Not Anonymous

We are now less than a week away from the Season 3 premier of Hawaii Five-0 and let it be known that this has been the most frustrating summer of waiting.

Not because I was impatient.

But because fandom is impatient.

Never, ever, have I needed to be so aggressively defensive against spoilers. And I, for one, am not really a spoilerphobe.

So generic spoilers like knowing who future cast members are, or seeing the occasional behind the scenes photo of the cast while they rest and various promotional photoshoots, are small potatoes for me. But that's just me. That does't make then non-spoilers.

And the mentioned above were not the only thing spilling over from the seems all over LJ, Tumblr and Twitter. Oh no. I now know plots and have accidentally seen editing footage that Peter Lenkov (whom not everyone follows on twitter, fyi!) has so generously released. I have accidentally seen fucking press releases !

My dear friends and fellow fandom comrades, too many of you (and this is why I am not naming names, because there are TOO MANY) are either inconsiderate or do not know what constitutes a spoiler.

I've made this rant on twitter, because that's what I had time for, so I will do so here now and at greater length.

Due to the fact that I have had to unfollow, actively avoid and actually be proactive about telling people (I've tweeted at, send private messages and commented on posts and comms) that they do not mark, hashtag or cut the spoiler on their post/tweet I have come to really resent the fact that this basic netiquette is all but flung out of window.

I have seen people casually mention an event of a not yet aired episode in a tweet, I have seen people post a link without even the tiny bracketed mention of "may contain spoilers" and tumblr posts with press releases not bother to hashtag it with #spoiler.

My dear fandom, I really enjoy hanging out with you, but you're bringing me down.

As I said, I'm not really a spoilerphobe, but there is a critical mass I simply cannot tolerate.

So I ask, if you see any of the following internet products come your way and you want to post/tweet/reblog, please, please, please err on the side of caution and mention mark it as spoilery:

- Press releases
- Cast/Crew interviews
- Behind the scenes pictures
- Behind the scenes footage
- Video promos
- Articles containing cast/crew news (yes, cast is a spoiler!)
- Pictures containing cast/crew news
- Tweets/Posts that contain future plot events
- Anything that contains future plot events
- Anything that contains imagery, information, news regarding events not yet aired

If you don't think anything you have contains any of the above, or anything that I may have not mentioned, I ask you, nicely, to err on the side of caution.

Because I have asked, people, nicely, to mark spoilers and they have done so. But there are many of you.

Show some consideration to your fellow fans. I want to enjoy the show and the fandom, part of my enjoyment is not knowing what happens!.

So if you have to urge to discuss unaired events don't do it in public! Twitter, tumblr, LJ and DW are all public! Striking this, because I was rightly reprimanded that this is a call for censorship, which is never okay. I do, however, think talking on twitter with a visible time lines, tumblr without a hashtag and on LJ/DW without marking somewhere that spoilers are discussed is inconsiderate, for everything mentioned above.

The fact that I'm even making this post is staggering.

I very nearly wrote a little post on my way home, on Officer Kalakaua, but refrained. I'm getting better at reading on commute, but writing is something else entirely.

Would not like to vomit on my little tablet.

I'm finding myself less and less tolerant of the casual humour that is dropped at the office. We are a very casual team, very little formality and thankfully we all get along quite well.

As I've mentioned, the team leader and manager, i.e. my boss is a woman, of the seven team members, four are women, three are men (two of whom are gay) - due to this dynamic, there are a lot of funny anecdotes concerning gay life - we very much throw around the "That's so gay" at each other (my gay co-workers and I, that is) - but that's the mild things.

But sometimes, I remember that the straight people are there, witnessing this. My co-workers are unconcerned, it seems, but I'm also, how shall we say, more "sensitive".

[The Heterosexist] sees fit to insert herself into all the gay funnies that are hurled around the office, inevitably, they are full shit and made of fail.

I mean, sure, our co-worker talks about approaching a guy who pinged his gaydar in a store for help to shop for clothes and what a funny encounter that was, that is totally an invitation by a straight woman to talk about a guy she knew was gay and overcompensated by flirting with women and was probably "of those who didn't know how to handle it."

I hate her.

I know, this is by no means a hostile environment, on the contrary, but I keep getting the feeling she considers the our co-workers as existing for her entertainment and I am irked by her.

It doesn't help that one of the things my co-workers and I do is make fun of stereotypes (speaking af a lesbian stereotype) and yes, everyone laughs and then I remember we're laughing for utterly different reasons.

Not to mention, that there are subjects I will not tolerate joking about either in mixed (as in, not exclusively queer) company, or at all, and those are jokes about AIDS, jokes that are homophobic and/or sexist, and rape jokes.

So, I'm the fuddy-duddy, except when I make the driest observation, the funniest sex joke and the best turn of phrase.

My workplace problems, let me show them to you.

As I said, I really love my team, but [the Heterosexist] annoys me to a degree I didn't think was possible. I feel justified seeing as she's racist on top of it all.

Regardless, tomorrow I have to dress nicely, the Big Giant Head is visiting from the United States. I have to decide which plunging neckline to wear and which earrings will make a statement! What? I'm working on a Fashion Week project.

I just worked though my feelings regarding President Obama's statement of marriage equality in the United States by creating fanfic with another non-American fan.

I'm gay and she's straight and we were both... unimpressed. Probably for different reasons. Her country has had marriage equality for over a decade. I live in a country that has no civil marriage for anyone.

Look at that quote.

This is what President Obama said (Via The Atlantic Wire):

"I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,”

Now look at me.

President Obama has laid out in those few sentences what his opinion about marriage equality is about.

An opinion, that should have no bearing on the law.

No one's opinion should have any bearing on the nature of people's relationship.

Beyond that, he's making it a personal issue, as opposed to a social issue, reiterating the false dichotomy that what matters, is what matters to the people he knows and that the rest will have to find different solution.

When he says - "when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together," - he is giving us the baseline of decent gay people, of worthy gay people. Long term and monogamous who are productive members of society by being reproductive members of society.

And if they're not reproducing, they're out there killing people in far away lands - "when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone," - because now gay people can go out into the world, openly, and kill anyone in the name of Freedom, Liberty and Democracy.

That was sarcasm.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a cruel decree, and its repeal is a good thing (This is not sarcasm).

That doesn't make the draft a tool of progress for gay people. Being able to be visible is a necessary thing, and I don't begrudge that. However, the fact that the fight was focused on this repeal as though it would change the culture of homophobia inherent to an institution based on hierarchy and conservative notions of masculinity, kind of boggles me.

Taking the above into account and once again, marriage equality is placed out there as a prize the second class citizens of America need to aspire to.

I find that notion absolutely abhorrent.

People sexuality, their relationship style, their loyalty to the government and reproductive choices should not be a standard for their humanity.

And their humanity should not be equated with a state contract.

"I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married"

The President's personal opinion has no bearing, whatsoever, on the inherent humanity of gay people, who may or may not be in a relationship.

The fact that his personal opinion is favourable, but he states at the same time that it should be remain a state issue is extremely telling.

Ironically, Obama has been the best President with regards to Trans issues, which is saying something, considering the majority of marriage equality advocates shuffle trans people under the bus when it comes to pushing an agenda. I see it in the States and I see it in my own locale.

And that's why I've been saying gay people throughout.

There is no discussion of the humanity and dignity of bisexual people, or men and women and other genders I couldn't name who are in a relationship that may or may not be romantic. Or who aren't in a relationship at all. There is no discussion of kinship without marriage. There is no discussion of healthcare plans without a spouse. Why is there a moral imperative when it comes to children?

Bottom line.

Obama expressed his personal opinion that marriage is something gay people have to earn. By fighting, tooth and nail.

This is progress?

That's what I see when I encounter a 100x100 icon of Erik's tattoo.

What tattoo?

The tattoo on his forearm, that was stamped (with needles and ink) on him when he and his family were sent to a concentration camp from a ghetto.

I know screen caps create the illusion of having no context. But the movie uses its first twenty minutes to ensure that we know that Erik has not forgiven the Nazis (human and not) for what they did to him and his family.

I mention this, because I feel it needs to be said that the Nazis marked people entering the camp (Jewish and not) as a way to keep them demoralised, without control and, I'll say it again, dehumanised.

An icon of that number, is a fetish of the aforementioned dehumanisation. What we are seeing on screen happened, in history, in real life, to millions of people.

Erik is fictional, what happened to him is not.

The number tattoo, being reduced to a number, actually happened.

People who went through and survived are still alive.

It is inappropriate to use that number on an icon as a way to present the character is an objectified manner and yes, that is what icons do and that is what they are for.

When we see Erik's tattoo, which is exactly twice, it is in the context of bringing down Nazis, because it is evidence to what was done to him, to Jews, to Gypsies, to homosexual men and women, to anyone the Nazis deemed subhuman and sent to die in a camp designed to kill.

That is what that number means.

You know something, coming from a country in which the vast majority of men are circumcised, the whole debate seems a bit incongruous, but I understand and am personally in the opinion that male circumcision is an unnecessary procedure and would encourage parents to really think about whether this something they want to inflict on their male child.

I still don't think that people who do end up circumcising their male child are morally reprehensible, or that the baby is in real danger from such a procedure - any more than any other complication that can happen from a modern medical procedure.

It is a tradition I think is passée, but I understand why Jewish people feel it is a necessary one.

However, when intactivists chose to vilify a religious tradition be resorting to Antisemitic rhetoric and imagery I can't say I feel too compelled to root for your cause.

Because seriously, what is this shit?

An evilly grinning Jewish man in "traditional" Jewish markers of a Talit and a Shtreimel? A mohel (the guy who does the cutting) covered in blood? And an Aryan looking man defending the poor defenceless mother and baby from the Evil Jews out to main the baby?

California activists, this is a summary fuck you from a Jewish grrl who finds your tactics more than nauseating. I don't usually side with the Anti-Defamation League, but in this case they are not wrong.

And if anyone tries to compare male circumcision to female genital mutilation, know that you are only showing your ass and that comment will be frozen and you yourself may be banned from commenting on this journal.

In case somebody didn't know, a Lavender Marriage is term coined some time in the 1920's to describe the marriage of a gay woman to a gay man (gay being the cover all of any sexuality that isn't straight; gay, lesbian, bisexual).

For myself, I first heard the term when I got interested in Queer American History and discovered that a bunch of actors from around the 20's (and quite possibly to this day) practice this type of marriage in order to, well, appear normal.

Not surprising, considering the deviancy of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and queers in general.

This morning I opened my morning News Tab and read an article regarding a phenomena I already knew existed, but still, I'm saddened to read about it.

Israeli Rabbis launch initiative to marry gay men to lesbian women. Of the little interview materials that appear in the article, the word that jumps out more often than not is, surprise, normal.

[...]Etti and Roni, both religious, were married five years ago. Though they were honest with each other about their sexual orientations from their first meeting, to the outside world, they portray themselves as a normal heterosexual couple.
[...]
"It's incredible," [Etti and Roni] wrote. "Six years ago, we didn't think we would ever be this happy. We thought everything was black, that we'd lost our chance of a normal life.
[...]
Etti said her family still doesn't know she's a lesbian. She had one "serious" lesbian relationship, but "realized it was more important to me to raise children and live in a normal family."
[...]
[U]pholding the religious prohibition on homosexual sex was "very important" to them, as was their desire for "more or less normal parenthood," and both factors had influenced their decision
[...]
They are careful to keep up normal appearances before the children and the outside world, even sleeping in the same room, though they don't sleep together. Their children were born through artificial insemination.
[...]

All emphasis is mine, bold, underline and italics. Six times the word "normal" appears in that article, all as an adjective, a descriptor for a better life lived.
Never mind that in order to live this so-called "normal" life they lie to their children.

And you know something, the fact that the the Rabbis who enable these arrangements have the gall to say they're helping religious gays out of acknowledgment of their homosexuality rather than try and sweep it under the carpet makes me want to tear my hair out!

Really?! Requiring people to live lies, to raise children in a family that is based on a lie and keeping up appearances for the sake of, and I quote the article, "they want to establish a home, whether for the sake of becoming parents or for the social recognition". Again, emphasis mine. Becoming parents is easier when you're a relationship that is recognised by the religious-state institution, yes, I agree - still, the amount of same-sex parents is at an all time boom and the sperm used for artificial insemination in the former case of Orthodox Lavender Marriages is the same "spilled seed" that's used by single mothers, men with a low sperm count and same-sex couples (generally women).
But really.

It's the shame of being so-called "abnormal".

The shame and the fear of being social pariahs in a heteronormative heterosexist and homophobic society, all of which are compounded by the religious strictures of Orthodox Judaism, which in Israel has a specific pro-natalistic ideology (a secular nationalistic attitude as well, I might add) regarding the "Demographic Threat", so really, the political agenda of trying to "Straighten" the religious gays, who are already imbued with shame regarding their sexuality seeing as it doesn't mesh with the duties of religious life (especially for women) it's not hard to see how these Rabbis (looking out for the good of these poor suffering homosexuals) sell them this shit of lied and normality.

And you're damn right I'm judging them! To agree to this charade of life, despite social acceptance and the appearance of normality, one is signing up to a life of lies beginning with yourself - because a Rabbi gives you leave to "lapse" every once in a while, stating it's between you and the Creator... well, I'm sure the sacred institution of marriage isn't marred one little bit, when all it's there for is for the sake appearances.

At the time of the publishing of this article, this initiative has gotten 11 cuoples married, 2 of them are in the process of divorce.

I think one of the issues people (many religious people as well) is that religious law is something interpreted by human beings, that is, the so-called word of G-d, is something that needs to be conveyed via human scholars, none of whom actually know what the hell G-d may think about all this, should he exist one iota outside of our imagination.
What we have, as a religious society, is text.
Texts are written and re-written by people, none of whom are without bias! You really think the Orthodoxy of today, resembles in any way the Orthodoxy of 100 years ago?
Yeah, not so much.

Obviously, on a personal level, I don't agree with the position of keeping faith in a religious path that rejects a part of who you are, or requires that one deny their identity in the name of ethically questionable rules and laws. However, seeing as this is a path that many find that they need in order to live a Good Life, HoD (the first Religious Gay Org in Israel) published ten points of consideration for the Orthodox community.

I, for one, would just like to see society stop dumping all the phobias and anxiety on queers who, at times, don't have the fucking luxury of being "normal". Whatever the fuck that is.

Today I wrote a post regarding the really atrocious warning system I've seen in Sherlock fandom at large.
Almost every story coming out of this fandom has a warning for slash and a warning for the mere idea that slash could be implicated within the text.

For fuck's sake.

Just to put this in perspective, I'm currently pursuing two fandoms quite actively, the other is Inception. The difference in attitude is staggering.

The post I wrote was sent into queue for sherlockbbc and was rejected.

This is what I wrote (verbatim with typo fixes):

I'm a recent joiner of the fandom and I've mainly lurked. I suppose this is not the best way to de-lurk or announce myself to the fandom at large, but this comm is the largest and most comprehensive on Livejournal.

I don't know if this has been discussed in this fandom before, but it has been discussed on the meta level on fandom in general and I'm sad to see it pretty much ignored in BBC's Sherlock fandom.

I've read the guidelines, I've read the FAQ's and I'm pretty sure that this is on topic so here, goes.

I'm talking about warning for Slash.

Warning for M/M, boy kissing, naked men together, whatever. And seriously, a huge amount of fanworks that I see on my f-list that are in Sherlock fandom have warnings for the above, along with various kinks, drug (ab)use, incest, etc.

The warning that this fic contains homosexuality.

Now, the warning debate on fandom is fairly current and has a history. You can find it on metafandom's Delicious easily. To put "BDSM" in the warnings section along with "Non-Con" and "Incest" is debatable, but that's not what I want to talk about.

I want to talk about the fact that warning for slash or even pre-slash is homophobic.

You know why?

Because that's not a warning for actions in the fic or art. That's warning for the identity of the characters as they are portrayed in fiction.

Sherlock is a Slash based fic, whether you interpret Sherlock himself as Ace, Gay or Queer is some other way, he will generally be paired (if he is paired) with another male character and warning for that is not only redundant, it's insulting.

I'm Queer. I'm a Lesbian-Identified Bisexual. I like to read Sherlock fic among other fandoms and I do so while I am Queer. This is not something I turn off, this is not something I segregate from the rest of my identity in my daily life and if affects the way I read and understand the world and its texts around me.

Those warnings are saying that part of the queer identity is upsetting for some and they need to be warned against it. I'm upset to see a warning for an identity that still bears a social stigma of being "Other".

When you warn for Slash, you're warning that this fic contains people who do queer things, like same sex kissing, or even just cuddling (as happens in Ace!Sherlock fics) and let me ask? How the hell is that on the same level as non-con?
Warning for the most disturbing acts of consensual kink is appropriate I guess, because lord knows those can be triggering, but warning for who is committing those acts?
And with pre-Slash it's even worse because the warning is for sexual tension between two men, which you may or may not notice, depending on your interpretation, i.e. the "squint".

I find it hard to click on fics that warn for slash and pre-slash, because it reads as though you're (general you) are more worried about being flamed by homophobes (who, if they're reading slash are fucking hypocrites) that being, you know, loyal to your characters who are on some level queer or at the very least not-straight and to your QUILTBAG* readers and yes, we're here. I wouldn't be surprised if many of the writers are queer but because of convention also warn for slash.

This was not easy for me to write. I'm very much enjoying Sherlock fandom. I enjoy the fic and the art and the discussion and all that.

But to see this kind of thoughtlessness is upsetting and even if you think this is "cry moar", I urge you to rethink about what it means to warn for homosexuality in a fandom that is Slash based.

Thanks in advance for reading.

*QUILTBAG is a comprehensive acronym for Queer, Intersex, Lesbian, Trans, Bisexual, Asexual and Gay.

Nothing I've never said before and certainly nothing that's never been discussed at large in fandom in general.

Here's what the rejection letter said and I'm cutting it for pertinent information only:

Thank you for this post, but we're going to have to reject it for a number of reasons, not least because we don't want to open this argument again as it has already consumed a great deal of time and energy for the mods.

It also does not pertain to the show itself, only acts as an objection to the acts of other users, which is not the purpose of this community. Comments of that nature should be directed to the moderators.

The mod who rejected this, then goes on to tell me their personal situation with regards to sexuality and relationship which I shan't quote because that's not important. But here's what is:

[W]e [the mods] totally agree that from our perspective it's ludicrous to list 'slash' as a warning. We don't like seeing it and we don't like people doing it.

Yes.
But, excuses, excuses...

However, this community covers all aspects of the fandom, from icons to fan meets to fiction and crafts. The users here may not always be aware what they are getting into if they click on a story, having come here for icons or news on releases.

Utter bullshit.
If you're in fandom, in which the main pairings and almost every other pairing is m/m, you certainly know what to expect. Warning for the fact that the two (or more) characters in the story are in a situation in which there may be sex is a fucking given!
The nature and explicitness of the situation is what you warn for!

Even though they are few and far between, I've yet to see het stories warned for in the same manner.

Sherlock and John kissing is more "explicit" than John and Sarah fucking.

Yes, that is the implication.

They go on with the excuses:

Many members here are totally new to fan fiction as a concept, never mind the idea of slash (which for many, when first engaged in fandom, is a very confusing concept as they cannot rationalise characters written generally as heterosexual being portrayed in homosexual situations).

Are these people watching the same show?
And in any event, fan-fiction, the debate around it and the slash debate (that it's all about the sex and is automatically porn and therefore there needs to be an "OMG! Warning!" should not perpetuated in new fandoms over and over again.

All it does is entrench the notion that queers and queer behaviour needs to be extra supervised!

If people feel that it's necessary to make that warning on their fics, then it may be misguided but we believe that is based on their naivete, not on hostility. If they were writing slash, they probably aren't against it.

This naivitea comes from attitudes consistent IRL. When two women or men kiss, it is more "noticeable" and "disrupting" than when a man and woman kiss. This heteronrmative distinction and hierarchy is a homophobic mechanism and using it as an excuse to say "oh well, they don't know any better" is simply not on.

In fic headers, we ask for only two things: rating and warnings (with severe penalties for those who do not comply), and as a result of that, some people have been overly-cautious, listing everything from kids to smoking to fluff. Although this is irritating for us, it is also better than losing the warnings which are necessary and relevant, and it's a concession we have to make.

Asking for a list of things that the fic contains (which is reasonable) is not the same as warnings. It's not. Fluff is a fic genre that is independent of Gen/Slash/Femmslash/Het, like Angst, like Hurt-Comfort, etc. And like Slash doesn't need a warning!

In general, our warnings warn for ANYTHING that people may not wish to read - right down to fluff, as you will note in some headers.

Please rest assured that in this community we will not tolerate homophobia or any form of deliberate prejudice against any group. We have rules in place which include instant banning for those engaging in harassment or behaving in an offensive/hostile manner toward other users.

I have no words.
I have an analogy regarding Donovan and Anderson, or indeed Donovan with anyone, but I won't.

I'll just conclude by saying that warning for the idea of two men in a sexual/romantic (in all its permutations) relationship is on the same level as "Incest" and "Non-Con" is asinine, offensive and downright prejudicial.

Fuck that.

I hate this female character flow chart with a passion I try to keep within me for causes that matter.

Luckily, this is one of them.

I am not the first to be irritated by it, no god no.

My main problem with the flow chart is that it reduces all female characters into foils of the male characters.
All of them.
It is especially irksome when Yoko Ono is there as well, being an actual person and all.

Sarah Connor, a heroine which we are afraid to see in this day and age, reduced to "Mama Bear".
Miss Piggy, one of my personal heroes, a performer of the highest calibre and one of the few regular female presence on "The Muppet Show", reduced to her mood swings, rather the hilarious comedienne that she is.
Lieutenant Uhura is useless?! In what freakin' universe!?!? A woman who held her own on the bridge of a Star Ship. I just... Ah!

Look at the flow-chart and judge for yourselves.

But judging is all that ever goes on when it comes to female characters, huh. It's all about whether they fit a paradigm of looks, abilities and personae.

Do male characters not fit that flow chart. You bet they do, but will there ever be a flow chart so demeaning? No, of course not, that flow chart will be critical and thoughtful and be about the characters as Characters, not the characters as "men".

The chart also demonstrates the notion that archetypes and tropes are a bad thing. I beg to differ, archetypes and tropes are what make a story work. If we look at the shortest form of a story, a joke, the comedy (and tragedy) of the tale works because we understand the history of the character as an archetype and we understand the situation the character is in because it is a common trope.

A horse walks into a bar, the bartender says, "Hey, why the long face"

Despite that joke being as old as the hills, it demonstrates my point - the characters, of which there are two, are in a common setting (a bar) and the funny is in the way is treated (as a human) by the bartender.

The joke wouldn't work without the archetype of the bartender and the trope of being sad in a bar.

Is a "strong female character" someone who manages to overcome the archetypes and the tropes? No, a strong character, regardless of gender, orientation, race, nationality, ability and more, is a person who works those things beautifully.

It is of course worth mentioning, that gender, orientation, race, nationality and ability do matter, because of the white-supremacist masculine-centric hetero-normative society we live in, those characters who do not fit well into the social paradigm listen above are scrutinised, because they have been more often than not been stereotyped, instead of archetyped and as such their stories are, at best, written in order to appease the long laundry list of hierarchies listed above.

The thing is, when it's the feminists (hi there!) who create that chart and continue to critique female characters as though they cannot stand on their own, as though they really are simply gender foils to male characters - well then, what exactly is the point?

Other articles to read regarding our loving and/or loathing of female characters would be Harridans, Harlots and Heroines: women of the classical world, all of which would likely fit in that chart as either Fickle Woman, Lady of War, Shrew, Suffering Wife or an Ideal Woman.

And Connecting with Female Characters in Geek Television which goes in quite a bit about the truly irrational hatred of Gwen Cooper of Torchwood and River Song of Doctor Who - two women characters which have garnered a lot of fandom hatred to the point where it seems to be almost a fetish to write fic that simply bashes them.

I will admit that I didn't like Gwen (though not to the point of murdering her in fic for the sake of calling her a whore and getting rid of her from the lives of Jack and Ianto... yes, I've seen it! *shudders*) in the beginning, but fandom taught me to love her and River is someone I loved from the moment I saw her.

When feminists participate in this kind of misogyny, not to mention racism, check this article out from Den of Geek that came out in July... Martha Jones. Martha "I walked the Earth for a year in order to save the Universe and all I got was a boatload of female Doctor Who fans who hated me for it" Jones.

This is me, giving that article and that flow chart the two fingered salute, the birdie and the request to stop perpetuating sexist ideas about what female characters are supposed to be like in order to be "strong".

Sometimes, being a feminist fangrrl is just no fucking fun at all.

Things always hit you harder when they are closer to home.
Always.

I had a race fail a few days ago, in which I basically preached to a woman of Japanese descent why the casting of Avatar: The Last Air Bender was racist.
I was called on it.
And I apologised and I was told it wasn't a problem.

Still, the shame continues to linger, because my privilege fogged the way I viewed this person and the way I discussed the issue with this person.

However, you live and learn right.

Well, no.

If history teaches us anything is that we would rather forget, or even not know and you basically need a very strong lobbying group in order for things to be remembered.

The past month or so has seen so much fail in fandom, the Race!Fail, the Trans!Fail, The Abelism, I'm quite sure there were more fail I'd forgotten and seriously, even though I commented only briefly I was outraged and saddened by all of these incidences. People can (and have) asked me why do I put so much energy into issues that don't have much to do with me (yeah, I know), I mean... why get so worked up on something that doesn't directly affect me.

Well, for one, despite the fact that I'm not in the disenfranchised group of non-white people, trans people and disabled people, these issues affect me mainly because the fact that those groups are disenfranchised I can safely go about my day not thinking about it.

But you know why I really take the time to give a damn and cracks my heart wide open? Beyond it being the right thing to do and being in an ethically sound position.

I want to be safe.

I want my body and mind to flourish, and the body I currently inhabit may have a lot of privileges associated with it, but its history is also bloody, by virtue of it being cis female, queer and Jewish.

My Jewish body is very weird thing. On the one hand it is Israeli Jewish, meaning it is the default body of superiority where I live, on the other, it comes from generations of bloodshed, exile, pogroms and genocide.

The history of this genocide, like most genocides oddly enough, is well documented. The violence was recorded, photographed, duplicated and triplicates by well meaning bureaucrats who kept the train tracks clear.

The genocide of my people even has a special name, The Holocaust¹, and like all historical events which linger in the collective memory of a people, a nation, a community, we tend to treat it with a deference of some kind. Even as I make Holocaust jokes, and sing "Springtime For Hitler" and make cracks about Germany blitzing its way though the Mundial and yeah, I'm waiting for Germany to serve up Spain's ass in the upcoming Semi-Final...

Still.

The Holocaust is an event that continues to shape my life and inform me of who I am, as a Jewish person in Israel and Palestine, as a queer person and as a feminist woman.

It does not, however, as a historical event, exist to be a backdrop to an AU Fanfic about American Soldiers and their love affair. What? The Battle of the Bulge was too tame?!

Yes, someone wrote a story, which has since been locked, but luckly there exists a Screencap (H/T to allchildren). I have not read it. I do not intend to.
I did read the Author's notes though; the warnings read thus:
Beating, abuse, non main character death, scientific experimentation, starvation, physical and emotional damage
Oh and the added disclaimer (after "nasty comments" began to appear) the gist of which is that this piece of work is NOT meant to be historically accurate. Accompanied to this Author's Note is a picture of the gates of Auschwitz, you all know the one, the one that was stolen and returned and reads Arbeit Macht Frei - "Work Makes One Free".
The... writer... of this AU fic stated that they added the picture, not for itself, but for the slogan, the meaning of the words upon the gate.

I've said it before. I'll say it again. I will probably say it for the rest of my life.

Context matters. Context, much like money, makes the world go around. That slogan cannot be removed from the gates it is attached to. Those words do not mean what you think they mean. The work they are talking about is not craft and the liberation they symbolise is not freedom.

A story, does not need to prettify history in order to make palatable for the readers. On the contrary, history should be shown in its grittiest form, it should be shown to be true and it should be portrayed with verisimilitude.

So, when you use a historical backdrop, in which you, dear author, feel the need to excuse yourself that by writing this you are no different from anyone who writes about rape, incest and domestic abuse, then you do not understand what fetishisation means.
You do not understand what treating subjects (people and events) with respect means.
You do not understand what this writing about history means.

You do not understand what context means and beyond that making you a disrespectful, blinkered and privileged fool, it also makes you, no matter your style, no matter how well written the characters are, a really really bad writer.

Personally. I blame Hollywood. And you know, bad education, entitlement and plain good ole' dehumnasation and antisemitism.

Also. No. Just. No.

This Nice Jewish Grrl needs to lie down now as she can't believe fandom sucks so hard right now.

ETA - 09/07/10: The story that is screen capped above is "1945" by slashxyouxup and is now unlocked. I'm not holding my breath though.

Footnotes
1) Even though we were not the only targeted people. The Roma people and other Gypsy groups were targeted and experimented in the same manner, homosexual men were castrated and murdered and many others. Still though, when you've got an entire country (Poland) set up to be an extermination station, while special Commando forces, Einsatzgruppen, are sweeping though Europe targeting Jewish Communities, you're going to feel that this is the Pogrom to end all Pogroms... in a way... it did...
Back.