Links of Great Interest: Ready for some schooling?

Share on Tumblr

CONGRATS TO STACEYANN CHIN!!!

Beyonce and slut-shaming.

Other nerds FREQUENTLY disappoint me.

This is a really powerful op-ed.

Some gorgeous images of chic afros.

Abuse survivors speak out

Saddest kids’ book EVER.

From Cassandra: Some kick ass girls!

In defense of Y tu mama tambien

How sexists find girls.

Are Puerto Ricans and other Latinos with US citizenship not welcome in the Tequila Party?

Oh, Ron Paul.

<3 Oh, Audre Lorde.

Tea Party wants slavery removed from textbooks.

From Casey:

Apparently a guy in the audience of an improv performance confessed to raping a woman and he thought it would be funny for the players to act it out…

NO.

http://www.themarysue.com/rapey-comedy-monologue/

Fashion choices for women over fifty.

Whaaaaaaat. The Human Project app looks AMAZING.

From SunlessNick: Is Mad Men a soap opera?

From Azzy:

http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2011/08/given-names.html

“There has been a long history of people with more power or more privilege using more familiar names or forms of address, like dropping titles, to create a sense of intimacy without the permission of the other person.”

Death threats on the rise for women bloggers.

From MC:

Lately there’s been alot of talk in the Doctor Who fandom whether or not head writer Steven Moffat is sexist.

Con

Pro

General

Monica Coleman talks about why she writes about depression and mental health issues as a woman and Christian.

Hahaha, guess what’s on Toronto’s only dead-drop.

Hooray for good parents! Boo to frivolous lawsuits.

The five most traumatizing  rape culture scenes in Harry Potter

ETA: Forgot to post this: someone’s having a book grab!

Criticism of US tropes in fiction. Some of those seem post-Enlightenment, Western tropes to me… plus y’all know how I feel about literacy rights, so the assumption that people in a nation with dramatically rising rates of illiteracy “can’t be bothered” to deal with subtitles is weird to me. Other than those two points, I really agree with the poster’s main point: that there’s a Western/American stranglehold on media production.

Also, in googling the links above, I found this really neat concept for teaching reading.

Comments

  1. Jaynie says

    I really should know better than to read the comments in an article about rape. Powerless rage is the worst kind, I think.

    It’s funny the issue of Moffat’s sexism should come up, since I was just the other day singing the praises of Rory for defying gender stereotypes. I think he has strengths and weaknesses — his women are defined by marriage and motherhood, but they’re also intelligent and strong and often in charge of their lives — the latter is so rare on telly that it’s easy to gloss over the former, which we shouldn’t. I also think the fact that he is a much better writer than RTD makes it easy to ignore *any* faults, including a disappointing lack of diversity in comparison with seasons 1-4. Because hey, at least the plots are coherent!

  2. DNi says

    I always thought that the most important aspect of the U.S.’s Founding Fathers was that they WEREN’T saints, that they WERE self-admitted imperfect people. I mean, that was kind of the whole point of the American Revolution: that only people really rule people, and that no matter their breeding or religious power, people are and always will be imperfect.

    Yeah, there were horrible, disgusting chapters in U.S. History, especially around the beginning, and the Founding Fathers were part of that. That doesn’t change the fact that they created a system of Government specifically designed to improve over time. Not a perfect system, just one that could get better.

  3. DNi says

    the what link…? OH RIGHT YEAH. Yeah, that’s what I was replying to and not another website I had open and then got the windows confused. That would’ve been stupid of me.

  4. The Other Anne says

    URgh. Hasn’t history been rewritten by privileged white people enough? It’s bad enough we only learn the vapid “Columbus discovered the Americas” thing, while we fail to be taught his dark history (at least in my history classes, and I went to one of the top 500 high schools in the country). We (we being people at my school) weren’t taught anything from a non-western POV (the closest I got was an assignment on the silk road, but with a focus on what that brought to western society, soo…), so all history is very western centric, and as an extension from that, in a privileged perspective, as slavery and conquest was always from the POV of those owning the slaves or the people doing the conquering (as opposed to the natives of any given land, or those who were put into slavery).

    And I was not taught about the Founding Fathers owning slaves or any part of their lives that was unsavory. I didn’t get to read the original declaration that would have freed slaves that was (COGNITIVE DISSONANCE) written by some dude who owned slaves (Nice one, Jefferson), or learn that that was shot down by states who said they would not sign on in support if they couldn’t keep their slaves until a college literature course on American literature (which included pre US stuff from indigenous cultures like creation stories and fables and stuff). So the good ol’ USA was literally formed with the perpetuation of slavery as a necessary aspect. If your country is formed with some of the most heinous cognitive dissonances and hypocrisies possible, that “all men are created equal” but that doesn’t include those women-folk of any race or men who aren’t white (because “back in those times” things were different and it’s not like those people were actually people according to “real men”, who are white and land owning), and the only people who get to pursue happiness are a very specific group…

    I guess the moral of my rant is why do people think they are right to rewrite history to eliminate from said history the same people who are already suffering from that history or who suffered through it then? Why should history favor the people who benefited the most from it already? Why do the people who we learn about have to be sparkly-clean moral-gods with nothing wrong with them, the way decency made superheroes be? We don’t have to root for the founding fathers. They already did what they did. The point of history is to learn from it. We can’t learn the necessary things from the founding fathers if we aren’t taught the reality of their lives and all the lives they affected.

  5. says

    re: the TN Tea Party’s attempt to erase slavery. I remember TN’s version of history in text books quite well, as I attended a good public school there. The Civil War was all about economics, not slavery, and Restoration was the very most worstest thing that ever happened to anybody ever*.

    “no portrayal of minority experience in the history which actually occurred shall obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers, or the majority of citizens, including those who reached positions of leadership.”

    That’s a very powerful statement, in a very intensely ugly way. That’s the shittiest piece of privileged crap I’ve seen in some time. Goodness, let’s not let slavery overshadow all the alleged accomplishments of a bunch of guys who were out to get theirs and figured out how to con everybody into helping them instead of beating them up and taking it themselves.

    Here’s the thing. I only recently found out that aside from a few historical situations (including ante-bellum US), slavery has NEVER meant treating people as property – chattel. The African slavers who sold people to the whites of the New World had NO IDEA what hell was in store for those slaves. In most countries of Africa, even then, slaves had certain rights, and could even buy their way out of slavery. Nothing remotely fucking like that in America. They were LEGALLY DEFINED AS PROPERTY. Just being black meant you were property. Read that sentence over and over until it hits you: just being black meant you were property. Not human. More like a workhorse.

    That is why what the founding fathers did with slaves desperately needs to be highlighted. This country was absolutely built on the backs of people who were legally defined as property. The founding fathers just wanted to get theirs, and they were smart enough to con everybody into thinking, “Oh, no, it’ll be for all of us! … really!” Give me a break.

    It’s slave apologism… without the apology. And let’s not forget: women weren’t citizens for another 60 years beyond when black men were technically given their rights. We weren’t always treated like some man’s workhorse, but we didn’t have any rights. And that’s never been highlighted enough, either. You can’t erase enough history to clear up white male America’s historical blemishes. Because AFTER slavery, we had segregation.

    It just goes on and on and on. I suggest we just substitute the story arc from the Teletubbies for American history. That should make these assholes feel better. Nothing else can cut it, because the whole of human history is about people being shitty to each other. Denying that is absurd, period, end of story.

    *Until I got to AP history and had a fabulous teacher. We got a much more balanced view of history than the kids in the average classes, whom I guess just needed to be programmed for lives of cheerful servitude. She also taught me my research skills, with this really hardcore thing she’d spring on us now and then: she’d give us research packets, and we had to go through it to find support to answer essay questions. Worse, some of what was in the research packets was inaccurate, and we had to guess by knowing about things like “first sources” and so on. It was totally brilliant, and I’m still grateful to her.

  6. Casey says

    Well the comments about the wrestling sisters sure left me with a hefty amount of powerless rage.

    The only wrestling that women should be doing should involve either mud, jello or Mazola! What are these gals thinking?

    Yup, exactly. What a bunch of dumb WH0RES.

    They wouldn’t have caught me. Well, I wouldn’t have run. I’m just saying two women would not be able to subdue me. I would’ve pimp-slapped the first one and then kept on running, making good my getaway.

    why is this front page news? Oh, that’s right: these are FEMALE wrestlers; if two young men of the same age and involved in the same activities took down a hit and run driver, this story would most likely never appear on yahoo

    FFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

  7. Dani says

    re Beyonce article: Sooooo, let me get this straight. Beyonce’s suddenly a good role model to girls primarily because…she got married…and is having a baby? Really?

  8. Maria says

    Dani,

    Yeah, those years of promoting her work, her mother’s projects, maintaining and branding a particular aural and public image were all PRACTICE for baby-making and marriage. Oh wait! That last should have been THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

  9. Shaun says

    I really admire Staceyann Chin and harbor a secret hope she’ll receive greater recognition.

    Not so cool, though, making a black LGBT list and omitting anyone who is B or T (or classifying them as LG if they were–I don’t know everyone on that list).

  10. Jenny Islander says

    The article about the student wrestlers reminds me of one that appeared in the Anchorage Daily News years ago. It sounds like an urban legend, but if I’m lyin’, I’m dyin’.

    Adult male teacher of an extracurricular activity decides to rob the families of his students because if they take his classes they must be “rich.” He stakes out the home of a family of two adults and two young teenage girls for his first attempt. He is going to sneak in at night, tie them up, rob them, and sneak out. This necessitates dressing up like a ninja. So Ninja Dude sneaks into the house. He decides to go to the bedroom the two girls share first. He leans over one of them to tie her up and accidentally wakes her, whereupon both of them explode out of bed, beat him like a big bass drum, tie him up with his own ninja stuff (I think it was either jump ropes or clothesline) and call for help. He had to visit the hospital before going to jail. The two girls? Not a scratch.

    For those readers whose skeevy scumbag alerts kept beeping during the above summary, here’s something of a unicorn chaser: It was almost guaranteed to end like this because this idiot picked the home of the two students who were the consistent top performers at his karate dojo.

  11. Dani says

    Maria:
    Dani,

    Yeah, those years of promoting her work, her mother’s projects, maintaining and branding a particular aural and public image were all PRACTICE for baby-making and marriage. Oh wait! That last should have been THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

    Yeah. So I guess my takeaway from this should be: unless I get married and have a baby (which may be never), everything I do is worthless. Yay?

    Re: op-ed. “I ask that Perry please not try to speak for me anymore. I fought for the right to express my own opinions.” has to be the quote of the year.

    How sexists find love: A few years ago, I watched The Pickup Artist, season 2 (i had A LOT of down time at work), and thought it was pretty funny for all the wrong reasons (“They set the show up like this elaborate cult where the members treat women like objects? Idiots.”). However, now that I know more about rape culture, I find The Game disturbing on top of being distasteful. Like, calling the woman a “target” and, as the article said, going as far as isolating her from her friends? Creepy.

    I thought the findings in the study the article was about were interesting; however, I had one major problem with the article. There is a problem with the study because, as MYSTERY (of all people) said, women say one thing and mean another? Did the author really just fall back on the age-old “no means yes” myth? I mean, I’ve read how things like shame over their sexuality or fear of being labelled a slut can cause some women to not be completely honest when asked questions about their sex lives, but if that’s true, and if that’s the point, there *has* to be a better way to word it than how it was worded in the article, and a better person to quote than the guy largely responsible for a system that attracts misogynists of both genders.

  12. says

    Jennifer Kesler: The Civil War was all about economics, not slavery,

    I thought that’s what it was about, or at least about the federal government declaring its sovereignty over the state governments. Because I know Lincoln admitted he’d sacrifice the slaves if it would keep the Union together, and the Emancipation Proclamation was just a political move with no real power behind it. The way I heard it, slavery was just a convenient excuse and not really cared about by the majority of Whites on either side.

  13. says

    Jenny Islander,

    LMAO!!!!!

    Dani: Yeah. So I guess my takeaway from this should be: unless I get married and have a baby (which may be never), everything I do is worthless. Yay?

    Also, Dani, unless you are conventionally beautiful, nothing you do can matter. So, you need to work on a whole lot of stuff other than your plans to run a Fortune 500 company if you really want to make it. It’ll be hard to avoid getting distracted by the immense beauty routines, the hardcore dating that’s required to find a man who’s not a douchebag, etc., but if you’re extremely wealthy, you have a chance! Best of luck!

    Sylvia Sybil,

    There IS that side of it, and it also needs to be understood, but they meant Southern economics. They tried to make it sound like slavery was an absolute economic necessity for white southern survival, or else the noble white southerners never would have engaged in such a thing, and therefore it wasn’t at all mean or racist, just a little misguided. Which is utter bollocks.

    I also grant that the Restoration was really shitty, didn’t help anything, and probably did set race relations back some. But I can’t absolve the southerners of all responsibility for their reactions to it, anymore than I can say, “Well, Ted Bundy had a rough childhood, so let’s just slap him on the hand and let bygones be bygones.”

  14. Shaun says

    Sylvia Sybil,
    But that in itself is a Southern revision. If Lincoln was so willing to sacrifice the slaves, why reject the 1860 Crittenden Compromise? What was the federal government declaring its sovereignty over the states FOR? Never mind that, in itself, is more propaganda. The Democrats (at the time the conservative party) saw no problem in using the Executive like a bludgeon when Buchanan was President, but suddenly as soon as an anti-slavery Republican got in it was all, states rights states rights.

    Jennifer Kesler,
    Well white Southerners were the REASON Reconstruction (I assume that’s the same thing as Restoration) failed. And by failed I mean, did not properly integrate white Americans back into the workforce. I don’t think there was anything wrong with Reconstruction itself, just the post-Lincoln executive leadership (really Andrew Johnson? 13,350 pardons?) and the white South flipping its shit over… everything.

  15. says

    Jennifer Kesler,

    Oh I see.

    Yeah, I had a college professor who liked to emphasize that in the Caribbean the slaves were worked to death within months and every contemporary account of North American slavery says that they were incredibly well-treated in comparison…and I’m sitting in class, scratching my head, thinking, “F’reals? ‘We didn’t actually murder most of our slaves, we just tortured them and deprived them of all human rights,’? There is no high ground here.”

    Shaun,

    It doesn’t actually bother me to have the federal government be stronger than the state governments. Having the feds be stronger than our constitutional rights, that bothers me, but some things (like slavery, same sex marriage, religious minorities…basically all the human rights) are too important to be decided piece by piece and change when you cross a line in the sand. Like in the ’60’s, when people who were 7/8 White and 1/8 Black changed races when they moved states. Or like right now, when a same sex couple goes from spouses to roommates when they move states.

  16. Mintywolf says

    I’m not sure I agree with the blogger about fiction tropes. Conflict and character are what create stories, and using an active voice when writing is generally more descriptive and indeed interesting. Conflict does not necessarily mean ‘things blowing up’, and internal conflict and character focus is part of writing a believable and interesting character.

    They seem to be arguing that they want to see stories/movies/etc about people sitting around being culturally homogenous watching things they aren’t involved in going on around them. That’s fine if that’s what you’re into, but I don’t see much of interest there, personally. To each their own I suppose.

  17. says

    Shaun,

    “Reconstruction!” I knew Restoration didn’t sound right, but I was SO TIRED when I was replying yesterday. Anyhow, it sounds like you’ve studied more about the CW than I did, and that’s very interesting info. (The constant whitewashing by both school and random romanticizing individuals made me never want to study more, so there’s a lot I don’t know.) Got any book recs?

    As for states’ rights, I think you can also reach problematic areas by letting the Feds handle everything. I mean, Federal wisdom says that crimes against women can’t be hate crimes because women aren’t a protected group. Probably not for any lack rapists and serial killers telling them “I hate the bitches, I hate them so much!” but because, simply, it would make a HUGE number of felonies into hate crimes. I mean, how do you maintain rape culture if women are among the people you’re not allowed to commit felonies against individuals in order to intimidate the whole group?

    I’m in favor of states’ rights, on the whole. I do think there are instances where the Feds should trump, such as obvious human rights issues. But I don’t think the Feds are necessarily the best judge of human rights – for example, it’s been interesting seeing individual states decide to recognize gay marriage. Those states are innovating and setting the stage for a time when maybe marriage can be redefined at the Federal level. Or abolished as a legally recognized state, which I think is the real solution.

    Mintywolf,

    Which link did you mean, because it sounds like the blogger may be talking about something dear to my heart. In American fiction, every single minute has to be jam-packed with disagreement and conflict. If the characters would never disagree about X? Take them out of character, we MUST have conflict!!! It’s so boring and predictable. I loved Davinci’s Inquest because it was like real people trying to figure shit out, and sometimes agreeing and sometimes disagreeing, and some of the conflict was over stuff not relevant to the plot – like in real life – but mostly people were so non-confrontational, just like in real life. And yet, the story kept moving, and moving fast.

    So it can be done by GOOD writers, just not by the nepotistically promoted sons of hacks of Hollywood.

    Also, you’re stating your opinion as fact when you say active voice is more “interesting” – that is extremely English-specific. There are plenty of cultures that disagree with you.

    • Maria says

      @Jenn and @Mintywolf

      The blogger’s actually arguing that American cultural tropes (she provides a list of examples in the post itself) are pernicious and cover up the existence of other types of stories… like a McDonaldization of media and a Americanization of fiction.

      Like I said in my little bit of a description for the link, I agree with her main point, but think that one of her subpoints (that Americans aren’t interested in subtitled films) reflects a bit of classism OR ignorance about the declining state of literacy in the US.

  18. says

    I would like to highlight the link about death threats for women bloggers. It should be part of Activism 101. It’s absolutely terrifying for those of us who do NOT have the resources to protect ourselves from hackings or DDOS attacks, let alone someone stalking us in reality, finding our addresses, etc. I’m sure some would-be women bloggers are actually silenced by this, and I don’t blame them. It’s something readers of blogs by women need to be aware of.

    And they say men have all the dangerous jobs. My ass. Just BEING a woman is comparatively dangerous.

  19. I.A. Scott says

    Re Death threats for blogging
    Pretty much everything described in there is terrifying.

    Re Harry Potter
    I didn’t know about the centaur thing but the date-rape arc really made me cringe (especially in the cinema). Worse, some people I’ve mentioned my thoughts to seem to think it was cute.

  20. Jenny Islander says

    I had to skim parts of the HP books due to the creepy implications, although I’m not so sure that JKR didn’t mean to put them in. She did tell the story through the eyes of a kid who didn’t know what he was looking at much of the time. Apparently Hermione, for one, threw herself into long-overdue reform work after graduating and acquired considerable clout. Good for her.

    Still and all, I really wouldn’t want to live in the Wizarding World. In my headcanon, the British WW (apologies to readers from the UK) is notorious among magical communities worldwide for its insularity, eccentricity, etc., and magical culture elsewhere is considerably healthier.

  21. Gabriella says

    Dani,

    Dani: Yeah.So I guess my takeaway from this should be: unless I get married and have a baby (which may be never), everything I do is worthless.Yay?

    So… I should ignore everything Germaine Greer said?

  22. Shaun says

    Jennifer Kesler,

    As a matter of fact Lies My Teacher Told Me by James W Loewen is an excellent book about American history, it also examines things from a racist, sexist, and classist perspective. One of the chapters is on the invisibility of racism in American history, the next one is on the invisibility of antiracism in American history–not that say, Lincoln didn’t hold racist beliefs, but it talked about how pretending “everyone was (equally) racist back then so ______ was okay” is a way for whites to excuse or justify racist behavior in history.

    I also really liked the emphasis on American Indian societies impacted by European arrival (which makes this more of an AMERICAN history book, imo). I considered myself relatively knowledgeable about US (read: European-American) history, but if you had asked me about the Plague I would have thought of the Bubonic Plague. In Europe. Not the Plague which wiped out *95%* of the original population of New England prior to the arrival of the Pilgrims, nor the other Pandemics which ultimately wiped out over 90% of the population of the continent.

    There’s also a bit on propaganda in WWI I think you’d find interesting, plus huge sections (after the racism stuff) on how Americans are socialized to belief poverty is a personal flaw, or how the more educated you were the more likely you were to support the Vietnam war (yet Americans overwhelmingly think more educated people were less likely to support it because they could ‘think for themselves’). There’s not really a section on sexism but it’s still sprinkled in and acknowledged to a greater extent than I’m used to seeing.

  23. Shaun says

    Jennifer Kesler,

    Also, one thing directly relevant to what we were saying above, schools almost uniformly teach (at least in the South) Reconstruction was about integrating African-Americans into the workforce, and what the hell does academia think they were doing in slavery? Black Americans already had all the skills to survive and operate in society, it was slave-owning whites who had no idea how to function or survive even if they got to keep all their lands and property. I vaguely recall from school that South Carolina had a slave population exceeding its free and was one of the richest states in the union–that’s obviously not the case now, I think because the whole economy was built on stolen labor and couldn’t possibly be maintained post slavery.

    I think Reconstruction would have been a whole lot more successful if the plantations were just given over to the blacks who worked on them, even if resulted in some weird (to me) commune situations. I’m pretty sure lots of whites today would be appalled by giving “their” land over to blacks, but none of the slave-owners did anything to create that wealth, and they didn’t even know how to maintain their own fields without hiring ex-slaves back on as paid workers. It would have made a lot more sense to give the workers the fruits of their own labors but I guess that was too radical for that society, yet alone for American society now to discuss.

  24. Ara says

    Shaun,

    Somebody actually did try that for a while, because the Northern army general who was liberating everything couldn’t figure out what else to do with everything. He gave the liberated adult slaves in this path 40 acres and a mule each and let them work for themselves. This actually might have worked just fine if the white government had let it stick, but in the end they insisted on returning all the lands and property. The people who thought they were going to have their own farms were understandably upset about it.

  25. Shaun says

    Ara,

    I did not know that. I’ve heard people talk about the “40 acres and a mule” they were promised and didn’t receive but I didn’t realize it was given and then taken away.

  26. says

    Shaun: Lincoln didn’t hold racist beliefs, but it talked about how pretending “everyone was (equally) racist back then so ______ was okay”

    I’ve been hearing people say, “But that was the 80s!” to excuse racism from that decade, so it’s really hitting me lately that this has been the excuse for centuries. I was a kid then – in rural West Virginia, no less – and I know we knew better than to be racist. There was no excuse then, and there was never any excuse.

    Thanks for the rec – I’ve stuck it in my Amazon cart.

    Shaun: I’m pretty sure lots of whites today would be appalled by giving “their” land over to blacks, but none of the slave-owners did anything to create that wealth, and they didn’t even know how to maintain their own fields without hiring ex-slaves back on as paid workers.

    Good point! It’s amazing how people manage to work out to the penny what they deserve from their own labor, but not notice how they’ve profited off other people’s labor.

    Maria,

    I’m still not sure which link we’re talking about (that’s what I asked Mintywolf), because I didn’t see any of what Mintywolf is describing in the link on the word “Criticism.” I agree with that article, and also with your criticism of it.

  27. Maria says

    Jennifer Kesler,

    :) I’m pretty sure we’re talking about the criticism link, and that Mintywolf is reacting to some of the commenters, and not to the post content, which does not contain the points MW is bringing up here.

  28. says

    Maria,

    I think I found what Mintywolf was talking about, and it IS from the article: “I’m tired of how genre(s) put(s) a disproportionate value on heroes who are active and not passive (and, by extension, belittles and dismisses every use of passive voice, and always asks for sentences to be frenetically punchy)… I am sick of the redefinition of narrative as violence, of how everything has to be a conflict in order to be valid–even to the point of defining conflict “against yourself”, which contributes to trivialising the use of the word “conflict”, not to mention twist it far beyond its original meaning.”

    I don’t read this at all as Mintywolf did:

    The passive voice DOES have artistic merit. English class and creative writing classes teach us that we should mainly use active voice, because they’re worried about keeping awake an audience that doesn’t want to be there, anyway. That’s a strangely American cultural value: always chasing the one you don’t got. Readers like Anne Rice know that some of us want to get lost for hours in a novel rather than skim for a book report, and they use passive voice to set up an unreal, nostalgic or dreamy sense, or convey that some characters are more passive/submissive than others, etc.

    As for “conflict”, there’s a HUGE BIG GRAY AREA between cramming conflict everywhere you possibly can until it’s no longer possible to buy your characters haven’t all murdered each other already, and you wish they would because they’re behaving so ridiculously, and people sitting around being endlessly pleasant to each other. I have to say it’s also kind of a weirdly American cultural trait to assume if someone objects to Extreme A, they must support Extreme Z. Again, folks: HUGE BIG GRAY AREAS EVERYWHERE. Twenty-four other letters to choose from along the spectrum.

    Does anyone know of a term for the logical fallacy that is assuming someone who objects to one extreme must support the opposite extreme? It’s sort of a False Dichotomy with a touch of Straw Man, but I was hoping to find a more descriptive term for that specific assumption, because it’s derailed more than a few threads around here.

  29. Quib says

    What’s ironic is that I’m almost certain the Americanization! tropes are amplified and condensed when American screen writers try to market to a global audience. When you’re trying to get a plot light and uncomplicated as possible, action! and violence and clear oppositional morality and sexy women are pretty near the simplest things to translate.

  30. Mintywolf says

    This was why I put in ‘to each their own’. The link was expressing an opinion, I shared my own. Some people enjoy picaresques, for example, I don’t find them particularly compelling. That’s all.

  31. Maria says

    Mintywolf: I’m not sure I agree with the blogger about fiction tropes. Conflict and character are what create stories, and using an active voice when writing is generally more descriptive and indeed interesting.

    I think the above doesn’t sound like you were expressing an opinion, but more like you were stating a fact about writing and stories. I think this is what Jenn and I were responding to from your initial post. Thanks for clarifying!

  32. says

    Maria,

    Ditto. Though I still think this is an unfounded conclusion: “They seem to be arguing that they want to see stories/movies/etc about people sitting around being culturally homogenous watching things they aren’t involved in going on around them.” That’s why I kept emphasizing the big gray areas.

  33. Jenny Islander says

    IANA fashion designer, but those Afros look too plain to me. The first thing I want to do when I see a glorious head of hair is ornament it with anything from one perfect flower to a one-of-a-kind piece of wearable art serving as a hairband. But again, IANA fashion designer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.