tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2542140379651056372024-02-20T09:43:02.172-05:00With LoveFeminism, progressive politics, gaming, fan culture, pop culture, and more!Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01080258615868766350noreply@blogger.comBlogger108125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-254214037965105637.post-81803470336724286602013-06-09T02:38:00.002-04:002013-06-09T02:38:52.470-04:00Dear BlizzardDear Blizzard,<br />
<br />
A new forum thread popped up today on the subject of favorite lore characters. Posters were invited to <a href="http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/9245735286?page=1">name a favorite lore character of each playable race</a>.<br />
<br />
The thread was only four pages long when I saw it, with only 24 forms filled out, but I thought that you might find the results interesting.<br />
<br />
The most popular choices?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Pandaren - Chen Stormstout (6 votes), Taran Zhu (4 votes)<br />Dwarf - Moira Bronzebeard (10 votes)<br />Orc - Thrall (5 votes), Varok Saurfang (6 votes)<br />Undead - Sylvanas Windrunner (11 votes)<br />Troll - Vol'jin (8 votes), Zul'jin (6 votes)<br />Blood Elf - Kael'thas Sunstrider (8 votes), Lor'themar Theron (9 votes)<br />Tauren - Cairne Bloodhoof (13 votes)<br />Human - Anduin Lothar (3 votes), Anduin Wrynn (3 votes)<br />Night Elf - Illidan Stormrage (8 votes)<br />Worgen - Darius Crowley (8 votes)<br />Draenei - Akama (4 votes), Miskha (5 votes), Velen (5 votes)<br />Goblin - Boss Mida (4 votes), Grizzle Gearslip (4 votes), Sassy Hardwrench (5 votes)<br />Gnome - Mekkatorque (2 votes), Thermaplugg (2 votes)</blockquote>
As you can see, in some categories one major lore figure dominated; in others, the votes were split in all directions. Most people love Cairne Bloodhoof, you'll notice, but when it comes to humans, they like Anduin Lother, Anduin Wrynn, Arthas Menethil, Jaina, Thassarian, Uther, and more.<br />
<br />
Looking over that list, seeing that Mekkatorque and Thermaplugg were the most popular gnomes with only 2 votes apiece, you'd guess that there are so many popular gnomes that there must be loads of other gnomes being named.<br />
<br />
You'd be wrong.<br />
<br />
The original poster forgot to include the Pandaren at first, and some of the posters replying directly to that post also left off Pandaren from their lists. As a result, of 24 posts, 5 skipped Pandaren.<br />
<br />
Some people didn't exactly forget about categories, they simply couldn't think of anyone to vote for. They wrote in answers like "?" or left the space blank. That should concern you. Are players so ill-informed and so apathetic that they don't care about lore figures? Or are your writers failing to create interesting, memorable characters?<br />
<br />
The good news: everyone named a dwarf. I didn't come across one person who skipped the "dwarf" category. Orcs, too, are doing well; only one person didn't name at least one favorite orc.<br />
<br />
How many times did someone enter a joke response ("seriously?") or skip the category altogether?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
0 - dwarf<br />1 - orc<br />2 - undead, troll<br />3 - blood elf, tauren, human<br />4 - night elf<br />5 - worgen<br />7 - draenei<br />8 - goblin<br />12 - gnome</blockquote>
Yes, that's right. Out of 24 questionnaires, 12 people gave either a joke answer or no answer at all on the question of "favorite gnome." One person's favorite gnome is a forum poster, not a lore figure; if you discount that reply, only 11 out of 24 people listed a favorite gnome.<br />
<br />
Eleven out of twenty-four.<br />
<br />
That is not a good statistic.<br />
<br />
Both of the people who named Thermaplugg spelled his name wrong.<br />
<br />
Overall, the Horde looks good. For orcs, undead, trolls, blood elves, and tauren, most posters seem pretty enthusiastic or at least can name a favorite character. For the Alliance, it's not so great; around the worgen and draenei categories, things start to fall apart. Goblins aren't doing very well, but that's understandable, since they've only been playable since the last expansion and don't have the rich history some of the older races enjoy. Unfortunately, I can't use that excuse for gnomes.<br />
<br />
Gnomes are considered a joke race, but they aren't even a very popular joke. If your plan was to make them a laughingstock, I'd have expected you to make more memorable, funny characters. Instead, there's nothing. Where you could create smart, creative, inventive, witty characters, there's only an apathetic void. You don't seem to care, and that lack of caring comes across very clearly.<br />
<br />
On the first page of the thread alone, only four people could list a favorite gnome. Of those four, not everyone could remember the gnome's actual name. The other replies?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>*shrug* </i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>The dead ones </i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>lolwut </i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>?</i></blockquote>
Your writing team needs help.<br />
<br />
With love,<br />
Frank LeeAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01080258615868766350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-254214037965105637.post-34982628807721505712013-06-06T15:26:00.000-04:002013-06-10T17:07:36.344-04:00Dear "Elementary"Dear "Elementary,"<br />
<br />
A friend and I watched several episodes of your show last night at CBS.com. Five episodes, I think. I tell you this up front so that if you want to say, "Hey, five episodes from our whole body of work is nothing! You don't know a thing about our show!" then you can step away now.<br />
<br />
If you're still here, let's continue.<br />
<br />
Something bothered me early on, and I kept watching with the hope that it had been an inconsistency. But, no, it was consistent throughout the episodes: the Watson character is called "Miss Watson," not "Dr. Watson."<br />
<br />
There have been many, many incarnations of the Sherlock Holmes characters over the years, several of them very popular and mainstream, but this is the first time to my knowledge that we've had a female Watson on regular prime-time television. What you're doing is kind of a big deal, and I suspect that you're aware of it.<br />
<br />
Therefore, it is also a big deal that you've taken away the title of "Dr." and instead issued the title of "Miss."<br />
<br />
Calling her "Dr." would put her on par with all of the other Watsons. It would make reference to her education and canonical profession. It is a title with social cachet.<br />
<br />
Calling her "Ms." would strip away her education and canonical profession, would emphasize her femininity, yet would also be perceived by the audience as quasi-feminist.<br />
<br />
Calling her "Miss" strips away her education and canonical profession while emphasizing that she's a single woman. It also implies youthfulness. You're communicating to your audience that she's feminine and available.<br />
<br />
Is this a nod to the patriarchy? A sort of: <i>I know that you're uncomfortable with us casting Dr. Watson as a woman, but we'll make it more palatable to you by emphasizing her femininity and sexual availability over her canonical credentials!</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
Is this a nod to feminists? A sort of: <i>That's right, we cast Dr. Watson as a woman! And so that no one can mistake what a woman she is, we'll call her "Miss" so that she's gendered female at all times!</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
Here's how two of your audience members perceived it last night: You took a terrific step forward in casting Dr. Watson as a woman, and then you took a step right back again by taking away her title. It's a real disappointment for me, one of those nagging problems which make me uneasy as I watch your show.<br />
<br />
I thought to myself, before I sat down to write this, that I should be fair. I should stop and do my research and investigate why the character is titled "Miss." Likely it's some interesting back story, something integral to the character's history. But, no, I'm not going to do my research, because it doesn't matter to me what your rationalization is. You created her history how it pleased you, and you could have written it any which way you liked. You could have written a back story which leads us to "Dr. Watson," but you chose a back story which leaves us with "Miss Watson," and that was a deliberate choice on your part.<br />
<br />
It's like pointing out a problem with <i>World of Warcraft</i> and being told, "But that's the lore!" as if that's the end of the conversation. The lore is not some sacred, authentic, historical text; it's whatever the writers say that it is. You wrote a character and you gave her a history and you labeled her "Miss Watson." You could have written her any number of other ways and given us "Dr. Watson." Maybe you're proud of her history, maybe it makes terrific story-telling, maybe you're trying to build an intensely compelling character and I'm missing out on something great. Maybe. What is definite, though, is that you wrote [what is perceived as] a risky, groundbreaking role and instead of giving us a female Dr. Watson, you gave us Miss Watson.<br />
<br />
I would rather have a female Dr. Watson from episode to episode than Miss Watson's compelling back story which hasn't come up in any of the episodes I've seen. I think that the weight of hearing Sherlock (and everyone else) say "Dr. Watson" onscreen every episode would be an interesting, important, cultural step forward. This was a chance for that, and you've robbed us of it.<br />
<br />
I wonder if you'll tackle the <i>Strange Case of Miss Jekyll and Miss Hyde</i> next.<br />
<br />
With love,<br />
Frank LeeAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01080258615868766350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-254214037965105637.post-35207638573357479572013-04-19T23:51:00.000-04:002013-04-19T23:52:45.910-04:00Dear Tyrese Gibson<i>Gross fat hatred ahead.</i><br />
<br />
Dear Tyrese Gibson-<br />
<br />
<a href="http://allhiphop.com/2013/04/09/tyrese-doesnt-want-comparisons-to-steve-harvey-talks-black-rose-film-and-manology/">All Hip Hop</a> asked you a question recently. It was a fairly simple question:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
What kind of responsibility do you feel as an entertainer, you have to inspire people to live healthier lifestyles?</blockquote>
You could have said all kinds of things. You could have said anything. "No responsibility whatsoever." "I've always encouraged people to eat the best they can and stay active. I take my own workouts seriously and I'm grateful for my good health." "Being in the public eye, being highly visible and even something of a role model, I take that responsibility seriously. That's why I encourage citizens of the USA to write to Congress and push for a stronger health care including attention to mental health and reproductive rights." "You know, everyone should aim for the basics. Eat your vegetables, brush your teeth, see a doctor." "What I really want to talk about is the latest NBC line-up. 'Parks and Rec' is killing it!" You could have said pretty much anything. It was a fairly open-ended question.<br />
<br />
Here's what you said:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
No two situations are the same. If you are fat and nasty and you don’t like the way you look, do something about it. It’s simple.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
When you take a shower and you put your fat, nasty body in the shower and by the time you get out, the mirrors are all steamed up so you don’t look at what you did to yourself. That may sound offensive or insensitive but ultimately, you are big as hell because you have earned that sh*t. You worked your a** off to eat everything in sight to get big as hell.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
If you got a problem with the way you look, then you need to do something about it. Excuses sound best to the people that’s making them up.</blockquote>
Wow, that was really gross.<br />
<br />
Let's see that again in slow-motion.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
No two situations are the same.</blockquote>
This seems like a bizarre opening to the rest of your answer. It's true and it makes sense. It's insightful, given the subject matter. You're right, no two situations are the same. No two people are the same, no two bodies are the same, no two bodies operate under exactly the same conditions or work exactly the same way. Everyone's body is different, everyone's life is different, and that's why we come in all sorts of shapes and sizes. Great answer! Why, oh why, couldn't you have made that point and stopped there?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
If you are fat and nasty</blockquote>
Fat and nasty. I would like to believe that you use this phrase the way you might call a vase, for example, "glass and dusty." It's a glass vase, and it's dusty, and those are entirely separate facts, and one of those facts is pretty temporary. "Hand me that dusty glass vase over there," you might say, to differentiate it from the ones we've already tidied up. (You know, in some world where you and I are cleaning out an old flower shop together.) But, no, given the overall context of your remarks, it sounds like you're using "fat and nasty" the way some people use "fat and lazy." The two adjectives come together into one overall idea. "Get your fat, lazy butt off of that couch." If someone's fat, he's also, automatically, lazy. The phrase drops easily, thoughtlessly, from people's lips. "Get your big, lazy butt over here and give me a hand." Similarly, you're putting "fat" and "nasty" together as if they're naturally related, as if they have some sort of synonymous core. "Get your nasty fat ass off of that couch." If someone's fat, he's also, automatically, nasty. <br />
<br />
Not nasty as in mean or cruel. Not as in "Ms. Jackson if you're nasty." No, you mean dirty and gross and filthy. Fat people are dirty and gross and filthy, automatically, because they're fat, and "fat" and "gross" go together like peanut butter and jelly. I'm sorry, does my food reference bother you? Let me rephrase. "Fat" and "gross" go together like gym socks and old sweat.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
and you don’t like the way you look, do something about it. It’s simple.</blockquote>
If I don't like the way I look, I should do something about it. Sure, on some levels, that's a workable idea. If I don't like the way I look, maybe I could try a new haircut. Maybe I could buy some new clothes. Maybe I could arrange for more flattering lighting in my home. Maybe I could try some new make-up tips. I could try more vitamins or more sleep.<br />
<br />
Note that even then, those ideas aren't necessarily "simple" to implement. Can I afford new clothes? Is it feasible for me to get more sleep given my current schedule? Not necessarily, and that's a reality for many people.<br />
<br />
But you weren't talking about people with bad haircuts and poor sleeping habits. You were talking about fat people. (Fat people! Nasty people! Ew, gross!) You were saying, "If you're fat, and you don't like looking so fat, because you realize how disgusting you are, do something about it. HOW EASY IS THAT, AM I RIGHT?! COMMON SENSE, EVERYBODY!"<br />
<br />
"If you're fat, do something about it" means "if you're fat, stop being fat."<br />
<br />
If you have the miracle pill to turn fat people into slender people, you'd better sweep off the front porch, because I expect pharmaceutical companies to come knocking on your door. Here's the thing, Tyrese. (Sorry, I'm fat and therefore nasty; I'll call you Mr. Gibson.) There is no magical formula which will blink away the fat. It's not "diet and exercise." It's not surgery. It's not a pill. It's not common sense. It's not bullying and shaming. It's not abuse and anti-soda legislation and "oh noes obesity crisis" panicked hand-wringing.<br />
<br />
People cannot "stop being fat" any more than you can stop being tall. Have you tried not to be so tall? Have you tried drugs? Have you tried exercise? Have you tried hypnosis, perhaps? You haven't, and I suspect that it wouldn't even occur to you to try it, because you accept your height as a matter of course. It's natural! It's genetic! It can't be changed!<br />
<br />
Interestingly enough, it isn't only genetics which affects your height. Things like nutrition, for example, make a big difference. The height of people in North Korea versus that of people in South Korea is testament to how the food you eat can affect stature. Take genetics, add in early environmental factors like access to food and the quality of that food, and height varies from one individual to another!<br />
<br />
Let's change one letter in that sentence.<br />
<br />
Take genetics, add in early environmental factors like access to food and the quality of that food, and weight varies from one individual to another!<br />
<br />
There are all sorts of other factors playing into weight, of course. Your health affects your weight. The pills you take can have an effect. Your socio-economic situation also affects your access to food, as does geography. There's a terrific post from <a href="http://www.shakesville.com/2012/05/fatsronauts-101.html">Melissa McEwan at Shakesville</a> which covers this topic in more detail.<br />
<br />
Now, would you suggest that I go about changing my genetics? My socio-economic situation? If I've gained weight because of the medication I'm taking, and my doctor is unable to prescribe anything else, should I stop taking it and compromise my health? According to your remark on how <i>simple</i> all of this is, surely you have easy answers. You've been petitioning Congress regarding corn syrup and government subsidies, I assume.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
When you take a shower and you put your fat, nasty body in the shower and by the time you get out, the mirrors are all steamed up so you don’t look at what you did to yourself.</blockquote>
I'll never tire of hearing you call fat bodies "nasty" as if there's no other way for a fat body to be. As if "fat" itself is a terrible insult and "nasty" is just added on for emphasis.<br />
<br />
Do all fat people take long, hot showers?<br />
<br />
Do thin people not take long, hot showers?<br />
<br />
Do fat people get out of the shower and hurry to dry off and get away before the mirror clears?<br />
<br />
Do thin people deliberately linger and hang out until the mirror clears so they can finally get a good, long look at their thin bodies? Do thin people become impatient and wipe the mirror clean and then stand there, posing and primping, adoring themselves at length? What in the world do in-between people do?<br />
<br />
Don't most people just shower and dry off and either get dressed or continue the grooming process or start texting or hurry on to free up the bathroom for other people or toss on a robe to let the dog out or something?<br />
<br />
Mr. Gibson, are you aware that some people don't have access to hot water at all, or don't have access to reliably hot water long enough to take luxurious, steam-up-the-mirror showers? Are you aware that poor people and fat people overlap pretty heavily on demographic Venn diagrams in the USA? A lot of fat people are poor, and a lot of poor people are fat, and <i>it is not</i> because "fat" and "poor" are both synonyms for "lazy."<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
That may sound offensive or insensitive</blockquote>
And nonsensical. Don't forget nonsensical!<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
but ultimately, you are big as hell because you have earned that sh*t.</blockquote>
Mr. Gibson, you're tall because you have earned that shit! You earned your height! Your height is a result of genetic and dietary and environmental factors beyond your control, but it's yours! Don't ever let anyone take that away from you!<br />
<br />
I can't even with this sentence.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
You worked your a** off to eat everything in sight to get big as hell.</blockquote>
Do you remember earlier in this post where I talked about how people gain weight as a result of all sorts of factors? Health issues, genetics, medications, and so on? You might want to go read Melissa McEwan's post I linked to earlier.<br />
<br />
Here's the thing about eating and "overeating." A lot of people binge. Sometimes it's a reaction to stress. A coping mechanism. A response to abuse. A bad habit. There are many reasons for it. Remember that thing we discussed earlier about how no two people are the same and no two bodies are the same? Some people overeat and are slender. Some people overeat and are fat. Some people overeat and are somewhere in between. Some people who eat "everything in sight" are skinny.<br />
<br />
Some people eat what their bodies need, and are fat.<br />
<br />
Some people eat less than their bodies need, and are fat.<br />
<br />
Bodies! How do they work?!<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
If you got a problem with the way you look, then you need to do something about it. Excuses sound best to the people that’s making them up.</blockquote>
You hear people talking about how difficult it is for them to lose weight and keep it off, and you hear excuses. I hear you talking about how disgusting and lazy fat people are, and I hear stereotypes and nonsense and unscientific bullshit lacking in empathy. I hear someone who's dismissive and thoughtless and lacking in basic human decency.<br />
<br />
I don't have a problem with the way I look. I have a problem with the way you sound and the hurtful garbage you're spouting and the damage you're doing to everyone who hears you and everyone they spread your nonsense to.<br />
<br />
Here's <a href="http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/tyrese-gibson-criticizes-people-with-fat-nasty-bodies-apologizes-for-bad-choice-of-wording-2013164">your response</a> to criticism of your remarks.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I look online now my words get twisted about plus size women? It's unreal out here," he wrote. "Why would I? Really? Never mind... God Bless you!"</blockquote>
Oh, you were misquoted? Misunderstood? All Hip Hop manufactured your words out of thin air?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I'm not apologizing for what I said I'm apologizing for the bad choice of wording and execution of my point around obesity," Gibson continued.</blockquote>
Ah, no. It seems that you were quoted accurately, and you said exactly what All Hip Hop claims that you said. And you refuse to apologize for what you said. You stand by your point; you just wish that you'd dressed it up in prettier packaging. That sounds a lot like, "No, I firmly believe that fat people are nasty and should compromise their health and destroy their well-being in the pursuit of impossible thinness, I just should have used the word 'repulsive' instead of 'nasty.' It sounds better!"<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Y'all seen my documentary, I was brought in this world from a plus size mother and my sisters are plus size as well . . .</blockquote>
Your mother and your sisters are fat. You call fat people "nasty" and shame them for being lazy and accuse them of hiding from the reality of their gross, deplorable bodies. You describe being fat as a horrible, shameful thing which fat people bring upon themselves through their own reprehensible actions. This is how you think of the people in your life? How do you talk about people you <i>don't</i> love?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I am concerned always!</blockquote>
Did you just publicly label yourself as a concern troll?<br />
<br />
Concerned? No one needs your concern. Your compassion and your empathy would be nice. Your support, your voice as an ally, your effort for the cause of HAES.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"We always associate addictions to cocaine, Heroin, and or alcoholic abuse . . . Food is the No. 1 addiction in America."</blockquote>
It's best when people have a healthy attitude towards food. It's something the human body requires. We cannot quit food and maintain a healthy lifestyle; we cannot abstain from it and survive. If I'm a drug addict, and I abstain from drugs, ultimately I should be much healthier, right? If I stop eating, I will die. This is not a great comparison, Mr. Gibson.<br />
<br />
If you want people to have healthy attitudes towards food, please, lead the way! Push for more kinds of food to be more widely available. Fight against food deserts. Fight for better pay for workers so that people can afford fresh, vitamin-rich ingredients. Maybe with better pay, more people can work fewer hours and have time to cook at home. Go for it! What about employer-subsidized daycare or more after school programs so that parents can spend more time shopping and cooking? You seem to care so much about this subject, surely you have some great ideas of your own!<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"This is what happens when you decide to not just be an artist or an actor but use your heart," he opined. "It creates controversy and unwanted energy."</blockquote>
Poor, suffering Mr. Gibson. You used your heart, and the world replied with negative energy.<br />
<br />
People were mean to you. Why? Because you were cruel to fat people. Why? Because you accepted media narratives and "conventional wisdom" and lazy stereotypes at face value. If you pay attention to people's experiences and listen to their stories and observe the world around you, you might pick up some new information. I didn't have to spend much time on <a href="http://kateharding.net/">Shapely Prose</a> before I noticed the common theme of "shocking new weight-loss study confirms that fat people are awful" almost always coincides with "funding comes from pharmaceutical company with new weight-loss drug on the shelves." The "diet and exercise, it's common sense" and "calories in, calories out, it's just that easy!" myths are everywhere you turn, but does that make them right? No, but it does help to justify our fat-hating attitudes. Anything which makes our existing biases even more palatable is always welcomed with open arms and a lack of critical thought.<br />
<br />
Don't just be an artist. Don't just be an actor. Be a son and a brother, and make the world a kinder place, not a more judgmental one. Congratulations, you have a platform. Use it well.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
What kind of responsibility do you feel as an entertainer, you have to inspire people to live healthier lifestyles?</blockquote>
The next time someone asks you that question, maybe you can say something like, "No two situations are the same. Healthy bodies come in all shapes and sizes. It's really about doing what's best for you in your situation. A lot of people equate health with size, but there are fat triathletes, you know? Health is really about taking care of yourself the best way you can, and I do feel a responsibility to promote that idea, which is why I was up there on Capitol Hill testifying before Congress about that corn syrup bill. It really meant a lot to me to have so much support from my fans over that."<br />
<br />
I would love to hear you promote HAES.<br />
<br />
Or you could continue to conflate "fat" with "nasty," continue to assume that it makes sense to respond to a question about health with an answer about fat people as if "healthy" and "fat" are <a href="http://kateharding.net/faq/but-dont-you-realize-fat-is-unhealthy/">naturally opposing terms</a>, alienate fans, and promote harmful narratives which <a href="http://kateharding.net/2007/07/12/fat-hatred-kills-part-one/">destroy people's lives</a>.<br />
<br />
It's up to you.<br />
<br />
With love,<br />
Frank LeeAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01080258615868766350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-254214037965105637.post-49727295810113503552013-04-16T20:28:00.001-04:002013-04-16T20:29:38.071-04:00Dear BanksyDear Banksy,<br />
<br />
Here's what people say about <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/books/banksy-the-man-behind-the-wall-by-will-ellsworth-jones.html?pagewanted=all">your artwork</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
What they have in common is a coy playfulness — a desire to goad viewers into rethinking their surroundings, to acknowledge the absurdities of closely held preconceptions.</blockquote>
Here's what you <a href="http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/The-Story-Behind-Banksy-187953941.html">say</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Hollywood...is a town where they honor their heroes by writing their names on the pavement to be walked on by fat people and peed on by dogs.”</blockquote>
Here's what people say about <a href="http://streeetart.wordpress.com/2011/10/06/artist-profile-banksy/">you</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Banksy’s sole intent is for his works to be notoriously controversial. He wants his works to affect people emotionally, and force them to challenge social norms. In a world where everyone prefers to keep to themselves and are afraid to speak out against authority, Banksy doesn’t. He uses street art as a medium to channel his thoughts and opinions on heavier social and political subjects, and completes them in heavy populated areas where they can be seen by thousands of people. Some might say Banksy is an outlaw for the people, a sort of 21st century Robin Hood in a way and they wouldn’t be far off. To sum up, Banksy is similar to a political activist, but he uses his subversive art to protest society, rally people, and get them to question the world around them.</blockquote>
Here's what you say:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“I love the way capitalism finds a place—even for its enemies. It’s definitely boom time in the discontent industry. I mean how many cakes does Michael Moore get through?”</blockquote>
Fat jokes are not new. They're not subversive or thought-provoking. I don't know if your goal truly is to get people to "question the world around them" or not, because it certainly seems as though you aren't questioning harmful cultural stereotypes and assumptions about fat people. No, it sounds as if you're buying right into them and, indeed, furthering and promoting them.<br />
<br />
While you're making thoughtful, edgy socio-political statements in your artwork, please reconsider the thoughtless, stale, lazy way you talk about fat people.<br />
<br />
With love,<br />
Frank LeeAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01080258615868766350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-254214037965105637.post-51723457551987521022013-04-16T00:12:00.000-04:002013-04-16T00:16:02.701-04:00Dear Americans for ProsperityDear Americans for Prosperity,<br />
<br />
While I watched videos on YouTube the other day, one of your ads popped up. Not having the sense to push the "skip ad" button, I watched it the entire way through. Then I did a double-take and searched for <a href="http://americansforprosperity.org/arkansas/newsroom/arkansans-deserve-better/">your ad on-line</a> so I could take another look and make sure that you'd actually been as gross and racist as I thought you'd been.<br />
<br />
As it turns out, you had been! You were just that gross and racist, indeed.<br />
<br />
To refresh your memory, here's the audio, which is voiced by what sounds like an unhappy white woman. I'll describe the relevant visuals in a moment:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A broken system failing Arkansas families and hardworking taxpayers. Now some politicians in Little Rock want to put 89,000 more people onto its rolls and depend on Washington for funding. But what happens when Washington stops paying? Thousands of Arkansans with less access to quality care. More control handed to the federal government. Call your representative or senator. Tell them to vote against Medicaid private expansion. It's wrong for Arkansas. We deserve better.</blockquote>
The racism comes in two parts. First, the casting. When I watch your ad, none of the actors seem to be people of color. I see a bunch of white people. Where are the people of color? As this is an ad relating to Arkansas state politics, you might be interested to note that black people, <a href="http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/05000.html">for example</a>, make up over 15% of the state's population, compared to 13% of the population of the country as a whole. If you're addressing Arkansans, and if you're trying to cast actors who represent Arkansans, then include a variety of the kinds of people who make up the state. The Arkansas I know and live in is not lily-white. "White people" and "Arkansans" are not synonymous.<br />
<br />
Next, your ad begins commentary on the big, bad, federal government. At this point, you switch from photography and footage of human beings to computer-generated images. The image you choose is a monolithic, advancing army of faceless, tall, slender, black men.<br />
<br />
Let's examine this. You didn't simply choose stock imagery of the federal government. No, you wanted to evoke the idea of an enemy, some evil human entity coming to steal and misuse our money. Yet you didn't continue to use photography and footage of actual human beings, as you had throughout the rest of the commercial until that point. That might have been too humanizing. So you went with computer-generated images of faceless, shadowy figures.<br />
<br />
No, not shadowy figures. They're literally black. Black men. Tall, slender black men to represent the federal government, advancing, monolithic. Threatening. Scary. Black men are coming to steal our money, to abuse the system.<br />
<br />
Let's be clear: this is racist, and I firmly believe that it's meant to be racist. We see hard-working, suffering white people just trying to get by, and then we see a threatening army of President Obamas marching forward, bent on destruction. This is not a coincidence, this is a dog whistle. It's racist, and it's disgusting.<br />
<br />
I've been hesitant about how I identify myself on this blog, but fuck it: I'm a white Arkansan, and your racist bullshit doesn't work on me. The title of your ad is that "Arkansans Deserve Better," and yes, you're right. Arkansans deserve better. Better than this racist garbage, better than your divisive tactics, better than your nasty dog whistles.<br />
<br />
Come back to me when you can promote your message without erasing all of the people of color in this state and without relying on your audience's ingrained racism.<br />
<br />
Americans for Prosperity? My goal for a prosperous USA necessitates racial equality and racial diversity.<br />
<br />
With love,<br />
Frank LeeAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01080258615868766350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-254214037965105637.post-84858632357193790072013-03-23T18:34:00.000-04:002013-03-23T18:46:09.511-04:00Dear "Community"<br />
Note for gendered slur in quotation and the mentions of rape, rape culture, racism, abuse, and apologia:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>If we don't treat him like such a dick, well, he'll probably still be one 98% of the time, but the 2% he's tolerable, it might be worth it. </i><i>-Jeff Winger, "Community" (episode 4.7, "Economics of Marine Biology")</i></blockquote>
Dear "Community",<br />
<br />
In a recent episode, you had your show's hero espouse two ideas:<br />
<br />
1.) Nasty, bigoted people are nasty and bigoted because we expect them to be and treat them poorly.<br />
<br />
2.) If someone's tolerable 2% of the time, it makes up for the 98% he's terrible.<br />
<br />
The first is ridiculous, and I frankly don't feel like entertaining it.<br />
<br />
The second immediately raised my hackles, though, so let's discuss!<br />
<br />
The character under discussion was Pierce Hawthorne, a one-man bigot parade who says cruel, hateful things about every marginalized population he can think of, wears blackface, and never met a stereotype he didn't like. I wouldn't call him a gendered slur, as Jeff does, but I would call him a lot of other things.<br />
<br />
The premise, then, is that even if someone is a bigoted oppression machine a majority of the time, if he's marginally tolerable once in a while, it's "worth it." We should put up with someone's vile, oppressive antics because he's occasionally tolerable. The joy of someone acting like a decent human being 2% of the time is so significant that we should gloss over and accept the 98% of the time he's a harmful jackass who belittles, mocks, and insults everyone around him.<br />
<br />
Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree.<br />
<br />
There are a lot of people who would agree, however. This is a familiar, beloved concept to them. They're the ones who say, "Well, sure, he did something absolutely atrocious, but he's a great guy! You can't hold it against him!"<br />
<br />
The ones who say, when a friend makes a video mocking homeless people, trans people, and addicts, "<a href="http://withlovefranklee.blogspot.com/2012/11/dear-justin-timberlake.html">My friends are good people</a>," as if that makes everything okay again, because how can anyone be disgusted by his actions and demand an apology and think that there's anything wrong when he's a friend, a good person, someone we certainly can't accuse of being hurtful and ask to re-examine his behavior.<br />
<br />
The ones who say, when someone's accused of rape, "<a href="http://www.shakesville.com/2010/12/latest-assange-rape-apologist-julian.html">But he's on our side!</a> It can't really be that serious! He's one of us!" Because if you're a whistle-blower, that automatically cancels out any harm you might cause elsewhere.<br />
<br />
The ones who say, when someone's accused of rape and molestation and sexual assault, "But he's a role model! <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Sandusky">He helps underprivileged kids!</a> He started a foundation!" Because if you've ever helped kids, that automatically outweighs any harm you can do to those same kids or any others.<br />
<br />
The ones who weigh "rape" against "important cinema" and decide that <a href="http://www.shakesville.com/2009/09/on-polanski.html">movies win</a>.<br />
<br />
The ones who weigh "felony assault" against "music I can dance to" and decide that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Brown_(American_entertainer)">music wins</a>.<br />
<br />
The ones who weigh "gang rape" against "promising football career" and decides that <a href="http://www.shakesville.com/2013/03/steubenville-trial-two-found-guilty.html">football wins</a>.<br />
<br />
I could go on, but I'd go on forever. It's everywhere, it's all around us. Sure, your boss made some inappropriate jokes during the meeting, but he's a great guy, you can't hold it against him. Sure, your brother-in-law made some insensitive comments at dinner, but he's a good guy, he didn't mean it. We have to let it go, we have to understand, we have to accept, we have to forgive, because if anyone is funny or inventive or entertaining or meets the bare minimum of human decency once in a lifetime, that good outweighs the harm of sexual assault, of a rape joke, of a history of racist comments.<br />
<br />
Whatever the people around you deem good enough to hit that 2% tolerable bar cancels out bad behavior. Renders it null and void. They'll tell you that you're wrong to be angry, you're wrong to be disgusted, you're wrong to hold his crimes against him, because he's a good guy the rest of the time! He contributes important things to the cause! He makes great art! He's funny! He's entertaining! Don't you know that he gives to charity?!<br />
<br />
No.<br />
<br />
No, I will not put up with the 98% to bask in the 2%. No, I will not excuse rape and sexual assault because I love a good football game. No, I will not excuse nasty, harmful jokes and bigoted comments because the rest of the jokes are hilarious.<br />
<br />
We all fuck up in one way or another. We all say and do hurtful things over the course of time. It's okay to point out those things. It's good to hold us responsible. You're not doing anyone any favors by excusing foul behavior; you're just ensuring that it'll keep happening. It's when we point this stuff out and examine it and push each other to do better next time that we become better people. If we make excuses and cover it up and say "it's okay because he means well," what's going to stop him from doing it again? What's going to stop everyone else from learning that it's okay to make racist jokes if you're generally a friendly person, and it's okay to make rape jokes if you're popular, and it's okay to rape someone if you're good at something people deem valuable?<br />
<br />
There's no magical calculator that deducts 15 points for sexual assault, awards 20 points for donating to Greenpeace, and decides that you come out ahead.<br />
<br />
When you reward someone for that 2% and say that it makes the 98% "worth it," you're telling everyone who's harmed by the 98% that their lasting pain is meaningless and your fleeting enjoyment is everything. You're telling them that Pierce Hawthorne is special and important, and the hurt he causes is outweighed by the positive contributions he makes, and the harm he does to them is just the price they have to pay so that the rest of us can enjoy the star in our midst.<br />
<br />
It all boils down to: <i>Look, I know that he beats you, but he does a lot of important stuff otherwise, okay? So shut up and take it, because his genius is worth more than your pain, and if we start holding him responsible for his actions we might not get any more great stuff out of him, and things might get unpleasant. You're just going to have to take one for the team.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
Here's a radical notion. How about we hold people responsible for their behavior? How about we put away our magical calculators and admit that the bad things people do cause genuine hurt that isn't washed away by their occasional decency? How about we admit, as a society, that one individual is capable of both good things and bad things? "But he's such a good guy" is not a defense. It only means that he, like everyone else, is a complex human being capable of multiple behaviors. It only means that he <i>acted like</i> a good guy <i>around you.</i> It only means that he treated you well, not that he treats everyone well. It only means that you ignored the evidence and waved away the testimony because it made you uncomfortable, and there's nothing people with privilege hate more than being made to feel uncomfortable.<br />
<br />
Jeff Winger: Pierce may be an atrocious douche 98% of the time, but 2% of the time, he makes me feel all sunny and warm inside!<br />
Me: Not to change the subject or anything, but did you hear about the rape-joke dickwolves nonsense?<br />
Jeff Winger: But those guys founded a charity!<br />
Me: Not to change the subject or anything, but did you hear about those college guys who raped that woman?<br />
Jeff Winger: But they were athletes! Their team was doing so well! We had a shot at the championship this year!<br />
<br />
I don't care about how warm and sunny Jeff Winger feels; I care about the people who feel like crap every time Pierce spews his vile stereotypes. I don't care about the charity because the charity is not the point under discussion; I care about the perpetuation of rape culture. I don't care about a team's win-loss record, I care about the woman who's just been raped.<br />
<br />
I wish that were the sitcom lesson-of-the-week.<br />
<br />
I wish that were everyone's reality.<br />
<br />
With love,<br />
Frank LeeAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01080258615868766350noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-254214037965105637.post-57628037339519406352013-02-09T17:31:00.003-05:002013-02-09T17:31:55.936-05:00Dear Warm Bodies<i>Note for misogynist slurs.</i><br />
<br />
Dear <i>Warm Bodies</i>,<br />
<br />
I have a great deal to say to you about your movie, but I will try to confine my remarks to specific feminist issues.<br />
<br />
While I wanted to enjoy your film, I came away with three glaring problems.<br />
<br />
1.) The word "bitch." It was completely unnecessary. It was jarring and hateful. I assume that it was meant to be played as a funny, "human" moment of male bonding when M said, "Bitches, man," but it went too far. Of course I would prefer if you wouldn't employ such a gross misogynist theme in your film in the first place, but at the very least you could have used "women" or "chicks."<br />
<br />
I repeat for emphasis: you didn't have to include the line at all, in any form.<br />
<br />
2.) The kidnapping. From the trailer, I assumed that R was helping Julie to fit in and escape. I had no idea that he kidnapped her and kept her in a horrifying situation against her will because he thought that she was pretty. Had I known, I wouldn't have watched the movie at all, so congratulations on that misleading marketing.<br />
<br />
3.) The nurse. Nora says that she wants to be a nurse; she says that she wants to heal people and find cures. Healing people and finding <i>cures</i>? Doesn't that sound more like the description of a doctor or scientist than of a nurse? Imagine that line coming from a man: it wouldn't make any sense. It was a gross, disorienting moment.<br />
<br />
I wanted to enjoy your film. I really did. I had hoped that it would be fresh and funny, but there's nothing new or interesting in the same tired, ancient, sexist themes.<br />
<br />
With love,<br />
Frank LeeAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01080258615868766350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-254214037965105637.post-46783716148007096632013-02-09T17:07:00.005-05:002013-02-09T17:07:58.877-05:00Dear "Parks and Recreation"Dear "Parks and Recreation,"<br />
<br />
Thank you for a great new episode! It was smart and funny and fresh, and I really enjoyed a lot of different things about it.<br />
<br />
One of the parts I found most interesting was the April-Andy storyline about April trying to rely on Leslie but learning to stand on her own. It was a great moment of character development for her.<br />
<br />
Here's the thing. On any other show, it would've been reprehensible. There would have been much more emphasis on Andy's manipulative behavior. April would have struggled more (you know how women are, with their insecurities!), and Andy would have been highlighted as the strong, loving man who knows she has it in her and goes behind her back to set her up for failure but takes the credit when she pulls through. It would have been really, very gross, with "men know best!" written all over it.<br />
<br />
It felt different in the context of "Parks and Rec" because you've created interesting, complex, progressive characters. It felt different because you portrayed Andy as supportive. It felt different because when we see smart, strong women being smart and strong in every episode of your show, we don't have to police every nuance of the show to wonder what you really meant.<br />
<br />
Thank you for letting Andy be a supportive partner, and not the manly hero of April's life.<br />
<br />
With love,<br />
Frank LeeAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01080258615868766350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-254214037965105637.post-19106658026020391582013-02-02T20:29:00.000-05:002013-02-02T20:30:53.978-05:00Dear GamersDear Gamers,<br />
<br />
I saw <a href="http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/7811021407">a post today</a> on the <i>World of Warcraft</i> forums from a player who had "outed" herself in real life as a gamer. I didn't think much about it; the social stigma against gaming, whether or not exists, and how various gamers deal with it, is a topic which comes up fairly often on the forums.<br />
<br />
And then the replies rolled in.<br />
<br />
Here are my favorite two from the first page:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Careful, this kind of "coming out" may lead to more discrimination than the other one!</i><br />
<i>LOLS! (true though.) </i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>There is less stigma to being gay than there is to playing WoW. Gamers are just not normal.</i></blockquote>
The best part of that is how the poster backs off of the statement with a "lol" and then comes around again with a "true though."<br />
<br />
Let's see. Gamers face more discrimination than gay people, you say? Let's look at that from the perspective of the USA, where the majority of WOW-US general forumgoers reside.<br />
<br />
Can gamers legally marry each other in all 50 states?<br />
<br />
Do gamers face discrimination in housing?<br />
<br />
Can gamers legally adopt in all 50 states? Do legal barriers prevent gamers from fostering children?<br />
<br />
Can two gamer kids attend school functions together without facing resistance from the administration? Can gamer kids wear gaming-related T-shirts to school without facing resistance from the administration?<br />
<br />
How often are young gamers thrown out of their own homes by their own parents simply for liking videogames?<br />
<br />
Do gamers have trouble getting appropriate healthcare? Do gamers have trouble securing appropriate identification and government documentation? For how many years were gamers barred from serving in the Armed Forces?<br />
<br />
Job discrimination, murder rates, assault rates, legal barriers, institutional discrimination, the list goes on. You can talk about the social stigma against gamers as much as you like, but please don't play "contrast and compare" and "who has it worse" with the gay community, or people of color, or women, or other marginalized populations.<br />
<br />
Gamers who feel that they're facing prejudice and bigotry can, if need be, put down the controller, step away from the keyboard, or stop rolling the dice. Trying to change or deny one's sexual orientation and sexual identity aren't comparable.<br />
<br />
With love,<br />
Frank LeeAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01080258615868766350noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-254214037965105637.post-14746341517551557492013-02-01T21:01:00.000-05:002013-02-01T21:01:34.527-05:00Dear TideDear Tide,<br />
<br />
Here's some of the dialogue from <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3YFz2qfzEk">your new commercial</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Woman: It was our first date and he took me to a restaurant and there was this waitress there and I got very jealous because she was pretty so I threw salsa on him.</blockquote>
Here's what we see actually happening onscreen:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Man and woman seated at a restaurant table beside a nondescript wall. Waitress walks past without acknowledging their presence. The man watches waitress to the point of turning around in his seat so that he can track her as she continues past them.</blockquote>
"I got very jealous because she was pretty" means that this woman is so insecure that the mere existence of an attractive woman in the vicinity drives her to violence.<br />
<br />
"I was pissed off and resentful because he was ogling other women in front of me in ludicrous, obvious, cartoonish fashion" is a little bit different.<br />
<br />
You're openly rewriting one scenario (a woman's angry response to a man's wanton rudeness) into another (an irrational, hysterical woman's overreaction to her own insecure impulses, with the man's behavior a complete non-issue) to make the scene more misogynist.<br />
<br />
Here's what your commercial says to me: women are so petty and so nasty that the very presence of another woman will throw her into a violent rage. The man, meanwhile, is completely innocent and has nothing to do with anything. Sure, maybe he took a little look, but what do you expect? He's gotta keep his options open, am I right?<br />
<br />
Do I recommend throwing salsa on people? No.<br />
<br />
Do I recommend using Tide Stain Savers? No, not if they're being marketed like this.<br />
<br />
Please reconsider your marketing strategy, and I'll reconsider my laundry needs.<br />
<br />
With love,<br />
Frank LeeAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01080258615868766350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-254214037965105637.post-7602144941692214522013-02-01T20:45:00.002-05:002013-02-01T20:46:22.338-05:00Dear Audi<i>This post contains a description of sexual assault.</i><br />
<br />
Dear Audi,<br />
<br />
I saw <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANhmS6QLd5Q">your new commercial</a> the other day.<br />
<br />
Here's how you describe it:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A slightly insecure teenager is unhappy about going to the Senior Prom without a date. But when Dad lets him borrow the new Audi S6 for the night, he gains more and more confidence with every mile, arriving at the Prom a changed young man.</blockquote>
Here's how I would describe it:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A teenager is getting ready to go to the prom, but he's feeling self-conscious about going alone. His mother tries to tell him that it's fine to go alone. His father tosses him car keys. He drives to the prom. (There's some odd moment here with a girl yelling at him from another car, but since I can't understand what she's saying or why, I don't know what the significance is.) He parks in the principal's spot (bad-ass alert!) and strides into the prom. He walks right up behind the apparent prom queen, grabs her, and kisses her. Judging by the "wow!" sounds in the background, this is supposed to be a great moment. The prom king (presumably the prom queen's date/boyfriend) charges over. We next see our "hero" back in his car, now with a black eye, looking happy. There's a brief shot of the prom queen smiling, and then a shot of the guy in the car howling at the moon in celebration/victory/triumph.</blockquote>
Let's replay the key moment here again: he walks up behind her, grabs her, and kisses her.<br />
<br />
It's a crowded, noisy, busy, dark room. She's busy speaking with her friends and doesn't see him come up from behind. She has no idea that he's even in the room, much less directly behind her, much less about to touch her. Suddenly, someone she doesn't realize is on the premises and hasn't had time to recognize has seized her and is holding onto her and kissing her.<br />
<br />
This is what we call sexual assault.<br />
<br />
There's no indication that she wants this to happen. There's no indication that she expects this and every indication that she doesn't. There's no indication that she even knows who he is, given the "popular girl at school is so shallow and in her own world that she doesn't even recognize the nerdy guy who sat beside her in class all year" theme we keep seeing in movies/on TV.<br />
<br />
Even if, generally speaking, she'd like to kiss this guy, there's no real chance for her to recognize that he's the one kissing her. It happens too quickly and with no warning. (Is his scent so overpowering that she smells it and recognizes him immediately, as he grabs her? This isn't an Axe commercial.)<br />
<br />
To sum up: Guy feels insecure, guy's dad lends him a bad-ass car, guy feels more confident in himself, guy commits sexual assault, guy gets punched in the face, guy feels great about it. Then you slap on an image of the prom queen smiling, because some complete stranger sexually assaulted her and wow, wasn't that dashing and romantic of him!<br />
<br />
Then these words come onscreen:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Bravery. It's what defines us.</blockquote>
Bravery.<br />
<br />
Let's not play around. You just called sexual assault brave.<br />
<br />
It isn't brave to commit sexual assault. It isn't daring or courageous or heroic. It's criminal and common and wrong.<br />
<br />
Do you know what's brave, actually? Reporting sexual assault. Admitting to yourself that you were sexually assaulted. Telling someone about it. Standing up and announcing it in public. Testifying about it in a courtroom. That is brave. That is daring and courageous and heroic.<br />
<br />
Oh, and while I have your attention: I'm not entirely thrilled with your gender stereotyping, either. The boy's mother tries to tell him that he'll be fine, because women are nurturing like that, but it doesn't have any effect, because moms, man, they just don't understand, they're so out of touch, they don't get the harsh reality, am I right? But the boy's father, a man of few words, a man of action, he gets it; he just tosses over those keys, and that solves everything.<br />
<br />
I hope that you'll reconsider your disgusting advertising choices. I hope that you'll stop promoting criminal behavior as romantic. I hope that you'll learn the difference between "bravery" and "sexual assault." Coincidentally, Liss at Shakesville opened up a <a href="http://www.shakesville.com/2013/01/discussion-thread-when-i-was-brave.html">discussion thread the other day about bravery</a>. Here's a sample comment from whistlewren:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I was brave when Ieft an abusive relationship of seven years last year. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I had been trying for years. I thought it was just leaving, actually packing my bags and finding a place of safety, that I needed to be brave for. And I did it! I left! I was ecstatic! I was shaking uncontrollably the whole time but I got out that door, and got myself and my two kids to a friend's house. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Then came all those other things I hadn't counted on. Going to court to apply for restraining order. Going back to court to stand in the same room as my abuser to defend the restraining order. Finding legal advice I could afford. Finding a refuge to stay in when threats to my friend from my ex made it unsafe for us to stay there. Commuting 2 hours to work via public transport each way to work with two kids under five because the only refuge that had space was many suburbs away. Fighting in court for supervision on access visits when my ex started custody proceedings. Not jumping whenever my phone rang. Facing friends, other parents at school, my boss, all of whom now knew everything. Finding a therapist I could afford for my daughter and for me. Having to see and talk to my abuser every week at handover after the supervision period ended and he got unsupervised access. Doing all this while trying to keep up with my study, negotiate extra hours and pay, getting my daughters epilepsy diagnosed and dealing with PTSD, and the general panic of making ends meet, finding childcare, getting more temporary housing... </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
It has been a big year :-) I never thought I could do even a half of what I have done. I learnt early on in the year that bravery isn't necessarily about not being scared. Sometimes it's about being so scared you can hardly move, your limbs are shaking so much, but you just breathe as best as you can, do it anyways, and collapse in a heap later on when it is safe to do so. Preferably with friends, and chocolate.</blockquote>
With love,<br />
Frank LeeAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01080258615868766350noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-254214037965105637.post-15350474606846123962013-01-21T01:39:00.000-05:002013-01-21T01:39:08.611-05:00Dear Blizzard<i>Misogynist slur ahead, "joking" reference to sexual assault.</i><br />
<br />
Dear Blizzard,<br />
<br />
It's been a lovely day on the WOW forums.<br />
<br />
Someone started a thread called, <a href="http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/7708811125">"Phrases/Quotes that you really like."</a><br />
<br />
Guess what the very first reply was?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I'm gonna ook you in the dooker!"</blockquote>
Guess what also made the first page?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
''Watch your clever mouth, !@#$%.'' - Garrosh Hellscream</blockquote>
Who's Garrosh, again? Oh, right, the Warchief of the Horde. He wasn't the warchief when he called Sylvanas a bitch, but I guess that's the kind of misogyny Thrall was looking for when he had to decide whom to promote.<br />
<br />
You throw in these lines for reasons of your own, but your playerbase has a ball with them for reasons of its own. A misogynist playerbase finds a line like that in-game and is thrilled. You've just given them license to call Sylvanas a bitch. The thinking may go something like this: <i>Sure, maybe Garrosh is crude, but he's right, isn't he? She really is a bitch. It must be okay to call women bitches, right? You know, if they deserve it. </i>Now it's up to the player to decide what kind of behavior warrants the term "bitch." You may or may not be surprised by where each player draws the line.<br />
<br />
As for ooking people in the dooker, ha ha ha. Threats of sexual assault are hilarious. Rape jokes are hilarious. Obviously, it's perfectly cool that <a href="http://withlovefranklee.blogspot.com/2012/12/dear-blizzard_21.html">you no longer censor the word "rape" on the forums</a>, because we're certainly all mature enough to handle sexual assault responsibly.<br />
<br />
Some players brought up good lines in that thread. Funny stuff, dramatic stuff, some moments your writers are probably very proud of.<br />
<br />
Wouldn't you rather players look back and reminisce over "I am the lucid dream" and Medivh's farewell from WC3, than, "Watch your clever mouth, bitch?"<br />
<br />
I hope that you would.<br />
<br />
With love,<br />
Frank LeeAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01080258615868766350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-254214037965105637.post-86497920265872569802013-01-10T10:52:00.000-05:002013-01-10T10:52:22.989-05:00Dear NBCDear NBC,<br />
<br />
I've heard about your new show, "1600 Penn."<br />
<br />
I don't know much about it yet. What I do know, I'm not thrilled about.<br />
<br />
The cast is very white. Seven white people and one black man whose <a href="http://www.nbc.com/1600-penn/about/bio/cast/andre-holland/662866">character is described as</a> "savvy" and "loyal." Thrilling, to have the lone black character work for the powerful white man in charge.<br />
<br />
Here in the real world, the people living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue are black. Now, I wouldn't necessarily love a current sitcom about a black First Family, because I wouldn't trust it not to be read as a commentary on the Obamas. However, you could create a more diverse cast by adding more roles or by making the First Family multi-racial.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nbc.com/1600-penn/">On the show's home page</a>, I see the same image twice, once as a stand-alone shot and once as a video still. It's a shot of the characters with the "fat" eldest son comically breaking the table he's sitting on, presumably by being too heavy for it. The other characters are laughing and looking dismayed. I would hope that a new sitcom that hasn't even aired yet would bring some fresh comedy ideas, but "fat people are too heavy for the world around them and frequently break furniture with their huge fat asses and it's extra hilarious because they should know better but ha ha ha fat people are too stupid to realize how fat they are" is a theme we've all seen too many times to count. It's not new. It's not interesting. It's old and tired and stale, and the fact that you're relying on such overdone tropes for your show's advertising tells me that you don't have anything better to offer.<br />
<br />
Largely white cast with one token person of color in a subservient role. Fat jokes. It's not looking good.<br />
<br />
The friend who alerted me to your new show said that it's being promoted as NBC's answer to "Modern Family." Here are a few things "Modern Family" has that you might want to consider:<br />
<br />
Three people of color. Two gay characters. An out gay actor in one of those roles. Fat characters who make it through many an episode without breaking furniture with their enormous fat asses.<br />
<br />
Please add more diversity and tone down the fat jokes. I'd really like to have a new sitcom to add to my to-watch list, but as things stand, I'll give "1600 Penn" a pass.<br />
<br />
With love,<br />
Frank LeeAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01080258615868766350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-254214037965105637.post-33784262141043223522013-01-03T22:23:00.000-05:002013-01-03T22:23:25.330-05:00Dear FeministsDear Feminists,<br />
<br />
Thank you.<br />
<br />
I experienced street harassment the other day.<br />
<br />
Because of where I've lived (the middle of nowhere) and how I've lived (like a recluse), street harassment has been uncommon for me. I'm not used to dealing with it. However, I've spent enough time among feminists on-line that I've heard it discussed and dissected. I've learned about other people's experiences as they've shared their own stories. I know what street harassment is and how it works.<br />
<br />
Thanks to you, when it happened to me this week, I was prepared for it. I recognized it and understood it. Before, it would've completely unnerved me and sent me into an anxious tailspin. Instead, it was, in the moment, something of a non-event.<br />
<br />
Thank you, feminists.<br />
<br />
With love,<br />
Frank LeeAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01080258615868766350noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-254214037965105637.post-51147109563868087462013-01-03T22:08:00.000-05:002013-01-03T22:08:45.729-05:00Dear White PeopleDear White People,<br />
<br />
You know that situation where you're talking with a person of color and the topic of tanning comes up and you say something to the effect of, "When I tan, my skin is as dark as yours!"<br />
<br />
Stop that.<br />
<br />
Please, please stop.<br />
<br />
One of my friends (let's call her V) is a black woman. Her skin is a chocolate brown shade. White people insist on telling her all about how their skin becomes as dark as hers when they tan. They say this as if they expect her to bond with them over a shared skin tone, as if she'll merrily reply with, "Oh, that means that we have something tremendously important in common! Obviously, you understand the black experience so much more than other white people do! You and I are forever bonded by our dark skin!"<br />
<br />
In V's particular case, these white people are lying. At the very least they're exaggerating. However, even if she weren't chocolate brown, even if her skin were a light caramel shade, it would still be rude, insensitive, and racist for someone to try to bond with her over some perceived shared experience of color.<br />
<br />
If you, for some reason of your own, insist on talking about the various shades of brown your skin changes to when you tan, please stop trying to relate that particular color to the people around you. Simply determine on your own how you want to describe that color. Try using color names relating to food and/or trees, like mocha and mahogany and cappuccino or something. If you can talk about your own skin tones as if they aren't a commentary on someone else's, that would be terrific.<br />
<br />
With love,<br />
Frank LeeAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01080258615868766350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-254214037965105637.post-11224735159666963802012-12-30T19:29:00.000-05:002012-12-30T19:32:15.397-05:00Dear Blizzard<i>Use of homophobic slurs ahead.</i><br />
<br />
Dear Blizzard,<br />
<br />
Do you remember how <a href="http://withlovefranklee.blogspot.com/2012/12/dear-blizzard_21.html">I wrote to you</a> a week or so ago to ask why you stopped censoring the word "rape" on the forums?<br />
<br />
I didn't even realize, at the time, that you'd removed other words from the filter.<br />
<br />
For example: fag.<br />
<br />
I don't want to repeat my entire argument from last time, but here it is in short: You filtered the word in the first place because it's a disgusting, homophobic insult. By censoring it, you discouraged your players from using it and signaled to them that it's not an appropriate word to toss around in idle or angry conversation. By removing it from the filter, you're giving your players license to use the word whenever and however they wish. "Never mind, go ahead and say it! It's cool with us!"<br />
<br />
You say that you take harassment seriously. You claim that players aren't supposed to harass each other. How do you imagine the word "fag" coming into the conversation in a way that isn't homophobic? In what context do you anticipate players using that word in a sentence in a positive, friendly way? And does that imagined context counterbalance all of the negative, nasty, homophobic uses?<br />
<br />
I suppose that you'll suggest that if we find someone using homophobic language, we should report that person, and you'll handle it. As usual, the onus is on the players to clean up the community, and you take a step back from responsibility. You do realize, of course, that we were already reporting people for homophobic language. We've been doing that all along. Before, however, it seemed like we had your support in that; you were discouraging bad habits, censoring the most abused words, using your influence to squelch common, egregious homophobia. Now, we're in this on our own, and if we don't report it, you won't do a thing about it. You won't even bother to censor the words. Remind me, again, how much effort that took on your part?<br />
<br />
"Just report the offender," you say. We all know, after all, how responsive and efficient the reporting system is.<br />
<br />
I would love to understand the thought processes behind these decisions. "It was wrong of us to discourage our players from using homophobic slurs and making rape jokes. We should let their contempt run free! Who cares if that makes the gaming community even more hostile to marginalized populations? We've been using our influence to make WOW more inclusive, and that was obviously a mistake!"<br />
<br />
The censor works automatically. It's a "set it and forget it" sort of system. Why not leave it alone? Why make the decision to remove words from the filter? Who had this idea? Who decided what to include and what to remove? I certainly don't want to sit down with a list of misogynist terms and racist slurs and see what makes it through the filter, but I would love to know which other delightful little words you've given your blessing lately.<br />
<br />
With love,<br />
Frank Lee<br />
<br />
P.S. Again, <a href="http://withlovefranklee.blogspot.com/2012/12/dear-blizzard_11.html">that little problem</a> I had? Still a problem.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01080258615868766350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-254214037965105637.post-79470191822493320012012-12-21T18:37:00.001-05:002012-12-21T18:37:47.902-05:00Dear Blizzard<i>Notice for discussion of misuse of the word "rape."</i><br />
<br />
Dear Blizzard,<br />
<br />
Anyone with a subscription to the game can post on the <i>World of Warcraft</i> general forums. There's no "are you a decent human being" test to pass in order to gain posting privileges. While the rules state that certain words and behaviors aren't allowed, you know that some posters will break those rules. So you gave us a profanity filter.<br />
<br />
It was one of your better ideas. Knowing your playerbase as you do, you didn't stick to the typical curse words. You also included words like "homosexual," because some of your players are homophobic douchebags. You also included obvious racial slurs, because some of your players are racist douchebags. You also included "rape."<br />
<br />
I was glad that you chose to censor "rape." Gamers use it often as a metaphor for general in-game violence. Putting it behind the censor indicated that you didn't want it to be used that way, that you understood that to be an inappropriate and harmful use of a word with great significance to victims and their allies. It seemed as if you were exerting your influence against misogyny. I appreciated the effort; it's good to discourage the use of "rape" as a win/loss metaphor.<br />
<br />
I've played WOW for years and visited the forums for years. "Rape" was censored to the extent that we couldn't type "grape" or "drape" or "therapist" without tripping the filter, and forum regulars knew that. It was understood that "rape" was censored.<br />
<br />
Suddenly, it's not.<br />
<br />
A little while ago, I noticed that "drape" and "grape" weren't censored anymore. <i>Cool</i>, I thought. <i>Looks like the filter's more sensitive now, and can differentiate between "rape" and other variations.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
And then I read a post where someone claimed to have been "raped by tigers" in-game.<br />
<br />
And I noticed that the word "raped" was right there, uncensored.<br />
<br />
You removed "rape" from the filter.<br />
<br />
I could try to interpret this generously and assume that your reasoning was, "Hey, our players are mature and sensitive people, they don't need to be censored like this, we aren't giving them enough credit." But we both know that's not true.<br />
<br />
No. No, your playerbase hasn't changed. The word "rape" hasn't changed. Common misuse of it hasn't changed. The only thing that's changed is your stance.<br />
<br />
By changing your stance, you're signaling to your players that it's okay to use "rape" as a metaphor. You're letting everyone know that there's no need to be sensitive to victims.<br />
<br />
You were doing the right thing. Then you stopped doing the right thing, turned around, and said, "LOL! Never mind! Ugh, what was up with that?! Why be so <i>sensitive</i>? Let's go rape some elves!"<br />
<br />
You just gave forum posters your blessing to be more hostile to rape victims (and more hostile to populations already under threat of rape, like women and gay men and trans people, all of whom already deal with plenty of other hostile bullshit in the gaming community). You just removed that minor check that might have discouraged rape jokes and made some posters and readers think twice about rape as a metaphor. You've mentioned that only a minority of players visits the forums, but even a small percentage of people in such a popular game is a significant number of people, and those forums are busy. Even if only a small percentage of players visits the forums, turn that around: how many people reading and posting on the forums play the game? How will this new freedom to misuse "rape" affect conversations in-game?<br />
<br />
It would be one thing if you'd never taken a stance at all. Instead, you chose to take a position and then reverse it. In that reversal, you sent a very clear message. Maybe it wasn't the one you intended to convey.<br />
<br />
I hope that you'll reconsider.<br />
<br />
With love,<br />
Frank Lee<br />
<br />
P.S. <a href="http://withlovefranklee.blogspot.com/2012/12/dear-blizzard_11.html">That other little problem I have still hasn't been resolved.</a>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01080258615868766350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-254214037965105637.post-72720198141788033872012-12-21T17:59:00.001-05:002012-12-21T18:40:57.205-05:00Dear Good Men ProjectDear Good Men Project,<br />
<br />
I'd never heard of you before Jill at Feministe mentioned you in a series of blog posts <a href="http://withlovefranklee.blogspot.com/2012/12/dear-rape-apologists.html">I linked to here</a>. Reading those posts and hearing other people's experiences with you in comments, I came up with a cloudy but troubling idea of who you are and what you're about.<br />
<br />
Suddenly, it became much more clear.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2012/12/12/inside-baseball-with-feministe-and-the-good-men-project/">Jill posted</a> a link to a <a href="http://chirpstory.com/li/3470">Twitter conversation</a> involving one of your people, Tom Matlack. She called him your "head honcho," and I see that he's named on Wikipedia as your founder.<br />
<br />
Here's what he says in the middle of that Twitter conversation:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
@sjjphd my privilege? I grew up with nothing. My parents didn't have enough money. You have no idea what you are talking about.</blockquote>
He's speaking with feminists in a conversation relevant to gender studies, and he doesn't understand what the word "privilege" means in that context.<br />
<br />
I don't think that you can get very far in a progressive conversation without examining your privilege. I don't think that a feminist man who doesn't understand what privilege is can actually be feminist.<br />
<br />
If you haven't examined your privilege, if you haven't put forth some effort to cast a critical eye over the patriarchy and notice how you benefit from it, then you don't genuinely understand the deeply entrenched systems of oppression operating in this culture. If you don't understand how men benefit from sexism, or how white people benefit from racism, etc., you don't understand the patriarchy. Flailing around in social justice or gender studies circles without understanding the basics of the conversation generally means that you're hindering more than you're helping.<br />
<br />
Someone who doesn't understand what "privilege" means in this context can't participate in the conversation in any meaningful, productive way.<br />
<br />
He absolutely cannot lead the conversation.<br />
<br />
Yet Tom Matlack is your founder.<br />
<br />
As far as I can tell, he's male, white, and currently quite wealthy. I don't know him very well, but let's say for the sake of argument that he grew up cis and straight. As a man, he benefits from sexism. As a white person, he benefits from racism. As a cis person, he benefits from transphobia. As a straight person, he benefits from homophobia. And when a feminist in a conversation on gender says the word "privilege," his immediate response is: <i>I grew up poor. I wasn't wealthy. </i>As if the advantage of wealth is the only advantage of importance. As if the economic class we're born into is the only privilege of relevance.<br />
<br />
He has no idea, then, how being white has helped him in life. How being a man has been a benefit. How being cis and/or being straight is an advantage in a transphobic, homophobic society. (That's not even to get into TAB privilege, thin privilege, and the rest.)<br />
<br />
If you don't understand privilege, you don't understand oppression. If you don't understand the kyriarchy, you don't understand what progressives are fighting for, or why. How can you ask what it is to be a good man if you don't understand what being a man means in the patriarchy? How far can that conversation among men progress if you don't begin with a fundamental understanding of your own shared privilege?<br />
<br />
It's a truth that the patriarchy hurts men, too. Yet a man who doesn't realize that he benefits from the patriarchy by virtue of his very maleness is ignorant and needs to approach gender studies from the very beginning. A man who doesn't know how he benefits from sexism doesn't know what sexism is.<br />
<br />
Your founder isn't at the "What does it mean to be a good man?" portion of the conversation. He's at the "What does it mean to be a man?" portion.<br />
<br />
What sorts of men is the Good Men Project for? How can you invite all kinds of men to the conversation if you don't understand the dynamics of oppression? If Tom Matlack doesn't understand his own white privilege, how does he include men of color? How does he reach out to them to share their experiences and discuss their issues if he doesn't understand racism?<br />
<br />
Let's go back to the tweet I quoted above. During Tom Matlack's conversation with other feminists, he said something which drew Sarah J. Jackson (@sjjphd) into the discussion. It does not thrill me to notice that while the other ongoing conversations overlap, his conversation with Sarah J. Jackson involves no one else. I wish that she didn't have to go it alone, that others had spoken up with her as they supported each other.<br />
<br />
For context, she's a woman of color who describes herself on Twitter as an "Asst. Prof. Researching & Teaching about Media Narratives of Race, Gender & Political Protest." Here's the comment she replied to and their ensuing conversation.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
@hugoschwyzer do you assume all black people are felons since they commit more crimes on average than white people? http://t.co/nhVHnbfv<br />
TMatlack 15/Dec/2011 08:20:33 AM PST </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
@TMatlack This analogy is SO spurious. Please don't use it tom argue ur point if u want POC to have any part in what ur doing. @hugoschwyzer<br />
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 09:36:51 AM PST </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
@sjjphd @hugoschwyzer groups aren't guilty. Individuals are.<br />
TMatlack 15/Dec/2011 10:13:18 AM PST </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
@TMatlack men=historically privileged, POC=historically oppressed. Comparing stereotypes 2 make point=inaccurate, unproductive, & ingnorant.<br />
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 10:22:56 AM PST </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
@TMatlack It's cool 2 get caught up in a heated debate but using false racial hyperbole in it? Your privilege is showing & I know ur better.<br />
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 10:25:04 AM PST </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
@TMatlack And that's with all due respect to the arc of what you're doing at GMP. Sensational & spurious discourse helps nothing.<br />
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 10:26:56 AM PST </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
@sjjphd calling all men rapists or all POC criminals equally sexist/racist IMO. I am a white man. Does that make me guilty ?<br />
TMatlack 15/Dec/2011 10:27:36 AM PST </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
@TMatlack It is NOT equal because -isms have 2 do w/ the structural power grps historically & contemporarily have over others.<br />
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 10:30:16 AM PST </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
@sjjphd my privilege? I grew up with nothing. My parents didn't have enough money. You have no idea what you are talking about.<br />
TMatlack 15/Dec/2011 10:32:50 AM PST </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
@TMatlack Last time I checked men weren't continuously structurally disenfranchised. You're def guilty of is a lack of racial sensitivity.<br />
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 10:33:13 AM PST </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
@TMatlack I was talking about white privilege Tom, it exists and even poor white people can experience it.<br />
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 10:34:17 AM PST </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
@sjjphd btw if you actually look at my writing I have been the taking most on GMP about race and sex tracking, the real stuff not judgement<br />
TMatlack 15/Dec/2011 10:35:07 AM PST </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
@TMatlack As a POC who wants 2 support what ur doing at GMP I was simply requesting u not use racially insensitive language to make a point.<br />
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 10:36:10 AM PST </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
@sjjphd read my work on race, prison etc before you go calling me racist please.<br />
TMatlack 15/Dec/2011 10:37:08 AM PST </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
@TMatlack I know! Which is why I was suprised u made the comparison u did. I know u know better. Why the defensiveness?<br />
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 10:37:33 AM PST </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
@TMatlack HOLY SHIT I DID NOT CALL YOU A RACIST. I said the racial comparison is spurious, which it is. Your defensiveness is shocking me.<br />
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 10:39:06 AM PST</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
@TMatlack & it is possible 4 ppl not 2 be racist & still be capable of saying less than accurate/sensitive things re race. #thoughtyoudcare<br />
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 10:43:44 AM PST </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
@sjjphd I was being sensitive to the many black men in prison who feel they were a victim of racism.<br />
TMatlack 15/Dec/2011 10:47:52 AM PST </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
@TMatlack Um? That's not how it came across. It seemed u were comparing black oppression 2 stereotyping of men. Not the same but #Igiveup<br />
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 10:50:49 AM PST </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
@TMatlack 4 the record I greatly respect what u do. Sad u can't hear from a POC & some1 who studies race that ur comparison was problematic.<br />
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 10:53:58 AM PST </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
@sjjphd I don't believe I ever criticized *you*. You tried to educate me on race/gender which I find demeaning since I have my own views.<br />
TMatlack 15/Dec/2011 10:58:29 AM PST </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
@TMatlack U find fact men aren't oppressed grp & black ppl are, & my trying 2 alert u in good conscience abt prob w/ comparison demeaning?<br />
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 11:42:43 AM PST </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
@TMatlack #Icantanymore but hope ppl read ur friend Steve's & my pieces on having convos abt race: http://t.co/1h7Pxyci http://t.co/Q2q87X5G<br />
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 11:44:27 AM PST</blockquote>
The entire back-and-forth echoes countless conversations playing out all across the sphere of feminism and social justice. She points out that his language is harmful to a marginalized population. She takes pains to compliment him, to soften her critique, to make it a point to acknowledge his efforts. He replies with ignorant statements. She tries to educate him and explain what she means (all knowledge he should already have). He doesn't thank her, doesn't agree with her, but instead explains that he's already got all of this stuff down pat and has been doing the <i>real</i> work on these issues all along ("the real stuff not judgement"). He plays the "I'm not racist" game. He continues to insist that he's done nothing wrong, that he's entirely in the right, and that he can't be educated. She continues to try to explain while still offering compliments. He refuses to listen ("I have my own views"). She gets tired. He stops responding. She gives up.<br />
<br />
She shouldn't have to work this hard to communicate with someone who considers himself a feminist ("@jennpozner I didn't take it personally. I consider myself a feminist. But apparently that word has many meanings.") and a tireless worker on issues of racism. He should be her ally. She starts off with "please" and spends the entire conversation offering him cookies. She points out, for the record, that she's a person of color who studies race. She explains all of her points in a way that anyone who's written about race should easily grasp. Yet he doesn't seem to hear a word she says. He has his "own views," and he clings to them until he exhausts her and she gives up.<br />
<br />
He doesn't know what privilege is, and he doesn't seem to care. When a member of a marginalized population asks him to reconsider his analogies, he defends himself and argues back without seeming to accept anything she says. Not once does he agree with any of her points. Instead, he implies that he's doing the <i>real</i> work while she's not ("the real stuff not judgment" in a conversation where he clearly feels judged), he directs her twice to read his work (when she's already praised his project), he calls her comments "demeaning," and he says, literally, "You have no idea what you are talking about."<br />
<br />
He doesn't know the basics of gender studies. He doesn't know the basics of racism. He doesn't know what "privilege" is (either the word itself or the general concept). He doesn't respond well to criticism.<br />
<br />
How can the Good Men Project progress when the man at the top thinks that he knows it all already and isn't open to learning?<br />
<br />
As I said earlier, if you want talk about what it means to be a good man, you need to start by talking about what it means to be a man. Part of being a man in a patriarchy means benefiting from sexism. Understanding how you benefit from sexism means understanding privilege. You have to start somewhere; <a href="http://www.shakesville.com/2010/06/part-ii.html">try these</a> two posts <a href="http://www.shakesville.com/2011/03/feminism-101-situational-and-relative.html">by Liss</a> at Shakesville.<br />
<br />
A final tweet from Tom Matlack:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
it's the good "mens" project. women are welcome but the point is to inspire men to be good.</blockquote>
Like many others, I would be very happy to have more good men around. Most of us would be glad to help. Many of us have been trying to help. And when we try, bringing our experience and expertise and years of study to the table, we're told things like, "You have no idea what you're talking about." Is that really what a "good man" would say?<br />
<br />
With love,<br />
Frank LeeAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01080258615868766350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-254214037965105637.post-49719834972092012482012-12-15T17:55:00.000-05:002012-12-15T17:56:48.175-05:00Dear Rape Apologists<i>Discussion of rape, rape culture.</i><br />
<br />
Dear Rape Apologists,<br />
<br />
At <a href="http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2012/12/08/what-in-holy-hell-is-this/">Feministe</a> and <a href="http://www.shakesville.com/2012/12/an-important-note-about-rape-culture.html">Shakesville</a> lately I've seen discussion of a site called the Good Men Project, where rape apologists and friends of rapists and actual rapists are having a lively conversation about how rape is such an abstract thing, and consent is such a tricky thing, that it's easy for good, well-meaning, decent guys to be rapists.<br />
<br />
(More on Feministe: <a href="http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2012/12/10/and-just-when-you-thought-the-good-men-project-couldnt-get-any-worse/">one</a> <a href="http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2012/12/12/inside-baseball-with-feministe-and-the-good-men-project/">two</a> <a href="http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2012/12/13/good-men-projects-rape-faceplant-predators-and-the-social-license-to-operate/">three</a>.)<br />
<br />
Jill and Liss and tons of feminists all over since forever have been discussing and explaining why all of that is bullshit. As you can see from the linked posts, studies and stats and everyday experience demonstrate that's not how it works. But here's my question: what about the men?<br />
<br />
Yeah, I went there.<br />
<br />
You see, arguing on a site called the Good Men Project that "Nice Guys Commit Rape Too" (actual title!) is a really nasty insult to all of the actual good, nice, decent men out there. Talking about how it's so easy for nice guys to be rapists and how good men slip up, too, lumps good men who've never raped anyone into the same category with actual rapists.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2012/12/10/and-just-when-you-thought-the-good-men-project-couldnt-get-any-worse/">This guy</a> is a rapist:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
When I sit down and think about it, it seems like I’ve accepted a certain amount of rape as the cost of doing business, and so have most of the people I know.</blockquote>
Compare to:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2012/12/10/and-just-when-you-thought-the-good-men-project-couldnt-get-any-worse/#comment-558072">Last summer</a>, I was at a party and had two drinks, which is a lot for me because I drink very occasionally (2-3 times a year) and am also on medications that amplify alcohol’s effects. I was half passed out on the couch, and a dear friend of mine, a man who I know has in the past been sexually attracted to me, came in and found me on the couch. What did he do? Did he stick his hand up his shirt? Did he get on top of me? He’d been drinking, after all! No, he fucking got me a glass of water and talked to me until I was awake enough to rejoin the goddamn party.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2012/12/10/and-just-when-you-thought-the-good-men-project-couldnt-get-any-worse/#comment-560588">My brother</a> hung out with a really wild crowd a few years back, and after partying with them one of the roommates told me I was welcome to go crash in the bed downstairs. What he didn’t tell me was that that bed had an owner who showed up a couple of hours later very, very drunk. I woke up to the guy saying “alright!” and crawling in next to me; he threw an arm around my waste, cuddled up to my back and promptly fell asleep. The next morning he brought up the idea of having sex over a glass of water. Turns out the creep who’d told me where I could sleep undisturbed told him he had a girl waiting in his room for him. He wanted to get laid, was informed that he had an invitation for sex, but because he wasn’t a rapist he put the matter on hold till I was fit to respond. He missed out getting his dick wet, but he was also spared the guilt and moral confusion that these accidental rapists claim to be so tortured by.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2012/12/10/and-just-when-you-thought-the-good-men-project-couldnt-get-any-worse/#comment-558140">I drank</a> myself blind when I was young. I drank until I had multi-day hangovers, and I was drinking in bars with other people who were–wait for it–also drinking. Some of these people, in retrospect, almost certainly had drinking problems. They were drunk, I was drunk, here’s what happened: we made stupid jokes, fell off barstools, flirted outrageously. On one occasion, I threw up and passed out in the bathroom (I know, I know: I’m very sophisticated). And yet–I know this is amazing, it’s going to blow your minds–not one of my drinking companions raped me. Not once. Not the bartender who found me in the ladies’ room and drove me home. Not the guy I had a crush on, whom I had to call once to find out how I’d gotten home from CBGB. Not the 6’2″ amateur boxer who was the bouncer. Not any of them.</blockquote>
Your narrative of "rape is a terrible thing that good guys accidentally fall into" and "drinking makes consent too blurry for anyone to negotiate ever" and "mixed signals" and all of the rest of it is disgusting, contemptible bullshit. The difference between the tales of "I had a wild night of drinking and dancing and good times" and "I had a wild night of drinking and dancing and then someone raped me" doesn't hinge on the number of drinks, it hinges on the number of rapists.<br />
<br />
Good guys aren't rapists. Nice guys aren't rapists. Rapists are rapists.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2012/12/10/and-just-when-you-thought-the-good-men-project-couldnt-get-any-worse/#comment-558140">As EG explains:</a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
And I’m not saying that all of these guys were good guys. Some of them were real assholes. But you know what they weren’t, at least with respect to me? Rapists. It’s a pretty low bar to clear.</blockquote>
With love,<br />
Frank LeeAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01080258615868766350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-254214037965105637.post-72132906299149375932012-12-11T21:15:00.003-05:002012-12-11T21:58:35.260-05:00Dear Blizzard<i>Note for racial slurs.</i><br />
<br />
Dear Blizzard,<br />
<br />
I'm having some trouble with your customer service.<br />
<br />
The other day, I was wasting time on the <i>World of Warcraft </i>website. I decided to see what was going on in the PVP world and which classes were on top. Looking over the top-ranked teams and players, I noticed something deeply unpleasant.<br />
<br />
I contacted customer service. (I'll post my initial complaint in full here, in the interest of accuracy. I'll break it up into paragraphs for easier readability. Names in bold if you want to skim.)<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/pvp/arena/rampage/3v3 </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
On this page, there are several arena team names which are completely inappropriate and break naming regulations. Rank #21 <b>"iskall suk my deek"</b> from Illidan, rank #22 <b>"purpledrank is fo nagas"</b> from Illidan, rank #23 <b>"We pop Cherrys"</b> from Kirin Tor, and rank #28 <b>"iwnaputmybeefintourtaco"</b> from Stormreaver. While you're posting highly ranked teams for the world to admire, please make sure that they're not a disgrace and embarrassment to the entire community. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In the 2v2 bracket, rank #8 <b>"shat on ur face"</b> from Stormreaver, rank #18 <b>"Helen Keller VS Traffic"</b> from Stormreaver, rank #18 <b>"cap yo shiz"</b> from Kirin Tor, rank #24 <b>"DAYUM DATASS"</b> from Stormreaver, rank #35 <b>"team nignig"</b> from Stormreaver, and rank #44 <b>"naga needs points"</b> from Illidan.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In the 5v5 bracket, rank #22 <b>"Shytsnmasterbations"</b> from Stormreaver and rank #35 <b>"Fandom Ruckin Comp"</b> from Illidan.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
On the "Rated Battlegrounds" page, there is #9 <b>Jackslowfuk</b> from Blackrock and #15 <b>Rapiesroofie</b> from Mannoroth, not to mention all of the player names listed which end in "LOL" or otherwise break the game's naming conventions. Please enforce your own rules for your own game.</blockquote>
<a href="http://withlovefranklee.blogspot.com/2012/12/dear-blizzard.html">Then I wrote this post.</a><br />
<br />
My support ticket received a reply (my emphasis in bold):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Hey there! </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Sir Game Master Ranlim here. I hope this message reaches you in good spirits! </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Thank you for taking the time to submit a petition about those arena teams names. At Blizzard, we encourage and appreciate the role of the gaming community in keeping World of Warcraft a safe and enjoyable environment for all participants. ^_^ </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>I want to let you know I am going to be personally investigating this mere moments from now!</b> Following said investigation, I will take all necessary and appropriate actions to address this matter, as determined by our policies (which you can see here: https://us.battle.net/support/en/article/policy). </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
With the release of Patch 4.3.4 there is another way to report violation that will also provide a detail contextual report that will assist us to take appropriate action on them. This can be done by using the in-game right-click report option. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
To report bad language, a bad name, spamming, or cheating:<br />
1. Right-click the player's name in chat.<br />
2. Select Report Player For<br />
3. Select the appropriate category for your report. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
To report a bad name or cheating you may also right-click report using the player's portrait. To report a player this way:<br />
1. Right-click the player's portrait<br />
2. Select Report Player For<br />
3. Select the appropriate category for your report. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Thanks again for your help! It means a lot to us. <3 </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Regards,<br />
Game Master Ranlim<br />
Customer Services<br />
Blizzard Entertainment<br />
www.blizzard.com/support</blockquote>
Great, I thought. Ranlim's on it. He'll take care of it.<br />
<br />
I waited.<br />
<br />
I checked the PVP pages again.<br />
<br />
The names were still there.<br />
<br />
I re-opened the ticket, keeping it simple:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
They're still there.</blockquote>
I came back later. The names were still there. I checked my ticket. (Emphasis mine.)<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Helllo :) </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Once again we will need you to do this below in order to action these players as <b>we do not take action on names like this and it needs to be sent in differently.</b> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Please do the following for the names bellow. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
To report bad language, a bad name, spamming, or cheating:<br />
1. Right-click the player’s name in chat.<br />
2. Select Report Player For<br />
3. Select the appropriate category for your report. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
To report a bad name or cheating you may also right-click report using the player's portrait. To report a player this way:<br />
1. Right-click the player’s portrait<br />
2. Select Report Player For<br />
3. Select the appropriate category for your report. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
While no response to the report will be possible, rest assured that we will investigate and take appropriate action to address the issue as they come in. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Game Master Pyroidia<br />
Blizzard Entertainment</blockquote>
"Right-click the player's name in chat?" "Right-click report using the player's portrait?" Those are in-game actions only; my problem is with names listed on the website. I made that clear; my initial complaint begins with a link to the arena teams page. At this point, I began to doubt the sincerity of that soothing "rest assured that we will investigate and take appropriate action to address the issue as they come in." I was not assured.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Please read my initial ticket more carefully. These are names on the website. I cannot right-click to report names featured on the website; I am not in-game. The first CSR who replied to the ticket claimed to be looking into it. What happened to that?</blockquote>
As you can imagine, after that your customer service representatives began to read more closely and provided more accurate replies. (Emphasis mine.)<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Greetings! </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
If you encounter such names in the game itself, negatively effecting your gameplay experience, please report them to us. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>We cannot accept such reports from examinations of the armory. The opinion of a realm itself, and players who encounter such names from within the game are the required impetus for our investigation into whether a name is requiring a change or is a vioaltion.</b> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
An additional technical reason for this workflow, is the beta functionality of the armory itself. It is not updated regulary or instantly (even requiring actual characters to log into the game before an update occurs often times), meaning <b>such reports via 'armory hunting' are at times out of date or innacurate. </b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Thank you for your time and patience. Should you need further assistance, please hit the Need more help button below. For any game play questions, please consider visiting our official game forums. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
We now have a one stop shop for all your customer service needs. Ever need to review how a petition was handled? Submit one out of game? Stop by your new 'Support' section of Bnet today to see all the new features available! </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Game Master Mykyroro<br />
Customer Services<br />
Blizzard Entertainment</blockquote>
Oops! No, instead, I was accused of "armory-hunting."<br />
<br />
The link I supplied at the very beginning of my first ticket was not to the armory. I didn't have to "hunt" through anything to see those names. They're showcased by you in the main body of your website. They're the top-ranked PVP teams and players featured in the PVP section under "community." I didn't look them up; you showed them to me. You offered them for all of the world to see as the kinds of players we should strive to emulate and overcome.<br />
<br />
I don't blame the Game Masters specifically. I don't blame Pyroidia or Mykyroro for their poor customer service. I blame you and the corporate policies you set in place and the corporate culture you establish.<br />
<br />
You should have a watchdog system set up to catch at least some of the worst names. While I agree with encouraging the use of the "right-click to report" feature, you should allow GMs to accept other kinds of reports as well. If someone with an atrocious name runs past me in-game and disappears or logs out before I finish right-clicking and reporting, I should still be able to report that name. How many reports does it take to get a GM's attention? Names with obvious racial slurs should only have to be reported once before you take action. I don't believe that your GMs have poor reading comprehension; I believe that they're rushed, harried, overworked, and too intently focused on closing tickets to be effective at their jobs, and I can only guess that it's because you're emphasizing closed ticket rates over genuine customer service. Do you see why that's maybe a problem?<br />
<br />
You rely on your players to clean up the game for you instead of taking an active approach to it yourself. You install a new feature and then won't allow any other method of communication to be used. You set up RP naming conventions and then don't enforce them, and when we ask you to, we're ignored.<br />
<br />
In the last GM's message to me, I was instructed to "hit the Need more help button below." Handy advice, but that proved to be impossible. Someone closed my ticket so that I cannot reply or re-open it. If I want any hope of action on your part, I'll have to start all over from the beginning. Is that really the best method of customer service? Discouraging us until we give up?<br />
<br />
I don't know what happened to the first GM's efforts to help. I don't know why the conversation deteriorated to accusations of "armory hunting."<br />
<br />
I do know that <a href="http://us.battle.net/wow/en/pvp/arena/rampage/2v2">"team nignig"</a> is still proudly listed as a highly ranked team, though. I suppose that's not a problem, right? According to your GMs, you need "the opinion of a realm itself" to decide whether a name's inappropriate or not, and you couldn't possibly tell, without taking a realm-wide poll, whether or not the name should be changed.<br />
<br />
That's the worst of this. The racist, misogynistic element of gamer culture is loud and proud. You know that it's a problem, and I would hope that you would want to counteract it, to make cleaning it up a priority. The more welcoming gaming is to more kinds of people, the more subscribers you'll gain, right? But when staring proof of it right in the face, when being asked to clean it up, your employees are too busy insisting on irrelevant protocol to help.<br />
<br />
That leaves the racism and misogyny of gamer culture featured on your website for all to see. Because as far as you're concerned, properly filling out form 32, section B, paragraph 5 is more important than censoring racial slurs.<br />
<br />
Or do you think that "purpledrank is fo nagas" genuinely refers to the in-game humanoid and "iwnaputmybeefintourtaco" is a compliment?<br />
<br />
With love,<br />
Frank LeeAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01080258615868766350noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-254214037965105637.post-61495817253693204042012-12-10T17:15:00.000-05:002012-12-10T17:15:24.279-05:00Dear Fearful MenDear Fearful Men,<br />
<br />
I understand your concerns.<br />
<br />
You only want to have a conversation. You just want to ask a question. You simply want to make a point. Yet you know that, as soon as you do, you'll be attacked, piled on, ganged up on, by those terrible, mean, aggressive, violent, abusive women.<br />
<br />
So <a href="http://www.shakesville.com/2012/12/feminism-101-helpful-hints-for-dudes.html">you preface your comment</a> with something like, "I know that I'm going to get hit for saying this, but." Or you end your comment with, "*ducks*."<br />
<br />
And when you see another man say something you know those violent feminists will be upset with him for, you <a href="http://www.shakesville.com/2012/07/nope.html">offer him an airlift out</a>, for his own safety.<br />
<br />
It's reasonable. After all, with those violent bands of women roaming the streets, no man is safe these days. I can't even tell you how awful it is for men to go out in public anymore, with all of the threats, the cat-calling, the street harassment. Women are so aggressive, so violent, so likely to attack. And when you men are assaulted, you get blamed for it! You're told that you should have behaved differently, that women can't help themselves, that it's in their nature to be so aggressive and it's up to you to soothe their savage instincts.<br />
<br />
And when you men do manage to speak up about the issue, when you get together to discuss the prevalence of woman-on-man violence, when you share the story of your assault, there those women are again, butting in aggressively, putting their two cents in and adding, "Now, don't gang up on me for saying this, but..."<br />
<br />
What do they even mean by that? Don't they get it? Don't they know that, statistically and in your personal experience, you're more in danger from them than they are from you? That they're more likely to assault you than you are to assault them? What's the point of making a comment like that in the first place? It's to put you in your place, isn't it? To remind you to be nice, to be polite, to be sweet, to placate them. You don't want to make them angry, after all. You don't want to rile the beast. You'd better play nice, and smile, and offer them cookies for showing up to the conversation at all. After all, it's generous of them to try to join in the discussion, to try to help out, when you're the ones with the problem, you're the ones getting hurt, you're the ones who need help.<br />
<br />
It's awful, isn't it? It's ridiculous, when the victims of violence and rape and assault are treated as if they're violent, they're aggressive, they're abusive. It's entirely backwards. It's an insult to reality.<br />
<br />
If women really wanted to help, after all, if they really wanted to contribute to the conversation, they'd just do it. They'd approach the conversation with genuine openness. They wouldn't assume a hostile audience. They'd understand why they might face a hostile audience, and they'd watch their step accordingly. They'd do more listening than demanding. They would acknowledge that, according to the statistics and to your lived experiences, women are much more likely to assault men than men are to assault women, so even joking comments about ducking after saying something that might be received poorly is in bad taste, especially given the topic of conversation.<br />
<br />
I guess they're not interested in respectful, sincere dialogue, though. It's easier for them to accuse you of creating a hostile environment, of blaming you for their lack of participation, of setting up the situation so that you're at fault if they don't want to continue the conversation.<br />
<br />
It's a terrible situation. I hope that they realize what they're doing, someday, and stop it.<br />
<br />
With love,<br />
Frank LeeAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01080258615868766350noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-254214037965105637.post-10878339776801771362012-12-09T21:09:00.001-05:002012-12-09T21:11:02.822-05:00Dear Blizzard<i>Racial slurs to follow.</i><br />
<br />
Dear Blizzard,<br />
<br />
The "player versus player" aspect of <i>World of Warcraft</i> involves a large portion of the playerbase. The game's best PVP players are involved in internationally broadcast championships. PVP is an important enough part of the game that <a href="http://us.battle.net/wow/en/pvp/">there's a section of the website dedicated to it.</a><br />
<br />
If you click that link, it'll take you to lists of the most highly ranked PVP players and teams.<br />
<br />
A few of the team names listed today:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
iskall suk my deek<br />
purpledrank is fo nagas<br />
We pop Cherrys<br />
iwnaputmybeefintourtaco<br />
shat on ur face<br />
Helen Keller VS Traffic<br />
cap yo shiz<br />
DAYUM DATASS<br />
team nignig<br />
naga needs points<br />
Shytsnmasterbations<br />
Fandom Ruckin Comp</blockquote>
(For anyone reading over my shoulder, "naga" is a kind of water-dwelling humanoid creature in the game. It also just happens to sound similar to a racial slur.)<br />
<br />
A couple of the more egregious player names:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Jackslowfuk<br />
Rapiesroofie</blockquote>
I would guess that these lists are automatically generated, but it would behoove you to keep an eye on them. This is a public website, the face of <i>World of Warcraft</i> and Blizzard Entertainment.<br />
<br />
Playing on an RP server and running into characters named "Huntard" and "Monkslol" is bad enough. Seeing "team nignig" on the game's website is a disgrace.<br />
<br />
I wish that you respected your game enough to ensure that its rules weren't broken.<br />
<br />
I wish that you respected WOW's community enough to help us fight this kind of behavior.<br />
<br />
Please, at least respect your reputation enough to take action. Add something behind the scenes to flag names with certain letter combinations. Become more assertive about responding to reports. Read what's posted on your own website.<br />
<br />
With love,<br />
Frank LeeAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01080258615868766350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-254214037965105637.post-4770175815527024762012-12-09T18:59:00.001-05:002012-12-09T18:59:37.607-05:00Dear Parks and RecreationDear "Parks and Recreation,"<br />
<br />
Something pretty terrific happened in the TV world this week.<br />
<br />
Leslie Knope refused to call someone a bitch.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I need to protect a sweet couple from a sex-crazed librarian who makes me question my stance on using the b-word. I dunno, maybe just this once. No, Leslie, fight it. FIGHT IT."</blockquote>
Part of being a feminist means checking your language. Our culture inundates us with negative stereotypes and negative terms for women. Being a feminist means policing our language to scrub it of those themes and terms.<br />
<br />
Once you've advanced your feminism game, it's easier. Once you've eschewed those words, you don't find them on the tip of your tongue anymore. And some of us never used them to begin with.<br />
<br />
But for most of us, we go through a phase (sometimes a long phase) where we find it hard not to slip from time to time. That word is just so fitting and it's just so cutting and you're really pissed off and you know it's wrong but in this one case it seems so, so right.<br />
<br />
For some people, the word is "bitch." For others, it's something else. You know that you shouldn't say it, but it pops out from time to time. It's hard to give up; nothing else says what you mean in quite the same way.<br />
<br />
But it's important for us to stand firm. It's important for us not to fall into the easy insults the patriarchy so eagerly recommends.<br />
<br />
That's why I love this moment so much. For one, it rings so true. That's a real moment, a recognizable moment I know so many of us have echoed. For another, Leslie doesn't give in to temptation. She fights it. She stays true to her principles.<br />
<br />
It's easy to have those moments of weakness. I'm proud of Leslie for standing strong, and I'm proud of "Parks and Rec" for giving us this win.<br />
<br />
With love,<br />
Frank LeeAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01080258615868766350noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-254214037965105637.post-83503819579807898672012-12-09T18:44:00.000-05:002012-12-09T19:00:05.795-05:00Dear WOW PlayerDear <i>World of Warcraft</i> Player,<br />
<br />
You invite someone to group with you. For the sake of this letter, let's call her K.<br />
<br />
K doesn't respond, because she has no idea who you are and doesn't see anyone with your name in her immediate vicinity.<br />
<br />
You whisper an embarrassed apology, explaining that you sent the invitation by accident.<br />
<br />
(This is odd. The two of you weren't in the same guild, same zone, or same chat channels. How did you invite her by accident? By misspelling her name? Not likely, not an unusual name during off-peak hours. By right-clicking her name and hitting "invite" by mistake? But why would you have had her name on-screen in the first place? You would've had to do a /who search for people of her level or in her zone or something, and why would you have done that? The two of you were on different zones in different continents and at different levels.)<br />
<br />
She says that it's fine, accidents happen.<br />
<br />
You talk about how late it is and how tired you are. She agrees that it's late and says that she's tired, too. You mention having a daughter. You call K "sweety." Since most players seem to assume that other players are male unless otherwise told, K assumes that you think she's a guy, so you must be someone who calls anyone and everyone sweety. Since most of the straight men she knows don't call other men sweety, she goes by stereotypes and assumes that you must be a woman or a gay man. (While she thinks that it would be terrific if straight men addressed other men as sweety, that's not part of K's experience.)<br />
<br />
You ask her what time it is where she is.<br />
<br />
She hesitates to reply. After all, she knows not to give out personal information on the Net. Still, you seem to be some friendly, chatty woman (or a friendly, chatty gay man) and it wouldn't hurt to be friendly in return just this once. So she mentions what time it is where she is.<br />
<br />
You ask if she has a child, too. She says no, she has a dog.<br />
<br />
You say that you're divorced. You ask whether she's married. She says that she's single.<br />
<br />
You tell her how old you are. You ask how old she is. She's uncomfortable with this Q&A on personal information. She begins to think about how much she's already told you. You know her time zone, you assume that she lives alone (you've already made a comment about her being "lonely.") You know that she has a dog, and that simple fact has been used against her before, when someone threatened to harm her dog. She tells you that she's not comfortable giving out personal information on-line.<br />
<br />
You tell her that you understand. You refer to yourself as male.<br />
<br />
She starts to wonder what's really going on here. You contacted her out of the blue with an excuse she was willing to accept in good faith but which honestly seems very shaky. You began to call her "sweet" and "sweety" far before you had any indication of her gender, which suggests that you assumed her to be female from the start, but why would you assume that about someone you accidentally contacted at random, when the overwhelming consensus among players seems to be that the default WOW player is a guy?<br />
<br />
You began to flatter her early in the conversation, when you knew nothing more about her than that she's a human being who plays WOW, types in complete sentences, and doesn't reply to accidental invitations with, "Fuck off, n00b."<br />
<br />
Now you begin to press for her age a second time, after she's already told you that she doesn't want to discuss it. You push for her to admit to an age range. When she tells you again that she's not comfortable disclosing that information, you begin to talk about hugging her, inquiring into the kinds of hugs she prefers.<br />
<br />
Throughout this conversation, she's tried to be friendly, because she wants to be polite. She's been told all of her life how important it is to be polite to people, especially as a woman. She's also been told that it's her responsibility to protect herself from "stranger danger," so she's also been a bit removed, so as not to seem too encouraging. It's a weird dance and she hasn't been happy with any of her replies; they all seem too forward or too cold. She can't simply relax and have a good time, because if anything happens, even something so simple as you posting this chat log on-line later for everyone to have a good laugh at, it'll be her fault for not saying the right things in the right way.<br />
<br />
She doesn't know who you are or what you want. You claim to have contacted her by accident, but that doesn't make logical sense. You continue to push for personal information even after she's asked you not to discuss it. She has reason not to trust you.<br />
<br />
Is it any surprise that she stops replying?<br />
<br />
Here's a tip for you. Act like you want to get to know her as a human being. Instead of wheedling her age, gender, and location out of her, start with what you already have in common: the game you're both currently playing. Ask how long she's been playing, if she's into raiding, if she's into pet battles, that sort of thing. Tell her how you're enjoying the new expansion and which achievement you'll work on next. Instead of telling her how "sweet" she is after thirty seconds of polite conversation during which you really learned nothing about her except that she's capable of pulling off decent grammar and punctuation, get to know her as a person so that you can learn whether she really is sweet, or sarcastic, or a complex human being with various personality traits which don't all fit under generic assumptions.<br />
<br />
I don't know why you assumed her to be a woman. Maybe it was her character's race, her class, her name? (Maybe you're the alt of someone she knows, which makes this entire situation even slimier.) Playing the "accidental invitation" game is conniving and starts the entire conversation off on a bad foot. Why not be honest? Whisper people and tell them that you're bored and sleepy and want to talk.<br />
<br />
Don't lie to women to get them to interact with you. Don't press for details when someone has already set boundaries. Don't drop generic compliments so early they're meaningless. Treat women like human beings you want to get to know.<br />
<br />
The woman you contacted would love to have a boyfriend who plays WOW. But it's more important to her to have a boyfriend who respects her boundaries. If you won't respect her limits about conversation topics, she has no reason to believe you'll respect her limits about anything else.<br />
<br />
With love,<br />
Frank LeeAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01080258615868766350noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-254214037965105637.post-66666180407853078702012-12-07T16:28:00.000-05:002012-12-07T16:29:04.206-05:00Dear Ke$ha<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>US pop star Ke$ha says she wants to be a gay man because they are 'magical people'.<br />The Tik Tok singer whose latest single Die Young is out now told Britain's Gaydar Radio that she feels a strong bond with gay men.<br />Asked if she would like to be a gay man, she answered: 'Are you joking? Yes, I do.'<br />Ke$ha added: 'There's just an energy to a gay man.<br />'It's not really comparable to any other people. You guys just exude just this happiness.<br />'Pretty much my whole touring party, as far as, like, the dancers, it's a lot of gay, beautiful, beautiful men. And they're just gorgeous. And their love of life is amazing. They're just, I don't know, just really magical people.'<br />-<a href="http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/keha-wants-be-gay-man-because-they-are-magical-people071212">GSN</a>, <a href="http://www.shakesville.com/2012/12/in-news_7.html">via</a></i></blockquote>
Dear Ke$ha,<br />
<br />
I believe that when you talk about gay men being magical, beautiful people who love life, you mean to be complimentary. I believe that you mean well.<br />
<br />
But that was a really harmful, bullshit thing to say.<br />
<br />
Gay men are not more or less energetic, more or less happy, more or less beautiful, gorgeous, or magical than anyone else. They don't love life more or less than anyone else. They are, in fact, comparable to other kinds of people. You've created some separate, special, unique category for them, removing them from the general population of humankind, as if they're magical fairy creatures here to be beautiful and celebrate life and sparkle.<br />
<br />
Gay men are just people. Some gay men are old. Some gay men are ill-tempered. Some gay men are racist and/or stupid and/or ugly. Some gay men are felons. Some gay men are abusive. Some gay men don't use their turn signals. Some gay men have disabilities.<br />
<br />
On Shakesville today, Liss <a href="http://www.shakesville.com/2012/12/photos-of-day.html">posted some photos</a> of some of the new couples getting married in Washington and Maryland now that same-sex marriage is finally legal there. In comments, lizziepet said:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I shared the Buzzfeed link that had the photos of Jane and Pete-e on Facebook yesterday, and one of my friends was like, "Well, that's not what I was expecting." "What were you expecting?" "Not old people." "Because only the young and hip can be queer? o.0"</blockquote>
Do you understand how this is relevant?<br />
<br />
You're separating out gay men from the general population and shoving them into a "magical" box. You're denying them the fullness of their personhood. They don't get to be irritable or unkempt or unpleasant, like anyone else does. They don't get to be fat or old or depressed or ugly.<br />
<br />
Let people be people. We talk a lot in feminism about intersectionality, because anything that hurts people with disabilities hurts women with disabilities, anything that hurts people of color hurts women of color, anything that hurts trans people hurts trans women, and so on. All women aren't minor variations on the same theme, and all gay men aren't, either.<br />
<br />
Gay men are people. Some people are happy, magical, beautiful, energetic people who love life. Some people aren't. Pushing "positive" stereotypes isn't helpful, it's harmful. If you genuinely want to be an ally, you'll stop.<br />
<br />
With love,<br />
Frank LeeAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01080258615868766350noreply@blogger.com0