| Comments: |
goddammit why did I click on some of those links?
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/257773/204387) | From: kynn 2009-09-29 01:46 am (UTC)
| (Link)
|
I don't know! You can tell with the vast majority of the very TITLES that they are going to be SO FULL OF FAIL. Read Somerville's posts instead (just added update 3). This one is sobering but understandable. (Deleted comment)
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/257773/204387) | From: kynn 2009-09-29 01:59 am (UTC)
| (Link)
|
Don't be silly; it's perfectly "fair" to not let people comment.
That said, unlock it or keep it locked as you will, but please don't impose unreasonable standards of "fairness" on yourself.
(Deleted comment)
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/257773/204387) | From: kynn 2009-09-29 02:04 am (UTC)
| (Link)
|
I bet the authors of "MAID MARIAN HAS A SCHLONG" are up in arms about this. I should check in on that.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/257773/204387) | From: kynn 2009-09-29 02:11 am (UTC)
| (Link)
|
Shockingly and yet thankfully, I can't see anything by the MMHAS authors about this. Small favors!
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/257773/204387) | From: kynn 2009-09-29 02:16 am (UTC)
| (Link)
|
Ah, wait, no, I am wrong. Of course Angelia Sparrow, one of the co-authors of MMHAS, would be completely horrified by this. (Oh and she was bi once!!) WARNING: NO ONE SHOULD READ THOSE COMMENTS. THIS MEANS YOU, redstar826! (Deleted comment) (Deleted comment) (Deleted comment)
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/257773/204387) | From: kynn 2009-09-29 03:27 am (UTC)
| (Link)
|
...and if you find that novella problematic, then I take you at your word. I can't say more than that unless I read the book, and I am not a fan of Sparrow and Brooks' writing, regardless of subject matter, so I won't be reading it.
One of the authors offered to send me a copy, so I was going to read it, but then she apparently decided not to.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/257773/204387) | From: kynn 2009-09-29 02:57 am (UTC)
| (Link)
|
I'm not attacking her orientation, I'm attacking (a) the way she chooses to make that self-identification known ("Do I really have to find the video of a youthful indiscretion to prove I'm bi?"), and (b) the way in which bisexual cisgender people think that "being LGBT" gives them the right to co-opt trans womens' experiences for fun, lust, and profit.
The "lumping together" of the term "LGBT" is used to further oppression trans people (and sometimes others), because cis queers think they have rights to appropriate and insult trans people which they actually do not.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/257773/204387) | From: kynn 2009-09-29 03:02 am (UTC)
| (Link)
|
I.e., she could just say, "Well, I'm bi, so this rule change doesn't affect me" but instead she talks in the terminology used by politicians to evade responsibility for something they consider shameful and jokes about a video, before whining about how this is oppressive to cis, straight people, just like saying women can't write about men. (The same way that she also whined about trans women objecting to MMHAS.) I'll take someone's orientation seriously as soon as they do. That read more like "I've been straight all my life except I was bi in college, and as a straight-with-one-exception person..." rather than being "very open" about her bisexuality. (Also, you say she has a "GLBT child." What does that mean? The child is gay, lesbian, bi, AND trans? It's that lumping thing again, which is almost always used to erase trans experiences and voices.)
...before whining about how this is oppressive to cis, straight people, just like saying women can't write about men.Aaaaaargh, that's a hideously failed analogy she's got there. In the first place, no, it is not saying anything like, "Sorry ladies, you can't write about MEN. Only men are qualified to do that." It is, if anything, saying something more like, "Women writers write some really good stories about men, but this particular award is only for men writing about men." Nobody is censoring anybody's work; they're just setting parameters for works eligible for recognition by them, not even recognition generally. LLF is saying nothing about whether somebody else ought to give MMHAS an award, for example, much less that its publisher ought not to have published it nor its authors to have written it. And furthermore, her example flips privilege on its head. The appropriate strictly binary gender-based equivalent is not contests for stories about men for which only men are eligible, but contests or awards for stories about women for which only women are eligible. And do those exist? Why, yes, they do. Outrageous! Or, you know, completely not.
Yeah, I need to learn to not click on failposts LOL
Thanks for the link to Somerville's blog <3
| |