We’re Also Concerned About The Kids Whose Parents Make A “personal Choice.” Even If You Don’t

For months, every morning when my daughter was in preschool, I watched her construct an elaborate castle out of blocks, colorful plastic discs, bits of rope, ribbons and feathers, only to have the same little boy gleefully destroy it within seconds of its completion.

No matter how many times he did it, his parents never swooped in BEFORE the morning’s live 3-D reenactment of “Invasion of AstroMonster.” This is what they’d say repeatedly:

“You know! Boys will be boys!” 

“He’s just going through a phase!”

“He’s such a boy! He LOVES destroying things!”

“Oh my god! Girls and boys are SO different!”

“He. Just. Can’t. Help himself!”

I tried to teach my daughter how to stop this from happening. She asked him politely not to do it. We talked about some things she might do. She moved where she built. She stood in his way. She built a stronger foundation to the castle, so that, if he did get to it, she wouldn’t have to rebuild the whole thing. In the meantime, I imagine his parents thinking, “What red-blooded boy wouldn’t knock it down?”

She built a beautiful, glittery castle in a public space.

It was so tempting.

He just couldn’t control himself and, being a boy, had violent inclinations.

She had to keep her building safe.

Her consent didn’t matter. Besides, it’s not like she made a big fuss when he knocked it down. It wasn’t a “legitimate” knocking over if she didn’t throw a tantrum.

His desire — for power, destruction, control, whatever- - was understandable.

Maybe she “shouldn’t have gone to preschool” at all. OR, better if she just kept her building activities to home.

I know it’s a lurid metaphor, but I taught my daughter the preschool block precursor of don’t “get raped” and this child, Boy #1, did not learn the preschool equivalent of “don’t rape.”

Not once did his parents talk to him about invading another person’s space and claiming for his own purposes something that was not his to claim. Respect for her and her work and words was not something he was learning.  How much of the boy’s behavior in coming years would be excused in these ways, be calibrated to meet these expectations and enforce the “rules” his parents kept repeating?

There was another boy who, similarly, decided to knock down her castle one day. When he did it his mother took him in hand, explained to him that it was not his to destroy, asked him how he thought my daughter felt after working so hard on her building and walked over with him so he could apologize. That probably wasn’t much fun for him, but he did not do it again.

There was a third child. He was really smart. He asked if he could knock her building down. She, beneficent ruler of all pre-circle-time castle construction, said yes… but only after she was done building it and said it was OK. They worked out a plan together and eventually he started building things with her and they would both knock the thing down with unadulterated joy. You can’t make this stuff up.

Take each of these three boys and consider what he might do when he’s older, say, at college, drunk at a party, mad at an ex-girlfriend who rebuffs him and uses words that she expects will be meaningful and respecte, “No, I don’t want to. Stop. Leave.”

The “overarching attitudinal characteristic” of abusive men is entitlement

George Takei educating the ignorant

​Naomi Kritzer’s excellent story Cat Pictures Please is up for Best Short Story. It’s also the only non-Rabid Puppy story in that category, if that’s something you care about. You can read it at http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/kritzer_01_15/ and even if you aren’t planning on voting in the Hugos, you should still take a look -- it’s very good.

A few things about the Hugos

I’m almost through this year’s Voting Packet and would like to say a few things:

1. Hugo voting is for members and supporters of WorldCon. So, to vote, all you need to do is make a $50 donation to WorldCon. (Yes, I know that’s out of reach for many of you, but for others it might be worth it, and the packet often contains multiple full length ebooks).

2. We need more variety in Best Dramatic Presentation, both long and short forms. No, this isn’t a complaint about Doctor Who being nominated every year (the reason Doctor Who gets nominated every year is because Whovians are better at coming to a consensus about which episode to nominate than other fandoms, as far as I can tell).

No, what I mean is: Best Dramatic Presentation Long Form does not equal movie, and Short Form does not equal television episode.

From the Hugo website “The award can be given to a dramatized presentation in any medium.”

This means stage plays (Harry Potter and the Cursed Child if it’s any good) are eligible.

Video games are considered a dramatic presentation per the Hugo rules. I wouldn’t be able to vote for one, but some of the excellent games out there (the 90 minute cutoff would presumably be play time) could use to be recognized.

Audio dramas are eligible. Why has nobody nominated anything from Big Finish?

3. Best Related Work is a disgusting mess. Because so few people nominate, it was taken over by not the Sad Puppies (which has turned into a good thing) but by Vox Day’s Rabid Puppies.

One of the works nominated was outright hateful. Another contained such explicit descriptions of child molestation that MidAmeriCon’s lawyers advised them not to distribute it because of the risk of somebody being arrested for kiddie porn. Or so they say, I didn’t want to risk reading it…

A third was a book about how to fight SJWs by Day himself which - and I feel I can say this - was strewn with personal attacks against multiple people and promoted unethical activity.

The other two were good and I was surprised to find the treatise on Gene Wolfe’s fiction by John C. Wright (another extreme right winger and somebody who’s fiction I find all but unreadable) to be quite well written, interesting and award-worthy.

But outright hate for any group (including Vox Day and his friends) doesn’t belong in the Hugo packet. Neither does, uh…yeah…that.

So, in addition to pointing out to people that they can nominate things other than movies and TV shows, I’d like to toss out a challenge to people - including people who can’t afford the voting fee - to find good Related Works that can be nominated. (Please don’t post exactly five, that’s a slate, and we know those are bad).

Related Works are, essentially, non fiction related to science fiction and fantasy (or “works valuable primarily for things other than fiction”). So, if you find a cool biography of a writer, or even of an actor or director primarily known for genre work, talk about it. Scholarly or fan written works about a book, video game, movie, TV show, etc, also fit into this category. I am also pretty sure that books about writing science fiction and fantasy would be eligible. Collections of art are specifically eligible per the Hugo page. Books about the culture of fandom are eligible - just please don’t promote something that attacks any group or person. If a writer you know has published their memoirs, consider that. Finally, although it’s not clear from the site, it might be possible to nominate “Making of” documentaries associated with a movie, TV show, etc. We really need to get a lot more stuff nominated in this category so it isn’t all coming from one source, and to try and keep out stuff (best fan writer also has some problems in this area - please do nominate your favorite blogger) that promotes a political or social agenda rather than truly being about science fiction, fantasy, and fandom.

Get out.

@badsjw I don’t understand why you see this as a dichotomy. Why couldn’t you write several well-written and well-developed trans characters? If you can write multiple well-done cisgender characters, it seems to me that you ought to be able to write multiple well-done transgender characters.

cool ideas for characters for your story

trans

very trans

not just binary

not just trans boys

(but trans boys too)

at least 3 trans characters

more than 3 trans characters

all very cool

add more trans

What if instead of gilly weed Harry had showed up to the black lake challenge in muggle scuba gear like “like where’s your advanced magic now bitches? Got me a free fishing knife with this thing”

Watching a movie without subtitles: Gosh. These people sure are saying words. Should I rewind to try and catch that sentence? Nah, I just did that and also I can guess from context what they said.

Watching a movie with subtitles: whY ARE THEY TALKING SO SLOWLY. I’ve finished reading the dialogue? and yet there is not more dialogue? This is ridiculous.

Only if you ignore (not a comprehensive list):

- The five genders in Sulawesi culture

-Hijras, in India, who have been recognized for thousands of years

-Two-spirit people in Native American culture

-Some (though not all) of the people who identify as warias

-Hawaiian mahus

Non-binary genders: not actually a new concept.

Hamilton cast: Most disputes die and no one shoots

Me: okay... that sounds fake, but okay

It wouldn’t be a very big difference, but it would be a difference. 

Attacking someone for not dating you is saying that it is your right to control their actions.

Attacking someone you are dating depends on the circumstance. From the list above, it seems like the biggest reason is infidelity, which is saying that your right to faithfulness is greater than someone’s right to life. It’s also more centered around forcing someone into not doing something than forcing someone into doing something.

Attacking your ex again depends on the circumstances. Infidelity would be basically the same, but attacking someone for breaking up with you is probably more like the first case.

There’s also the fact that there tends to be a greater connection between partners than between one person asking the other out.

Again, these things are similar, and I’m not saying they’re not. I’m just saying that there is a distinction, though the distinction is not the most important part of this post.

shocking