Entry tags:
(no subject)
* On the Argument Coming Before the Supreme Court that the Imaginary Religious Beliefs of Corporate "People" Trump all the Constitutional Rights of Female Type Human People:
( Embed: )
* "'Willful Perversion':" http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/senate-republicans-filibuster-abuse
* "The 400-year-old love letter and the mummy:" http://americablog.com/2013/11/400-year-old-love-letter-mummy.html
* il_volpe found, "Books of Human Flesh: The History behind Anthropodermic Bibliopegy:" http://thechirurgeonsapprentice.com/2012/01/31/books-of-human-flesh-the-history-behind-anthropodermic-bibliopegy/
* "Men: we can start a movement to stop violence against women:" http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/21/be-that-guy-movement-end-violence-against-women
* It constantly amazes me how much better Totally Biased is than the Daily Show. W. Kamau Bell is wickedly funny, but his show is so much more inclusive and progressive. (They have multiple contributors in a variety of races and orientations all the time. When they discuss native American issues, they invite actual native Americans to come be the panel, etc.). Where the Daily Show is randomly transphobic, Totally Biased did a whole bunch of textbook excellent trans 101 things that were both funny and accurate. I do not bestow the title ally lightly, but I'm putting Mr. Bell up there with folks like Melissa Harris-Perry on my personal "Doing it right list."
It makes me terribly sad that they got cancelled.
* Speaking of representation and the whole "Doing it Right" vs. "Doing it wrong" Trans inclusion thing, I suppose I must mention the Advocate. Historically, their trans issue reporting has ranged from non-existent to generally shitty to out right transphobic. (This isn't their only long standing representation issue. They have a bad history when it comes to POC, bisexuals, intersex folk, and pretty much the whole section of the rainbow that isn't white LB. They are better in some years than others). This is why I generally look askance at their reporting, and why for years, I refused to send them money, even though they inexplicable kept sending magazines. Them being free, I kept them in the bathroom for reading. Anyway, under the current editor, I started noticing an upward trend as far as trans representation goes. As a result, I actually sent them some money... I'm thinking it was last spring. My feeling was, I was seeing good faith efforts on their part and rewarding them by actually paying for the magazine they were sending me seemed like an encouragement to continue improving.
This representation is still a long way from perfect. They have stopped printing slurs and outright misinformation, for example. They mostly get the pronouns right this year, and when they don't it looks ignorant rather than malicious. This doesn't make it okay, but it's a whole lot better than it was. They appear to be genuinely trying to include something trans related most issues. There are still problems. Clearly, they need to hire a diverse bunch of trans people to do their trans reporting, because I'm still seeing rookie mistakes listed above, which I'm thinking experienced trans folk versed in trans issues wouldn't make.
I'm not holding my breath for that, but I really wish that the folks writing and editing the trans articles would at minimum go read Julia Serano's Whipping Girl, specifically the bits about how the media fucks up their trans representation. I get that they are still working on trans 101, but they really need some 102 to be writing things about trans people without showing their asses. This thing where they insist on printing old names and descriptions and emphasis the construction of the physical aspects of social femininity. Old names is a form of disrespecting. Emphasizing the artificiality of trans feminine presentation is another way of subtly undermining lived truths of identity, as things think make up and facial surgery are often used by haters as proof that trans women are somehow less "real" than cis-women. Seriously, Advocate writers, this is not helping.
For example, I love that they wrote about Fallon Fox as a true life heroine. I love that they are talking about the strength it must take to live her truth in the face of pretty damned scary virulent transphobia. I just wish they'd left out the tropes that are so often used to hurt the women of our community.
* "Famous Novelists on Symbolism in Their Work and Whether It Was Intentional:" http://mentalfloss.com/article/30937/famous-novelists-symbolism-their-work-and-whether-it-was-intentional
* O.o "One woman’s struggle to reuse her penis cake mould. I’m dyingggg.:" http://www.bforbel.com/2013/06/one-womans-struggle-to-reuse-her-penis-cake-mould-im-dyingggg.html
* Doctor Who thought: The Doctor is a catalyst who pops into people's life, changing them forever, then popping out just as inexplicably. Does that make the Doctor a manic pixie dream girl?
( Embed: )
* "'Willful Perversion':" http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/senate-republicans-filibuster-abuse
* "The 400-year-old love letter and the mummy:" http://americablog.com/2013/11/400-year-old-love-letter-mummy.html
* il_volpe found, "Books of Human Flesh: The History behind Anthropodermic Bibliopegy:" http://thechirurgeonsapprentice.com/2012/01/31/books-of-human-flesh-the-history-behind-anthropodermic-bibliopegy/
* "Men: we can start a movement to stop violence against women:" http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/21/be-that-guy-movement-end-violence-against-women
* It constantly amazes me how much better Totally Biased is than the Daily Show. W. Kamau Bell is wickedly funny, but his show is so much more inclusive and progressive. (They have multiple contributors in a variety of races and orientations all the time. When they discuss native American issues, they invite actual native Americans to come be the panel, etc.). Where the Daily Show is randomly transphobic, Totally Biased did a whole bunch of textbook excellent trans 101 things that were both funny and accurate. I do not bestow the title ally lightly, but I'm putting Mr. Bell up there with folks like Melissa Harris-Perry on my personal "Doing it right list."
It makes me terribly sad that they got cancelled.
* Speaking of representation and the whole "Doing it Right" vs. "Doing it wrong" Trans inclusion thing, I suppose I must mention the Advocate. Historically, their trans issue reporting has ranged from non-existent to generally shitty to out right transphobic. (This isn't their only long standing representation issue. They have a bad history when it comes to POC, bisexuals, intersex folk, and pretty much the whole section of the rainbow that isn't white LB. They are better in some years than others). This is why I generally look askance at their reporting, and why for years, I refused to send them money, even though they inexplicable kept sending magazines. Them being free, I kept them in the bathroom for reading. Anyway, under the current editor, I started noticing an upward trend as far as trans representation goes. As a result, I actually sent them some money... I'm thinking it was last spring. My feeling was, I was seeing good faith efforts on their part and rewarding them by actually paying for the magazine they were sending me seemed like an encouragement to continue improving.
This representation is still a long way from perfect. They have stopped printing slurs and outright misinformation, for example. They mostly get the pronouns right this year, and when they don't it looks ignorant rather than malicious. This doesn't make it okay, but it's a whole lot better than it was. They appear to be genuinely trying to include something trans related most issues. There are still problems. Clearly, they need to hire a diverse bunch of trans people to do their trans reporting, because I'm still seeing rookie mistakes listed above, which I'm thinking experienced trans folk versed in trans issues wouldn't make.
I'm not holding my breath for that, but I really wish that the folks writing and editing the trans articles would at minimum go read Julia Serano's Whipping Girl, specifically the bits about how the media fucks up their trans representation. I get that they are still working on trans 101, but they really need some 102 to be writing things about trans people without showing their asses. This thing where they insist on printing old names and descriptions and emphasis the construction of the physical aspects of social femininity. Old names is a form of disrespecting. Emphasizing the artificiality of trans feminine presentation is another way of subtly undermining lived truths of identity, as things think make up and facial surgery are often used by haters as proof that trans women are somehow less "real" than cis-women. Seriously, Advocate writers, this is not helping.
For example, I love that they wrote about Fallon Fox as a true life heroine. I love that they are talking about the strength it must take to live her truth in the face of pretty damned scary virulent transphobia. I just wish they'd left out the tropes that are so often used to hurt the women of our community.
* "Famous Novelists on Symbolism in Their Work and Whether It Was Intentional:" http://mentalfloss.com/article/30937/famous-novelists-symbolism-their-work-and-whether-it-was-intentional
* O.o "One woman’s struggle to reuse her penis cake mould. I’m dyingggg.:" http://www.bforbel.com/2013/06/one-womans-struggle-to-reuse-her-penis-cake-mould-im-dyingggg.html
* Doctor Who thought: The Doctor is a catalyst who pops into people's life, changing them forever, then popping out just as inexplicably. Does that make the Doctor a manic pixie dream girl?