one more thing, i can’t help but notice that a lot of tumblr’s popular ideas about what 30+-year-old women — and it’s almost always women — should be doing instead of having fun online seem to line up pretty closely with very conservative beliefs about what women’s options should be. especially that women should have children and that once they have children their lives should revolve around those children completely, with no time for breaks or hobbies or internet discussion or other selfish, frivolous, unmotherly activities. to be a mother or a woman old enough to be expected to be a mother is to be a specially regulated class of person, judged by her performance as a self-sacrificing caregiver and exemplar of chaste maturity.
it’s hard to escape the influence of these ideas. but if you don’t hold yourself to this standard at age 22 or whatever, if you want more than what patriarchy has planned for you, then it’s worth it to try to let go of this standard when it comes to older women too. and not only because you will one day be one of them. but also because it’s the right thing to do.
Tag: Tumblr
thanks for ruining my post you disgusting waste of life
You posted an opinion on a social media platform that’s explicitly designed to enable reblogs and commentary from other users, including people who disagree. If you want to write in a broadcast medium where you have total control over replies and their visibility, get a WordPress blog – but even then, the whole point of the internet is that other people get to share their opinions, too.
I appreciate that you think this is a black and white issue, but it isn’t. You, personally, do not get veto power over what the rest of the world imagines when they masturbate or the kind of stories they write for fun, nor do you get to determine where the acceptable overlap between those categories lies, because individual stories impact individual readers differently. No narrative is universally positive or negative, which is why tags exist in fanfiction: to help individuals navigate their needs and preferences safely.
That you, personally, cannot fathom a benign or logical reason why some people enjoy the sorts of fantasies or narratives that you find abhorrent does not mean no such reason exists; nor does it mean that every single person who enjoys those things is as morally pure as the driven snow. What it does mean is that there’s no way to tell at a glance, purely on the basis of the content, which type reader is which, such that you can’t functionally ban the latter kind without also banning the former – and if you’re okay with demonising innocents for the sake of punishing the guilty, then you don’t get to claim moral purity, either.
Which is the crux of the argument, here; the reason why it’s not black and white, even though it looks like it should be. Who decides what fictional content stays or goes, and why? It’s easy to say “no underage, no incest, no paedophilia, no rape,” but if you want to follow through, you have to define those terms in practical, specific ways, and that isn’t easy at all – not for published novels, and not for fanfic. Here’s what I mean:
No underage – okay, so does that mean no romance or sexual content for characters younger than 18, or just younger than 16? Whose definition of ‘underage’ are we using? Are there exceptions for teen characters within three or so years of each other, as there are legally in real life, or not? What are the limits of ‘acceptable’ content for younger characters – can they hug and kiss and talk about sex, so long as they aren’t implied to be having it? What if they are implied to be having it, but there’s a tasteful fade to black? What about stories where a younger character is making realistic bad decisions about sex or is being taken advantage of – can we tell those stories, or are they banned, too? If we do tell them, what are the guidelines for how graphic the content can be?
No incest – okay, does that include characters who weren’t raised together and don’t know they’re siblings? Step-siblings? Half-siblings? Does it include a ban on historical figures who really engaged in incest? What about characters who have an incestuous relationship in the source material – can we write fic about them, provided we take an explicitly anti-incest stance? What degree of separation are we allowing – does it start at first cousins, or do we go beyond that? Are all these things okay so long as it’s explicitly written as abusive and bad in the narrative, or is there leeway? What about people who expressly want to engage in daddy kink, which uses incest-adjacent language without necessarily being incestuous? Is that banned, too? What about fics where the characters aren’t related in the source material, but have been written that way in the story, such that a romantic relationship is turned into a familial one? What about fics where the characters are related in the source material, but aren’t in the fic, such that a familial relationship becomes a romantic one? Is any of this allowed?
No paedophilia – okay, does that include stories about survivors of child abuse? What about stories where the source material includes child abuse; is fic not allowed to mention it? Can you portray it if it’s very clearly a Bad Thing, even though some readers might still get off to it anyway? Can you imply that it happened so long as it isn’t discussed in detail or depicted graphically? What if survivors of child abuse want to write graphically about their experiences as a way to process trauma – is that allowed, or not? If so, how do you go about policing content creators to make sure that writers have suffered the Right Kind Of Abuse to be allowed to write those stories? If not, how do you justify the decision to exclude victims from their own narratives? If some victims find it traumatising to read fics that contain paedophilia, but others find it cathartic and helpful to write them, do you acknowledge that all victims have different experiences and try to create a platform where everyone can navigate those differences safely, or do you think it’s better to just close that door altogether?
No rape – okay, does that mean no stories about rape recovery? Can you show rape provided it isn’t graphic? Can it be mentioned at all, or only in passing? What if two characters consent to enacting a rape fantasy in the text – is that still morally wrong? Can rape occur provided that it’s obviously bad and wrong and clearcut throughout, or is the character being victimised allowed to feel conflicted or confused about their experience? What about instances where consent is potentially dubious, such as sex between characters who are drunk, or where one party is drunker than the other? What if a story’s source material is ambiguous about whether sex between two characters was consensual – is fanfic allowed to explore that?
These are only some of the questions you’d need to answer in order to implement your desired changes on a future, hypothetical website. I say again: it’s easy to sit there and say, “No porn involving these four things,” as though AO3 need only delete every work containing those tags in order to save itself from damnation, but functionally, practically, it doesn’t work like that. The wrong story at the wrong age or time can fuck anyone up, just as the right one at the right age or time can be revolutionary, and those might both be the same story to different people. Explicit stories on AO3 are expressly restricted to those over 18 – if younger people are reading those fics, then that’s a risk they’re taking upon themselves: in which case, it’s their responsibility to use the tags to safely curate their own experience.
I understand the worry that paedophiles will use fanfic to groom their victims, and I don’t deny that this has happened to some people. But at the same time, abusers use a lot of things to groom their victims – historical precedents, flattery, novels, movies, lies – and at the end of the day, the only commonality between those things is the abuser themselves, not the content; so unless you’re arguing that the content creates the abuser, removing the content neither removes the abuser nor curtails the abuse. By the same token, it’s also true that fanfic has helped a great many people to recognise or recover from their own abuse, by showing what it looks like or enabling them to write about their own experiences. I know multiple ficwriters who’ve written their own rapes or sexual assaults into fics, or their own mental health diagnoses, as a way to process those things safely, in a cathartic manner. You really want to take that away from them?
People are complex. Sex is complex. Fantasies are complex. Pretending otherwise is how you end up with books being banned or burned, to say nothing of a host of related social evils.
And if pointing all that out ruined your post, then maybe it needed ruining.
Like, if you genuinely believe that certain kinds of fictional relationships are inherently unethical to ships, then…okay. You’re allowed to think that. (Frankly, I have mixed thoughts about certain kinds of fan content too, which I’m still ironing out.)
But.
That doesn’t change the fact that even the gnarliest most fucked up ship in the world is still fictional, and any harm done by people shipping it is completely indirect. Unless someone is actively shoving their weird weecest noncon hentai or whatever into your submission box forcing you to look at it, they as people haven’t actually done anything to directly harm anyone. No action was taken to intentionally hurt any actual living, breathing human beings. Whether the work itself, independent of the artist, is harmful is the question on the table.
And you’re totally allowed to think that it is. And you’re allowed to say “this ship is harmful and here’s why.” And you’re allowed to dislike the people who made the art, to distrust them, to want to avoid them. To block them and everyone they talk to, if you want to.
You’re not entitled to harass them. You’re not entitled to accuse them of committing actual crimes against real people with no evidence. You’re not entitled to lie about them. You’re not entitled to send death threats and rape threats and suicide bait to them.
Once you do that, you’ve already lost the moral high ground, because all of that constitutes direct harm. There’s no question of whether it’s harmful. It’s intended to be. These are actions taken with the intent to hurt a real-life living breathing human being. And that’s not okay.
Art will never be as good at hurting people than people are at hurting each other. Reality will always affect reality a hundred times more powerfully than fiction can. Please bear that in mind.
I almost never reblog my own posts like this unless it’s to respond to someone or add something else, but I’m reblogging this one because…like this really is the bottom line for me. The most problematic piece of art in the world is still not as morally wrong as intentionally and maliciously trying to hurt a real life human being.
And that’s not the climate of criticism we have right now, that principle is not understood or even entertained. And unless and until it is, I refuse to participate in media criticism. This includes fandom criticism, obviously, but probably also includes criticism of canon media. I’m done.
Because right now, it doesn’t matter how long I scream “THIS THING IS NOT INHERENTLY HARMFUL!” As long as we’re in a climate where it’s okay to mistreat people if they create art that IS inherently harmful, we are going to have people exploit that climate and label anything they want as inherently harmful so that they can mistreat people with impunity.
And I’m done. I’m done with that. I’m out.
Okay, I’m gonna keep this short, because that’s about as long as a fuse I got right now:
- At this point, ‘antis’ need to be zero platformed within fandom communities
- Full stop
- When we see people doxxing, harassing, or otherwise treating a real-life human like garbage because they wrote something awful in fiction, we need to close ranks and shut these fuckers out
- Delete their comments, don’t respond to their messages, don’t reblog their shit even to argue with them
- Report them as abusive comments, report their blogs for harassment
- Ban them from your Tumblr, ban them from your fucking discord
- Just shut this fuckery down
- And yes, this is going to take work because antis have made it harder to have honest conversations about safety
- We’re going to have to be suspicious of whispernet asks
- We’re going to have to look for context, details, dates and times, and even motives why someone is spreading a rumor
- We’re going to have to remember that screenshots can be faked, stories can be invented, and most of all that depicting something in fiction is not the same as performing that action in real life
- Because I swear to God if I ever log in again and see some fucker claiming that an artist is a real life ‘abuser’ simply because they drew a fucking cartoon, I’m going to lose my shit
- How fucking dare you
- How fucking dare you act like something two dimensional is exactly the same as shit many of us have experienced in real life
- And then you get to have fun playing judge, jury, and executioner
- News flash, you insipid assholes: bad people don’t come with helpful little warning labels like “draws a certain pairing”
- You know them by their actions
- And antis’ actions are fucked up, and affecting real people, and I am done acting like they shouldn’t have consequences because we’re afraid they’ll come for us too
No. You. Move.
i wish tumblr hadn’t watered down words like ableism, TERF, and gaslighting. like i really do absolutely hate those of you who changed those words to basically all mean “person on the internet being mean to me”
On Propaganda
So, I did it – went through and searched my blog for the posts I’d unknowingly reblogged from any of the Russian troll accounts on the list Tumbler’s sending round. I think the results are interesting for anyone else who’s gotten the same email and may be wondering:
I came up with around 15 reblogs in total. Most of them fell broadly under the umbrella of “legit things posted to build the account’s credibility”: actual news stories with credible sources, or screenshots of twitter conversations (which might be either discussing facts or opinions) or of TV shows. Most actually had a positive tone (probably because of the correct assumption that people are less likely to fact-check “awesome historical figure of colour!”-type posts than “awful thing happened yesterday here!” posts), and covered topics like Black history, modern Black leaders, Muslim positivity, and body positivity. One was a post explaining the procedure for writing in Bernie Sanders in the 2016 election, which I and most of the other people in the chain reblogged expressly to explain what a bad idea it was.
Even some of the positive posts, though, take on a bit of a sinister edge when you know where they’re coming from. “Neglected historical figures” posts, like any “why is no one talking about X” posts, can bolster the sense that news sources outside your online bubble are ignoring or obscuring the truth about the world. A gifset (like one I reblogged) of Jon Stewart giving a blistering takedown on The Late Show, with a caption about how much the poster misses Stewart and how much we need someone like him, but there’s no one on The Daily Show now who’s his equal, uses a genuinely great moment of political satire to denigrate the amazing work currently being done in satire, and chip away at the credibility of voices like Trevor Noah’s and all the other comedians and commentators who are calling politicians to account now.
I want to talk about this post in particular, because I think it’s really telling. It shows just how insidious propaganda can be:
- The Fact Check: Like many others, the post presents facts that are broadly correct – India TV and several other sources did say that Tom Holland “wants to play an Indian Spiderman”. However, if you read the coverage, the same articles also quote Holland saying that an Indian actor should take the role of Spiderman if an Indian version of the film is made. It seems more likely that it was a language issue or other mistake than a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the actor.
- The Hook: The post creates a sense of urgency by suggesting that misinformation is already being circulated, and that this misinformation is hurting innocent people. I certainly hit reblog because I didn’t want a misleading story to make people think badly of Tom Holland. If you buy that the lie is already out there, then, given how fast information circulates, there’s a sense of time pressure around sharing the “truth” that (ironically) helps real misinformation spread.
- The Framing: The whole post is (again, kind of ironically) framed as a fact check, contrasting the headline with dialogue from the actual interview. But the fact check is deliberately incomplete. It demonstrates that what Holland said was different from the headline, but skirts the question of what the original article really claimed he said.
- The Spin: And this is the really insidious bit. Why bother painting an Indian news outlet like it’s trying to smear a random actor when it’s not? Look at the caption:
I am fed up with the media nowadaysThat’s the point – that seed of doubt about the media. Not entertainment media, all media. Don’t trust mainstream journalism. Don’t trust the sources of information that have access, resources, and influence.
Sound familiar? The lying mainstream media? Fake news?
So if you’re wondering how infiltration works and what it tries to accomplish – well, here you go.
^^^THAT
Learn to recognize the pattern. Inciting strife or outrage should be suspicious. Anything that is not constructive. “Fed up” – and then what?
Healthy movements want to BUILD: take care of people, comfort, feed, develop.
I’ve been trying to learn about that stuff, and then warn friends, for the last couple of years. The pattern has been very similar in 2013 and up with Russian meddling in Ukraine. Some of the same people are involved. I freaked out so much when I started to see that sick slag happening in the US.
Currently, they are meddling in the gun issue to incite strife.
All of this. Kudos to DC for actually taking the time to do this. It shows how easy it is for any one of us to assist in spreading misinformation online.
(Also, an interesting little book published like almost 100 years ago that details how a lot of this bullshit works is Bernays’ Propaganda. I read it after the election and was surprised/unsurprised at how relevant it was today).