I’d like to take this time to say that unless you are also physically disabled you should not be using the word “crippling”. I’m going through submissions now and I saw an anon use that word, and I haven’t decided if I’m going to let it be submitted at this…
So…I’m not allowed to say that I have crippling depression? Metaphors aren’t allowed to exist anymore? It’s literal time forever?
no, you’re not.
and if your metaphor relies on slurs then it’s a shit metaphor and you should feel bad.
[edited] The word “crippling” has been used in many, many more contexts than physical disability throughout history. It was used as early as 960 AD but only became a slur in the 1970s. The word has many contexts, and as long as you don’t use it to insult a person, I don’t see the problem with it. I see you bullying people who disagree with you on your tumblr, but who gave you monopoly over language?
"Why is the term “friend zone” so popular when the term “unrequited love” already exists and is more accurate? I suspect it’s because it shifts the locus of responsibility. “Unrequited love” focuses on the person who has the crush. The feelings being discussed are the crushing person’s, thus the responsibility in on them to get over their crush and move on. “Friend zone”, on the other hand, focuses on the crush object’s choices. The phrase erases the agency of the crushing person. All blame for their pain is put on the crush object. “Unrequited love” is something that can happen to both sexes, but “friend zone” is a sexist concept that implies that women are solely responsible for men’s happiness, and not men themselves."
Oh please. It isn’t “unrequited love” because a crush generally is not love. When an asker asks an askee out, the asker is effectively putting power into the askee’s hands. Men are traditionally the ones who ask women out, not the other way around, so it is the woman’s decision, not the man’s (as he has already made his decision) that determines whether he will be friend-zoned or not. And the term “friend-zoned” in no way implies that “the woman is solely responsible for the man’s happiness” - all it means is what it sounds like, that the woman wants to be the man’s friend and nothing more. It doesn’t imply that the man will now be miserable because of this woman, just that he won’t have her in a romantic way.
Being asked out is one area in which women actually have power over men, so why must we turn everything into a form of oppression against women? I mean really. This is why people detest feminists.
[Note: I’m pleased to see that in the orginial post, the commenters are saying pretty much what I’m saying. I’m not pleased to see, however, that this has 40,000+ notes on tumblr, most of which are likes and reblogs without commentary.]
So I’ve already had this exact discussion before, and it ultimately lead to me being called str8ie after explicitly stating my gayness, so in order to skip all that, I’m just going to put that as a huge disclaimer, right from the get-go. I personally don’t really like disclosing this sort of shit for internet arguments, but either you fall in line with w/e sja style concept is being presented, or you are the evil oppressor, and if I have to drop the “I’m gay” bomb to get people to actually give two shits, then y’know what, I will.
-applause- A little lengthy and repetitive at points, but way better put than I could have done l. Bravo!
Also, I find it sad that on tumblr, you have to be of a certain identity for people to even consider your opinion on certain subjects. I mean, I guess people would argue that “well white hetero cismen have that privilege in non-tumblr America” (which I don’t even think is true in this day and age, but that’s another issue), but this is a case where two wrongs don’t make a right. Focus on getting your message out there, not on trying to block the messages of others. I believe in free and open debate where we are all welcome to participate, regardless of identity, and we should never be put down for our identities*. Isn’t that what America is about?
*Unless you identify as something other than human or as a multiple system AND you don’t have a psychiatric condition like lycanthropy or multiple personality disorder or schizophrenia. I still won’t put down your arguments, though, unless your arguments consist of demanding that I accept your “identity.”
"not every work of fiction needs to have queer characters or poc in it"
step outside your house. walk a few blocks. every day has queer people and poc in it. unless this work of fiction takes place in your basement then in fact every work of fiction needs to have queer characters AND poc in it
It really depends on when and where the story is located. The world is not a homogeneous place with an equal distribution of POC and queer people everywhere at every time. Wellesley College probably has at least 20% queer people; other places have less than 1%. In some areas, 90% of the people are black; in other areas, 90% of the people are white. My high school, with a population of about 6,000 people, had maybe five or six Asian students during the time I was there. That is less than one tenth of one percent. At Stony Brook, by contrast, 25% of the students are Asian. You tell me to step outside my house and look around my neighborhood. There is not a single POC on my block. There are a few further out, but I don’t really know them. There are people in some areas who have never met a queer person before, at least not an openly queer person, and such people would have a difficult time incorporating queer people into a work of fiction.
Not every Shakespearean story had a POC, and when they did, it was often to make a point, as in Othello. Modern takes of Romeo and Juliet in which the two houses are people of different colors are great, but given the society that Shakespeare lived in, it would not have been appropriate for him to have written the story that way. To Kill a Mockingbird doesn’t have any queer characters (except possibly Dill, but we don’t know that from the story), which, again, would have been inappropriate for the time and place it was written and probably would have distracted the reader from the main message of the story.
POC and queer people are as much a part of humanity as anyone else, but there are many more things that distinguish one human from another than skin color, gender identity, and sexual orientation. Adding POC and queer people to a story out of obligation just makes for forced story elements. By all means, include POC and queer people in your story if it feels right to you, but don’t feel that you have to, either.
want to go and see Pacific Rim…
who wants to come with me?