Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



Little Valkyrie ([info]waltraute) wrote in [info]otf_wank,
@ 2010-09-18 12:28:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
This feminist blog which depends on your donations is not here to educate you!
Thanks to the anon at wank_report for the bulk of the writeup, with its singular virtues.

S.E. SMITH accuses Lady Gaga of appropriation:

It's been pointed out that she appropriates a lot of things from musical traditions created by people of colour and nonwhite people. That her work contains transmisogyny. That she appropriates the experiences of people with disabilities. These are all things that I don't think of as feminist acts—note that I am not saying that Lady Gaga is not feminist (because I don't think it's up to me to decide that), but rather that I am saying that her actions do not always mesh with the identity she has chosen to claim. The same could be said of many other people who identify as feminist, including myself, however. Let those in glass houses...

(bonus points for the excellent use of praeteritio here.)

A commenter asks for references and explanation. According to Snarky's Machine, late of the now-closed Shapely Prose, asking for sources is derailing and oppressive:

I can't be arsed to unpack and respond to your comment except to say you're trafficking in copious amounts of derailing for dummies. Your inability to "see" how Gaga misappropriates says everything about YOUR own privilege and inability to google "Grace Jones" and nothing else. If concepts are unfamiliar to you instead assuming the concepts themselves are wrong, you might want to hit up Professor Google. Because the argument, "you're wrong because I don't know what you're talking about." just does not cut it.

Comments defending that commenter get deleted (although some are reposted in the anon threads below). Mods claim to be "reviewing the situation" (i.e., pretending to do something about it). "Open thread" disappears after 20 minutes after irate commenters leave comments there. The current status is "please email the mods directly if you want to talk about comment policy", which couldn't possibly have a chilling effect--not at all.

Snarky's Machine has another reply to that initial commenter on Twitter:

Ha. I love how some weird ass creepy e-troll named whitney is stalking my feed and tattling cause I'm so mean. Who are these people.

People take refuge to complain in several threads in the sfd_anon community. (Which are now locked; possibly accessible if you're a member of the community.) Worth noting are the ones about how Bitch magazine aggressively solicits donations to support their journalism, which puts a special irony gloss on the "we're not here to educate you" rebuttal.


(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]fishies
2010-09-19 03:15 am UTC (link)
Last time I read Bitch there was an article saying My Little Ponies were pedo sex dolls.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]sepiamagpie
2010-09-19 05:45 am UTC (link)
...wait, what?

I'm trying to think of something less sexy.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]ryuutchi
2010-09-19 02:43 pm UTC (link)
If I remember the issue correctly, they were arguing that the new variations were sexified, because they had larger eyes, a coy experssion, and their asses were raised in an "inviting" way or something. It was, like, a half-page article.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]fishies
2010-09-19 03:55 pm UTC (link)
I found my issue so here's a quote:

"Just take off the pony's tail and add hands to the front legs, and what you have is a human doll that could be used in a stop-animation pedophillic porn flick."

-page 19 spring 2007.

...the rest of the magazine was pretty ok though. That article was just so weird.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]sepiamagpie
2010-09-19 03:59 pm UTC (link)
I'm a little concerned that they looked at a little pink horse and their first thought was 'HEY YOU KNOW WHAT'

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]fishies
2010-09-19 04:14 pm UTC (link)
I did some odd things with my ponies as a child but I must say that one never crossed my mind. Not sure how. I mean it's so obvious!

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]snarkhunter
2010-09-19 09:35 pm UTC (link)
Um.

You could also say that about actual, real-life horses. Many of them are rather sway-backed!

Clearly, the existence of horses contributes to the pornification of our society. And don't even get me started on cows, with their wide hips and those big brown eyes...

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]fishies
2010-09-20 02:59 am UTC (link)
It goes on about how the pony's butt is higher than it's chest and that's 'asking for it.' Darn those barnyard animals, teaching our children to be sexy.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]snarkhunter
2010-09-20 11:24 am UTC (link)
That might be the stupidest thing I've heard this month.

And that's saying something.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]drakyndra
2010-09-20 06:56 pm UTC (link)
Having seen the pictures, while there is plenty to take issue with in these redesigns, accusing them of being posed sexily makes me wonder about the writer.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]mcity
2010-09-26 10:03 pm UTC (link)
Considering furries have been drawing porn of them for years already-ask me about the MLP hermaphrodite transformation orgy sequence as a free sample on a paysite I stumbled on once! Go on! Ask!-it won't make much difference.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]sandglass
2010-09-19 06:04 am UTC (link)
Was that an article about when they made the ponies skinnier and had an entire episode about a pony losing weight?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]feenix
2010-09-19 11:58 am UTC (link)
There were also the Struts toys (kind of like PSP, I was quite depressed to discover that there was no Z), so that was probably the impetus.

Personally, my reaction to that was that while it was kind of a bad idea...these are horses wearing stiletto heels. I can see how people would get outraged, though.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]nekoneko
2010-09-19 04:55 pm UTC (link)
I... think I might buy one of those to put next to my Monster High dolls, so I can have a collection of weirdly awesome toys.

Damn you.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]kookaburra
2010-09-19 05:57 pm UTC (link)
Wow - don't let the Big Lick people see that, it would give them too many ideas.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]bienegold
2010-09-20 05:54 pm UTC (link)
I laughed. And then I cried.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]mcity
2010-09-26 10:05 pm UTC (link)
I'm torn between wanting to know and not wanting to know. I am in a quantum superposition of Do Not Want.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]kookaburra
2010-09-26 10:13 pm UTC (link)
Big Lick is an event in the Tennessee Walking Horse show world. In it, the horses are trained with abusive techniques to achieve a very exaggerated version of their natural running walk. One of the devices used to get this motion is "stacks" which are basically high heels for horses.

Note: the Big Lick people are a small section of TWH enthusiasts. There is a big push among TWH owners to do away with it entirely. The Tennessee Walking Horse Breeders and Exhibitors Association (TWHBEA) condones Big Lick, though it claims that soring is a rare occurrence (despite the fact that horses DO NOT MOVE like that without being in pain) and the National Walking Horse Association does not allow any sored, padded, or previously sored horses in its shows. So just because a horse is a TWH, it's not necessarily an abused animal.

If you want to know more, google "soring" or look for videos about it, there are quite a few on YouTube.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]mcity
2010-09-26 10:23 pm UTC (link)
Oh.

Oh, good.

I thought it would involve actual licking.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]kookaburra
2010-09-26 10:25 pm UTC (link)
LOL, definitely not - I actually have no idea why it's called that. XD

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]snarkhunter
2010-09-19 12:29 pm UTC (link)
I knew they made the ponies skinnier, but WUT.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]fishies
2010-09-19 03:59 pm UTC (link)
They do mention the new ones look "almost anorexic" but mostly it's about how the pony's butts are high (which means they want to screw.)

Wait the TV show did what? Ugh.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]ekaterinv
2010-09-20 06:42 am UTC (link)
I'm just ticked off that they redesigned My Little Ponies. The My Little Ponies that existed when I was a kid were WAY cuter.

(I see "Lady Gaga" and my eyes glaze over, but My Little Ponies always interest me.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]everstar
2010-09-20 07:07 pm UTC (link)
His sex doll, a horse?

[/obligatory joke is obligatory]

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map