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]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)


(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map