ericr [at] ericrosenfield [dot] com

Tumblr Feed



It’s incredibly clear when you watch the first couple seasons of Doctor Who that the first Doctor is a human from the future who invented the TARDIS, which was then named by his granddaughter.

Acknowledging that pretending Doctor Who has continuity is silly, is there a generally accepted fannon explanation for why the nature of the Doctor changed during the Second Doctor’s run? Like maybe Ben and Polly slipped into an alternate universe at the end of the 10th planet caused by Mondas’ destruction or something?

philsandifer:

a-humble-gremlin:

darthmelyanna:

drst:

A couple weeks ago The Mary Sue announced they weren’t going to cover “Game of Thrones” any more after yet another female character being brutally raped. The thread is still being invaded by trolls periodically, and there are more than 12,000 comments on the article, which is a site record and probably an internet record. (12K comments because a single website said “We’re not going to recap or promote this show any more.” Baffling.)

Tons of trolls have thrown out the “but THINGS WERE JUST LIKE THAT BACK THEN!” argument ad nauseum. Which is total bullshit, of course. Now with the season finale of “Outlander” (which, spoiler, also included rape) the trolls are coming back.

I just want to ask, why is it whenever producers/directors/writers want to demonstrate “gritty historic realism” it’s ALWAYS RAPE? It’s always sexual violence toward women/girls.

You know what would be gritty historic realism? Dysentery. GoT has battles and armies marching all over the place. You want to show “what things were like back then”? Why aren’t we seeing 500 guys by the side of a road puking and shitting their guts out from drinking contaminated water while the rest of the army straggles along trying to keep going? Or a village getting wiped out by cholera? Or typhus, polio or plague epidemics? 

You want to show what it was like back then for women? Show a woman dying of sepsis from an infection she caught while giving birth. Show a woman coping with ruptured ovarian cysts with nobody know what it is. Breast cancer that the audience will recognize immediately but the characters think is some mark of the devil or some shit.

But no, it’s always rape. And we all know why that is. Because these douchecanoes that do this, though they’ll deny it, think rape is sexy. Because they can’t make a modern set story where women get raped in every god damned episode without being called monsters. So they use “but but historical realism!” to cover their sexism (see “Mad Men”) and misogyny. Then they tell us “That’s just how it was back then!” with the clear implication “Shut the fuck up bitch, because that could be you  and you should be thanking me that it’s not.”

Can we propose a rule for “realistic” historical fiction/fantasy? Twelve graphic cases of dysentery for every one graphic rape?

There it fucking is

It’s worth pointing out that dysentery is a major plot point in the books…

It’s true though that representations of medieval or quasi-medieval times, especially in television and film, don’t have nearly enough dysentery, diptheria, smallpox, typhoid, cholera, etc etc.

The past was really horrible.

lord-kitschener:

My favorite description of the Meyers-Briggs is that it’s a horoscope for people who think they’re too smart for horoscopes

There seems to be a certain segment of my Tumblr circle who are really into A Dirty Pair. I’ve never seen the show/read the manga but a cursory look at the character’s costumes looks… super sexist. Can someone explain this to me? Why are people so into this show?

Denmark Vesey, Forgotten Hero:

fishingboatproceeds:

justinspoliticalcorner:

In the wake of tonight’s tragic shooting incident at the church Denmark Vesey founded via slave revolt in Charleston, South Carolina, here’s some facts to know about Vesey.

Widespread recognition for Denmark Vesey has been a long time coming. In 1822, in Charleston, South Carolina, Vesey masterminded what would have been the largest slave revolt in American history. When an informer revealed the plans at the last minute and the revolt was nipped in the bud, Charleston authorities downplayed the story, claiming that they had “allowed” the plot to progress so as to ensure the capture of its leaders. Fearing future attempts at insurrection, Charleston slaveowners had Vesey and many of his co-conspirators put to death, and hid written records of the Vesey episode from their slaves. Vesey’s legacy was, for all intents and purposes, buried and forgotten.

Now, one hundred and seventy-seven years later, we are witnessing a surge of interest in this forgotten American hero. Three books on Vesey and his plot have appeared in 1999—He Shall Go Out Free, by Douglas R. Egerton, Designs Against Charleston: The Trial Record of the Denmark Slave Conspiracy of 1822, edited by Edward A. Pearson, and Denmark Vesey, by David Robertson—and there is talk of television specials and a feature film in the works. Unknown to most people, however, is the fact that Vesey’s story has been recounted for posterity before—in the pages of The Atlantic Monthly.

In the June, 1861, issue there appeared a detailed account of Vesey’s planned revolt and its suppression, titled “Denmark Vesey.” Its author, a frequent Atlantic contributor named Thomas Wentworth Higginson, was a Cambridge, Massachusetts, minister and a committed abolitionist. (In other issues of the magazine Higginson documented the stories of revolts by Toussaint L'Overture and Nat Turner. In 1862 he served as colonel of the first black regiment in the Civil War, the First South Carolina Volunteers.)

In his Atlantic account Higginson described Vesey’s plan (which was developed in collaboration with a slave named Peter Poyas) as “the most elaborate insurrectionary project ever formed by American slaves…. In boldness of conception and thoroughness of organization there has been nothing to compare it with.” Higginson went on:

That a conspiracy on so large a scale should have existed in embryo during four years, and in an active form for several months, and yet have been so well managed … shows extraordinary ability in the leaders, and a talent for concerted action on the part of the slaves generally with which they have hardly been credited.

Vesey was no longer a slave at the time he planned the revolt—he had purchased his own freedom several years before, so his motives were not self-serving—and Charleston’s official report of the episode, as quoted by Higginson, made note of Vesey’s pride and the strength of his convictions. “Even whilst walking through the streets in company with another,” the report stated, “he was not idle; for if his companion bowed to a white person, he would rebuke him, and observe that all men were born equal.” At the trial, the sentencing judge was plainly astonished in the face of the stoic heroism displayed by Vesey throughout his ordeal. Higginson quoted the judge addressing Vesey:

“It is difficult to imagine, what infatuation could have prompted you to attempt an enterprise so wild and visionary. You were a free man, comely, wealthy, and enjoyed every comfort compatible with your situation. You had, therefore, much to risk and little to gain.”

As though responding to the judge four decades after the fact, Higginson posed a rhetorical question: “Is slavery, then, a thing so intrinsically detestable, that a man thus favored will engage in a plan this desperate merely to rescue his children from it?”

Higginson’s goal was the preservation of Vesey’s story for future generations. “South Carolinians,” he wrote in conclusion,

[now have] a distaste for the memory of the tale; and the official reports which told what slaves had once planned and dared have now come to be among the rarest of American historical documents…. This is why, to the readers of American history, Denmark Vesey and Peter Poyas have been heretofore but the shadows of names.

h/t: The Atlantic

Some historical context on the church whose members were attacked and murdered in Charleston, SC.



goneformofman:

A completely normal page of Mr. Miracle.

This big piece on Ed Champion has a number of quotes from me:

http://www.bkmag.com/2015/06/10/hes-out-the-exile-of-ed-champion/

Though I’m now embarrassed by some tortured locution and at least one mixed metaphor. Lesson: Always proofread your emails to journalists carefully.

philsandifer:

Regardless of the “actual legitimacy” of Rachel Dolezal’s racial identity…

We are talking about the head of the fucking Spokane NAACP. This is not a major position of power in the world. It is not a position with a ton of importance outside the roughly 12.5k African American people in the greater Spokane metro area. Certainly she wasn’t important enough to have had a Wikipedia article before today. And now, because her estranged biological parents decided to give an interview entirely to undermine her, she’s international news.

Whatever you think of her, there is no way in which the ideologies that got this particular bit of local Spokane news to the main page of the Guardian can be described as anything other than Fucked the Fuck Up.

Dear Assemblyman Lentol,
I was surprised to receive your “News from the Neighborhood” newsletter, considering that I did not elect to subscribe to it, and it seems was automatically subscribed by virtue of filling out this very contact form. However, I see no notification on the form that tells me that by filling out said form, I am subscribing to anything. This makes your newsletter junk mail and illegal.

Fortunately for you, I will not elect to press charges.

Meanwhile, I looked at the Move NY questionnaire in your latest newsletter. I wanted to fill out the form, but the google forms link provided does not work (results in 404).

Also the questionnaire contains the question “Do you support or oppose the plan?” with the options “Yes” or “No”. These, you may observe, are not valid answers the question.

Sloppiness of this kind does not engender confidence in your office or its ability to represent my interests in Albany.

Sincerely, your constituent,
Eric

PS. I’m in favor of the Move NY plan and any plan that raises tolls in NY. I don’t own a car and want drivers to pay as much as possible to keep them off our roads.

I considered it, but strongly suspected he was going to wriggle out of it and avoid saying anything more revealing than he already had.

questions-within-questions:

ericrosenfield:

questions-within-questions:

ericrosenfield:

So there seems to be a disagreement among feminists about whether gender is purely a social construct. And this forms much of the root of a particular line of feminist thought’s problem with transsexuality.

I ask this question because I actually want to know the answer, not because I’m taking a position:

If gender is purely a social construct, then how can some one be born with a preference for one gender or another?

Saying that there’s no genetic basis for gender doesn’t just undermine transsexuality, but also homosexuality and the common understanding that homosexuals are born with their sexual preference. If gender is something that is learned, then so is gender preference.

How does this reconcile?

I think the reconciliation comes from accepting that a gender does not have to originate from birth for it to be valid. In fact I’d encourage doing away with this over simplification because it can only invalidate the identities gender fluid individuals, who may identify with a gender for as little as a day or even less.

Gender being something constructed through interaction with society over time does not mean it is something we can (or even would want to) control. Nor does that in any way undermine it; our gender identities and gender preferences hold validity not because they exist as a hypothetical genetic trait, but because they are integral parts of our lives. 

But you’re not answering the question: If gender is constructed through interaction with society over time, how can someone be born with a preference for one?

I honestly don’t believe people are born with gender or a gender preference. Perhaps we’re born with traits that make certain genders and preferences more likely, but regardless I don’t believe there is much if any biological dictation of gender and sexuality; and I don’t find that to be Earth shattering because I don’t find it all that important what we’re born with; it’s what our genders and sexualities currently are which are tangible and important to us. 

Perhaps what you’re looking for is someone who believes both that we are born with gender and that gender is constructed so they can explain to you their reconciliation. You could look at traits we’re born with as predisposing us to be more likely to exhibit gendered traits defined by society. Like, your genetics might not care about our society’s genders, but it may give you traits which make you arbitrarily fit into certain genders better. 

That’s a fair answer. Though if you’re saying gender preference is not biological, it opens up uncomfortable questions about whether you can raise a person to be straight,  what particular treatment of someone makes them gay, and whether “therapy” can make a gay person straight.

philsandifer:

ericrosenfield:

questions-within-questions:

ericrosenfield:

So there seems to be a disagreement among feminists about whether gender is purely a social construct. And this forms much of the root of a particular line of feminist thought’s problem with transsexuality.

I ask this question because I actually want to know the answer, not because I’m taking a position:

If gender is purely a social construct, then how can some one be born with a preference for one gender or another?

Saying that there’s no genetic basis for gender doesn’t just undermine transsexuality, but also homosexuality and the common understanding that homosexuals are born with their sexual preference. If gender is something that is learned, then so is gender preference.

How does this reconcile?

I think the reconciliation comes from accepting that a gender does not have to originate from birth for it to be valid. In fact I’d encourage doing away with this over simplification because it can only invalidate the identities gender fluid individuals, who may identify with a gender for as little as a day or even less.

Gender being something constructed through interaction with society over time does not mean it is something we can (or even would want to) control. Nor does that in any way undermine it; our gender identities and gender preferences hold validity not because they exist as a hypothetical genetic trait, but because they are integral parts of our lives. 

But you’re not answering the question: If gender is constructed through interaction with society over time, how can someone be born with a preference for one?

As I said, I think few people would seriously argue that gender is entirely without social construction or biological basis. 

Your answer is fair, and I’ll accept it. I’m specifically asking people who say they think gender is purely social how they reconcile gender preference, because I want to know what their answer is. If the answer is they don’t really believe gender is purely social, I’ll accept that too if that’s the truth.

questions-within-questions:

ericrosenfield:

So there seems to be a disagreement among feminists about whether gender is purely a social construct. And this forms much of the root of a particular line of feminist thought’s problem with transsexuality.

I ask this question because I actually want to know the answer, not because I’m taking a position:

If gender is purely a social construct, then how can some one be born with a preference for one gender or another?

Saying that there’s no genetic basis for gender doesn’t just undermine transsexuality, but also homosexuality and the common understanding that homosexuals are born with their sexual preference. If gender is something that is learned, then so is gender preference.

How does this reconcile?

I think the reconciliation comes from accepting that a gender does not have to originate from birth for it to be valid. In fact I’d encourage doing away with this over simplification because it can only invalidate the identities gender fluid individuals, who may identify with a gender for as little as a day or even less.

Gender being something constructed through interaction with society over time does not mean it is something we can (or even would want to) control. Nor does that in any way undermine it; our gender identities and gender preferences hold validity not because they exist as a hypothetical genetic trait, but because they are integral parts of our lives. 

But you’re not answering the question: If gender is constructed through interaction with society over time, how can someone be born with a preference for one?

evilsoup:

philsandifer:

ericrosenfield:

So there seems to be a disagreement among feminists about whether gender is purely a social construct. And this forms much of the root of a particular line of feminist thought’s problem with transsexuality.

I ask this question because I actually want to know the answer, not because I’m taking a position:

If gender is purely a social construct, then how can some one be born with a preference for one gender or another?

Saying that there’s no genetic basis for gender doesn’t just undermine transsexuality, but also homosexuality and the common understanding that homosexuals are born with their sexual preference. If gender is something that is learned, then so is gender preference.

How does this reconcile?

In practice, the dominant position right now is that gender is a heavily social construct, not a purely social one.

That said, I would suggest that sexual preference can be understood in terms of gender presentation - that is, a heterosexual woman is attracted to people she believes to be male, which may or may not be coextensive with people who are male.

Define ‘gender’.

As I’ve always understood it, gender means something along the lines of ‘behaviours that are enforced on people by society based on their sex’ – boys wear blue, girls wear pink, etc. (and of course this is an integral part of male supremacy: the particular implementation varies from culture to culture, but the over-riding purpose of gender is to make women inferior to and dependent on men). So, gender is socially constructed by definition. No woman is born with a preference for high heels, no man is born with a preference for short hair (or if they are, it’s not *because* they are female or male), and stating otherwise seems distinctly anti-feminist.

I’m not sure how this has anything to do with homosexuality? I expect that in a post-patriarchy world there would still be women who are exclusively attracted to women and men who are exclusively attracted to men (and all the other sexualities we have today). I don’t think that saying that men aren’t born with an entitlement to womens’ bodies and that women aren’t born wanting to paint their faces every day conflicts with the existence of lesbians and gay men.

Of course, other people seem to use gender to mean something completely different – it’s a ‘feeling’, probably related to the ‘brain-map’ theory (i.e. the idea that we are all born with a brain that expects one sort of body or another, and a mismatch between brain and body is what causes dysphoria in transgender/transsexual people). And in everyday speech, it’s used interchangeably with ‘sex’ – to the average person on the street ‘what gender are you?’ and ‘what sex are you?’ are the same question.

So, yeah. You need to define your terms before you can have a meaningful conversation about gender.

>> So, gender is socially constructed by definition. <<

>> I’m not sure how this has anything to do with homosexuality? I expect that in a post-patriarchy world there would still be women who are exclusively attracted to women and men who are exclusively attracted to men (and all the other sexualities we have today). <<

You’re not answering the question: if gender is socially constructed by definition, how can someone be born with a preference for one gender or another? Or is gender preference learned? 

Or are you saying that homo/heterosexuality just means that you’re born attracted to certain physical sex parts and does not have anything to do with behavior or presentation?

And do you then reject the idea that people are born transgender?

So there seems to be a disagreement among feminists about whether gender is purely a social construct. And this forms much of the root of a particular line of feminist thought’s problem with transsexuality.

I ask this question because I actually want to know the answer, not because I’m taking a position:

If gender is purely a social construct, then how can some one be born with a preference for one gender or another?

Saying that there’s no genetic basis for gender doesn’t just undermine transsexuality, but also homosexuality and the common understanding that homosexuals are born with their sexual preference. If gender is something that is learned, then so is gender preference.

How does this reconcile?



pug-of-war:

David Bowie ch-ch-ch-ch-changing.

The Adirondacks are like an alternate reality version of Vermont where all the farms and hippies are replaced by trees and resort towns no one goes to anymore

Regenerate her.



philsandifer:

ursulavernon:

averyangryfeminist:

allthecanadianpolitics:

positive-nerdfighter:

bisexualculture:

hello-missmayhem:

cptprocrastination:

doomhamster:

belcanta:

nikkidubs:

attentiondeficitaptitude:

belcanta:

Guaranteed basic income to every citizen, whether or not they are employed to ensure their survival and that they live in a dignified, humane way, preventing poverty, illness, homelessness, reducing crime, encouraging higher education and learning vocations as well as helping society become more prosperous as a whole. 

Wow. Forget raising the minimum wage. This is much much better idea.

The minimum wage could actually drop if we had basic income.

But Americans would never go for it. Miserably slogging through 12 hour days and having businesses open 24/7 is too engrained in our culture.

“BUT WHERE WILL THE GOVERNMENT GET THE MONEY?” screamed Joe Schmoe, slamming a meaty fist onto the table and getting mouth-froth all over the front of his greying tank top. “You libt*rds all think money grows on TREES!! HAHA!”

“But where will people get the incentive to work?!” Mindy Bindy cried, flapping her hands in front of her face. She’d had a fear of the unemployed lollygagging about ever since she was a child and her mother told her to be afraid of the unemployed lollygagging about. “You think people should get paid for nothing? I work hard for my money!”

“But who will serve me?” grumbled Marty McMoneybags. “Who will make me feel important? Who will do my laundry and cook my food and stand in front of me wearing a plastic smile while I take out all my stress—because I do have a lot of stress, you know, being this rich is stressful—on them?” He paused and straightened out the piles of hundred dollar bills on the desk in front of him, then raised his two watery, outraged eyes up to the Heavens. “Lord, if there are no poor people, how will I know that I’m rich??”

I laughed. This is perfect! Well said!

The thing is, while I’m sure you could scrape up a few people who’d be willing to just float by on a guaranteed minimum income? For most people the choice to work would be a no-brainer. “Hmmm. I can get by on 33k a year, or I can take that part time job and make 48k… enough to move to a better apartment, maybe take the family on vacation. Sold.” Hell, most people would want to work simply because it gives one a sense of dignity and something to do with one’s time. (Speaking as someone who’s been unemployed, on extended sick leave, etc. in her time, the boredom and sense of isolation that comes with not having a job is almost as bad as the humiliation of having to depend on other people for one’s survival.)

And with this system, part-time jobs and “non-skilled” jobs would be much more readily available because nobody would need to work two or three jobs just to stay afloat!

Which would ALSO mean that employers and customers couldn’t shamelessly exploit employees the way they can today, because if losing a job weren’t necessarily a financial disaster, more people would be willing to walk out on jobs where they weren’t being treated with dignity.

And if this also applies to students (and it should) then student loans would become much less of a problem, and fewer people would flunk out of school because of having to juggle studies and work.

Far fewer people would be forced to stay with abusive partners, parents or roommates because they couldn’t afford to move out.

And the thing is, all those people who suddenly had money? They’d be spending it. They’d be getting all the stuff they can’t afford now - new clothes, books, toys, locally-produced food, car repairs - and with each purchase money would flow BACK to the government, because VAT, also income tax.

The unemployed and/or disabled wouldn’t need special support any more - which would also mean the government could fire however many admins who are currently engaged in humiliating - *cough* making sure those people aren’t getting money they don’t deserve. Same for medical benefits and pensions. And I’m no legal scholar, but I somehow imagine less financial desperation would lead to less petty crime, and hence less need for police and security everywhere?

TL;DR Doomie thinks this is a good idea, laughs at those who protest.

reblogging for more top commentary

They tried something like this out in Canada as a sort of social experiment, called Mincome. What they found was that, on the whole, people continued to work about as much as they did before. Only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less hours. 

But wait, there’s more. Because parents were spending just a little more time at home and involved with their families, test scores increased. Because teens didn’t have to work to support their families, drop-out rates decreased. Crime rates, hospital visits, psychiatric hospitalizations and domestic abuse rates all dropped, as well. More adults pursued higher education. Those who continued to work reported more job flexibility and more opportunity to choose employment they preferred.

Basically, now you can go prove to your asshole family members that society won’t collapse without poor people for you to feel better than.

Is there a link or something where I can read more about Mincome?

allthecanadianpolitics do you have any Info on this?

This is a good read on the Mincome experiment in Canada:

A Canadian City Once Eliminated Poverty And Nearly Everyone Forgot About It

Please signal boost this. Please.

Oh god, if only. There were times when this would have saved me from untold stress and grief–and I would still have been working once I was old enough to work, I just wouldn’t have been in such mortal terror about it. (For years I felt intense reflexive nausea whenever I checked my bank balance. I still fight panic about money stuff, even when I’m doing very well. It is a source of occasional stress in relationships.)

The argument that I would somehow have been lazier and less worthy if I hadn’t been terrified does not move me.

More broadly, it is unambiguously the case that the amount of labor that we, as a society, actually need performed is far, far less than the the forty hours per week per person potential worker. And, more to the point, that the amount of labor that we actually need performed is going down due to technological advances and the growing obviousness that our resource consumption is a species-level threat.

Given this, a system in which full participation in society assumes a full time job is both ethically and practically unsound. Guaranteed basic income is not the only possible solution, but it is a compelling one, to say the least.

Fiction

Reviews

Interviews

Criticism, Etc.