Charlie, you are completely right about Sullivan's take on Mulvaney. Mulvaney's shtick is APPALLINGLY misogynistic. It's nothing more than "I am a simpering airhead, therefore I am a woman." If you and Will do discuss this on the podcast, do not back down.
Heartbreaking. "Identity Politics" is too genteel. Let's call it what it really is: identity bullying. Bullies aren't political; they're just trying to make themselves feel big by making others small. Politics is a point of view. Bullying is a pathology.
I don't agree at all with what's happening to Patterson. But are you so sure that Tolstoy and Flaubert created female characters that weren't filtered by the authors' male point of view? Aren't these books male portrayals of women? It's not that they shouldn't be read today. But they shouldn't be read as if they contain no preconceptions, no filters.
I am not sure exactly where I stand on identity and writing, but Prof. Christakis's examples are not the best to use in this argument. Can you name a female19th-century Russian author? Educated (upper-class) women were more likely to use French -- and to write letters and journals. So using examples from a time when not everyone had equal opportunity to use their voice and to write and publish isn't all that convincing.
That said, Mr. Patterson (whose works I haven't read) presents a solid argument -- he did his research and interviewed members of the community about which he is writing. Assuming that he is sincere, isn't there a way to elevate previously/marginalized voices, be they people of color, female, queer, without confining everyone to writing solely about their own little parcel of society? I'm imagining a bookstore with a dizzying variety of subcategories in the fiction department: queer Latino fiction, divorced white women fiction, cranky old white guy fiction, Black YA fiction -- and confused readers wondering if it's okay to buy books that aren't from "their" section. I thought the arts were a way to introduce us to new ideas and different perspectives, different cultures.
Anyway. Tucker Carlson is a garbage human and a Russian tool, and, while I generally discourage indulging in Schadenfreude, the whole family was giggling yesterday. That said, I think Rick Wilson's right: expect to see man of the people Tucker running for office, and soon. I won't be giggling then -- just as I wasn't giggling in 2015 after that absurd escalator ride.
Let's flip the logic used against Richard - if Black writers or Chinese-American or Latina writers were not 'permitted' to write white characters into their stories, their opportunities for publication and success would be severely limited, which would be absurd. And let's also recognize that actions taken by activist organizations or private corporations are not equivalent to legislative action.
On the Bud thing…If I understood this, Bud got a trans IG influencer to promote their product thru their IG account TO “HIS" FOLLOWERS, NOT through some mass market medium like TV or broadly across the internet??? I may be wrong as I haven’t cared enough to follow the details? If so, the “audience” the ads were targeted to presumably would be followers of this trans person, i.e. his echo chamber? So why do conservatives even care? The marketing is presumably to “like minded” people vs trying to force their views on “unlike minded” people? Do liberals get up in arms about the ads run on Fox? (Maybe they do and I don’t know?) Again, I haven’t followed the details or the histrionics as to what audience this ad was targeted to. Perhaps Bud just felt they were trying to expand their audience, a common marketing strategy, for which they were punished. Conservatives used to be pro business, encouraging companies to grow. One wonders how many companies were punished back in the day when ads included blacks or black and white couples? Today we have an over-reaction to this stuff because someone knows there’s money to be made in outrage and click bait.
We’ve now chosen to call these marketing efforts political vs just a business looking out for what they think is in the best interests of their employees, their employees families, their customers and shareholders?
And each act of perceived intolerance gets a reciprocal act of intolerance, each act of perceived virtue signaling gets a reciprocal act of virtue signaling, each act of cancel culture gets a reciprocal act of cancel culture...what a way to live....ALTHOUGH MUCH BETTER IF NOT ON SOCIAL MEDIA!
So what’s the remedy we want for Patterson? Forcing the publishing companies to publish a book they don’t want to publish?
Personally, i find the facts suspicious. The author’s book is rejected, and he blames the rejection on anti-white racism (as it must be: he’s a 16x best-seller, after all). But then in act 2, he publishes it anyway. And in act 3, he gives it away for free, and writes about it in the WSJ. The vibes I’m getting is that the story of his victimhood has become more important to him than not not getting best-seller #17 published (especially if a WSJ story of his victimhood could boost the sales of #1-16).
Here's my view about Dylan, who I have never heard of, or many other trans women or anyone else--Whatever. Live your life, do your thing, it honestly has zero impact on me. I only care to the extent that every person is safe and free to live however they choose. Otherwise I don't care. And if it's in some cases performance or provocation, the sooner we all get bored and leave everyone alone the better. Perhaps then the real trans people will live in peace and the fake ones will move on to something else. I realize that in some, very few cases, trans rights has a direct impact on others' lives, but it's such a tiny segment of human existence as to not merit much consternation. As far as women feeling threatened by trans women (or men feeling threatened on women's behalf)--as a woman, I still don't care. If someone wants to live as a woman, have at it. It's really not the best time. Certainly it has zero impact on me.
The criticism is that people who haven’t even seen the book are keeping the book from being seen? I’m 100% sure those major publishers look like Mr. Patterson.
You have every right to be mad at the publishers, just leave the rest of us out of it. We are not your problem.
I'm having trouble seeing the larger significance of the Dylan Mulvaney piece. It seems to be asking the legitimate and maybe even worthwhile question of whether we should be celebrating her as a trans icon or whether her particular brand of trans is ultimately toxic to both femininity and trans rights.
But I don't think it addresses any larger issues. Sullivan's saying that 'we're not supposed to ask this question' is as absurd as any comedian telling a sold out audience night after night how he/she has been cancelled.
I'm pretty sure I'm more willing than most people to have a frank conversation about this topic and I have many concerns from all angles. But, I don't think Sullivan's article is on the road to that discussion. It's more of a celebrity hit piece tied up with an anti woke bow.
Straight-acting, "assimilationist" gay men being snide about nelly and effeminate gays, and wishing they would just go away or stop acting so over-the-top because it's embarrassing and sets back their progress, is a sad part of gay culture. Yet another example of why Sullivan is a pathetic man.
Charlie, you are completely right about Sullivan's take on Mulvaney. Mulvaney's shtick is APPALLINGLY misogynistic. It's nothing more than "I am a simpering airhead, therefore I am a woman." If you and Will do discuss this on the podcast, do not back down.
Signed, a center-left adult human female
Heartbreaking. "Identity Politics" is too genteel. Let's call it what it really is: identity bullying. Bullies aren't political; they're just trying to make themselves feel big by making others small. Politics is a point of view. Bullying is a pathology.
Andrew Sullivan: "Call me a transphobe".
Done!
I don't agree at all with what's happening to Patterson. But are you so sure that Tolstoy and Flaubert created female characters that weren't filtered by the authors' male point of view? Aren't these books male portrayals of women? It's not that they shouldn't be read today. But they shouldn't be read as if they contain no preconceptions, no filters.
I am not sure exactly where I stand on identity and writing, but Prof. Christakis's examples are not the best to use in this argument. Can you name a female19th-century Russian author? Educated (upper-class) women were more likely to use French -- and to write letters and journals. So using examples from a time when not everyone had equal opportunity to use their voice and to write and publish isn't all that convincing.
That said, Mr. Patterson (whose works I haven't read) presents a solid argument -- he did his research and interviewed members of the community about which he is writing. Assuming that he is sincere, isn't there a way to elevate previously/marginalized voices, be they people of color, female, queer, without confining everyone to writing solely about their own little parcel of society? I'm imagining a bookstore with a dizzying variety of subcategories in the fiction department: queer Latino fiction, divorced white women fiction, cranky old white guy fiction, Black YA fiction -- and confused readers wondering if it's okay to buy books that aren't from "their" section. I thought the arts were a way to introduce us to new ideas and different perspectives, different cultures.
Anyway. Tucker Carlson is a garbage human and a Russian tool, and, while I generally discourage indulging in Schadenfreude, the whole family was giggling yesterday. That said, I think Rick Wilson's right: expect to see man of the people Tucker running for office, and soon. I won't be giggling then -- just as I wasn't giggling in 2015 after that absurd escalator ride.
Let's flip the logic used against Richard - if Black writers or Chinese-American or Latina writers were not 'permitted' to write white characters into their stories, their opportunities for publication and success would be severely limited, which would be absurd. And let's also recognize that actions taken by activist organizations or private corporations are not equivalent to legislative action.
Regarding the Bud "debate"..
On the Bud thing…If I understood this, Bud got a trans IG influencer to promote their product thru their IG account TO “HIS" FOLLOWERS, NOT through some mass market medium like TV or broadly across the internet??? I may be wrong as I haven’t cared enough to follow the details? If so, the “audience” the ads were targeted to presumably would be followers of this trans person, i.e. his echo chamber? So why do conservatives even care? The marketing is presumably to “like minded” people vs trying to force their views on “unlike minded” people? Do liberals get up in arms about the ads run on Fox? (Maybe they do and I don’t know?) Again, I haven’t followed the details or the histrionics as to what audience this ad was targeted to. Perhaps Bud just felt they were trying to expand their audience, a common marketing strategy, for which they were punished. Conservatives used to be pro business, encouraging companies to grow. One wonders how many companies were punished back in the day when ads included blacks or black and white couples? Today we have an over-reaction to this stuff because someone knows there’s money to be made in outrage and click bait.
We’ve now chosen to call these marketing efforts political vs just a business looking out for what they think is in the best interests of their employees, their employees families, their customers and shareholders?
And each act of perceived intolerance gets a reciprocal act of intolerance, each act of perceived virtue signaling gets a reciprocal act of virtue signaling, each act of cancel culture gets a reciprocal act of cancel culture...what a way to live....ALTHOUGH MUCH BETTER IF NOT ON SOCIAL MEDIA!
Does anyone else suspect Tucker is out because he is planning to imminently announce his run for president?
So what’s the remedy we want for Patterson? Forcing the publishing companies to publish a book they don’t want to publish?
Personally, i find the facts suspicious. The author’s book is rejected, and he blames the rejection on anti-white racism (as it must be: he’s a 16x best-seller, after all). But then in act 2, he publishes it anyway. And in act 3, he gives it away for free, and writes about it in the WSJ. The vibes I’m getting is that the story of his victimhood has become more important to him than not not getting best-seller #17 published (especially if a WSJ story of his victimhood could boost the sales of #1-16).
Here's my view about Dylan, who I have never heard of, or many other trans women or anyone else--Whatever. Live your life, do your thing, it honestly has zero impact on me. I only care to the extent that every person is safe and free to live however they choose. Otherwise I don't care. And if it's in some cases performance or provocation, the sooner we all get bored and leave everyone alone the better. Perhaps then the real trans people will live in peace and the fake ones will move on to something else. I realize that in some, very few cases, trans rights has a direct impact on others' lives, but it's such a tiny segment of human existence as to not merit much consternation. As far as women feeling threatened by trans women (or men feeling threatened on women's behalf)--as a woman, I still don't care. If someone wants to live as a woman, have at it. It's really not the best time. Certainly it has zero impact on me.
The criticism is that people who haven’t even seen the book are keeping the book from being seen? I’m 100% sure those major publishers look like Mr. Patterson.
You have every right to be mad at the publishers, just leave the rest of us out of it. We are not your problem.
Also trying to find Charlie’s criticism of the “American Dirt” snafu, but having trouble.
I'm having trouble seeing the larger significance of the Dylan Mulvaney piece. It seems to be asking the legitimate and maybe even worthwhile question of whether we should be celebrating her as a trans icon or whether her particular brand of trans is ultimately toxic to both femininity and trans rights.
But I don't think it addresses any larger issues. Sullivan's saying that 'we're not supposed to ask this question' is as absurd as any comedian telling a sold out audience night after night how he/she has been cancelled.
I'm pretty sure I'm more willing than most people to have a frank conversation about this topic and I have many concerns from all angles. But, I don't think Sullivan's article is on the road to that discussion. It's more of a celebrity hit piece tied up with an anti woke bow.
Sorry I missed Andrew’s autobiographical serial “Becoming a Git”.
Straight-acting, "assimilationist" gay men being snide about nelly and effeminate gays, and wishing they would just go away or stop acting so over-the-top because it's embarrassing and sets back their progress, is a sad part of gay culture. Yet another example of why Sullivan is a pathetic man.
William Styron’s The Confessions of Nat Turner won the Pulitzer.