Young Writers Society

Let's keep this civil guys, don't use curse words. Please edit your posts appropriately.

I think you would find my current course fascinating, Meepster. It's Feminist Theory and Theatre. Very interesting. On to the discussion...

I believe it is impossible to deny that we are conditioned by society to behave a certain way. If a novel indulges in traditional gender role nonsense, I'm more than likely going to set it down. I have never ever enjoyed fairy tales for this very reason (no, really! My mother tells an interesting story about reading Cinderella to me...I would get mad at her for not kicking her sisters and doing what she wanted to anyway).

One of the things that irritated me the most about the way the HP series ended was the fact that the Epilogue was strictly concerned with marriage. Its the traditional fairy tale all over again! Yeuch. Look at everything our heros have accomplished...but the most important thing, the image we are left with, is the one society insists that we accomplish. Marriage and children. Drives me CRAZY.

Irregardless, I feel that any identity outside of the traditional roles we are expected to fill can make readers uncomfortable. We tend to stay with what is safe. In my opinion, people who rail against immorality in books or get upset because of language or sexual content or alternative gender identities are either ignorant or insecure.

---------------

As far as boys being idiots: STOP THAT TALK RIGHT NOW. By indulging in this kind of speak, you perpetuate the stereotype and allow for such behavior to continue. I agree that it is currently 'uncool' to be too smart, but I think it applies to both genders. Look around, boys aren't being taught how to interact with girls and girls aren't being taught how to interact with boys. In a world where the media dictates how we learn to interact with the opposite sex, is it any wonder that the two are so divided? Insecurity makes you easier to sell to. Don't buy in to the media circus.

I do have a couple of questions for the boys: What is it about 'feminist' writing that turns you off? Is it only the extremist writing that calls for the separation of the sexes? Is is all forms of feminist-oriented writing? What is 'wrong' with feminism that its scary/uncomfortable? Can men be feminist in their writing?

Meep wrote:It could be argued that this in itself is sexist. The main character is male, the supporting character is female. (Hermione is outnumbered two to one in gender representation, another form of "symbolic annihilation.")
These are not my opinions on the matter; instead, they are repeated from what I have learned in class. I'm just saying that that this (main vs. supporting, 2:1 ratio) could be interpreted as sexist.

I don't think statistical analysis is a very good gauge of sexism. If we counted every human on Earth and their gender, we might come out with more females than males. If Nature discriminated, what would we do? Would we correct it, slay every excess until everything was equal?

That doesn't exactly refute your point, but it puts my position into context. If something as irrefutable as Nature can usurp statistical equality, it really can't be used to logically argue that we should make everything between genders completely equal in every facet of our lives - and Harry Potter by extension. The fact that things exist contradictory to our preferences means nothing except that we are offended by things as they are. It doesn't follow that they are bad. Surely, it can be interpreted as sexist, but I'd like to ask:

How is that negative?

My problem is that if everything must be tied relentlessly to the ideals of gender equality, race equality, religious equality, etc. Then what will happen to the arts? They'll become stale, convoluted and obsessed with a social utopia.
That's why I disregard this, because it damages only the overly sensitive, it's not injustice to me to -not- use a black actor in a movie, or -not- have a female character in a book. Who is going to stop you? Why should you feel the need to accomodate anyone except yourself?

Meep wrote:Are there particular arguments/posts you've seen that make you say this? If so, which ones? Please explain.

I probably overdid my last post. I was tired and annoyed, and I just wanted to go to bed. So I'll explain better, but I won't give any examples, because this speaks for itself.

I dislike the concepts of racism, sexism, and what have you. But what I dislike even more is the widespread vilification of the people who hold those beliefs. Why? Because the moral principles behind tolerance of those of religious faiths, ethnicities, genders, and so on are the same ones that should apply to racists, sexists, etc. And their ideals.

So, essentially: By the same logic that Black people shouldn't be enslaved, so too should people be allowed to believe that they should. However detrimental that might be.

I like to analogise this with Paranoid Personality Disorder.

PARANOID PERSONALITY DISORDER: (To Paraphrase a paper I was given today:) A person with Paranoid Personality Disorder will act with suspicion and passive hostility toward others, they approach others with caution so they won't get hurt, often constructing delusions that make this process harder.

["THE GOVERNMENT IS OUT TO GET ME!!!!! YOU'RE A GOVERNMENT SPY! YAAAAAAAAA!!!!!" You get the picture.]

However, their suspicion and caution often proves their downfall. In their distrust, they attempt to shield themselves from hurt. The people they approach, however, often act with hostility in return to the suspicious, paranoid behaviour. This simply reinforces the paranoid behaviour, fulfilling the prophecy the person with Paranoid Personality Disorder preconceived.

DISCRIMINATION: A racist will act with suspicion and caution (even hostility) around those he distrusts. They approach these races wth caution so they won't get hurt, maybe constructing delusions that reaffirm their beliefs.

["ITS THE JEWS' FAULT, IT'S ALWAYS THE JEWS' FAULT! THEY CAUSED THE IRAQ WAR, THEY KILLED JESUS, THEY. . .", "THOSE BLACKS ARE ALL CRIMINALS!"]

They will likely have a confirmation bias, taking into account everything that says they are right, and little to nothing that does otherwise.

A zealous anti-discrimination lobbyist will tell you that Racists and Sexists are great and terrible evils in modern society. (But as the saying goes: Everything in moderation.)

Imagine that a racist politician is written about in a newspaper, having said something like: 'Darn Blacks, they should all go back to their own countries.' This man is promptly dissociated from his political party, leaving him jobless and humiliated for having an opinion, however silly and unfounded it might seem. His house has bricks thrown through the windows, his children are harassed at school and his wife is mugged by a black man.

So. Who does he blame? What idea is reinforced? It's a fictional story, but it isn't without a very important point.

Hating on haters is just going to keep the reciprocation going.

I'm sick of this ubiquitous domination of the semantics and philosophy of discrimination.

I will rephrase. I am sick of the overwhelming popularity in the current times: of discrimination, hate crimes and so on, being featured as such a huge sin in the realm of the media and society in general.

I am sick of the twisted words perpetuating some as powerful, diabolical discriminators (employors, politicians, religions, what have you) and others as victims, when there is so much more than generality involved in the issue.

A lazy, insipid employee being sacked can be construed as racism if the employee happens to be black. A corner store that doesn't have any Asian employees might be construed as racist. A political party that doesn't have any female members might be construed as sexist.

It can be done if the statistics allow, but the statistics mean absolutely nothing compared to the intent. I don't care what happens in people's own minds, that is their business. It only becomes mine once they tangibly, effectually act on their ideas.

Even then, I can see logic on the side of the Racist when he dismisses someone who he can't work with from his employ. It is a flaw, maybe, it is wrong, maybe.

Racists aren't inherantly powerful employers that won't hire certain people because of their colour. Sexists aren't inherantly J.K Rowling making Hermione the only main, supporting female character.

It is the idea of destroying the attitudes that makes them prevalent and volatile, because it creates a hidden polemic that would be sought out, villified and utterly destroyed if found out. So everyone simply languishes in a state of both condemning and practicing bias, fearing the consequences of speaking their minds.

Now, the races and genders are being played off against each other, because discrimination is forever going to be there. Each and every side will find evidence for some sort of discrimination if they want to find it.

To end, I want to pose a question.

If females and males are equal in value- What would make them unequal?



I hope I haven't committed any fallacies, and I hope we can continue this discussion.

I'd also like to say that all this sexism and feminist talk is just c**p.

This was more an expression of my irritation at my English teacher and others that argue the case for anti-discrimination poorly. My arguments are largely based on refuting them, though I'm not going to cite anything... I think I covered most things, and this post is already long enough.

Katharsis wrote:I don't think statistical analysis is a very good gauge of sexism. If we counted every human on Earth and their gender, we might come out with more females than males. If Nature discriminated, what would we do? Would we correct it, slay every excess until everything was equal?
...
How is that negative?

The natural male:female ratio is something like 51:49. In the media, it tends to hover around 66:33. Gaye Touchman calls this "symbolic annihilation."

Katharsis wrote:My problem is that if everything must be tied relentlessly to the ideals of gender equality, race equality, religious equality, etc. Then what will happen to the arts? They'll become stale, convoluted and obsessed with a social utopia.
That's why I disregard this, because it damages only the overly sensitive, it's not injustice to me to -not- use a black actor in a movie, or -not- have a female character in a book. Who is going to stop you? Why should you feel the need to accomodate anyone except yourself?

This is not true. Anecdotally, one of my favorite movies (The Road to El Dorado) is about two white men who a bunch of tribal, dark-skinned people think are gods. Most feminists would have a field day with this. On it's own, however, it's not so bad. It's when the majority of media are similar to this or to Harry Potter that people start having a problem with that. Does that make sense?

Katharsis wrote:I dislike the concepts of racism, sexism, and what have you. But what I dislike even more is the widespread vilification of the people who hold those beliefs. Why? Because the moral principles behind tolerance of those of religious faiths, ethnicities, genders, and so on are the same ones that should apply to racists, sexists, etc. And their ideals.

"Hate," as far as I am concerned, is not a "moral principle." Hate hurts people, and that, in my mind, is where I draw the line between what is "okay" and what is "not okay." There's a difference between letting someone practice their religion and allowing that same person to, I don't know, say to someone "you're going to hell [insert nasty word for whatever]."

Katharsis wrote:I like to analogise this with Paranoid Personality Disorder.

I'm not saying that nobody takes it (feminism, fear of sexism, whatever) too far, but the difference between paranoid personality disorder and this is that this really does happen. People tell themselves that it isn't real and react strongly when confronted with it; it is there, it does happen, but we're taught not to see it. (I'll try to see if my textbook is archived in Google Books so I can show you the articles I'm referencing.)

Katharsis wrote:Imagine that a racist politician is written about in a newspaper, having said something like: 'Darn Blacks, they should all go back to their own countries.' This man is promptly dissociated from his political party, leaving him jobless and humiliated for having an opinion, however silly and unfounded it might seem. His house has bricks thrown through the windows, his children are harassed at school and his wife is mugged by a black man.

It's the "silly and unfounded" part. Ignorance is bliss, ne? (On a tangential note, I do not agree with this current philosophy of communal punishment. The guy in this case probably deserves to loose his job, but his children and wife should be left alone. This is another debate for another time, however.)


*******
Hating on haters is just going to keep the reciprocation going.

I'm sick of this ubiquitous domination of the semantics and philosophy of discrimination.

I will rephrase. I am sick of the overwhelming popularity in the current times: of discrimination, hate crimes and so on, being featured as such a huge sin in the realm of the media and society in general.

I am sick of the twisted words perpetuating some as powerful, diabolical discriminators (employors, politicians, religions, what have you) and others as victims, when there is so much more than generality involved in the issue.

A lazy, insipid employee being sacked can be construed as racism if the employee happens to be black. A corner store that doesn't have any Asian employees might be construed as racist. A political party that doesn't have any female members might be construed as sexist.

It can be done if the statistics allow, but the statistics mean absolutely nothing compared to the intent. I don't care what happens in people's own minds, that is their business. It only becomes mine once they tangibly, effectually act on their ideas.

Even then, I can see logic on the side of the Racist when he dismisses someone who he can't work with from his employ. It is a flaw, maybe, it is wrong, maybe.

Racists aren't inherantly powerful employers that won't hire certain people because of their colour. Sexists aren't inherantly J.K Rowling making Hermione the only main, supporting female character.

It is the idea of destroying the attitudes that makes them prevalent and volatile, because it creates a hidden polemic that would be sought out, villified and utterly destroyed if found out. So everyone simply languishes in a state of both condemning and practicing bias, fearing the consequences of speaking their minds.

Now, the races and genders are being played off against each other, because discrimination is forever going to be there. Each and every side will find evidence for some sort of discrimination if they want to find it.

To end, I want to pose a question.

If females and males are equal in value- What would make them unequal?



I hope I haven't committed any fallacies, and I hope we can continue this discussion.

I'd also like to say that all this sexism and feminist talk is just c**p.

This was more an expression of my irritation at my English teacher and others that argue the case for anti-discrimination poorly. My arguments are largely based on refuting them, though I'm not going to cite anything... I think I covered most things, and this post is already long enough.[/quote]

this is really interesting. i never thought too much about who would read my novel - males or females.

personally, i've always read a variety of book. i like the types of novels that don't target men nor women, but there's sort of an equal mix. i like protaganists who are realistic. it doesn't matter too much if they're male or female. although i'll admit i don't like whiny characters.

in my novel right now i have a man who is a major character, a boy, and two girls, then minor characters who are a mix of both. my main character Marc is a girl but she's a very strong girl - masculine, i suppose you could say. she's tough and kind of hardened. my other main character, Jake, is quiet and thoughtful but also angry and antisocial. Vanessa is the happy medium. she's the compassionate, sensitive one who keeps the peace and breaks up the fights. she's laid-back and cheerful. she's the "girly" one, i guess.

so i guess my preferecnescome out in my writing. i like all sorts of characters, male and female. they just need to be well-developed.

books that appeal to guys and girls; Maximum Ride, the Pendragon series, LOTR, Harry Potter, the Wheel of Time, the Chronicles of Narnia.

In response to what Katharsis is saying, I would say that intensley over-zealous anti-racists are overplayed – I have every reason to believe, that they represent only a tiny tiny fraction of our society. Yet as shown, even the smallest racist slip in a formal/public setting leads to humliation, loss of job, etc.

However.

There is an enormous difference between saying "Stupid blacks, always messing up the country" on television or in front of a crowd than whispering it to a friend or proclaiming it with obvious sarcasm. Medium is key.

Formal/Public speech requires a different sort of etiquet. You're not likely to drop the F-Bomb or make a fart joke in such a situation, nor are you likely to act like a crazy racist. Formal/Public speech has existed for a long time, and it's always had rules. Certain things are expected. If you're stupid enough to act like a flamming racist at work/in front of a crowd, than that's just too bad for you.

Being a politican is the same, only they have to deal with it almost all the time, depending on their importance. They have standards. People expect them to act rationally.

You could argue that it's not fair. It probably isn't. I doubt it'll change, though.

Well, I consider both males and females can make awesome protagonists. If the man doesn't get too manly and the woman too girly it should be fine. No sexism.

Tamora Pierce's books are aimed very, very largely at the female audience, yet my brother reads them. The Empress's blah blah blah, can't remember the book name, [Ohhh. the Empress's Will] has many female protagonists, yet it's in the general interest of the audience. What else...The Riddle, etc. Especially fantasy books have a more aptitude for a larger demographic.