representation is good representation (e.g. see the “token” character trope where any character of a marginalized group is inserted into a primarily all-white cast for the diversity points with no interest or intention of developing the character in any complex or meaningful way), which is often taken to mean that the only kind of representation for Black characters or characters of color must be heroic. This, also, is a fallacy and it misses the point of what representation is and why it matters. Good representation is when a character is portrayed in a way that does not adhere to existing and harmful stereotypes, racist tropes, or otherwise. Importantly, a character can even be a villain and still be an example of good representation (e.g. Black Panther’s Killmonger) so long as they are written in a manner that accurately represents their race and culture and does not pander to stereotypes or racist tropes. Rowling, however, has demonstrated her lack of knowledge (and if we are to accept that she does do thorough research based on her own words, then we must even ask if she has not demonstrated a lack of interest when researching the mythology of a culture that is not Western and Euro-centric) when it comes using South Asian mythology in a way that does not give the impression she is overlooking, misattributing the origins of, or erasing the cultural contributions of one South Asian people (i.e. Indian) while claiming to have drawn inspiration from another (i.e. Indonesian). Especially because, in-so-doing, she does become guilty of cultural erasure. 

The reality is that Rowling is a white author who, courtesy of her wealth, also has access to a greater number of resources available to her than the average fan-fiction writers, many of whom do often seek out Brit-pickers and sensitivity-readers to beta-read their fan fiction when they make no profit off of their efforts outside of reader-feedback. According to Rowling, she will take the time to thoroughly research obscure mythology, like that on the hippogriff, and she also claims to have written her series with the deliberate intention of interweaving an allegory of anti-prejudice, anti-racism, and anti-discrimination into her books (something I’ve also been critical of in discussions for what I believe is a failure of her narrative to convincingly acknowledge that prejudice and racism are systemic issues and not just a matter of extremes), yet when it comes to taking the time and making the effort to provide her readers with correct and accurate portrayals of a mythology from a culture that is not her own (i.e. Western and Euro-centric), we continue to see examples of poor, inaccurate, offensive, or appropriative representation. As others have pointed out, when issues of representation are brought to her by her fans (no matter how politely or informatively they are worded, as yet another defense for Rowling’s liberal use of the block feature and defensiveness towards any kind of criticism is that she is protecting herself from angry fans who threaten her which, while certainly understandable, should still not be an excuse to ignore all critical feedback or refuse to, as some fans insist we allow her to do, take the time to reassess her choices and grow) Rowling does not acknowledge any validity in those complaints, she does not apologize if communities feel her portrayal of them and their culture is harmful, offensive, or appropriative. What she does do is double-down on the “rightness” of her stance, reference her activism as if it was a shield/get out of jail free card that balances everything out and excuses her from any further criticism, and defends herself against her fans from a position of greater (white) privilege to the effect that often those (marginalized) fans who try to bring their issues to her attention are then subjected to harassment and threats themselves (sometimes even pushed out of their own fandom).  

I do not believe there is anything wrong or contradictory in the idea that fans of the Harry Potter franchise can both enjoy her world and be critical of it. More to the point, I do not believe there is anything wrong or contradictory in the idea that fans of the Harry Potter franchise can both enjoy her world and be critical of Rowling’s creative choices, her response to instances of valid criticism especially as they concern the issue of representation or racism, or even how those responses might influence one’s perception of her politics and/or ideology as a feminist or social advocate (i.e. it’s not “wrong” or an example of being a “hater” to have these conversations and ask ourselves if Rowling isn’t an example of white feminism, or if she isn’t failing to address her own privilege, or if she isn’t a teaching-lesson for white writers, a category of which I count myself among, and what not to do). In fact, I will always support the willingness to critically approach the content that we consume and I firmly believe that it is important if we are to call ourselves advocates or allies to always be mindful and aware of our own privileges and how they may influence our perspectives as content-consumers (speaking as an intersectional social justice advocate, an academician whose field depends heavily on critical thinking and analysis, and someone who could be said to be “anti” anti-intellectualism, exegesis is vital to human understanding and empathy). 

Which brings me to yet another glaring out-of-universe issue of representation; one that is also very specific to Nagini’s portrayal in the film. The character of Nagini, which was based on South Asian mythology (although Rowling claims to have based her canon on the Indonesian Naga mythology specifically), will be played by Claudia Kim, who is a South Korean actress. So, now we have an issue of South Asian mythology being conflated with East Asian mythology in the film (something which, I want to be clear, should not be seen as a criticism of Claudia Kim or an attack on her, as she is not the issue, the people who made the decision to cast her over an Indian actress are). Once again, Asian people and their culture are not interchangeable and should not be treated as such, and when you do that it is an example of racism and racial microaggression (it is NEVER good representation). This is why I do agree with the people who are pointing out that the casting-choice could be criticized for its erasure and potential colorism, especially as Korea has its own unique snake mythology. For this reason, I do believe that fans (especially those whom Nagini is now supposed to “represent”) do have a perfectly valid reason to view the film with a critical eye and that we should be asking why they opted not to cast an actress in the role of Nagini who is Indonesian if Rowling is going to be using Indonesian Naga mythology. Again, just based on this information alone, we can look at the latest Fantastic Beasts film and acknowledge that the criticism coming from some segments of the Harry Potter fandom is more than valid and there are issues of representation present.

To summarize, we can now make a case for offensive representation and racism on two points, just based off what we already know from interviews and the trailer. First, there is the issue of the way that Rowling specifically seems to credit the Naga mythology as having originated from Indonesia alone when that is not entirely accurate (i.e. it came from India and spread to different cultures in South Asia), which is a form of erasure by failing to clarify that she is using Indonesia Naga mythology for Nagini but that the Naga mythology is not just from Indonesia. This, despite the fact that Rowling claims to have been considering this twist for Nagini for twenty-years (in fact she claims it was the inspiration for naming the character Nagini ) and that she typically does a lot of research before incorporating mythology into her canon. Secondly, there is the issue of the film casting a South-Korean actress to play a character that has its mythological origins in South-Asian culture when Claudia Kim is from East-Asia, which opens the film up to further criticism for its erasure and colorism. 

For these reasons (among the many obvious), I do not believe it is the place of any white/non-Asian fan of the Harry Potter series to attempt to assert that there is nothing racist, offensive, appropriative, or harmful in the way of representation in Nagini’s characterization as it is. While I do not doubt that opinions vary even within the different Asian communities where Nagini is concerned (a fact that I do acknowledge as I have been quietly following the discourse to the best of my abilities for as broad of an understanding as I can have) that is very much a intra-community conversation that I, as a white fan, have no place interjecting myself into. Rather, I will continue to argue that it is not my place or the place of any other white/non-Asian fan of the series to presume that I/we get to decide or cast the final vote on whether or not Nagini’s representation is racist, offensive, appropriative, bad representation or speak over Asian fans who do feel that it is because “my Asian friend/this Asian person in fandom says it’s not an issue so that makes it acceptable for me to tell every Asian person criticizing this choice that they and their feelings are wrong.”

Moving on, now I will begin to examine some of the in-universe criticism of Nagini’s characterization just based on what information we do currently have. I would like to begin with one of the most common complaints, which is that Voldemort is a “Nazi” and connecting an Asian woman to a Nazi is racist in-and-of-itself. However, I think a clarification first needs to be made whenever these arguments surface (and in general when it comes to our discourse around fictional Death Eaters and Voldemort’s ideology or character) so that we can avoid falling into Godwin’s Law rhetoric, which does effectively trivialize the trauma and experiences of victims of Nazi ideology and white supremacy by reducing it down to an inadequate fictional comparison. That should not be our intention, and we should take care to distinguish between the argument that Rowling wrote Voldemort and his Death Eaters with certain parallels in mind to Nazis and white supremacists (something which can also be open to criticism as to how effectively Rowling managed to convey those parallels) and “Voldemort was a Nazi!” No, he was not, he is a fictional character and we should not be responding as if a fictional character is as terrible or even comparable to actual Nazis and the real atrocities and harm they have committed (and continue to commit or perpetuate) to Jewish people, Romani people, Black people, peoples of color, and lgbtq+ people. 

That being said, we can argue that Rowling has said she has written parallels between Voldemort and his Death Eaters to Nazis and white supremacists in her construction of blood prejudice (I tend to be critical of this for the fact that she has constructed the DE to represent something of an all-purpose social commentary on any/all form(s) of prejudice, which effectively strips the different forms that prejudice can take within different communities of their nuance and systemic structures while also establishing a type of prejudice that we mostly see represented by having middle-class white characters like Lily Evans-Potter as the target or, at best, racially ambiguous but still middle-class characters like Hermione Granger; this while she also handwaves real-world examples of racism and prejudice any of her existing Black, POC, or lgbtqa+ characters could face by declaring those are solely Muggle failings, which contradicts her own message given that suggests Muggle-born children simply come into that world without those prejudices or lose them via assimilation and the necessary casting off of Muggle identity-politics and social precepts, negative or positive). As Rowling does allege that a parallel was her intention, then we do need to take such a parallel into consideration and the implications of that pre-established parallel to this new revelation about Nagini. As has already been observed, the fetishization of Asian women by white supremacist men is very much an issue. When Asian women are fetishized by white supremacist men for stereotypes of submissiveness or hypersexuality and Rowling presents us with an Asian woman (one who, I reiterate, is going to be portrayed by an East Asian actress instead of a South Asian actress in the film) who has become the inhuman pet to a character she wrote to parallel certain Nazi and white supremacist ideology it is valid for fans to respond to that critically and to be offended or concerned. 

Once again, I would like to address a further fallacy in the argument that we should or must wait for the film before we attempt any criticism because we lack sufficient information. The fact is, while we may currently be unaware of the full details of Nagini’s experience in Fantastic Beasts, we already have a large body of existing information about what happens to Nagini after those films in the Harry Potter series. We know what happens to her, we know how she dies, and we already have enough information to reflect critically on how these new details about her being an Asian woman alter our perception of her relationship to Voldemort and within the Harry Potter series. For instance, Voldemort draws strength from Nagini by “milking her” venom (i.e. a lot of jokes are circulating and there are assumptions that she was literally milked for actual milk but, speaking as a former snake-owner and snake-lover, when someone says they’re going to milk a snake that means it is venomous and that they’re milking their fangs for their venom), he implants a portion of his soul into her and makes her into his vessel as well as his pet, and whether or not he has control/command over her or she aligns herself with him we still have one of two issues to consider: Voldemort is either forcing her submission or Nagini is offering it willingly, which could play into stereotypes of the fetishized, submissive Asian woman. Also, for the sake of preempting any argument that Voldemort may not have known what Nagini was, let us not forget that he was a Parseltongue and was canonically shown to be able to converse with her.  

There is a lot of discourse circulating that this could be interesting or that Nagini could still be made into a sympathetic villain in the movie. The problem that arises with these arguments is the fact that Fantastic Beasts is a prequel to an existing series. One which Nagini as a character was, narratively speaking, already previously established as unsympathetic and a monster (one who we now can argue became a cannibal given she liked Voldemort to feed her people, a detail that could also be scrutinized for the way it might harken to Imperialist stereotypes, many of which still proliferate, about Asian medicinal practices and cuisine that were often cited as supporting cannibalism or, even today, joked about in terms of the offensive “Asian people eat weird things like cats, har har” stereotype). As a result, Rowling’s narrative in her Harry Potter series was structured to support a specific and intentional perception of Nagini, which Fantastic Beasts can either contradict, attempt to subvert, or support. The problem is that Rowling’s own information already suggests that she will be contradicting her own pre-established canon. Especially as she has already demonstrated a contradiction in attempting to make the South Asian Naga mythology fit into the Western fantasy motif that the Maledictus curse presents us with. As she describes the Maledictus curse in her own words, “The Maledictus carries a blood curse from birth, which is passed down from mother to daughter.” Indeed, the origin of the Latin prefix of Mal can be translated to mean “bad,” “wrongful” or “ill” while the Latin Dictus means “spoken,” so that, when combined, you can have a meaning roughly along the lines of “spoken ill of,” or “cursed.”

This differs drastically from the different Naga mythologies of South-Asian culture, in that the Naga (males) or Nagin/Nagini (females) were typically described as divine or semi-divine deities who typically dwelled in Patala and could assume a human-form, a serpent form, or a half-human and half-serpent form respectively (please note that while I do make a point to study mythology from different cultures in order to better recognize the significance of their iconography and symbolism in any of my literary analyses, I do acknowledge that there may be people on this site who are better informed than me on Naga mythology because it is specific to their culture and I would invite anyone who would like to provide additional context or corrections who may know more to do so if they feel the need or desire). As such, the Naga were not depicted as tragically cursed women or, in Nagini’s case, women with the potential to become venomous, cannibalistic, monsters as the Maledictus curse would suggest. Ultimately, Rowling’s claim that she drew her inspiration from the Naga in defense of Nagini implies that she either does not understand and did not bother to research Naga mythology thoroughly, was merely making the suggestion to defend Nagini in context of the criticism she received, or has intentionally taken South-Asian mythology and portrayed it in a way where it is a “blood curse” versus a source of divinity and Naga are relegated to the role of tragic-figures and/or monsters rather than deities. Indeed, one could argue that if Rowling wanted to introduce Naga mythology into her series then she could have easily done so, absent of Nagini, or she could have introduced the concept of the Maledictus curse through other characters aside from Nagini and written her as a proper and accurate representation of the Indonesian Naga mythos in such a way where she could be both a villain and escape from being either a stereotype or a source of appropriation. 

Moreover, I believe that this response highlights a very good point about the sexism inherent in Rowling’s use of the fantasy motif of a blood curse specific to women and Rowling’s failure to properly subvert it as a result of her established canon for Nagini in the Harry Potter series and I would go even further to observe that it can not only be read as potentially sexist but also racist due to the additional context of Nagini being an Asian woman. Overall, we can read her as a woman with “cursed blood” that will make her inhuman (i.e. gradually dehumanize her) and once she has become inhuman she will eventually be distinguished throughout the Harry Potter series as the subservient and dangerous pet that Voldemort uses as a vessel for his soul and to fulfill his agenda (among which blood purity is a motive, even if it is not the sole motive for his actions in the series). By the end of the series, Nagini dies by beheading as an evil and inhuman creature whose death we cheer and whose slayer we champion (however much I adore Neville, he still remains a white, European, pure-blood wizard) as a hero in a chiastic parallel to Harry versus the Basilisk. 

Further, to reiterate a point made in the post I have linked above, even if Rowling was to have not opted to subvert the existing themes within the “women with cursed blood” motif in order to make it into an intentional social commentary on misogyny then this intention is effectively undermined in the film solely by the fact that they continue to support the casting of an actor (i.e. Depp) in the role of a titular character (i.e. Grindelwald) who has a history of violence against women and who Rowling and the film’s producers continue to defend. A fact that does tend to make any such defenses or claims that Nagini may simply be meant to function as a social commentary on misogyny ring insincere. Rather, I would argue, it does just seem like an excuse to dodge any further criticism about racism, appropriation, or poor representation when proposed by either fans, Rowling, or film affiliates. As the poster I have linked to above illustrates, “a critical commentary of misogyny in your own work of fiction is ultimately meaningless if it is acted out by a man who beats women in real life.” 

Not to mention, any social commentary that Rowling could otherwise have made by utilizing this motif without attempting to subvert it does ultimately fail in this context because the existing Harry Potter series arguably does not make a convincing case for representing the unique way that an Asian woman’s experience with misogyny would also intersect with her experience of racism. Thus, Rowling is still guilty of using a motif that is an example of a form of misogyny white, Western women experience without considering the additional implications for this motif (i.e. a blood curse) when it is applied to an Asian woman and the additional steps she would have needed to take in order to provide the reader with an accurate social commentary that clearly communicates a condemnation of the unique stereotypes, racism, fetishization, and misogyny an Asian woman would experience. Further, this cannot just be accomplished retroactively by revealing a new aspect of her story twenty-odd years later in her newest film franchise. 

For Nagini’s characterization to be viewed as a legitimate, defensible, and intended social commentary Rowling would also have needed to show this in the main body of the Harry Potter series up to the very point of her death. Which Rowling does not effectively do, largely because her narrative “as is” does not enforce any such reading or “ah-ha!” moment independently of the Fantastic Beast franchise and it’s reveal of who Nagini is (and we cannot say Rowling is just unskilled at writing subtly or at writing big, plot-twisting reveals because Snape’s character arc, whether one likes him or hates him, does stand as a point of contrast and a testament to the fact that she is). Moreover, Nagini’s costume design in the film only furthers the issue of racial insensitivity, as it does seem to heavily play to Western stereotypes of the East Asian “Dragon Lady.” As this post already thoroughly demonstrates this point and goes into some detail on what the “Dragon Lady” trope entails, I will merely voice my agreement with their assessment and acknowledge that, in combination with the film’s decision to cast an East Asian actress in lieu of a South Asian actress, I do think that a valid case can be made for not just racism and colorism but also fetishization in how Nagini seems to harken to the Western media portrayals of the East Asian “Dragon Lady” femme fatale (who are typically characterized as hypersexual, exotic, mysterious, and dangerous). 

Now, in addition to any parallels to Nazism or white supremacy, I would also argue that Rowling draws a clear parallel between Voldemort and a Satan/Lucifer archetype (a strong case can also be made for Harry as a Christ-figure, Dumbledore as a God-figure, and Snape as a subverted Judus archetype). Indeed, we know that Rowling has said herself that Christianity and its themes were a heavy source of influence in the Harry Potter series. Notably, Christmas specifically is the holiday that we see celebrated (versus Hanukkah, Kwanza, or even the pagan holiday Saturnalia, etc.) at Hogwarts and when Harry overhears carols being sung in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire they are Christian Christmas carols (which, again, presents us with a contradiction in her world-design when it comes to Muggle social structures and their transference to the wizarding society by having Christian influences present while handwaving complicated issues of racism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, etc. as strictly a Muggle problem). I bring this up because it further supports my point above that Rowling’s original series does not communicate an awareness or intent to incorporate social commentary on the specific misogyny or racism an Asian woman would experience.

Notably, the Harry Potter series could be said to have been written with a very Western-minded emphasis on a type of serpent iconography that did more firmly align with Christian perceptions of snakes as subjects and/or harbingers of evil, corruption and/or a fall from grace, disease, and sin. This contrasts with the South Asian mythology of the Naga (and other examples of Asian snake mythology and iconography), in that snakes are not necessarily viewed as creatures that are inherently malevolent to humans or representative of extreme, negative connotations to the same degree that they are in Western-Christian mythology. The Naga, for instance, is said to be capable of being dangerous and it is quite venomous, however, in many South Asian myths they are frequently shown not to be malicious or hostile to humans unless they are forced to be. One could argue that Rowling may intend to draw from this bit of the Naga mythology and that it may have inspired her to craft a more sympathetic origin story for Nagini, wherein she becomes evil and dangerous because humanity forced her, yet the issue remains that, rather than presenting us with an accurate portrayal of the Naga as a magical creature in the franchise, Nagini is a Maledictus whose blood curse far more accurately aligns with the Western/Christian associations to serpent iconography and symbolism (i.e. corruption, disease, evil, and sin). 

So, either we accept that Rowling has been planning this twist for Nagini all along and that we can return to her main opus of the Harry Potter series and find strong evidence that supports her intentions for Fantastic Beasts. Which would mean also acknowledging that Rowling has, subsequently, attempted to insert her Western-Christian serpent iconography and symbolism onto the existing South Asian Naga mythology in an act that would be highly inappropriate and appropriative (a white, Western woman blending only components of South Asian myths that she likes with a Western mythos that presents snakes as inherently evil to create an Asian character like Nagini is the very definition of Imperialist thinking and white privilege; we may as well wade deep into The Last Samurai or Memoirs of a Geisha territory). Or, we admit that this latest incarnation of Nagini is, quite likely, not the product of twenty-years of planning so much as it is yet another example of retroactive world-building and canon ret-conning that we’ve already seen via Pottermore for years now (in fact, Fonda Lee wrote a very solid critique on this point that I thoroughly agree with). In which case, we do still have to acknowledge that Nagini was likely written into the Harry Potter series to align with themes, motifs, and allegories that were very intentionally inspired by Christianity and that do represent a serpent iconography and symbolism that carries very different connotations in that respect. 

I would argue that any consideration of Nagini’s character “in-universe” cannot be divorced entirely from her relationship to Voldemort and the Western-Christian inspired allegory that Rowling wrote into the Harry Potter series without one’s critique being regarded as either incomplete or disingenuous. Especially as Nagini, as we have known her in canon so far, was so thoroughly intertwined and connected to Voldemort’s character that she not only became his vessel but an additional window through which Harry (and the reader) could view into Voldemort’s mind and glean some of his intentions. We cannot ignore or overlook that Voldemort’s own character functions as a Lucifer-Satan archetype and that the snake motif, as it is assigned to him and his Death Eaters/followers, is wholly focused on embodying Christian concepts of corruption, evil, sin, disease, etc. Notably, Voldemort is portrayed in his youth as charismatic but deceitful and wicked (traits recognized by Dumbledore alone, our God archetype); he bitterly loathes his father (not unlike Lucifer) and his origins and one could argue that his paternal resentment motivates much of his anti-Muggle agenda (just as Lucifer’s aims are to undermine God, his father, in Christian theology) while his primary goal to obtain immortality for himself again harkens to Lucifer and his banishment from heaven (indeed that the Riddle household was once quite wealthy and affluent and yet Voldemort grew up in an orphanage is symbolic of a heaven/hell dichotomy). 

Just as Lucifer becomes Satan and is associated with certain marks (e.g. the “Mark of the Beast”) and symbols (e.g. inverted crosses and, later, pentagrams), Tom Riddle becomes Lord Voldemort and is recognized by his Dark Mark and the symbols of serpents, Death Eater masks, and so on. During the first war, we are told he amassed a large following, and that Dumbledore is the one person he feared and could rival him in power. Further, it is by his own pride and inability to understand love that he falls when an infant-son is born who is prophesied to be the savior/Chosen One. As Lucifer is in Biblical scripture, however, Voldemort is only temporarily vanquished (a detail, yet again, known only to Dumbledore and imparted to Snape, our subverted Judus archetype) and for him to truly be defeated “The Boy Who Lived” must sacrifice himself willingly and in an act of love that renders Voldemort powerless and solidifies Harry as a Christ-figure. In particular, because he rises from the dead following a brief meeting with Dumbledore in the afterlife. Also similar to Lucifer, Voldemort was said to have been handsome in his youth but it is significant that as he descended further into darkness, especially upon his return to power, his features became more serpentine. This effectively enabled Rowling to foreshadow the fact that Voldemort, like Lucifer, would fall to pride and evil as a creature of sin “cursed” to “roam the Earth on his belly” as in the Creation Myth of Christian theology found in the Book of Genesis. As such, the fact that Voldemort can, quite literally, occupy the mind of Nagini (a woman who very literally becomes a serpent by a “blood curse”) and that she could be said to be his most “prized pet/possession” (not unlike Dr. Evil and his iconic white cat, Nagini functions as something close to a signifier in her relationship to Voldemort in the Harry Potter books) all assume far different connotations for the fact that Nagini also becomes an identifiable agent of evil most closely connected to Western-Christian iconography and serpent mythology versus the South-Asian Naga mythology in-and-of-itself. 

Inevitably, when conversations of representation occur within fandom one presumption seems to be that any representation should be read as good representation. As I have already addressed some of the fallacy behind this line of thinking above and provided links to discussions that better detail the difference between representation and appropriation and why some forms of representation can be harmful I will only highlight another issue with Nagini as a source of representation, one which this poster further illustrates as well. That is, the fact that Nagini represents what is already only a very small sample of Asian characters within Rowling’s series. First, we have Cho Chang; a character that Rowling has often been (rightly I feel) criticized for due to the name she chose for her (as this video breaks down thoroughly for how offensive it is), especially as it is a Korean surname for a Chinese name, and for her characterization given that her portrayal mainly identifies her as a romantic conquest/infatuation for Harry and then an inconvenient, annoying, and far-less-perfect-than-he-idealized-her-to-be girlfriend for Harry to discard before moving on to Ginny. We have the Patil sisters, Pavarti and Padma who are also portrayed as either silly (e.g. Pavarti and Lavender are both characterized this way for their love of Divinations) shallow (e.g. in contrast to the film, Pavarti is shown to be jealous and catty towards Hermione when she sees her dressed up and with Victor Krum) or one-dimensional (e.g. also in contrast to the film, Padma is in Ravenclaw and featured less) and they are also notably used (i.e. they are the last resorts for Harry and Ron when the women they desired turned them down and they still needed dates) then cast aside by Harry and Ron at the Yule Ball while they both jealously fixated and brooded on the women they did want to go with. 

Beyond this, we are told that there is a wizarding school in Asia “with the smallest student body of the eleven great wizarding schools” from Pottermore (the details of which also appear to be a blend of primarily of East Asian culture and East Asian stereotypes that seem to be drawn from Western “Orientalist” ideas of East Asian culture). Notably, while Rowling does echo the one-magical-school system she used for Hogwarts, Durmstrang, and Beaubaxtons I would argue that, as with criticism for the-one-magical-school idea for a U.S. magical school, this system is decidedly more impractical and problematic in this context. Largely because a single magical school for all of Asia reflects short-sightedness when it comes to the sheer diversity and geographical scope of what “all of Asia” would imply (i.e. Asian people are not all one big conglomerate and their cultures should not be treated as interchangeable). In addition to that, the fact that Mahoutokoro is said to have the smallest student body when “all of Asia” would be such a large geographical area to cover does raise questions as to why it is the Asian wizarding school that is portrayed as potentially more inferior or less populated. Thus, we are again confronted with an example of representation for Asian people that more than merits criticism and scrutiny in Rowling’s wizarding world. Finally, the name that Rowling chose for her magical school in Asia literally just translates to “magic place/site/spot” ( 魔法 or mahō can mean sorcery, magic, or witchcraft while 所 or tokoro can mean place, site, or spot), which does not suggest a lot of time spent ruminating on either a creative name or a culturally respectful backstory and design for Asia’s one magical school.

Which brings me back to Nagini and the argument that we should not treat the fact she is an Asian character who is a Maledictus as automatically offensive or poor representation when it could be interesting. Beyond all the reasons I have already provided for why it is still an issue and that we should respect that members of the Asian community have valid reasons to be offended and/or critical (i.e. that the Maledictus curse contradicts Rowling’s claim Nagini is to be based on South Asian mythology, that Rowling has imposed Western-Christian themes and allegories into her main series that overwrites or complicates South-Asian serpent myths for Nagini due to how she has connected her to Voldemort in her series, that the fantasy trope of women with cursed blood has its origins in motifs that are inherently misogynistic and any social commentary it could have provided would need to have been written with an awareness of the way Nagini’s own experiences with misogyny would intersect with her race, etc.) the limited sample of Asian representation that Rowling has already included in her series and her wider wizarding world and the objectionable nature of even that small sample we do have is yet another reason why I do agree that criticism of this latest development with Nagini is more than valid –it’s justified. 

Moreover, because our first introduction to the concept of the Maledictus in the Harry Potter canon will come through Nagini, a character whose canonical future and death we already know from the Harry Potter series, a specific impression is being set (as @somuchanxietysolittletime notes here). Notably, when fans criticize Rowling for retroactively revealing that Dumbledore was a gay character one of the many valid arguments I see being made is to the fact that Dumbledore’s relationship to Grindelwald seemingly being followed by a lifetime of celibacy can actually carry problematic connotations in terms of how it might represent lgbtq+ relationships. Indeed, the suggestion that Dumbledore as a young man have been “seduced” down a “dark path” by another charismatic man only to be “redeemed” or made “good” again by rejecting that path (and Grindelwald by necessity) only for him to have never been shown to have had any other healthy male/male relationships in the series does carry dangerous connotations in terms of negative representation for the lgbtq+ community (source, source, source). I make this point in order to argue that when there is a lack of representation or a very small sample to reference from, then the nature of that representation becomes even more critical. In a Harry Potter series that had multiple examples of lgbtq+ relationships ranging from healthy to dysfunctional, Dumbledore’s relationship to Grindelwald and then relative isolation would be less of an issue and could be read as Rowling likely intended (i.e. Dumbledore’s guilt, grief, and fear lead him to isolate himself from forming any other romantic connections after Grindelwald and the death of Ariana). 

Likewise, in a Harry Potter franchise that contained several examples of characters with the Maledictus curse, ranging from good to evil to something more complex, then having Nagini as “just another” Maledictus could be treated to less scrutiny if Rowling also had also included more examples of nuanced and diverse Asian characters that were not offensively stereotyped or racist and if Rowling’s representation of Nagini as a Maledictus also took into consideration that a Maledictus is a concept disparate from Indonesian Naga mythology and should be treated as such. Or, as I previously argued, Rowling could have just introduced Nagini as a proper Naga from the very beginning and that would have been very interesting and could have allowed for either a sympathetic villain’s backstory (e.d. Nagini experiences the Imperialist attitudes of European wizarding society in how they subjugate the beings they classify as magical creatures and is treated poorly enough as a Naga caged in a circus that she is forced into malevolence, which would be actual social commentary if done correctly and mindfully) or one that is simply villainous barring we also had other diverse characterizations of Asian characters in the series that made it so one of the few South-Asian inspired characters isn’t just portrayed as a monster or a stereotype. Either way, the fact that Nagini is the very first Maledictus we will begin to build our framework of reference from and that she is one of a few Asian characters within the entire Harry Potter series, not to mention one who was previously only portrayed as just a venomously evil snake-monster that “belonged” to Voldemort (our erstwhile Satan allegory and nod to Nazism and white supremacy), does carry different connotations and I do believe we (i.e. white/non-Asian fans) should actually listen to the people who are saying this is not good representation and stop explaining/whitesplaining to them why it is or why it maybe-kinda-possibly-could be. 

I have to agree with Fonda Lee in believing that Rowling likely has not spent the past twenty-years planning for this new information about Nagini to drop in a franchise she likely had not even planned to create at that point. Nor do I think that she planted any strong evidence, examples of foreshadowing, or indications in her main text to the fact that Nagini could have been a Maledictus. Aside from her name, which I would theorize Rowling chose not because she wanted to legitimately incorporate Naga mythology into her work so much as she wanted to reference it in Nagini’s name, there is little-to-nothing to suggest that Rowling wrote Nagini into her Harry Potter series with a mind for her being either human or Asian. Indeed, Voldemort originally claimed that he discovered Nagini in Albania which, while not a definitive confirmation that those were her intended origins, could still be read that way. Speaking as someone who writes and someone who has done my share of editing work, I do think this is a case of expanding what has become a very lucrative and popular franchise and for what I feel may be all the wrong reasons (i.e. profit). In my humble opinion, this latest from Rowling isn’t a convincing example of a writer’s effort to lovingly build on her world for her fans because it’s far too careless, contradictory, and hamfisted (especially in terms of mythological research) when compared to the original series. Structurally, Harry Potter was written with a very explicit chiastic design that did require a great deal of attention-to-detail, foreshadowing, and careful planning on Rowling’s part to effectively achieve. For all that her work was not faultless, during the 90s it was still arguably sophisticated for a YA series. Unfortunately, Rowling’s attempts at adding to her world within the last few years have demonstrated a lack of evolution on her part when it comes to what passes for progressive writing or thinking (e.g. from a critical standpoint, the themes that may have been read as feminist in Harry Potter during the 90s would now be read as borderline anti-feminist and her latest inclusions to her canon are representative of further reductive or even regressive, white-feminist thinking), at least from what I can see. 

So, speaking simply from the experience of a writer, someone with some editing experience, and as someone with my degree(s) in literary criticism and theory/English Rowling’s new canon for Nagini is very transparently new canon and not even very well planned out new canon. However, when it comes to “my opinion” on whether Nagini’s portrayal is racist, appropriative, or offensive in terms of representation I don’t think it should matters half as much as the opinions of the Asian fans of Harry Potter that Rowling’s work is supposed to be representing. That being said, I also choose to support those fans and I hope that I have managed to effectively keep their voices and arguments central to this response as I do acknowledge that it is not my place, my right, or my business to decide what is or is not racist, offensive, or appropriative to other races and cultures outside of my own (i.e. I don’t get a vote). Instead, I opted to try to first listen to what was being said and highlight some of the arguments that are already being made and break them down to thoroughly demonstrate why I agree with them and do believe there are more than a few valid reasons to be having these conversations about Nagini and what issues are present in her characterization. 

That being said, I would just like to close by making one final point of my own and from my own perspective. As I see it, it shouldn’t matter if there is only one reason or several reasons why Nagini’s portrayal might be offensive; if even one reason exists for people to say that her characterization is harmful, appropriative, or racist then that should be reason enough for those of us who are not a member of the Asian community to stop what we are doing and pay attention to what is being said. There is this defensive resistance within many fandoms towards doing that where we respond like we’re under attack, as if the “uwu the angry sjw puritans found something else to be unhappy with and want to take away something we love/enjoy again” mentality suddenly prevails anytime those “Hi! I’m x-person, my pronouns are x/x, and this blog supports intersectional feminism and social justice!” value statements we so proudly likely to display in our blog descriptions become a tad inconvenient for us and demand we do more than just uncritically hit reblog on any social justice posts that appear on our dashboards. We either need to stop using those (false) value statements if they’re only going to be performative and we’re going to be hypocrites when it comes time to practice what we preach, or we need to start checking our privilege and being mindful of how we respond when marginalized members of our fandoms bring issues of racism, representation, or anything else to our attention. Some of us seem to be so afraid that we’re going to be expected to boycott the films or give up Harry Potter entirely that we’re failing to do the bare minimum that the people who are criticizing Nagini’s portrayal are asking of us; that is, at least acknowledge that there are enough people who do believe there is a problem and who have provided valid reasons for why they feel there is a problem that we should be asking ourselves how we can support them as allies and as fellow fans of Harry Potter. We’re prioritizing our concerns and anxieties that we may lose something we like/enjoy over what the people most affected by Nagini’s representation stand to lose by having their culture or race misrepresented (again) in a major motion picture and popular film franchise. 

Personally, I made the choice not to pay money to see the first Fantastic Beasts film because the movie was set to open around the same time that the news broke of Johnny Depp’s abuse. As I do have very personal experience with violence against women and that is an issue that I take very seriously, when the film and Rowling chose to proceed with him in their movies and defended his continued presence in the Fantastic Beasts films that were to follow I made the conscious decision that this particular franchise within the Harry Potter world would not profit off of me. As a result, I won’t be seeing this movie in theaters either and that is my personal choice and how I choose to respond to the issues I’ve seen in these movies so far. Others may feel differently or have different (and potentially no less effective) solutions but the fact remains that we still need to be having these conversations if we’re ever to arrive at a place where conversations about racism, appropriation, and what constitutes as quality/good representation are no longer as necessary and far more commonplace. So, that is where I stand and I hope that this very lengthy response to your question is sufficient as an answer. As always, I appreciate your ask and I hope that this reply finds you well. 

Yours,

Raptured Night

Edit: It has been rightly pointed out to me that while arguing that Rowling’s answers about Nagini seem to credit and imply Indonesia alone is the origin of the Naga mythology (which erases the fact that the Naga myth did originate from India and spread through South-Asia where it was incorporated uniquely into the mythology of different South-Asian cultures), I also failed to properly credit Indonesian people for their own unique Naga mythology. While this wasn’t my intention that obviously does not matter because, reading back on what I wrote, I still did exactly that and I make no excuses for it and instead take full responsibility. When this ask was sent to me I made a point to invite anyone better informed than me to correct me or bring attention to any important detail I missed or overlooked. I did that mainly so that I could avoid doing the exact same thing that Rowling does in presuming to speak over her fans and ignore their criticism when issues of representation are brought to her attention. I have apologized to the person who was kind enough to bring this to my attention and I would also like to issue an apology here for failing to acknowledge Indonesian Naga culture when I absolutely should have. I have also corrected this post to hopefully better reflect the argument I was trying (and clearly failed) to highlight, as it had been brought to my attention on this site and elsewhere, which is that Rowling should not have communicated or suggested that the Naga mythology “came from Indonesia alone,” as it does erase the cultural significance and origins of the Naga mythology in India the way her answers have been phrased. l continue to invite commentary and criticism because, as I said, the issue of Nagini’s representation is not something I get to cast a deciding vote on and when asked my opinion I opted to essentially highlight the arguments that others have made and acknowledge their validity and the need of non-Asian fans of Harry Potter to respect that.  

[diarrheaworldstarhiphop]

‘Blade Runner 2049 has a women problem,” cried the internet this weekend, as the critically praised sci-fi sequel hit cinemas. Tweets and blogs cited the fact that female characters were treated as sex objects, and that the narrative was almost entirely driven by men, including Ryan Gosling’s replicant-hunter K and his predecessor Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford). Outrage quickly spread, including from those who had not yet seen the film.

As someone who has, I’m not surprised. While I was transfixed by the film’s visual prowess, score, fascinating plot and fidelity to the original, I was troubled by the character of Joi (Ana de Armas) in particular. An operating system who is bought by K to act as a doting, doe-eyed housewife, she appears to him in hologram form as and when he dictates, wearing and saying whatever she thinks suits his mood. Understandably, Joi has been called “a sci-fi fanboy’s wet dream”. Her owner’s emotional demands dictate whether she is in sexy or demure mode (flashback to Arnold Schwarzenegger creating his dream girl in Total Recall). How are we supposed to admire a hero whose key relationship is with a woman of his own creation who will submit to his every demand and can be switched on and off as he pleases?

I was reminded of the highly problematic scene in Ridley Scott’s 1982 original, Blade Runner, in which Deckard strong-arms replicant Rachael (Sean Young) into kissing him. This scene was on my mind when I interviewed Blade Runner 2049 director Denis Villeneuve, who said he was attracted to the script (written by two men) partly due to the many female characters. “It’s a movie that shows different facets of femininity,” he said. I was hopeful.

And, indeed, there are a number of characters. Robin Wright is terrific but underused as K’s slick, strong, black-clad boss, Lieutenant Joshi, and Sylvia Hoeks’s icy baddie Luv is great fun, but in thrall to her male boss (sinister replicant-creator Wallace, played by Jared Leto). Mackenzie Davis’s Mariette shows initial promise as a strong character who can give as good as she gets, but she is also a sex worker who is literally used as a puppet. Visually, sexualised images of women dominate the stunning futuristic cityscapes, from pirouetting ballerinas to giant statues of naked women in heels looming over K as he goes on his journey. Of course, one of the themes of Blade Runner 2049 is a world littered with artifice, from replicants to sexbots – but these mainly seem to cater to heterosexual males. A hint of a woman considering a “pleasure model” is brief and unexplored. Meanwhile Wright’s Joshi appears attracted to K, but she is not permitted to use him for her sexual pleasure. Where is her holographic lover, her Joi?

Tweeters have also declared that Blade Runner 2049 fails the Bechdel test, which requires a film to feature two named female characters talking to each other about something other than a man. Personally, I think Blade Runner 2049 could narrowly pass, but the point remains: the film revolves around its male heroes and their needs. And it is not just strong women who are under-represented; there are very few non-white characters. One of the few who does appear on screen is a sex worker who barely speaks – so it is little surprise that the film is being criticised for its lack of diversity.

Meanwhile, 2049’s defenders have said the film is set in a dystopian future – and that it is not our future, but the future of the Blade Runner universe, as set by the 1982 film based on Philip K Dick’s 1968 sci-fi novel. This much is true: so why not explore that world’s treatment of women, rather than have it as a decorative backdrop, huge breasts and ballet-dancing holograms included?

While some women are questioning whether or not they should see the new film, I would not suggest boycotting it for its depiction of women. That audiences today are alert to discussing depictions of female characters in film is progress in itself. But it is worth thinking about whether this is the future we want for women in film. I hope Blade Runner 2049 gets its own sequel: there is the raw material for a much more nuanced depiction of gender relations. And perhaps a woman could write or direct the next one, too.

>joi is a signifier of K’s and man’s obsession with artificial, vapid material delights. The purely fantasy driven, unrealistic expectation of women as companion.

>she is even introduced to the audience by emerging from the kitchen, literally, in a 1950s housewife outfit. That is no accident and serve a purpose in being performed within a dystopian landscape.

>this realization washes over him while looking at the massive, sexualized holographic advertisement of the Joi commercial product near the end of the film, bashing the realization over his head how foolish he was for being so endeared by a product explicitly made to cater to every one of this shallow desires.

Of course, one of the themes of Blade Runner 2049 is a world littered with artifice, from replicants to sexbots – but these mainly seem to cater to heterosexual males. A hint of a woman considering a “pleasure model” is brief and unexplored.

The author completely steps over the role of Joshi, who owns K the way K owns Joi. Joshi is also not immune from the impulse that robots are for personal and professional gain as she too projects her own loneliness and insecurity onto her property, the way K does to Joi.

All of this part of a broader feminist commentary prevalent throughout the movie of the mysticism of woman through female reproduction and the male rage over being unable to master everything about nature, as seen in Jared Leto’s Niander Wallace who OWNS everything, produces much with his face across it throughout the galaxy, yet is wrapped up in his rage over his inability to master female fecundity. The limits of his power. He slashes a newly produced female replicant on her belly, in sharp rage toward his impotence. He can build “women” and robots to serve him, but there’s still something even the most powerful man can not do. So by extension, and related to K’s relationship to Joi, woman can not be mastered, simulated or replicated by male supremacy. The male supremacy in this dystopia just yields artifice and shallow fantasies.

This much is true: so why not explore that world’s treatment of women, rather than have it as a decorative backdrop, huge breasts and ballet-dancing holograms included?

...

I hope Blade Runner 2049 gets its own sequel: there is the raw material for a much more nuanced depiction of gender relations.

omg, the nuance was IN THIS MOVIE THO. This author’s entire gripe is that the gender relations were TOO NUANCED!

Hell, the whole *SPOOOOOOILERS* twist at the end is that K is sooooo wrapped up in the fantasy of being the nascent male hero of this story that he is crushed to find out that no, he’s not, but rather it’s a woman. He’s merely an accessory to her ascent. An ascent that hints at a greater story than his, now that his is abruptly cut short. A cherry on top of a series of REALITY CHECKS to K’s assumed artificial male fantasies as he lays, dying, contemplating his newfound humanity as knowing he died for a cause greater than himself.

Human, and replicant destiny belongs to and requires women, not male aspiration.

The entire movie is produced in the trappings of K’s self-absorbed fantasies, so exploring “gender relations” the way the author wants would distract from and fuck the film up.

Considering 2049 was intended to set up a series of films, it’s entirely likely that future additions would indeed explore this. But now it’s unlikely, because it’s a box office failure, particularly because it’s reputation got dragged online for it’s sexist themes. By people who didnt see the movie, no less..

why cant these bbbbasic “feminist” media journos grasp metaphor and symbolism?

There’s alot of feminist critique to draw from this film, but people again get whipped up by social media and get lost in the surface depiction of sexism on screen without realizing there’s a purpose to that and a greater meaning to draw from it than the simple, stupid brainlet reading who is only concerned by whether or not the female representation is POSITIVE rather than having profundity or depth. Or about whether or not one woman talks to another woman about eggo waffles or something that doesnt involve a man at any point in the movie.

This is why we have stupid, fucking, vapid shallow protags like Rey from star wars, who face no adversity or really represent much else than female power fantasies.

im kinda pissed that 2049 is being passed off by because it fails to offer the same shallow fantasies found in other pandering, transparently cashgrab movies. but whatever, it’s cult following and appreciation will develop long after it falls out of theatres.

[swiftsgetawaycar]

RANT TIME

(NB: this is gonna be long and may include some profanity lol sorry not sorry) 

Okay, SO! I was at dinner tonight with some family friends and the restaurant we were at had the radio playing lightly in the background, and unsurprisingly, as Taylor is SLAYING the charts, Gorgeous came on and I immediately, very nicely, asked our waiter if she would mind turning it up a little and she was happy to oblige. Anyway, it’s like a minute into the song and the first ding™ was coming up so I was mentally preparing to wink and try my best to do Taylor sassy-sexy smirk thing when the boy I’m out with (he’s a few years younger than me and dead-ass knows how much I fucking LOVE Taylor Alison Swift) goes “ugh, how do you like so much? her music is SO boring, all she writes about are her boyfriends” at which point my mother’s wine glass loudly made contact with the table and my sister started vehemently shaking her head and trying to cut him off because they knew that I WANTED TO FUCKING PUNCH HIS SMUG ASS FACE AND MOST LIKELY WOULD’VE HAD I NOT BEEN IN A CROWDED RESTAURANT IN THE MIDDLE OF LONDON! But, I stayed calm(ish), which was truly a remarkable feat considering that the bridges in Gorgeous are especially emotional to me because Taylor and I bonded over them at the SS,  and then went on a long ass rant about why his statement was totally wrong and a product of the sexist and incredibly self-conscious media industry that has made Taylor out to be this man-using slut who falls in love only to make money which let me tell you as someone who has met and spent time with her is THE FURTHEST THING FROM THE TRUTH POSSIBLE!!!!!!!! So, for anyone out there who still buys into that whole character-assassination plot that is Taylor using her exes and boyfriends purely as writing material, listen up whilst I explain to you why the statement set me off so fucking much that I had a whole pub of people listening to me scream at a teenage boy about Taylor Swift on a Friday night. 

1. Whether or not meaning to be, it is an ENTIRELY sexist statement to make that Taylor Swift only writes about her love interests because when has the media and/or society EVER criticised a man over using exes and love and break-ups as content for song writing? All successful male artists have written about love at some point, and some of them have been successful because they have ONLY written about love, and never once has anyone had a problem with that or suggested that their music was any less fabulous because of it. Meanwhile, a woman uses her experiences in life which just happen to coincide with her experiences with love and the whole world automatically stirs up this narrative that she’s boy-obsessed, hysterical and has nothing else to write about but those relationships, failed or not. MEN HAVE DONE THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AND IT HAS NOT BEEN A PROBLEM, TAYLOR DOES IT AND IT MAKES HER UNTALENTED, MAN-HUNGRY AND BORING - WHERE IS THE LOGIC IN THAT?!?! Oh right, it’s back in the Eighteenth fricking  century when men thought women were hysterical for acting out and having thoughts/feelings. Honestly, saying Taylor’s music, or any other female artist’s music, is boring because it’s all about love is bullshit because 99% of the music on the market has always been about love from Mozart’s Fur Elise to Beyonce so that is one argument my feminist ass will always take down and hold against you. 

2. IT’S 2017 AND TAYLOR HAS PROVED TIME AND TIME AGAIN THAT SHE CAN WRITE MUSIC ABOUT FUCKING ANYTHING! She could literally write a song about a brick wall and it’d go platinum in record time - why? BECAUSE SHE’S THE MOST TALENTED SONG-WRITER OF THIS GENERATION!!!! I can list multiple songs of Taylor’s that have NOTHING to do with romantic love (aka The Best Day, Long Live, Never Grow Up, Eyes Open, Mean, Welcome to New York, Bad Blood, Shake It Off, Look What You Made Me Do etc.) most of which are her biggest hits, like Shake It Off for example which was number 1 in multiple countries for MONTHS! I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE THINK IT’S ORIGINAL/VALID TO MAKE THAT CRITICISM BECAUSE HONESTLY IT’S BEEN TALKED ABOUT TO DEATH AND THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE WHO WILL FIGHT TILL THE DEATH TO PROVE THAT LOVE IS NOT THE ONLY THING TAYLOR WRITES ABOUT!!!!!!! 

3. “Boring” and “Taylor Swift” do not belong in the same post code let alone the same sentence because Taylor never has been even close to “boring”. She is one of the only artist out there that is in touch enough with their audience and fans to know what they like best and never fails to deliver it. She has changed her sound over the years not just for us, the fans, but also because she naturally recognised the need for a shift in her music (see her comments on Red not wining AOTY at The Grammy’s like it should’ve if you don’t believe me) and there are not many people in the industry who have been courageous enough to take the risk and break away from what made them successful in the first place. Yet, Taylor did and became even bigger and better for it; 1989 was a totally new direction for her and still deeply resonated with ALL her fans from her country days. Name another artist that has successful transitioned from one genre to another so seamlessly, flawlessly and in a way that still keeps true to their sound and themselves?! I’ll be waiting a long time for you to answer that.

4. LOVE IS THE MOST COMMON HUMAN EXPERIENCE EVER!!!!!! Even if it was all Taylor wrote about, which I think it’s safe to say we’ve established is not the case, could you blame her?! We have all had or are going to have an experience of falling in love someday whether it be in a romantic, sexual or platonic way. There is literally nothing more common in humans (other than hearts and lungs and death) than love - it happens to every one of us in our lives despite race or religion or gender or socio-economic class or geography or political stance so of course it is an experience that a writer would want to use as inspiration and share to an audience. Love is in everything from sciences to literature to music - is it really that inconceivable that someone who wants to connect with others would do so by using a universal experience!?!?!

5. Lastly, if it doesn’t have a negative impact on your life or actively harms someone why the fuck do you even care?! Taylor’s music makes SO many people SO incredibly happy (as does Taylor, just saying)  so why try to ruin that for them? What has Taylor ever done to you? It is honestly NOBODY’S business who Taylor writes her songs about or who was in mind when it was conceived, whether a fan or a friend, it is her life and her story and she DOES NOT have to share it with anybody unless she wants to and chooses to! SHE DOESN’T OWE US ANYTHING!! And if you know that somebody strongly resonates with her music and is a huge fan of her art, what’s in it for you to make them sad and hurt? Do you think we like to hear people talking shit about someone who has been nothing but kind and loving towards us? It’s not fun being a Swiftie at times because we  literally have to spend all our time defending Taylor over and over again from stupid, false and cruel misconceptions about her, we would much rather be out enjoying her music, baking cookies, watching Friends and looking at cat videos on YouTube but instead we need to remind you that Taylor is a fucking person rather than some object you can use and abuse for your own selfish agenda.  So, please, keep your opinion to yourself, especially when you know how much @taylorswift means to us. 

Basically, you have no clue what the fuck you’re talking about and if you honestly believe the things the media says not only are you stupid but you are undeserving to have your ears blessed by Taylor’s music, and I feel sorry for you that you won’t get to have it in your life because it is fucking amazing! 

I know that “Haters Gonna Hate” but really, couldn’t they at least be factually correct instead of hiding behind decade-old jokes and tabloid headlines?!

OH ALSO IN CASE ANY OF Y’ALL WERE WONDERING AFTER MY LITTLE RANT I WAS SO WORKED UP MY MOTHER ACTUALLY LET ME HAVE A GLASS OF WINE TO CALM DOWN WITH AND THE WAITRESS MADE A POINT OF TURNING UP THE RADIO AGAIN WHEN TAYLOR CAME ON (I MADE MY MUM LEAVE A HUGE TIP FOR THAT LEGEND!) AND I FORCED SAID BOY TO WATCH THE READY FOR IT MUSIC VIDEO WITH ME WHILST I PAUSED IT TO EXPLAIN THE METAPHORS AND THE MEDIA AND THEN I BLASTED TAYLOR ON REPEAT AS LOUD AS POSSIBLE TO WRITE THIS.  

[starringemiliaclarke]

Press: Emilia Clarke on Game of Thrones fans: 'Airports are a source of fear. It gets kind of freaky'

THE TELEGRAPH – Emilia Clarke walks into a suite at Claridge’s, a gaggle of publicists and agents surrounding her, with the kind of poise that you would expect from a queen.

  To the tens of millions of fans of Game of Thrones, the show that catapulted her to fame only a year out of drama school, it’s a not unfamiliar scene.

  Although of course, as Daenerys Targaryen, the all-powerful, slave-freeing queen of the show, it would be some kind of windswept castle or ancient pyramid, and her retinue would be in armour.

  Even her newly blonde hair is apt (until now she’s worn a wig on the show). Like the character she plays, Emilia’s is a story of success against the odds (of which more later), but there the similarities end.

  At 31, the English rose couldn’t be less like the prickly queen she plays (full title: Daenerys Stormborn of House Targaryen, rightful heir to the Iron Throne, rightful Queen of the Andals and the First Men, Protector of the Seven Kingdoms, the Mother of Dragons, the Khaleesi of the Great Grass Sea, the Unburnt, the Breaker of Chains… or just Dany for short).

  Emilia is funny, light-hearted and, that entrance aside, a million miles from grand. She’s much more like the carefree, dancing girl she plays in the new campaign for the Dolce & Gabbana fragrance The One. (When the brand asked if she would be its new face, ‘I was like, “Well, yeah. Duh.”’)

  In the past, Emilia has had to deal with uncomfortable questions about how she, as a woman, justified the arguably gratuitous female nudity and gruesome violence for which Game of Thrones initially made headlines.

  But long before the Harvey Weinstein scandal turned Hollywood upside down, the show’s plot pulled a complete 180 – and now it’s the female characters who are fighting over the titular thrones. And everyone, but everyone, is rooting for the 5ft 2in Khaleesi, who is proving to be just as fierce as her dragons.

  Playing the role has sharpened Emilia’s own feminist impulses. ‘It’s given me a real insight into what it feels like to be a woman who stands up to inequality and hate. And as she [Daenerys] has become more empowered as a woman, you can’t hide any more,’ she says. ‘You are adding to the voices that are going to make people realise an equal society is what we’re aiming for.’

  Emilia grew up near Oxford with her older brothers, and was surrounded by strong examples of equality. Her mother, who worked as a marketing executive, was the primary breadwinner, while her father worked as a sound engineer in musical theatre – so it was the norm for Emilia to see a woman in a position of power at work.

  ‘That’s the lens through which I’ve been fortunate enough to view the world,’ she says. ‘It’s only when you go to school that you’re like, “Oh, that’s different, that’s weird.”’

  After attending the private boarding school St Edward’s in Oxford (where she discovered her love of acting through school productions), she was still studying at the Drama Centre in London – and earning money with a catering job – when she was cast in her first role, in an episode of BBC One’s Doctors.

  It was in 2009 that she auditioned for Game of Thrones. The casting director had been looking for a tall, willowy blonde. ‘I genuinely don’t know what it was that set me aside. I mean, I didn’t look the part at all,’ laughs Emilia.

  ‘I [readied] myself, listened to a little Tupac and bowled in, obviously still a bag of nerves. But I just tried to play the truth of it.’ It may have been her sense of humour that helped her win the role – the actress read for her part, but also broke into a ‘funky chicken’ dance in front of the HBO execs.

  As Game of Thrones gained momentum and Emilia has become a recognisable celebrity, she has struggled with some aspects of fame. She gets stopped on the street increasingly often, and finds crowds of fans incredibly stressful.

  ‘Airports are a constant source of fear,’ she admits. ‘When you’re in a really public place and someone asks you for a picture, then suddenly you get people who don’t know who you are, or really care, come up and join in. Then it gets kind of freaky. Because you’re like, “It’s just me. I’m by myself, feeling outnumbered.” It’s overwhelming.’

    One would think that all the nude scenes she’s filmed for Game of Thrones would also have caused her anxiety, but no. She has branded those who criticised her for going naked ‘anti-feminist’.

  Between seasons, Emilia has found time to film some major pop culture, including a role in Solo: A Star Wars Story, a prequel about Hans Solo’s early years to be released next year. The project remains shrouded in secrecy – all Emilia can say is that her character is ‘really cool’.

  She was also the lead in last year’s Me Before You, the adaptation of Jojo Moyes’s bestseller, and next summer she’s due to be reunited with its director, Thea Sharrock, in a West End play called Five Times in One Night.

  Both she and Kit Harington – who plays Jon Snow in Game of Thrones, and (spoiler alert!) is now her on-screen lover -flew to Naples to film adverts for Dolce & Gabbana (today, naturally, she’s in a black Dolce dress, with statement tiger-head buttons on the collar and sleeves). Set against the heady backdrop of a lively street festival, Emilia became swept up in the atmosphere.

  ‘I’ve been to Italy before, but not Naples,’ she says. ‘It was all locals in the advert, which was even funnier because it was so authentic. I think there were a lot of out-takes with me like, “What the hell is going on, this is so cool!” I feel Dolce & Gabbana is [for] girls [who] are at ease in their own skin,’ she says. ‘They have a frivolity and a femininity that I can relate to… It fits really well.’

  For now she’s now back on set for the final series of Game of Thrones. Last season, her Instagram feed was filled with videos of her and Harington goofing around behind the scenes. But this time around the restrictions are more serious.

  ‘We have a very strict social-media ban this year because people need to stop spoiling it for everyone,’ she says, pouting slightly. ‘It’s really frustrating.’ Even Emilia doesn’t know what’s planned for her character (the TV series has now gone past the point George RR Martin’s books have reached).

  ‘They’ve written a number of different endings,’ she says. ‘So none of the cast know what the actual ending is. If there’s ever a leak of any kind, don’t believe it because it’s probably not true.’

  No matter how it ends, Emilia seems deeply sad for Game of Thrones to leave her life. When asked how she’s feeling about it, she simply frowns and says, ‘emotional. It’s a big one.’ That said, being on the show is not without its downsides. During the seven months she spends filming each season, she typically wakes around 4am to head into hair and make-up, with 18-hour shoot days that can often involve riding prosthetic dragons in front of green screens for hours on end.

  As a result of this intense schedule, her personal life has fallen by the wayside. She dated actor Seth MacFarlane between 2012 and 2013, but isn’t currently romantically linked to anyone. Once Game of Thrones wraps for good in 2018, for the first time in seven years she will have free time.

  She often tries to remind herself that in order to create characters, you have to spend time in the real world. ‘The thing with being an actor is, to play the roles you need to have an idea of more than just getting into a car and getting to a set,’ she says.

  Her goal, lately, is to take more time to be herself. She and her best friend – the actor and writer Lola Frears (daughter of director Stephen), with whom she’s also writing a script – have been working their way through a list of 60 influential movies given to her by Solo screenwriter Jon Kasdan. The most recent: All About Eve.

  She’s reading Zadie Smith’s Swing Time, loves Kendrick Lamar and went to Glastonbury for the first time this summer. Fans filmed her dancing wildly to Stormzy’s set, but she didn’t care – she was having too much fun.

  Her family have always supported her dream of acting; although her father, being in the industry, joked early on that she’d only ever need to remember one line: ‘Do you want fries with that?’ Tragically, he died from cancer last summer while the actress was filming upcoming thriller Above Suspicion alongside Jack Huston in Kentucky.

  Now Emilia focuses on her mum and her brother, Bennett, who works in the camera department on Game of Thrones. She credits her interest in Star Wars and Comic Con culture to him. ‘My brother was a huge fan, and I wanted to be like my brother in every way,’ she laughs. ‘Sometimes he does the clapper before my takes [on Game of Thrones]. I’m always like, “Don’t f— it up!” It gets very unprofessional very quickly.’

  Game of Thrones has also brought her security – it has been estimated that she earns up to $500,000 per episode. She owns a house in the LA neighbourhood of Venice, although she admits that she rarely spends time there.

  ‘I can provide [financially] for my friends and family,’ she says. ‘Genuinely, that’s the best thing. Knowing that everyone I love is going to be fine. It sounds like a real Oprah Winfrey sob story, but it’s very true. It’s incredibly empowering as a young lady.’

  Emilia Clarke is the face of Dolce & Gabbana The One, £50 for 30ml edp.

  Press: Emilia Clarke on Game of Thrones fans: ‘Airports are a source of fear. It gets kind of freaky’ was originally published on Enchanting Emilia Clarke

[the-desolated-quill]

WHEEEEEEEEDON!!!! - Quill’s Scribbles

Yes. I’m back. I was aiming to stay away from Tumblr for at least a month so I could fully rejuvenate myself, but that was not to be thanks to Warner Bros. and DC’s latest kamikaze move. Joss Whedon is in talks to write, produce and direct a Batgirl movie.

For the record, I’m not happy about this.

So instead of the over the top, triumphant return I imagined in my head, I instead return to Tumblr like the grumpy caretaker who has to clean up the mess after a frat party.

Okay. Well I suppose the first question I have to ask is:

WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU THINKING DC?!

Joss Whedon?!... JOSS WHEDON?!?! You can’t be serious!!!

But hold on, I can hear you saying. Joss Whedon is a self proclaimed feminist writer. Why would there be an issue? Well because there’s a world of fucking difference between saying you’re a feminist and actually being a feminist.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think Joss Whedon is a bad person. He seems to mean well and I’m sure his attempts at writing strong female characters and tackling women’s issues are well intentioned. I believe that he believes he’s a feminist. The problem is... well... his female characters.

We all remember Buffy The Vampire Slayer, right? It recently celebrated its 20th anniversary and at the time it was considered a massive step forward for women on television. Nowadays, while it still has a strong cult following, it isn’t held in quite as high regard. The reason for this is because there are elements to Buffy that were overlooked at the time, but are now considered extremely problematic or just downright offensive. Buffy does succumb to a lot of sexist tropes, most notably the women in refrigerator trope (where a woman’s suffering is used to progress the male character’s storyline), as well as the frequent ways sexual freedom or promiscuity is often punished in the show and the way Whedon’s writing seems to contribute to rape culture. There’s one instance where the gang-rape and murder of a minor character portrays two of its participants in a sympathetic light, and then there’s of course the notorious moment where Spike tries to rape Buffy, after having practically stalked her for two seasons, only for the act to bring them closer together and contribute to Spike’s redemption arc.

Criticism has also been extended to some of Whedon’s other projects. Firefly has been criticised for its casual racism and cultural appropriation, Dollhouse has been repeatedly criticised as being mysogonistic due to its frequent issues with consent and scenes of abuse and violence against women, and of course there’s Avengers: Age Of Ultron. After having done a surprisingly decent job in the previous Avengers movie to make Black Widow more than just a female love interest or femme fatale, in a bizarre turn Whedon decided to undo all of that by having Black Widow sporadically fall in love with the Hulk (despite the two not sharing any kind of romantic chemistry in previous instalments) in a narrative that ultimately removed any kind of independence or free agency the character once had.

For a more in-depth look into the problematic elements of Joss Whedon’s writing, check out this article from The Mary Sue entitled ‘Reconsidering the Feminism of Joss Whedon’. It’s a very good read :)

While Joss Whedon can produce some good work, his attitude regarding his female characters is questionable at best. Like I said, I believe that he believes he’s a feminist. The problem is his brand of feminism seems to be permanently stuck in the 90s. His stubborn refusal to accept fault and move with the times has drawn a lot of criticism, which becomes more and more vocal with every passing year. Just to be clear, those sexist elements have always been present in his writing. The only thing that’s changed is social attitudes. In the past, people were willing to overlook the problems with Buffy because it was rare to see a show with a kickass female lead back then. Nowadays people aren’t quite so willing to compromise anymore. There’s a demand for fully realised, three dimensional female leads that are treated with the same care and respect as the male protagonists. This is why Jessica Jones and Agent Carter were so heavily praised, why the upcoming Wonder Woman movie is being so heavily scrutinised, why people are so desperate to see a Black Widow movie and why everybody throws a hissy fit every time Marvel find yet another excuse to delay the Captain Marvel movie (seriously, who gives a fuck about an Ant-Man sequel?! I think we’ll survive without one). People want female characters and they want them done right.

So, considering the sexist elements that seem to keep reoccurring in Whedon’s writing, I think him helming a Batgirl movie is a downright terrible idea. Especially considering all the baggage and controversy that has surrounded the character for decades now. What’s this Batgirl movie going to entail? From The Killing Joke movie to The Lego Batman Movie, there seems to be a disturbing trend of romantically pairing up Batgirl with Batman (in the case of The Killing Joke in particular, to the detriment of her character. So Barbara Gordon didn’t become Batgirl because of her altruism or her desire to emulate her idol. It’s so she could have sex with Batman. Bite me). Look me in the eyes and tell me Joss Whedon wouldn’t follow that trend too (and in case you didn’t catch that, NOBODY wants to see Batman/Batgirl rumpy-pumpy. It’s never been canon and it’s fucking creepy. Stop it.). And then there’s the whole paralysis storyline. Can we trust Joss Whedon to treat that with respect? It’s not as if the comics did. The whole Oracle thing wasn’t exactly ideal. It was merely damage control after DC treated the character in such a disrespectful way in The Killing Joke (I believe the editor’s exact words were ‘Yeah, okay. Cripple the bitch.’). A strong female character reduced to a woman in a refrigerator for Batman, the male protagonist. Gee, doesn’t that sound familiar?

So why are WB and DC even considering Joss Whedon in the first place? I don’t know, but I can hazard a guess...

Yep. The almighty dollar.

I’ve already criticised the DCEU for shifting away from its original creator-controlled vision in favour of a more Marvel style business model, where you just churn out a bunch of films on an assembly line and see what sticks (in fact I’d go as far to say that DC’s current business model is actually worse than Marvel’s. Credit where it’s due, at least Marvel wait for the first movie to come out before announcing its ten trillion sequels and spin-offs), and it looks like Joss Whedon’s potential appointment could represent the final stage in the DCEU’s Marvel-fication. Its Marvel-lisation. Its Marvel-morphosis. (I’ve got pages of these. I could go on). Let’s not forget that Joss Whedon was originally supposed to write and direct the Wonder Woman movie before that fell through. Why the change of heart? 

Well the fact that he made a boatload of money for Marvel with his Avengers movies might have something to do with it. And that’s the problem. Whedon is being considered for Batgirl for the same reasons why Mel Gibson is/was(?) being considered for Suicide Squad 2 and why David Ayer has been chosen to direct a Gotham City Sirens movie. Despite Mel Gibson’s less than desirable personality traits, WB and DC have sensed a changing tide of opinion and decided to try and take advantage of it. And with David Ayer it’s because he’s already made them a shit-ton of money with Suicide Squad and reckon he can do it again, even though David Ayer is so obviously the wrong person to direct a Gotham City Sirens movie considering one of the many criticisms that people had with Suicide Squad is how abhorrently sexist it is. Whether Joss Whedon is right or wrong for the material he’s adapting doesn’t factor into it. At this point, it couldn’t be any clearer to me that any artistic integrity WB and DC once had has officially been chucked away in favour of box office earnings. Welcome to the MCU Mark II everyone!

You know it’s kind of ironic me talking about Joss Whedon and David Ayer, what with Wonder Woman coming out in a couple of months. Considering what a feminist icon Wonder Woman is, it’s funny that WB and DC don’t seem to be embracing the concept. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying men can’t write and direct female led movies. But considering how difficult it is for women to break into this industry, it would be nice if DC could at least consider them. Wonder Woman could and should be ushering in a new era for both superhero movies and women in film, both in front and behind the camera. But what with the potential appointment of Joss Whedon and the reappointment of David Ayer, it seems Wonder Woman is tragically just going to be a temporary blip.

[conversationswithmyrabbit]

This is from Matilda...

[talkcritgethit]

How the Male Gaze Affects Queer and Lesbian Content in the 21st Century

Charlie Myer

So, I don’t like Marvel movies. Okay, okay. Chill out. I used to like them back when I was, like, 15, but after realising that a lot of them were the same structured conventions with just different men as the heroes. I wanted the women to be the heroes, and for characters to be queer. As well as the influx of male protagonists, I noticed that I wasn’t really the main audience. Men were the main audience, which is why there was this imbalance of female heroes and non-heterosexual sexuality.

The ‘male gaze’ is a commonly used term to describe content that is primarily made for men, despite the misrepresentation and/or sexuality of the female form. This phrase was coined by film theorist and feminist, Laura Mulvey. The more that male gaze has been identified and criticised in feminist theory, the less film-makers try to make it obvious, and instead attempt to widen their target audience. Times have changed since Mulvey’s original article on the Visual Pleasures, and female led films that showcase the character as more than just a prize to be won are much more common. In a 2005 interview with Roberta Sassatelli, however, Mulvey redefines the gazes as having evolved from the 70’s and instead have “become more attached to the dynamic of sexuality,” rather than specifically just gender (Sassatelli, pg. 130).

Although I agree with this, I believe both are still very much in place, but in a different way than Mulvey stated in the past. I believe it is important to advance these discussions to include the gender diverse community and how fetishization has impacted the male gaze theory in different forms of media than Mulvey originally mentioned. I will go into more detail on this in a moment.

Taking it back to cisgender females, sexuality has absolutely taken over as the main form of the male gaze in a more outward and explicit way than any time previously before the 21st Century. By incorporating differing sexual orientations, we can widen our view on this to look further into how “the body in everyday life is very different from the body circulated in images” (Sassatelli, pg. 132). Examples of the male gaze affecting representation of the female body through the media of same-sex content include Ally McBeal, Cruel Intentions and Kissing Jessica Stein. Through all of these examples, lesbianism is more a tool for appealing to the male audience, rather than actual representation.  Diamond analyses this content by noting that “such images implicitly convey that the most desirable and acceptable form of female-female sexuality is that which please and plays to the heterosexual male gaze, titillating male viewers while reassuring them that the participants remain sexually available in the conventional heterosexual marketplace” (pg. 105). This is simply a new realm to study in relation to Mulvey’s critique on the male gaze as objectifying female bodies in sexual glorification instead of showing how these experiences exist ‘in the real world.’

But what does the female body existing in ‘the real world’ look like? Well, keeping with the queerness theme, lesbian and queer female identifying bodies can be so various, which is something that goes without saying. There is no one way to be a female, and sometimes that does include the sexual glorification aspect that is portrayed in this other content. However, it is not quite as mystifying as what is portrayed in the media because bodies are not inherently sexual. As Butler says, “’the body’ appears as a passive medium on which cultural meanings are inscribed or as the instrument through which an appropriative and interpretive will determines a cultural meaning for itself” (pg. 6).

Look at my hand. This has no sexual inherence. But when I do this, am I a temptress now? Similarly, to semiotics, objects do not have meaning until we give them one.

The cisgender female body is not as mystifying as it once was. Now the gender diverse body has taken its place in full throttle, particularly through sexual activity itself. Neurologist and author, Dr Ogi Orgas found through an extensive study into online pornography that “one of the most popular types of erotica is transgender porn.” One male gaze has shifted from that of the cisgender female body to that of transgender female bodies. This is not to say that they are no longer interested in the cisgender female body, but that a new age has now been proven to exist through online pornography, that was previously unknown. Body glorification for trans women by cisgender heterosexual men has always existed, we are just now getting statistics on this phenomenon.

To ignore this new gender extension on the male gaze is to ignore the validity of trans women as people affected by feminist movements. In the same way that the male gaze was something that was identified and worked towards lesser sexual body glorification for cisgender female, the media must identify this too. Transgender and lesbian media cannot and should not exist solely to sexually gratify the heterosexual cisgender man. We must use our opportunities as queer people to represent these communities in ways that empower and de-mystify sexuality. That is the only way to undermine the patriarchal stance of queer media.

This is why we are making our documentary. Beyond the Binary serves as a representation of this one group in Wellington, nothing more. However, it does give a voice to similar experiences felt elsewhere. We intend to give our queer subjects the ability to speak to their experiences, without having an underlying agenda or sexual tone to it. Queer content should be made by and for queer people, which is why we are so motivated to produce this documentary.

Trans female and lesbian bodies should not be in place simply for male consumption, and I will do everything in my power to ensure otherwise. Queer people need to see other queer people. And I need to see more queer content, because Orange is the New Black just ended and I don’t know where to get my lesbians now!

References:

Butler, J. (1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York, USA. Routledge.

Diamond, L. (2005). ‘I’m Straight, But I Kissed a Girl’: The Trouble with American Representations of Female-Female Sexuality Feminism & Psychology SAGE (London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi).

Retrieved from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0959353505049712

Ogas, O. Talks at Google. (2011) Ori Ogas “A Billion Wicked Thoughts” | Talks at Google

Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-A8GvUehq4

Sassatelli, R. (2011). Interview with Laura Mulvey: Gender, gaze and technology in film culture. Theory, Culture & Society, 28(5), 123-143

Williams, L (2016) Transwomen and the Men Who Love Them.

Retrieved from: https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/sexuality/explainer/transwomen-and-men-who-love-them