Showing posts with label rawrness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rawrness. Show all posts

Friday, June 17, 2011

Why the authenticity of lived experiences matter (and how those experiences have always mattered in our society)

I've had some thoughts about the general outcry of the reveal of the Gay Girl In Damascus as being a white guy who just wanted ppl to listen to what he knows is the truth and why won't ppl listen to him just b/c he's a white Western guy. -_-;; It seems a lot of ppl RLY want to try to spin this into why anti-oppression ppl are stupid and how it proves that they'll listen to a white straight cis abled guy as long as he wore a superficial mask of another group. -_-;; Except y'know, that's not what happened. xD

Case in point (yus they are MRAs, but this is a good example xD )

As many of you may know, modern leftism is concerned with something they call social justice. Whatever they name it, it’s basically a system where people are assigned to castes based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, religion and level of disability. The less white, male, straight, Christian and able-bodied you are, the less “privilege” you have, and perversely, the more your opinions matter. In the world of academia, and its close cousin, the leftist blogosphere, identity politics are the most important factor in whether or not your arguments are accepted. Thus, if you’re a straight able bodied white male, you are barred from commenting on issues related to gays, disabled people, and women, since you have straight privilege, ableist privilege and male privilege. Moreover, you’re not allowed to criticize any opinions by any gays, disabled people, and women on the left, no matter what the subject. Because you have so much privilege, you see.


Which is of course a gigantic strawperson b/c it's easier to knock down "they believe that the more oppressions you have the more right you are on ANY SUBJECT" vs "they believe those with lived experiences are valuable and important voices when talking about the specific oppression that they have lived". >_>;; Nuance. By Calvin Klein.

But then something strange happened. Even though Futrelle had most definitely paid his feminist dues, even though he’d set up and run his own site and criticized only other straight males, thus making sure he wasn’t abusing his privilege, he was still run out of town by the Feministe crowd. Why? Because he used the word “crazy” when describing some opinion Adams had. Obviously this showed what a cruel ableist he was, because “crazy” refers to people with mental disabilities. Check it out, the frenzy the feminists work themselves into in the comment section is worth a read. For the lulz.

Here’s my take on what happened. The crowd at Feministe doesn’t just hate male privilege. It simply hates men, period. This explains why they disqualified a guy who played by all their rules on a technicality. And that goes for the rest of the leftist blogosphere too. Within this world, and academia, straight white males, because of their imagined privileges, are the lowest of the low. They’re the unclean class.


Um. Sure. >_>;; I'll explain later on this post why him being a woman, or even a black woman, wouldn't have mattered. Also apparently I am now obligated (must've missed that memo xD), as an anti-oppression person to think white men are the unclean class. xD Remember all you white guys who read my blog... You must shower at least twice a day, once before you read my blog, and once while you're reading my blog.

This brings me back to these straight men pretending to be gay women. Why did they do it? Because, in the leftist world, it was the only way for their voices to be heard. Even if they’d been complete flagellants, constantly ritually purifying themselves by “examining their own privilege”, they’d still be unclean. And the messed up thing is, as gay bloggers they were effective! “ Paula Brooks” and “her” site was among the most popular, which just goes to show you that when men are allowed to compete on even terms, they win. That’s why Futrelle wasn’t allowed to contribute to Feministe anymore. Because within a week of posting, it was clear that this man, misguided douchebag that he is, was the best writer on the damn site, period.


I love how that they just decided that David was the best writer by far on Feministe b/c well he's a white man. xD It's like pick your poison I guess... the feminist white guy tastes better than any of the other options. xD

But okay, let's start. The issue about ppl pretending to be other ppl and being taken differently, is not that men are hated, or cis ppl can’t talk about video games when trans ppl are around, or w/e… it’s when talking about oppressions that real ppl face, ppl who face those oppressions and are of that group have actual lived exps, and thoughts and opinions formed by those and it isn’t just hypothetical theory :\

And when ppl make up caricatures, they are implying that they’ve had lived experiences as that group and their opinions were formed by those, and more than that they make up experiences they claim that they have personally experienced in order to throw more weight behind their opinion. It’s extremely dishonest. It’s no different than ppl making up military service and situations on the battlefield they’ve never actually been in in order to justify their various stances on military issues. (Former Blue Jays coach Tim Johnson infamously did this to motivate his players and was rightfully fired for it)

We regularly weigh the opinions of ppl who have been thru experiences relating to a specific subject differently than those who have not, not that they are necessarily RIGHT, but that they have a point of view we may not have, whether that means nething to us is up to us. But we have former athletes as commentators, we have police officers and former army personnel to comment on crime and military issues. Former politicians are political analysts. Ppl even do this in the negative sense, accusing ppl of bias, accusing rape survivors of bias or being too emotional to be rational, etc etc etc… it’s funny that suddenly ppl are claiming that real lived experiences do not matter xD

Going back to David Futrelle as an example (since the OP used him), a more accurate comparison wouldn’t be if David pretended to be a woman or even a black woman or even a black trans woman (he’d still get the same treatment, rightly or wrongly) but if he had defended himself by pretending to be a disabled person w/ a long history of mental illness and then made up experiences to back up why he felt it was okay to say the words that some ppl felt were offensive. -_-;; It’s not that he would have just changed the superficial elements of how ppl viewed him, it’s that he’d have changed his background too, innately who he claimed to be, and the experiences that he claims shaped him, as well as making up experiences to back up his point of view and refute critics. I think we all agree that would be extremely dishonest if not screwed up entirely. And it would not prove nething except that ppl using made up personas can make up any experiences they want, interpret them however they want and claim to have lived them and therefore been shaped by them to fraudulently back up their opinions >:|

Friday, May 27, 2011

Awful frightening news :( And happy Ami pic! :D

This is gross and terrible >:O (the ruling, not the protests)

Even if it's not happening where I am, expansion of police powers and curtailing of our own rights in the face of it is always scary to me :\



Also here is a pic of me just saying hi to my readers and friends :D (I dun particularly think it's flattering but other ppl seem to like it so here you go :D )

Saturday, April 02, 2011

RAWR! >:O

Filmmaker peeved after Tories use his image in campaign ad

A Toronto filmmaker is angry after a Tory campaign ad targeting Southeast Asian voters co-opted a copyrighted image from one of his documentaries, and then took a week to respond to his demands for its removal.

But Ali Kazimi is even more baffled as to why the Conservative party chose his image in the first place, given that it depicts one of the lowest moments in Canada’s relationship with Southeast Asian immigrants.

Kazimi, a film professor at York University and a Gemini-winning filmmaker, is the creator of Continuous Journey, a film about the 1914 Komagata Maru incident, in which a ship carrying 376 immigrants from India was detained in the Vancouver harbour and threatened by a battleship before being turned back to Asia.

The film’s promotional image is a montage Kazimi created of an Indian man and his son superimposed in front of the ship full of passengers.

So Kazimi was surprised when he stumbled on a campaign ad for Alberta MP Tim Uppal, which opens with Kazimi’s montage and then cuts to Uppal sitting in a chair beside a projector, as if Uppal is watching it on a home theatre screen. The ad then cuts to Stephen Harper in a head covering in front of a Sikh temple.

A voice-over in Punjabi states: “For more than a hundred years, our (people) also worked very hard to make Canada strong. It was not always easy for our community.” The voice-over then extols Harper’s promotion of business and immigration ties with India.

Kazimi is upset his work was used without his consent — something he says he never would have given. “I will not participate in anything that either romanticizes, distorts, or glosses over the horrific realities of that period,” he said.

Kazimi said he emailed Uppal with his complaints more than a week ago, but the commercial wasn’t removed from the Conservative party’s website and YouTube channel until Friday — soon after Kazimi was interviewed on CBC Radio about the flap.

Kazimi said he wants the Tories to acknowledge they made a mistake and apologize.


This is so gross -_-;;; Not just that didn't ask permission but they're using that image in one of those "we're wonderful accepting ppl, and we thank you hard working loyal "good" minorities!" smarmy headpatting patronizing ads -_-;;; And esp when that image is of (yet another) dark chapter of our national history AND that this is a party that has a similar type of take on refugees and migrants, that they should have guns pointed at them and sent back -_-;;;

I don't think this is on PURPOSE tho, not that it matters... I personally wonder if this is the work of some young staffer that thinks everything they find online is "fair use" and has no idea what fair use even means, and that they can't just take anything they see and use it for the Conservative Party's ads -_-;;; I do sometimes wonder if some ppl of a generation (which I include myself xD) that grew up turning any image on google into a macro wouldn't understand that you can't just do the same thing in the workplace or if you're working for a political party. xD

Even if that WERE true tho this doesn't let the Cons off the hook by a LONG SHOT, since there has to be some oversight and ultimately you're responsible for what you put out -_-;; Somebody should be making sure nething and EVERYTHING going into the ads won't get them sued, and IS actually an image they can use or have the rights or permission to use >_<;;;

But still.. RAWR for the using it w/o permission and DOUBLE RAWR for what they were using it FOR! >:O

I am ttlly w/ the filmmaker for getting angry about this and also for saying "no you can't use any of my work to paint a happy face over race issues & historical wrongs in this country" >:3

Thursday, March 31, 2011

Cuz if kids read it was ok to be gay or fat or love vampires.. they'd become gay fat vampire.. penguins! xD

The Toronto Star linked to an infographic on the top 10 kids books most likely to be targeted by parents groups and complaints for removal from libraries



I'm against censorship in general (and since libraries are a public and government funded and provided resource, this would count) but... some of the targets rly anger me -_- Esp books that tackle body autonomy, fat-acceptance and homosexuality.... and of course one that WRITES LIKE I DO! xDDD (I've been considering putting some faces into my fiction to see if they add to the understanding of what the chars are saying or not actually xD )

but... the fact that they go after a book where the heroicness of the heroine is (apparently, granted, never read it) that she's standing up against her family's criticism of her body and being herself, rly... >:O as if girls dun have to alrdy deal with the unrealistic and TOTALLY NARROW ideas of what a woman's body should be like in society and in covers of books, and in comics, and on TV, and in advertising and from their own parents and etc etc... now ppl want to remove a book telling them it's ok? and that being yourself is strong? -_-;;; This sounds like another victim of the "obesity epidemic" hysteria in our society -__-;;; I mean, as usual, when it comes to these issues, we have it so back asswards... kinda like how fiction seems to love dealing with rape as a "after it happened" thing but hates actually not having it happen... YA books where girls fight w/ and survive (or don't) EDs get praise and win awards, while ones where girls fight AGAINST the very fatphobic messages that pervade society and INFORM EDs (not CREATE them, in case the straw ppl want to come out.. EDs are caused by ALL sorts of reasons, including trauma, low self esteem, etc etc, but how they MANIFEST is informed by society, much like how the same causes manifest differently in boys is informed by society) is targeted for banning -_-;;;

augh

and GAY PENGUINS! OH NOEZ THE GAY AGENDA IS INVADING USING CUTE ANIMALS NAOO!!! RUNNNN RUNNNNNN!!!!

-_-;;

and.. y'know.. it just bugs me that they want to remove ANY of these books much less the ones I just mentioned (and yus, even Twilight which has some rly problematic stuff in it, but doesn't mean kids shouldn't be ALLOWED access to it).... cuz we can't have kids exposed to all sorts of different ideas can we? They might even think it's okay to be gay or fat! (or talk like me! xD)

and just... rawr -_-;;

It reminds me of how we treat television that deals with chars being gay or trans, boys kissing, chars that actually deal with complex racism or sexism issues, etc etc... are always NOT FOR CHILDREN, cuz it's TOO COMPLEX FOR THEM TO UNDERSTAND, but we are ok with them being exposed to "simple" msgs, like homophobia, racism, sexism, etc growing up (jokes laughing at cross dressing, EW UR GAY, THATS FOR GIRLS, etc) cuz well kids will be kids! And then we wonder why we have so many homophobic sexist racist or etc adults -_-;;;

Rawr... stuff like this makes me want to join the Library Defense Forces >:| (the concept for this series and the mangas is so great tho :3 I never got into the romance story in the mangas, but I just so love the concept of librarians defending freedom of thought from the state :D)

Thursday, August 26, 2010

The comic book superhero genre in the mist... AGAIN xD

Today's superheroes all sex and cash

Modern superheroes?

Bunch of pumped-up pretty boys with too many toys and not enough good old-fashioned values.

Man, in the old days, it was simple — you got bitten by a spider because of lapse workplace safety codes or accidentally locked out of your spacecraft during a solar radiation storm, and after you discovered you were horribly mutated you just went out and did the right thing by society.


I totally agree! Why can't it just be that simple, that you got powers and want to goo..

But today, laments Dr. Sharon Lamb, a researcher at the University of Massachusetts who has looked at the selling of modern icons, some villain has drained the good values out of our champions.

After looking at the most popular themes in marketing to young boys, Lamb has found the influence of heroes like Iron Man and Batman still pack a powerful punch.

“But if you look back, you’ll find they’re not like the old superheroes,” she tells QMI Agency from her home in Vermont.

“More and more, they’re Rambo and playboy like figures.

“Look at what makes Iron Man cool. He shows off his wealth and exploits women.”

Lamb, who addressed the issue at last weekend’s annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, said yesterday’s superheroes had vulnerability and depth.

Today’s message on being a good guy, she adds, is being super-wealthy, steroid-strong and endlessly kicking butt.


Wait.. what?

>_>;; Dun you just love it when the "experts" and the journalists who write about them have only a peripheral idea of superheroes and comic books from their childhood, and not just have no knowledge but don't even bother to learn, cuz they just assume this "THAR BE DRAGONS" thingw hen it comes to comic books and superheroes (and also ignoring that there's a TON OF PEOPLE who have way more knowledge who have written and spoken about sexism and gender roles and etc etc in comic books and superheroes, but they're not "experts" that newspapers care about so who cares >_> )

Also... I love the idea of Batman as a "modern" superhero.. not like Spider-Man! Except.. y'know.. him being WAY OLDER THAN SPIDER-MAN in creation xD And also... okay I can't speak for Iron-Man 2 since I never watched it, but I can speak for Batman Begins, Dark Knight and Iron-Man and not only is she (apparently) cherry picking her evidence from certain movies (i.e. the ones she's noticed, there's been a ton more superhero movies besides those 4 and those 2 heroes >_> ) but those movies don't even match what she's talking about. -_-;;; Bruce Wayne has only a couple scenes where he PRETENDS to be a womanizing playboy.. Tony Stark has ONE, and that was before he became a hero... and otherwise they are trying to do good things, and be a hero... not... "women are for smex! random violence! no goodness!" >_>;; And Pepper Potts is awesome :O

I was gonna say "did she even watch what she's using as her evidence!?" but.. maybe it's not fair... cuz this wouldn't be the first time a newspaper decided to misrepresent research or a researcher to make it sound more certain and judgemental than it is :|

So.. yeah.. maybe there is more to this than meets the eye (hopefully :3) and the actual research was more nuanced and also more focused on male movie heroes and not superheroes in general... but... this article, and what it says... -_-;;; it's just.. more of the same.. "comic books in the mist" stuff...

and I think it's hilarious that you're choosing those movies as proof of sexism in comic superhero depictions (NOWADAYS! cuz there was no sexism or problematic gender roles in comic books BEFORE the last decade! xD ) when, in the actual books it's like... xD

And also there's the usual easy bashing of "omfg teh girls nowadays and teh slutty cl0thes!!1112" e_e

guh

this annoys me in so many way