anonymous asked:

Could you help me (a lesbian woman) explain to my friend (a bi woman) why I'm so uncomfortable with her using the term dyke? I don't know how to put it into words very effectively, but it makes me seriously uncomfortable when she does it

- Dyke is used as an attack on a woman for not being available to men (aka an attack on the fact that she is a lesbian). Being a lesbian is often seen as a predatory thing, as a dirty thing, as something that is ugly because you don’t date men, as one of the worst things you can possibly call a woman because it is even seen as an attack on womanhood itself– being a lesbian is seen to make you lesser than other women. For example, we are often equated to men.  (It is predominantly used against butch lesbians, in case you wanted to back this up in some way. Butch lesbians typically do not conform to femininity or things that are considered to make a woman attractive by male standards.)

- When a bi/pan woman is called a dyke, it is because the person using the slur is operating under the assumption that she is a lesbian. They are not attacking her multi gender attraction, they are attacking her because she assume she is not attracted to men - they assume she is a lesbian, which makes her worthy of abuse in their eyes. It is a case of misdirected lesbophobia.

- When the slur is used, it comes with the implication that being a lesbian in itself is an insult and something to be ashamed of/something to be mocked.

- When a bi/pan woman uses dyke, she is not reclaiming it. She is using a slur intended as an attack on a woman for being a lesbian, she is further perpetuating the idea that being called a lesbian is insulting.

Is it perhaps hurtful to be on the receiving end of the d slur as a bi/pan woman? Of course. It is often used aggressively and maliciously. However, the slur is still misdirected and it is wrong for a non-lesbian to try and “reclaim” the negative depiction of lesbians, when they were never a lesbian in the first place.

I hope this was helpful, good luck with your friend. 

On reclaiming negative, dehumanizing stereotypes from outside the group

I am aware of the antisemitism in fantasy and European folklore. “The big nosed, malicious creatures that live deep in the woods” “the gold loving races, who’s greed attracted a monster that displaced them from their home land”. So I thought, “what if I subvert the whole “Jewish goblin” trope, by making them a more accurate and positive depiction of Jewish people and culture?“ The means to this end?

 I’m planning on making a city in my fantasy world, founded by goblins who were displaced from there home by invaders, and whose culture is based of Jewish culture. I realise I’ll need to do a bit more research on Jewish culture to do this. And I have no real story ideas for it, bare maybe a group of characters passing through. What do you think? Any feedback? Disagreements? Please, I’m all ears.  

When writing about a marginalized group that you are not a part of, don’t just decide to do whatever comes into your brain and decide you’re doing that group a favor. Find out if people from the group generally want to be depicted the way you’re depicting them.


But I’m not Jewish, so I could be totally off base on this.

–mod Stella

Nah, Stella, you’re completely right. Instead of being “better goblins”, how about we get to be humans? Or maybe some other fantasy creature that’s actually got a positive association, like fairies or centaurs or mermaids or something?

If a Jewish writer wanted to subvert the goblin trope, from the inside, I’d be fine with that (although it’s still possible gentile readers would get the wrong things out of it.)

For a gentile writer to just make us goblins again, though, is just insulting. It’s something we can reclaim if we want to, but many of us don’t want to, and that reclaiming should be left to those on the inside.

Plus, the effects of our dehumanization—please don’t make me look up Nazi propaganda so I can see my own nose exaggerated on pictures that are supposed to be hateful monsters—resulted in mass murder, and I’m not even just talking about the Nazis. There were pogroms, there were countries in Europe we were run out of that I bet many Gentiles don’t even know about – Edward I of England, for example.

Also, I’m not fond of anything being coded Jewish rather than being actually Jewish, because it leaves the door open for plausible deniability—the characters’ good qualities somehow being “proof” to gentiles that they’re not like those Actual Jews in the real world. So my preference would be, just have a city founded by displaced human people, don’t make them some usually-coded-negative fantasy beasties (if you want to make them fantasy make ‘em something like elves or dryads or centaurs so they won’t be negative), and don’t make them JewISH unless you actually want to make them JEWISH.

–Shira “we can be people instead of just The Clannish Other in high fantasy, I swear”

Supergirl Trailer: Has completely thoughtless NO HOMO moment.

Supergirl Trailer: Has a well-meaning but ultimately misguided exchange which attempts to reclaim ‘girl’ from negative connotations but ignores that for a grown woman being referred to as a ‘girl’ can be infantalizing.

Supergirl Trailer: Has literally no women of color in sight.

95% of Complaints: UGH IT’S SO GIRLY AND ROMCOM EW

jennifersssss-blog  asked:

Re: fantasy worlds using the word bisexual/homosexual/etc: these words are VERY modern, culturally relative, and politicized. They were developed in a negative context & reclaimed by people they were applied to, so now we use them to build our identities & community. But they're also problematic in that they're not actually accurate for describing historical experiences with multiple or same gender attraction since those identities didn't exist. Fantasy is informed by history so using them (1/3)

You just sent us four really long asks that I’m not going to reproduce here, because they all boil down variations on the “don’t demand that thing in fantasy because it’s not historically accurate” argument.  

However I feel like you’re missing the point here because




Not only dragons but magic, selkies, demons, goblins, chainmail bikinis, wizards, women acting in ways that are totally ahistorical, and TONS of other stuff that is COMPLETELY MADE UP.  Things that never existed in history because they are 1) not real or 2) “ VERY modern, culturally relative, and politicized”.

Trust me, dragons are not historically accurate.  

And unless you’re actually writing your novel in middle English, your novel is not using the language of this vaguely-Middle-Ages-ish time period anyway.  Most fantasy media is made from a garble of vaguely medieval-sounding words and common modern words.  

I don’t see anyone making the argument that it would be too hard to use modern words like millennium, angst, teenage, and pants even though they are also VERY new, culturally relative, and often politicized.  Over and over again it’s *marginalized people* who are expected to put up with a prohibitively high level of ‘historical’ scrutiny in order to be given permission to appear in fantasy media (see a relative of this argument, the “POC wouldn’t be historically accurate” or “people with disabilities wouldn’t be historically accurate” and why they are bunk).  

We’re expected to accept either invisibility or some kind of made up new word for ourselves because our words are too damn difficult for whatever made-up culture a writer wants to create for their made-up world in their made-up novel.  It’s too much to ask a reader to suspend disbelief for the word bisexual, but not for pants and dragons?  Sorry, I call shenanigans on that.   

If your book is actually historical fiction, contains no modern words, and uses historically accurate terms for queer people, fine.  Hell, I’ll take an new made-up fantasy word clearly meaning bisexual if that’s all an author is offering, but let us be clear – that it’s a poor substitute.   Bisexual people are being asked to sacrifice our identities on the alter of history in ways that other words are not, and we’re expected to be okay with it.  

And I am really really not.  

- Sarah 

Testing peel-apart polaroid/instant negative reclamation.

Light leak was a result of accidentally pushing up the instant back before shutting the dark slide.

I’m hopefully going to be playing around with this technique a lot this summer.

Toyo 45AX
Rodenstock Sironar-N 150mm f5.6 @ F11
Fuji FP100-C instant film (2x3)

As long as people use queer as a slur, it will be a slur

A lot of people I know use queer as an identifier. They use it as an easier way of saying "Hey, I’m not straight and/or cis.“ rather than saying "I’m a part of the LGBT+”. And that is fine, seeing as they have reclaimed the word. 

But, one or two people reclaiming a slur does not make it magically okay for the whole community. A lot of us still have to face that word being thrown around in a negative light. Reclaiming the slur is a personal decision, not universal. Please be respectful of those who do not wish to be labeled as queer because of the history and/or personal experience of the word.