Every man’s part time job must be combatting these perceptions, and the harms that arise from them.
What’s a search engine know, anyway?
Jesus this is powerful.
This ad campaign tells such an important story.
notice how Russel T Davies saw his companions as women
and Moffat saw his companions as girls
I think that says a lot
Not to mention that the Doctor named Amy/Clara whereas Rose/Martha/Donna earned their titles. It’s a subtle distinction because, technically, Amy “earned” her title by being a girl who did wait, but it’s the impact of these monikers that’s troubling. Rose became the Bad Wolf when she ended the Time War, Martha became the woman who walked the Earth after saving the planet, and Donna was the most important woman in the universe because she saved it. Both Amelia and Clara have been heroic and saved people, but their titles don’t reflect that. Their titles reflect who they are to the Doctor—not who they are as individuals.
Very good point! They lose their autonomy when the Doctor becomes the decided factor in their titles, instead of going out and earning them for themselves.
Seanan McGuire went on a very long, very excellent rant on Twitter this morning, and I felt it deserved to be organized.
According to the professor of my young adult fiction writing class, John Green is the revolutionary who brought back the young adult novel and made reading and writing cool again.
Bravo, dear Mr. Green, and thank you for making it possible for me to read, study, and enjoy your work as a class requirement.
Okay, this actually makes me pretty upset?
(That is not your fault, how-could-i-ever-hope, so this is not directed at you!)
But YA writing has been “revolutionary” and integral to many young people’s lives for years and years and years. Tamora Pierce wrote her first series in the eighties and it is still highly influential and beloved today. Laurie Halse Anderson’s beautiful and powerful novel Speak was published in 1999. How I Live Now by Meg Rosoff was published in 2004 and won a landslide of awards. Walter Dean Meyers, Carolyn Mackler, Angela Johnson, Madeline L’Engle, Judy Blume, Christopher Pike, Margo Lanagan, Lois Lowry, MT Anderson, Markus Zusak, and many more were already publishing amazing, influential, much-beloved YA books in the early 2000’s and before.
Looking For Alaska, John Green’s first novel, was published in 2005 — the same year the first Twilight book was published. LfA won the 2006 Printz and started quietly making waves, as literary novels often do, but didn’t really “break out” until much later after he’d gained a following. It became an enormous following, do not get me wrong, but there’s a timeline here.
Say what you will about Stephenie Meyer and the Twilight series, but the boom in YA? The point around 2005 where it EXPLODED and started pumping out book after book? It was because of that series. Whatever your feelings about it are, it blew open the doors for publishers to take bigger risks and try different things in YA. It proved a YA series could, in fact, be “the next Harry Potter.” (Fun Fact: Meyer and Green have the exact same literary agent!)
So to see that someone who knows literature, someone like a collegiate literature/writing professor, is saying that John Green is THE revolutionary who “brought back” the young adult novel? Oh my god that makes me so upset. It discounts all the hard-working and incredible authors who have been writing YA before it was a moneymaker, before it made you “cool.” Of which John Green is a part, to be fair, since his first novel came right before the boom and he is a literary writer, which is not the most lucrative of book markets, typically.
Caveat: this is not a “let’s crap on John Green post,” because that’s not how I feel and not how I roll. I do not want to discount that John Green IS influential and he (and his work) DOES resonate very strongly with A LOT of young people. This is not me trying to say that he’s not an important piece in this puzzle, because he is.
But do you see my problem here? Do you see why I get so PISSED OFF when people scoff and handwave and shit all over YA, but then they go, “Oh, but John Green! He’s the Savior Of YA! Without him, it would all be pointless drivel or it NEVER would have been cool to read and write again!”?
It’s discounting a class of novels (those written for young people) that is HUGELY HUGELY HUGELY influenced and written by ladies and minority writers who can touch the hearts of young people. It completely discounts the pop culture powerhouse and influence of the Twilight series, whether or not you think it’s “great literature.” Which I personally do not, but my opinion of its literary merit does not affect the fact that it was HIGHLY INFLUENTIAL. If you’re going to give a single person all the credit for “bringing back” YA and making it “cool” (which is a flawed premise to begin with, but whatever), it should probably go to Ms. Meyer, if we’re honest.
Just… WHARRGARBL. STOP HOLDING UP JOHN GREEN AS THE ONLY YA AUTHOR WHO MADE A DIFFERENCE, WHO WRITES POWERFUL BOOKS, WHO GAVE READING BACK TO KIDS. STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT. You can love and admire someone without attributing that kind of power to them, especially when it’s at the expense of other incredibly talented individuals. Many of whom happen to be not white guys.
Wow that got intense.
ALL OF THIS.
And can we talk about how conveniently, the supposed savior of YA is a guy? Can we talk about how the three best-selling YA series in the past few decades—Harry Potter, Twilight, The Hunger Games—were all written by women, but John Green is the one that saved the genre? Can we talk about how incredibly culturally influential Harry Potter has been, how many young kids only got into reading because they wanted to read Harry Potter, how fan culture around Harry Potter has spurred on a new generation of writers, and yet John Green is the revolutionary?
Can we talk about how the only reason people freak-the-fuck-out about YA being “dominated” by female authors writing for girls is because traditionally, “YA for boys” was just called “literature”? Can we talk about how Tamora Pierce and JK Rowling are YA but Patrick Rothfuss and Lev Grossman are Serious Fantasy?
Can we talk about how this is not just a YA issue? How the incisive cultural commentary of Jane Austen is even now dismissed as vapid chick lit with male students barely deigning to force themselves through it for an English credit, but Tolstoy and Flaubert and Ibsen, who also wrote about romance and social constraints placed on women and unrequited love and the treachery of upper class society, are revered?
Can we talk about how stories of boys becoming men are called Bildungsromans and make their way to syllabi around the continent, but stories of girls becoming women are called shallow and insubstantial? How Nora Roberts has to write her wildly popular In Death series under a male-sounding pseudonym while John Grishom and Dan Brown pump out book after book after book that are literally just the same plot with different character names to great acclaim?
Can we talk about how, of all the romance that exists on the market, Nicholas Sparks’ formulaic saccharine “dude with a boat and a puppy” drivel is the stuff that gets adapted into movies year after year after year?
It doesn’t surprise me that the prof would laud Green over all the writers who came before him who paved the way. Literature writers, by and large, skew male. And they tend to write about books written by men, and tend to interview those male authors. If all you know about YA is the stuff you got in mainstream reporting in the last few years, of course you would think that nothing worthwhile in YA existed before Green.
But if I were in that class, and the prof exhibited so little critical thinking about the state of the industry and its social politics and understanding of literary history, I would definitely think thrice before taking that professor’s word on anything else.
I love John Green’s books, and I can’t stand Twilight, but it would be Meyer that I would credit with the revival of the YA genre,
It’s the only positive thing I’d credit her with, but it is her achievement.
Why can’t this just be an issue about women of colour, though? Why is it every damned time black women and women of colour bring up issues around how we’re talked about in the media, how we’re represented and the kinds of characters the mainstream lets us be, it has to be turned into an issue about ~all women*･゜ﾟ･*☆
Oh, wait, it’s cause by doing that we don’t have to examine how women of colour are treated in mainstream storytelling, how we’re only allowed to fit into a few narrow archetypes, either hypersexual or completely desexualized, sassy and full of Coloured Wisdom™ or ignorant and helpless, we’re there to offer support to the white female lead but we never get to tell our own stories. How we never get to exist for ourselves, back then we took care of your kids and cleaned your homes, today we take care of you and help you clean up your messes.
It means that white feminists don’t have to examine their own racism and how one of feminism’s oldest traditions is throwing women of colour under the bus. It means they can turn the attention to where they feel it really belongs, on them and their own problems without thinking twice about how ideals of white femininity and womanhood and the protection of those ideals can and has been used to abuse, marginalize, oppress, steal, rape, and kill women of colour and people of colour in general.
There are so many issues about how women are represented in media. But right now we’re not talking about that, white feminists need to learn that not every damned issue about sexism has to do with them, the world does not revolve around you. This isn’t ignoring some larger problem~ because this specific problem is pretty damned important and worth talking about.
Right now we’re talking about women of colour and whitewashing and how we can have universes with wizards and dragons and magical swords but it requires too much imagination to imagine that a black women can be a Queen, can be beautiful and beloved and cherished, can be seen as worthy of protection and desire and as a symbol of ideal womanhood.❞
Women invented all the core technologies that made civilization possible. This isn’t some feminist myth; it’s what modern anthropologists believe. Women are thought to have invented pottery, basketmaking, weaving, textiles, horticulture, and agriculture. That’s right: without women’s inventions, we wouldn’t be able to carry things or store things or tie things up or go fishing or hunt with nets or haft a blade or wear clothes or grow our food or live in permanent settlements. Suck on that.
Women have continued to be involved in the creation and advancement of civilization throughout history, whether you know it or not. Pick anything—a technology, a science, an art form, a school of thought—and start digging into the background. You’ll find women there, I guarantee, making critical contributions and often inventing the damn shit in the first place.
Women have made those contributions in spite of astonishing hurdles. Hurdles like not being allowed to go to school. Hurdles like not being allowed to work in an office with men, or join a professional society, or walk on the street, or own property. Example: look up Lise Meitner some time. When she was born in 1878 it was illegal in Austria for girls to attend school past the age of 13. Once the laws finally eased up and she could go to university, she wasn’t allowed to study with the men. Then she got a research post but wasn’t allowed to use the lab on account of girl cooties. Her whole life was like this, but she still managed to discover nuclear fucking fission. Then the Nobel committee gave the prize to her junior male colleague and ignored her existence completely.
Men in all patriarchal civilizations, including ours, have worked to downplay or deny women’s creative contributions. That’s because patriarchy is founded on the belief that women are breeding stock and men are the only people who can think. The easiest way for men to erase women’s contributions is to simply ignore that they happened. Because when you ignore something, it gets forgotten. People in the next generation don’t hear about it, and so they grow up thinking that no women have ever done anything. And then when women in their generation do stuff, they think “it’s a fluke, never happened before in the history of the world, ignore it.” And so they ignore it, and it gets forgotten. And on and on and on. The New York Times article is a perfect illustration of this principle in action.
Finally, and this is important: even those women who weren’t inventors and intellectuals, even those women who really did spend all their lives doing stereotypical “women’s work”—they also built this world. The mundane labor of life is what makes everything else possible. Before you can have scientists and engineers and artists, you have to have a whole bunch of people (and it’s usually women) to hold down the basics: to grow and harvest and cook the food, to provide clothes and shelter, to fetch the firewood and the water, to nurture and nurse, to tend and teach. Every single scrap of civilized inventing and dreaming and thinking rides on top of that foundation. Never forget that.❞
from a post by Reclusive Leftist on women’s erasure in history.
her comments relate specifically to an article by the NYT thanking “the men” who invented modern technology, but pick absolutely any academic field of study, and women’s contributions are minimized, if not outright ignored.
literature has been a huge part of my life for a long time, and i grew up reading the classics—which, of course, are typically books written by white men, depicting their experiences. i was taught that the first “modern novel” was Don Quixote, written in the early 1600s by a guy (Cervantes). i don’t think i know of a word to accurately describe my mixture of outrage, shock, and pride, when i discovered later that actually, the first modern novel was written 600 years earlier—by a woman! (it’s The Tale of Genji, written by a Japanese lady-in-waiting who was known as Murasaki Shikibu.)
this might not seem important, but if you’re a woman you know just how vital this knowledge is. even now, when women are being told that we can do anything we set our minds to, the historical, literary, and scientific figures we learn about are all men. it’s a much more insidious way to discourage women from aiming high—because what’s the point in putting in so much hard work if it’s not even going to be remembered after you’re dead?
they’re stealing from us. straight up theft of our history and our value.
The earliest known poet/writer in human history was a woman: Enheduanna, an Akkadian princess and priestess who was born approximately 2285BC
Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, TedxEuston (x)
I can’t stop rewatching this talk. Adichie is my hero and she just /gets/ these issues so well. She’s incredible, and everyone should watch her talk, if they haven’t already.