Currently on a massive FMA kick

[cheaphalloweencostume]

*asks a question* *gets an answer* “im not reading that”

[cheaphalloweencostume]

i love that it’s a carefully worded, well-written, non-inflammatory answer too. which asker wouldn’t know because they won’t read it. i love website

[cheaphalloweencostume]

you are not going to believe what they did with Books

[parkchanwoohoo]

"A wall of text" baby that's a curb at best

[batmanisagatewaydrug]

the other day I read a compelling point that many instances described as illiteracy would actually be more aptly described as aliteracy, meaning an individual has the ability to read but simply chooses not to. great example here, awesome work.

[yourwakingnightmares]

Different direction, but...

The person responding? Yeah, they can kindly just... not.

Because sorry, that's some hard-core gatekeeping right there. It takes me right back to the early aughts, when you had fans of certain bands insisting that no, they were true punk, and all other bands that didn't sound exactly. like. them. were just 'posers'. Losers who shouldn't be making music. The days of, "Wow, you listen to (insert generic band)? And here I thought you were punk.

In particular... I remember a whole ass high school career of people insisting that dyed hair wasn't enough to be 'punk', you had to have a mohawk or shaved head. That six piercings in each ear and an eyebrow ring wasn't enough to be 'punk', you had to have at least a lip ring, or a big nose ring.

That sure, you were wearing bondage pants, but they were black, so you weren't 'punk', you were 'goth' or 'emo'. Ugh, you're wearing a Sex Pistols shirt, name me one Rancid album! Oh, you listen to Rancid? Real punks don't listen to anything so mainstream, ugh, you're such a poser.

It was a stupid argument back then, and it's a stupid argument now.

[elbiotipo]

More than "here in the Southern Hemisphere we have inverted seasons :)" thing, which is TECHNICALLY true, I would go a step further and encourage to think about that "much of the world does not exactly has a spring-summer-fall-winter season sequence as they show in cartoons"

[paperdragonsong]

I will scream about this to anyone who listens forever. AUSTRALIA DOES NOT HAVE "ENGLISH SEASONS BUT BACKWARDS" and the insistence that it does creates a massive layer of alienation from the natural world.

I never really realised how much difference it makes until I went to England and realised that here the change of seasons is an obvious, visible, physical change in the world. Like, everything REALLY IS orange and foggy in autumn! In spring there are flowers EVERYWHERE, so much more than any other season, and the trees really do have all blossom and no leaves. Even if it doesn't snow, in winter there's frost all the time and the trees are bare and the sky is visibly greyer all the time. You don't need to be told "this date is the first day of spring", you can SEE IT (although this is getting way messier and less precise due to climate change).

By contrast, most places in Australia the seasons we're taught feel like arbitrary categories - and is it any surprise considering they're colonial constructs? Orange-leaved autumn and blossom-covered spring is a cartoon stereotype with no relevance on a continent where ALL NATIVE TREES ARE EVERGREEN!! Snowy winters are a joke in the desert, and even sunny summers don't ring particularly true considering that much of the country is in the tropics, where summer means monsoons - not that I've ever seen the concept that WE HAVE A MONSOON SEASON taught at an Australian school.

Most Indigenous nations around Australia had six or more seasons, revolving around wet and dry times as much as hot and cold, and marked by the appearances of certain native animals and flowers. Schools need to start teaching the real seasons, and explaining that climate cycles are too complex to generalise globally, or else we will keep raising generations who view the natural world as hostile and unpredictable and climate predictions as generally irrelevent and frequently wrong - and I'm sure I don't need to spell out why that's a problem in the era of climate crisis.

[tiredtransgal]

i want to add that 40% of the world's population lives in the tropics, and the 4 season model just doesn't make much sense for a lot of places in there. usually it's just the wet season/monsoon season and the dry season. it's often hot year round.

the 4 season model as you and i know it is a european invention, though 4 season models aren't unique to europe! most notably china has the same type of season subdivision.

in general the way humans define seasons is largely subjective and varies across cultures. the one you were taught is not at all universal!

[yourwakingnightmares]

Hold on because truthfully?

I don't know many places where four seasons exist, much less in neat little three month blocks.

I'm currently in Central New York. We (usually) start getting snow around the last week of October, first week of November. But we've had years where Halloween was, effectively, cancelled because of snow storms. This usually lasts until mid-April, although we've had years where we get snow in the first week or two of May.

And we don't have 'spring'; we have 'the snow is melting' season, which really is just based on how much snow we got before we charge right into summer with 60+ degrees after a week or two of 40-50. Sure, we get a few weeks of fall (namely, mid-September until Snow in October).

HOWEVER... I grew up in Texas. And in Texas you have pre-summer (60+), summer (85+), post-summer (60-70), followed by 'fall', coming in usually between 40-60 depending on the day, with a few weeks either in January or February where it drops below forty. Occasionally, we even got snow that lasts for more than a few hours!

The closest I've ever found to four seasons is by hearsay, from my aunt who lives in Kentucky. But I've lived in a few different states, and different areas in those states, and I've never seen the nice pretty seasons like we see on TV.

[ao3commentoftheday]

Hi! Do you have any advice for how to deal with negative comments that aren't strictly hate comments? I'm posting a very angsty fic, so i get a lot of playfully angry comments, but this one person is genuinely furious that i had half of the main couple marry someone else during a time loop, and they keep sending comments on the new chapters since then to complain about it. they said that they feel like the fic is pretending to be a ship that it's not, that the main couple is ruined now and they don't see how the story can go forward, etc. For the record i tagged it as a minor relationship since it's just one non-descriptive passage in a story very focused on the main ship, but they said that wasn't enough.

i'm sorry they're not enjoying the story, but i don't really know what to do since no one else seems remotely this angry about it and i've seen the same plot point in similar fics by other people. i haven't replied to any of these comments yet because i was hoping they'd get over it, but they keep sending similar ones. should i try to respond kindly or keep ignoring? i'd feel bad blocking them since they haven't really done anything wrong, but it's kind of ruining my experience of posting this fic.

i apologize for long this got >_< thank you for your time!

Hi anon! Sorry it's been a while since you sent this in. I hope it's not an issue anymore but if it is, I think you just need to block that user.

Blocking them won't stop them from reading your story, but it will block them from commenting on your work.

It's clear that they are having an outsized reaction to what you're writing and it's also clear that they don't have the ability and/or desire to stop reading a story that doesn't appeal to them.

It's not your job to manage the emotional state of someone you don't know. I know that sounds harsh, but in this case I think that's what's going on. They can't control their own emotions about your fic, and nothing you can do can control that reaction for them.

Does it suck that they won't be able to comment on anything else you write? Sure. But they've lost that privilege. At least for the time being. If you decide in 6 months or whatever that they've probably calmed down, you can go back to your preferences page and edit your block list.

Until then, do what you need to do to keep your peace. And to let this person know that they're not behaving well.

What do the rest of you think? Am I being too harsh here? Is there another option you see for this situation?

[askshivanulegacy]

If you want to give them a chance, and you haven't communicated with them yet, then that's what you need to do first.

"It's a shame you're not enjoying my fic! I'm going to continue writing and posting it the way I want. If you don't like it, you're welcome to find something else to read." You can also tell them that the comments are not appropriate to keep posting, they will not result in any changes, and you'd appreciate if they stopped posting because you don't want to read negativity on your fic and you're not looking for critique.

Basically: "Don't like, don't read." One warning, one chance, and if they blow it again then block and don't look back. (This method also means you can block and forget instead of bothering to keep track months later, which is not something most people care to do.)

[yourwakingnightmares]

You've got three options really, depending on your personality and how you approach things.

And probably the simplest... Delete, block, move on. You can delete comments, block the user, and blissfully continue to post whatever the hell you want, secure in the knowledge that you don't have to interact with them.

My personal favorite: respond back, telling them exactly where they can shove their attitude, exactly where they can go with it, in a polite manner, while dropping small crumbs of why you're entitled to do whatever you want with your fic, while subtly nudging them to acknowledge they're the asshole in this situation.

Ignore them completely and totally; wait until this person with no life gets so frothing mad at being ignored that they start making threats, or leaving reportable comments. Then happily report them to AO3, get them banned, and move on with your life, secure in the knowledge that you won.

[tyrian-red]

my erotic fanfiction is more historically accurate than yours. here it claims that shes moaning 'yes,' however classical latin didn't have a word that corresponds to Modern English 'yes,' i.e. an affirmative answer to an interrogative. You could have easily avoided this glaring implausibility by allowing her to moan plus, 'more'—as exemplified in my critically acclaimed fic with an unprecedented number of kudos (eleven). I recommend that you log out of AO3 and return only after acquiring satisfactory knowledge of the subject matter.

[mereologic]

classical latin did in fact have an affirmative answer to an interrogative (sic), it's just not a cognate with modern english "yes" which is Germanic. but you probably recognize its modern descendants, spanish sí, italian sí, etc.

anyway how this is relevant to this post is that when Dido commits suicide in book 4 of the Aeneid she says "sic, sic! iuvat ire sub umbras" or "yes, yes! with joy i pass beneath the shadows" while stabbing herself, the allegory of penetration accompanied by shouts of ecstasy leading unto death being an interpretative exercise best left to the reader.

[frownyalfred]

do u ever open a fic summary and see an author pushed to their absolute feral limits?

[frownyalfred]

the ending of the chapter officially killed me

[phantomrose96]

Anon hate is shitty and you shouldn’t do it of course but it’s also the funniest and least effective kind of hate

For starters the blogger can just delete and ignore it. And given tumblr’s penchant for eating asks I think it would drive some hate senders a little insane if they keep checking back in wondering if their ask got eaten.

For second the anon ask format guarantees the blogger gets the last word in every time. Even if anon sends a follow up message they will never get the last word. And tumblr for better or for worse seems to run on this currency of “whoever expressed the last opinion in a post is the one we’re supporting”

For third, this publishes the hate directly to the blogger’s own followers, i.e. the people MOST likely to take the blogger’s side. Home court advantage by design.

[phantomrose96]

#I call for an audience with the king. After waiting in line I stand in front of his throne #(dressed in a huge white bedsheet like a cartoon ghost so as to hide my identity) #I call the king a bitch. I insult his policies all of which were made with the guidance of his court who r also all here #the king ignores me. I say it again in case he didn't hear. The king ignores me #I leave in shame (via @septimus-heap)

[lurkinglurkerwholurks]

Structurally it's also very funny because while I do understand for some people anon hate trips the adrenal response for "Unnamed threat! Someone Out There hates me! Who are you!!!!", my own personal response is more "Why would I accept criticism from someone who isn't real and doesn't believe in what they're saying strongly enough to put their name on it?"

Peasant in a white bedsheet indeed.

[hammersanvil]

Rewatching Book 3 of ATLA and cringing at how dumb the Iroh fanservice plot twists are:

"Iroh lied about killing the last dragon before Zuko was born because he wanted to protect them! They actually deemed him pure of heart and worthy to learn the truest form of firebending🥰" .......... even though he continued to be a violent general in an evil genocidal empire long after that...? I'm questioning the dragons' wisdom now.

"Actually Iroh and all the other old guys in the show are senior members of a super secret society working for the good of the world!!" ..... even though one of them flat out refused to teach the Avatar waterbending for misogynistic reasons, another refused to teach the Avatar firebending for personal reasons, and Iroh was an evil war general barely 6 years ago so I suppose he's only a recent member?

[muffinlance]

I love AtLA as much as anyone, but yeah it is, uh. Pretty abundantly clear that the White Lotus didn't exist in the writers' room until at least season two, and they didn't have a full idea of its role in the narrative probably until season three. The timeline on Iroh "Did A War Against All The Rest Of You" Azulonson joining and being trusted so high in the membership is also. Very questionable.

Which is all to say I think it would be perfect if we got to the season three end game and realized Iroh was actually still an errand boy initiate in the White Lotus. And Piandao pulls aside the main tent flap to reveal our Supreme Grand Lotus:

Gran-Gran

Canonically traveled the world without Committing A War, thus reasonably having met and networked with most of these other people in a positive way? Check

Saw the Avatar and told her only grandkids to go help that kid ASAP, don't worry Gran-Gran's just going to stay riiiiiight here while you're gone and definitely not relive the excitements of her youth? Check

Would recontextualize Pakku's constant sour grapes face (and his reaction to seeing Katara's necklace) to "my ex left me and now she's my superior, if I don't train her grandkid she will mobilize a global movement to Kick My Ass"? CHECK

Gran-Gran for White Lotus Grandmaster 2026

[yourwakingnightmares]

So many problems with... well... all of this.

Firstly, let's start with Iroh because I take personal offense to how much you misconstrued his character.

Iroh was never supposed to be evil; he's the one who walked Zuko's path before Zuko. A loyal son, doing what he's told, because honor is the most important thing, followed closely by loyalty, and being Honorable and Loyal means being A Good Son TM. So he goes off to war, and he sieges Ba Sing Sei for 600 days, because Azulon has ordered that this impenetrable city that has never fallen has to fall.

So he sieges this city for almost two years... then he loses his son. In trying to do this impossible thing, he loses the most important thing he has, and he realizes... what is the point? Where is the honor in men dying? Where is the honor in what I'm doing? How do I find honor?

This event broke him, much like we see Zuko break when he starts questioning his beliefs. Except unlike Zuko, Iroh had lost his son due to his search for 'honor', and by the time he recovers... well, his brother is Fire Lord now, and he knows exactly what his brother is, which severely limits his options.

Moving on to the White Lotus Society, and its various members:

The White Lotus society was not a society of 'Doers of Good'. They were an ancient society dedicated to preserving knowledge, with philosophical undertones, that transcends political boundaries -aka, even if the Earth Kingdom and the Air Nomads were at war, the Earth Bender and the Air Nomad still shared information and knowledge of culture, practices, techniques, etc., in the White Lotus. So that knowledge wouldn't just be lost forever.

Which is why they eventually stepped in against Ozai: he wasn't just a political threat anymore, he was going to decimate an entire people. This wasn't a war between nations, this was one man's war against the world.

But here's the thing... This is a cultural thing. Because it's not about, I must protect this bending technique. Because if that's all it was... well, Pando -a non-bender -wouldn't be there. This was about cultures. About histories. So obviously we're not demanding the paragons of virtue, only the good people are allowed in here. Which is why your whole concept of 'doers of good' is inherently flawed and lead you to flawed conclusions.

Because for better or worse, Pakku might have been a misogynistic, arrogant, pompous fool... but he was a product of his culture, a leader of his people and their ways. For better or worse, Iroh spent his younger years as a general and a warrior, a man dedicated to bringing honor to his family, his people, and his land... but he was a product of his culture, a leader of his people, and their way of life.

Gran Gran has several big issues. The first being... the Southern Water Tribe had insulated itself from other cultures and lands, leading to them being incredibly isolated, with very minimal -if any, before Hakoda took the men and left -interaction with people outside of their tribe other than the Fire Nation raids. So unless we propose that she was going to leave her tribe, and sail on her little canoe by herself to a city somewhere -because you can't invite a secret organization to a secret meeting in a village of fifty people -there was no way for her to be a part.

The second big issue is a bit more nuanced, and speaks to a bit of outsider perception, and Pakku's own biases. Because hey... the White Lotus Society has a Water Tribe member. And the Water Tribe is... the Water Tribe... right? What do you mean that the Southern Water Tribe and the Northern Water Tribe do things differently? Pakku over here says that the Southern Water Tribe isn't any different, except for their geographic location.

So why make a point to sale to these people that have isolated themselves, kept themselves apart, and learn about their culture, when Pakku here says that their culture is the exact same as his culture? We can just ask a Northern Water Tribe person to share their stories, their heritage, and their culture. Because the Northern Water Tribe isn't insular and isolated, they interact with outsiders, so why would we show up to a people who clearly don't want outsiders to show up?

Next problem is... Gran Gran didn't 'travel the world'. She moved from the Northern Water Tribe... to the Southern Water Tribe. Seeing as how the Water Tribe is a seafaring people... There's no reason to presume that she went on a casual and leisurely stroll through through war torn lands, on foot when there was just... a whole sea... right there... for this seafaring member of a seafaring people.

And the fourth problem is... well, I'll admit this is more of a personal interpretation of the character, rather than canonical but...

Gran Gran had things to do. She had a village to keep going. She's not gonna go and sit around with a bunch of other old people who want to talk philosophy and culture. She's got whales to help strip, igloos to maintain, and a next generation to teach.

[flipocrite]

The Shirley Exception

[intexda]

The Shirley Exception

A thread by Alexandra Erin

It was deleted on twitter so here's an alternate.

[yourwakingnightmares]

However... Here's the big problem with... well, not with what she's saying, but in her conclusions.

Because there are exceptions. Look at our legal code.

My grandfather is a 'magistrate'. Which means we live in a very small town, that isn't large enough for us to pay for a judge with a law degree, so he's done this job for the town for... almost forty years now?

And he has a lot of wiggle room when he's handling cases.

Charges can often be reduced. Sentences vary wildly. For example, most misdemeanors are just... 'Up to one year in jail'. Meaning a judge can decide to do one year, one month, one week, one day if he wants. He's given a very loose set of sentencing guidelines, and based on extenuating or mitigating factors, he decides the sentence.

Most of our laws are vague, and filled with loopholes and exceptions. We can wiggle around things all we want, and hey... if all else fails, the ultimate exception: jury nullification.

So for many people when it comes to viewing the law... this law that we constantly see exceptions being made... they do think that obviously it won't apply 100% as stands. Nothing else does... so why would this?

These aren't 'moderately monstrous' people. They're people who look at exceptions being made all the time in the law, and going obviously we will make exceptions for these things.

Conversely, most conservatives are -not entirely erroneously -terrified of anarchy. The idea of a lawless nation. And again, they're not entirely wrong to be afraid of that, because a nation without laws is basically the Wild West, which was one of the most devastating things -culturally speaking -for America, with effects we still see and suffer from today.

So these conservatives look at the options. We can have a law, and obviously there will be exceptions, because look at all these exceptions being made every day... or we can have the Wild West again, a lawless time when people did what they wanted, and 'good people suffered'.

And here's where the crux of the problem lies though. Because this woman makes many excellent points. She is very well thought out in her arguments. But she loses a lot when she goes, oh they're only moderately monstrous.

Because again... these people aren't monstrous. They're looking at all the exceptions they see to everything -from our legal code, to schooling, to our interactions at the grocery store -and going... well yeah, obviously we'll have room for exceptions.

Rather than defaulting to calling them 'moderately monstrous'... These are people who need to be walked, step by step, through the problem. People who need to be shown that the people who make the exceptions can just as easily remove the exceptions when it suits them.

Because reality check: very few people in life are inherently good or bad. We deal with things that we see, that we know, and we base our opinions on those interactions, those experiences, and most people don't think any further than that; why would they? It doesn't occur to them to think any further, because they've never had the 'any further' actually happen.

And since nobody is willing to suck it up, and be a bridge, instead of dynamite... We end up in this situation we're currently in.

Because here's the thing: yeah, when you hear about an immigrant who's a mass murderer, wanted in his home country for terrible crimes... Uh... yeah? Ship him back? Why would we want him here? That's just common sense; we have enough of our own criminals please and thank you, we don't need more.

Bur rather than explaining that we're not just deporting people with violent criminal histories, we're deporting everyone, and saying well, we'll sort 'em out later... we just say they're cruel heartless people, and never add anything else.

Instead of saying, hey, listen, the process to get here legally is ridiculously complicated and takes forever (a family friend's brother literally tried to bring his whole family, and by the time it was approved his children had aged out, and all their paperwork was null and void because they were adults), and can be denied by both the country they're leaving and the country they're trying to enter... We just let the other side say, well, they just want criminals here, that's why they want immigrants to stay.

Because that's the thing. These people aren't voting for the 'leopard face-eating' party. They're voting for the party that tells them a thing that makes perfect sense to everyone... and not paying attention to what follows.

For example... To a person who's working two jobs to try and make ends meet, to keep from needing government assistance... They're being told that hey, these people over here? Yeah, they've never worked a day in their lives, and they're eating steak that you're paying for with your tax dollars!

Well obviously that guy who's busting his ass just to have hamburger helper is gonna be mad when he's told that. Who wouldn't? But nobody's willing to explain that very few people do that, and that those people are the exception, that most people on government assistance are working, and they are trying. Instead we just call that man a heartless prick, and wonder why he keeps running back to the same party that tells him, no, it's okay to be mad that they get steak while you only get hamburger helper, because you paid for their steak.

Again... In this scenario... You can be the bridge... or you can be more dynamite. There's no real 'third option'.

[mossworth]

Guys, queers. Specifically my fellow queers.

I work at a library. We do this thing where, every so often, we weed the collection. It hurts to see books go, but it's necessary to make sure there's room in the library for new materials.

I have seen so much support for the library in text, and I've seen folks pass around those beautiful "queer your library" flyers. Keep doing that. That's great. Nothing wrong with that. But you HAVE to turn your words into action. We MUST remember to actually go to our local organizations and libraries and actually, with our own fucking hands, interact with these materials we want to see more of.

My branch is medium-sized for a library, maybe a little small. We don't have as many materials as I'd like, but we have fundamentals. Tell me why, even with all the verbal support I've gotten from my local community for the library as a resource for our LGBT+ community, every single trans biography and a good chunk of our vaguely queer theory books were on the list. This isn't a scheme to take the books off the shelves, it isn't another bigoted American governmental push. The only thing we look at when we weed is how long it's been since the last time the item was checked out.

Three years.

No one in my community interacted in any meaningful way with the few books on trans life and history we physically had on the shelves for three fucking years.

I promise you the materials you want and need are there, but this isn't a horde. This isn't a static safety net. You have to use them. You MUST use them or, in the future, maybe in three years, they *won't* be there anymore.

This isn't a vague post, there's no one person I'm hinting at or calling out. I'm not even talking directly to anyone who's directly in my line of sight. I just want everyone to hear this. Big library, small library, whatever. Doesn't matter. Please, we cannot be losing our shelf visibility like this.

[alanfromrochester]

I work in a different library and can confirm, it's a decision based on popularity not censorship

we're big enough to have lots of shelf space but still have the problem on a different scale. We do have a back storage room rather than completely getting rid of some things, but having to ask for that might be a barrier for sensitive subject matter and prevent people from casually stumbling across something of interest

[paintedpigeon1]

Yep. Different library worker here, we weeded adult non-fiction recently bc it's most rarely used and we needed to clear a bookshelf of space, and there were a decent number of queer books on the list. Thankfully not all of them, but some (we had a lot lol). Our criteria is also no borrows in 3yrs. I can't borrow the whole list by myself. I do try to get these books in, and the local authority are happy to buy them, but we need space for new books every so often and we can't keep everything forever! If you want them, you have to use them!

(incidentally, the whole list was 35 pages long, which... please borrow the books you want people)

[qbdatabase]

I didn't have time to comment the first time I reblogged, but I can add now:

I'm also a librarian and queer books are almost always cut first when we have to weed for space or prioritize new releases over old items because no one reads them

I will say, when I worked at a large downtown location, we had a "browsing card" that we would check out items we found taken off the shelf and left on a table, as an example of a book that had clearly been read, just not checked out by anyone

it's possible queer books do actually get a bit of unfair treatment in this regard because people may be nervous or outright scared to check them out onto an account with their name on it. so they get browsed at a much higher rate, but if a library doesn't have a specific system in place (or need for it) to count browsed items, then it looks like they aren't being used and they get weeded

for other librarians, a browsing card is a great idea if you have enough staff for the extra work / enough items left out to justify it

for patrons, check out queer books even if you don't read them! you're not lying or committing any type of fraud. you're keeping books on the shelf long enough for pride season when people are interested in checking them out again and for people scared to use their own accounts or who don't have library cards

for anyone nervous about using their library card, libraries do not keep search histories of what you check out!! this means even if the government does come back with a warrant, *wet farting noise* too bad! it doesn't exist!

so please check out queer books!

[vtothefun]

I have to wonder how often they aren't checked out because those in an exploratory period may not feel safe enough for them to go home with them, too. Kids, for example, or folks who have ended up in a het marriage that... Doesn't feel like it's quite right (or may be physically abusive).

[mossworth]

This is most definitely one of the causes of this. That's why it's so important for folks who *can* to *do*.

It feels like such a small thing, but all movements are made up of small things! We have this mindset that in order to get everything done, everyone must be doing their (or *the*) absolute best at all times. But not everyone can do the same things, to the same degree, with the same amount of productivity or success. Not everyone can; sometimes, they're the ones that need help. Sometimes people just need help.

This post is very much so intended for the people who can. I've seen a lot of replies from folks who say they don't have to (or don't think about) checking out or requesting queer books from the library specifically because they *can* buy them, can pirate them, or already have them in their house or on their computers or phones. But in instances like that, keeping these books in circulation is less for you and more for the people who can't. The folks who come to the library, who don't have access to internet--or even electricity--at home and would never--have never--been able to interact with this "ubiquitous queer community" we have here online who has made so many of these. materials so avaliable to the rest of us.

And... if I can be a little frank. Sometimes the hyperaccessibility of these materials online (through pirating, cheap e-book copies, etc) gives people a false sense of security. It implies that these things are an infinate resource, good for "When I get around to it".

And often, you won't. There's so much to read and so much to do. So much to download and so much to sit down and stare at for hours. That kind of mental scope puts books in people's hands (or phones), but never in their heads.

But the moment your favorite document archival site gets knocked offline for breaching copyright or your go-to mega corporate audiobook distributor decides it doesn't want "those" materials anymore, what's left? What did you download? What information did you internalize? Did you ever get around to it? If you did, great, but what good does that do for the person who didn't? Are you going to be the one to redistribute that information? Are you going to communicate it in the place of the author whose words are no longer publically accesible or, mostly avaliable, but only behind hefty paywalls and financial gatekeeping? How would someone else get a hold of it? How could they, if they wanted?

[vtothefun]

This is excellent info.

What are some good books to check out for those who can?

[mossworth]

Gosh... there's so many options. I wouldn't know where to start without knowing who I'm talking to and what they're looking for. What I can recommend is for folks to check out creators like @makingqueerhistory who have spent just a ridiculously beautiful amount of time collecting queer history and book lists! You'll find something in seconds reading their page.

Personal pitch: I liked the books Tar Hollow Trans and Gay Poems for Red States. Both great.

[makingqueerhistory]

I'm glad I was tagged in this because it means I can cosign (and also add a little nugget of info).

I live in a province that is currently trying to ban queer books from libraries, and as a library patron, this is terrifying. 95% of the books I read are from the library and a lot of them are way out of my budget to buy personally.

Making Queer History would not exist without the school library I skipped class in to write articles. It would not exist without my friends with library cards for their universities sharing them and getting me access to rare texts. I would not be able to read as much as I do without Libby and Hoopla. If I have ever given you a book recommendation, know that I likely got it from the library first.

I cannot overstate the importance of protecting libraries and checking out queer books. And I want to say thank you to everyone above for being as passionate as I am about queer books in libraries.

Love y'all <3

[markovchaingang]

men and women are not opposites. men and women are not enemies. men and women are two parts of a broad coalition which fights against a mutual enemy: inkjet printers

[asynca]

Write that one-shot. Those 3 chapters will be the best 10 chapters you ever wrote

[yourwakingnightmares]

you realise that in your interaction with sleepnoises you havent given any actual basis for your argument, while they went into historical grounds, that to me it seems like they clearly researched, for theirs. you just say they have confirmation bias and then make a comparison to numerology which doesnt actually prove anything except that it proves to me that you seem unwilling to critically reflect on your own internalised biases and behaviours. sexism (and the other things you mentioned as examples) ARE everywhere, and analysing and pointing it out, even if it makes you uncomfortable, seems to me to be the best way to actually try and detangle these patterns, not dismissing every mention of it and saying ‘well this is why women dont want to be called feminists’. wow maybe that in and of itself is a bigger issue. why are more women happy to joke about girl dinner and girl maths than to call themselves a feminist? better for them to lead small quiet lives (and make beautiful art of course) than to get mad and at least TRY to point these things out. just let people enjoy things ^-^

i think you sound dismissive and annoying and honestly a bit hypocritical. you say they have a confirmation bias yet also say that by ending the argument and ‘locking everything down’ they dont have a lot of evidence and must not have a strong argument. how is that not looking for a reason why youre right and theyre wrong? (which, btw, blocking you or locking the post sounds to me like a healthy boundary, internet arguing with someone who seems to just want to point fingers isnt a very good use of time or energy. which of course is why i should not be writing this at all but it pissed me off enough, i think it was the comparison to stupid fucking numerology that did it. way to take women seriously)

Okay, firstly let me say I commend you for saying something that isn't an insult! Congratulations, you left the echo chamber.

Now, as to the actual meat of your still anonymous ask... Consider yourself lucky. Normally, I don't respond to anonymous questions clearly meant to try and denigrate with anything other than sarcastic humor. But, you're making an attempt, at least, to try and have a discussion, so I'll reward the effort.

Now firstly, let me say that the idea of their post being 'historically grounded' was laughable. Because most of it was just saying that sexism is everywhere, and if you can't see it, you're a part of the problem. The little bit of historical reference they did go into was...

"almost all woman textile workers throughout history were not hobbyists. pre-industrial revolution, they were providing a vital household function. after the industrial revolution, they were experiencing various nasty factory injuries (while providing a vital household function of... money). women were also blocked from joining most textile-related professional guilds in europe"

Now, firstly, let's start with 'almost all women textile workers throughout history were not hobbyists'.

Leaving aside that 'hobbies' are indeed a relatively new thing... Pre-industrial revolution, every member of the household typically contributed in some way to the actual production of household use 'textile' use. Aka, it was an incredibly time consuming, difficult, and even physically demanding task that required an entire household to achieve. This idea that only women could sew clothes, or spin wool, is laughably, provably false on its face.

Point of fact, in the medieval era 'spinning wool' was considered often to be a job for children. In some cultures, it was actually jobs for the shepherds who watched the sheep, because it was something that could be done without much attention having to be paid to it. But prior to that? It was the men who did the sheering, and often times, much of the initial 'processing'. While the act of actually turning those clothes into cloth was often -in medieval Europe anyway -typically the domain of the woman, much of the process to get it to a point where it could be turned into cloth was a family affair.

Now, during the industrial revolution, yes, women did indeed typically work in the 'spinning factories'. And yes, they faced horrible workplace injury rates... just like everybody, regardless of gender, did in the vast majority of factories for anything. It was a very dangerous thing, to be a factory worker. Even leaving out the absolutely atrocious air conditions that frequently led to respiratory illnesses, the 'group' with the most injuries was, in fact, children. Not men. Not women. Children were small enough to climb into the machines, to see what was wrong, to get things unstuck, etc., and led to a truly staggering amount of children missing limbs.

But even then... this applied to anyone working in a factory. One county, in 1907, reported a casual 195 deaths of men in steel factories. Not injuries... deaths. For a single county. All factory work in those days was dangerous work; not just 'textiles because we don't care about the womenz'.

Now, moving on from their only historical reference into your actual post...

I responded to their post saying that 'some of the most brilliant artists in the world live quiet and happy lives and leave behind pure magic' is sexist by saying that it's not inherently sexism; because many people forget that art comes in many forms that most people don't even consider art, even if we find it beautiful to look at. That most people get caught up in paintings, or sculptures, and we completely miss that many people create art, not for profit, but just because we enjoy making it.

They responded by saying I'm suffering from internalized sexism, because I refuse to acknowledge that a compliment saying that some of the most brilliant artists aren't famous is sexist.

Now, I'm sure if you spend approximately 30 seconds thinking about it, you'll see how that logic -that if you don't agree, you're suffering from internalized something -is incredibly problematic. Because I could say that by refusing to acknowledge my point, they're suffering from internalized misanthropy -a general hatred of humanity in general. By sending me this, you're suffering from an internalized fear of being wrong. To which you could counter that me saying you have an internalized fear of being wrong means that I have an internalized fear of backing down. To which I could respond that you have an internalized fear of...

Now, unfortunately for you, actual adults can't function like that. The world can't function like that. You saying a thing is a thing, just because you say it's a thing, doesn't, in fact, make a thing a thing. Just like me saying a thing is a thing, doesn't make it a thing.

It's why accusations have to be made using logic, examples, and data. Not, well, I don't like it, so it's bad. It's why arguments like that -I don't like it, so it's bad -aren't allowed in actual debates. Which is a skill that the last few generations are sorely lacking, and holy hell does it show.

Now, as to the rest of your argument... just let people enjoy the thing... The OP couldn't let 'people enjoy the thing'. They had to rush in and say that people offering compliments are sexist. Is that just letting people enjoy the thing?

Or is it only allowable to 'enjoy the thing' when it's you doing the enjoying?

(Also, I do apologize for the delay in response, I am at work, and actually had to get up and go do work for a hot minute).

[yourwakingnightmares]

have you ever encountered a single conversation that you didn't feel the need to contribute a fucking rock-stupid comment to

IDK, have you ever had a conversation that you actually engaged in that wasn't you spouting off random nonsense? Like an actual conversation between two adults?

Or do you just angry screech and call names because you're incapable of actually formulating any sort of coherent argument or narrative because you've spent your entire life living in a glass echo chamber filled with strawmen?

I know which one I put my money on! :D

[discodyke-dogthing]

When you start saying shit like “We need to put every pedophile in concentration camps” any person in power can convince you that any demographic they want you to hate is a pedophile. You need to kill that shit at the source and stop caring about other people’s thoughts.

[crystaltoa]

Generally speaking, people who have any kind of knowledge or literacy on the subject of child protection don't use the word "pedophile" at all. If we're talking about an actual offender, label the specific offenses they have committed.

If you're worried about preventing future hypothetical abuse, educate the kids in how to protect themselves. Encourage strong support networks. Tell them what is and isn't appropriate behaviour of adults and kids. Tell them they can say "no".

If you're worried about people becoming "pedophiles," then provide services where people who have inappropriate intrusive thoughts or unhealthy obsessions of any kind can seek help anonymously and without judgement and work through their issues.

But also bear in mind that the people with the aforementioned mental health issues are not necessarily the ones who sexually abuse kids, and many cases of sex offences against kids are not motivated by sexual attraction. Often, like many cases of abuse, it's an expression of power and dominance, or a desire to hurt, humiliate and shame the victim. If you want to stop those people, again, education is key. Teach children about bodily autonomy- their own and others'. Encourage respect for other people, so they grow up knowing they are not entitled to another person's body.

But funnily enough, the people who like to fearmonger about "PEDOPHILES!!!" tend to also be the people who want to keep their children sheltered and ignorant.

Weird, huh?

[aroacebaggins]

Yeah, this is important. Ironically, my abuser was the kind of guy who'd throw around "pedophile" to describe any group or person he didn't like. It was usually baseless. It's become not really a useful term in actual situations like these, almost more of a ragebait/shock factor thing to attack basically anyone. And the call coming from inside the house in a way is unfortunately common.

I also cannot stress enough how important education is in child protection.

[yourwakingnightmares]

Re: Bodily autonomy.

We give our kids such mixed signals about bodily autonomy that it'd be laughable, if it wasn't so goddamn dangerous. And there's many facets of this, but the most serious one boils down to... 'Family doesn't count'.

By that I mean... how many of us can recall being told we had to hug smelly great-grandma Betty, because 'she loves us'? That we had to let Uncle Chuck tickle us until we were almost crying, because he 'loves us'? That we had to go to this reunion, or that family dinner, because we'd 'break Granny/Auntie's/Cousin's heart' if we didn't?

By this, we're innately teaching our kids that their own desires don't mean anything when compared to a family member's wishes. Now, obviously that's not what most parents mean, and they don't this maliciously.

The idea behind it is... well, Grandma Betty is going to be dead soon, and all she wants is a hug in case she doesn't see us again. Uncle Chuck tickles all the kids, not because he's being inappropriate, but because that's the only real way he knows how to interact with kids, and he'd be heartbroken to realize that he was actually doing something the kids hated.

But the message that comes across, no matter how well-intentioned (or rather, unthought through) this attitude is... is that a child's wants mean less than a family member's wants.

Which is incredibly relevant, given that almost 85% of sexual abuse cases are by relatives or close family friends.

Does it suck that Grandma Betty might die without that last hug, because Little Susie didn't want to hug her? Sure. But long term? If Grandma Betty can't understand why forcing little Susie to give her a hug is bad... then maybe Grandma Betty isn't someone we want giving little Susie a hug to begin with.

[yourwakingnightmares]

Hi, I'm Clippy! Looks like you assumed some condescending shit about a female artist so hard it rendered you unable to actually read a whole two sentences. Would you like to do some uncomfortable self-reflection, or double down and pretend you don't look ridiculous?

Hi, I'm remarkably uninterested in having a conversation with you after you immediately stopped all reblogs after I said you finding a compliment -about how artists who aren't searching for fame produce some of the most beautiful art- is sexist, then you derailed into a long thing about the history of textiles, which was actually pretty inaccurate and hysterical to read as someone who has long been involved in quilting, knitting, and looming.

Would you like to try some self reflection about your confirmation bias? Or would you like to continue to insist that everything is sexist, because you said so?

I mean, I'm good either way, it's entertaining as hell when you can't have an actual argument, can't present an actual point, and can't use any logic.

[yourwakingnightmares]

I love that people are so hell bent on proving that everything is an 'ism' or an 'ic' (i.e., homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ageist, etc.,) that they have to go looking at the most innocent of of things, to tear them apart.

Beyond that, what I really, really enjoy is when people are so absolutely incapable of discussion that, when people point out their confirmation bias... They respond, then immediately turn off all interactions.

It really proves that you know exactly what you're talking about, and have much evidence for your point.

I have more respect for people who are wrong, but keep arguing, than I do for people who immediately lock everything down so they don't have to interact with anything that disrupts their echo chamber filled with strawmen.

[sleepnoises]

someone just tagged my post of Ruth McDowell's beautiful art quilts "some of the most brilliant artists in the world live quiet and happy lives and leave behind pure magic" which is, like, a nice sentiment, and also i think a quite sexist thing to assume about a single mother who supported her family through her internationally [niche]famous art & who was also kind of an intense jerk (source: daughter)

possibly other brilliant artists lead quiet and happy lives but i don't think you can ever tell just by looking at their art. possibly every artist is human

[yourwakingnightmares]

.... Or....

They mean that despite all the 'famous' artists, who try to make big names for themselves, with big displays... some of the best artists in the world are the ones who are living quietly, doing their hobby solely because they enjoy doing it. That they're not in it for the fame, the fortune, the pizzazz and whatever else comes with being a 'famous' artist.

I find your post to be like, a nice sentiment, but I also find it quite a misanthropic thing to assume that anyone who praises the quiet artist, the ones who do things for the sake of doing them, and not for fame is inherently sexist.

You can find sexism, or racism, or ageism, or homophobia, or transphobia, in anything if you look hard enough. It's called confirmation bias, which means that if you really, really dig into anything, you can always find what you're looking for, because you're creating it out of thin air. Like numerology: if I try hard enough, I can break everything down to the number 7, by adding ten, subtracting nine, multiplying by four, and dividing by the number of letters in 'life'.

You should really try not doing that. And just let your friend enjoy the compliment someone paid her.