So I just saw one of the grossest ads on You Tube (you know, those ads that proceed the video) and I was too dumbfounded by it to hit the “skip” button, although a part of me greatly wishes I had. It’s for this conservative propaganda think-tank that pretends its an educational resource (sure it is, for fascism) called “Prager U” and they had this video (with a woman narrating it, so OF COURSE it can’t be sexist) talking about the plight of boys in the public school system, how they are being “held back” because our modern education system only cares about girls and their academic needs, to which I started to gag (yeah, they care soooooo much for the academic needs of girls, who they send home if they dare show some collarbone).

Look, I’m not saying that boys don’t struggle with school. I actually do believe that boys struggle in academics to a point, but I don’t think that’s necessarily the fault of the public school system. I think that’s the fault of “masculine over-sensitivity” in our society, who don’t put a lot of emphasis on education. I mean, it’s the Republican Party who keeps gutting education and public schools, so clearly general education is not on their priority list. But also, society encourages boys to be more involved in sports and extracurricular activities that has very little academic emphasis. I mean, I remember when I was in school (granted, it was in the 90′s, but I don’t think time has changed *that* much) when the boys who were involved in the more “academic clubs” at school, were teased mercilessly by other boys, and practically every film/TV portrayal of boys involved with such things, have fathers who act “ashamed” and “embarrassed” that their son would rather be a mathlete than go out for the football team, even going so far as to use homophobic slurs as a means to shame them into being “more masculine”.  So no, this is NOT the fault of feminism, despite what this propaganda machine wants you to think. If anything, feminism is trying to say that it’s perfectly fine for boys to seek academic/educational activities just as it’s perfectly fine for girls who want to play sports.

Ugh, and they even had this woman narrator say that “we need to do away with Zero Tolerance” and more or less just let “boys be boys”.  Ok lady, I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you’re simply an actress who was hired to spew this bullshit (although I fear you probably do believe some of it) but seriously…the whole point for “zero tolerance” has NOTHING to do with saying that “boys can’t play at recess” or even that boys can’t roughhouse–and for the record, girls roughhouse every bit as much as boys do. But the main reason for “Zero Tolerance policies” (and quite frankly, not enough places have them, in my opinion) was to try and stop bullying from turning into something deadly–and that goes for both genders. To say that Zero Tolerance is stopping boys from being their “true selves” is utter bullshit.  What you’re really complaining about here is that you can’t bully that one kid for how they look, be it their weight, hair, skin color, religious identity, or sexual orientation, or that you can’t snap a girl’s bra without getting into trouble. WE WOULDN’T NEED ZERO TOLERANCE IF YOU JUST TOLD YOUR KIDS TO TREAT OTHERS WITH RESPECT AND BE FRICKIN’ POLITE. Oh, and the “example” this woman gave about the unfairness of a boy being suspended from school was that he “ate around the edges of a pop tart until it resembled a gun and pretended to shoot others with it”. Um, HELLO??? With sadly all the school shootings we’ve had over the past few decades, I think something like that deserves zero tolerance.

The only thing I agreed with in this entire video was something the woman said early on, about how we need to encourage boys to read more.

Yes, absolutely. Girls are often encouraged to read more than boys, in fact when it comes to fiction for teens, a majority of it is marketed/geared towards female readers than male. But the market responds to the need, therefore the way to get more books written/geared for a general young male audience is to encourage boys to read! Although it’s not like these don’t already exist, meaning books geared for boys (and I’m using a “generalization” here) but if we don’t encourage/emphasize the importance of reading for boys, then boys aren’t going to read…and will fall behind in academics. But again, the public school system is not the enemy.  Make education a priority–TRULY a priority with boys, get them involved with reading and STOP referring to certain activities/hobbies as “soft”. If a boy wants to cook, sew, do theater, play an instrument, get involved in the arts, don’t treat that as something to be ashamed of! And STOP the whole “boys will be boys” mentality. That’s just an excuse for failing to teach good manners, respect, and basic human decency.

And stop with the whole idea that “girls have it easy” when they don’t. More often girls aren’t called upon when they raise their hand, aren’t taken seriously when it comes to interests in science, math, and technology, and 9 times out of 10, it’s girls who suffer from a “zero tolerance policy” in terms of what they wear or how they styled their hair or some other sexist crap, and are pulled out of class and sent home for failing to cover-up whatever bit of skin they dared to show (or accidentally showed, as is often the case) and the boys “couldn’t concentrate”. Yeah, girls have it sooooooo easy in school and never struggle at all. BULL. SHIT.

Like I said, this thing is a conservative propaganda think-tank that tries to make itself seem “legit” because they cleverly have people of color spewing things about how affirmative action is racist to whites, and women talking about the plights of men and their lack of rights in this femninazi world. Do not buy their bullshit, figuratively or literally.

only 10 days left!

As of today (Dec. 5) there are only 10 days left for open enrollment in the ACA! The last day is December 15, and don’t be surprised if the website goes down that day, due to high traffic or “other reasons”. The point being is DO NOT PUT THIS OFF! Enroll now if you haven’t, it really won’t take you that long–30 minutes at most. So get covered for 2018 (and then flip congress at the 2018 election!)

So I’ve noticed there’s this whole sub genre of romances called “clean romance”, specifying in romances that don’t have sex or crass language, etc. And I do understand there are readers who prefer not to read sex in their romances, which is 100% fine, HOWEVER, I just don’t care for the term “clean romance”. To me that implies that romances that have or celebrate sex are “dirty” which seems to = “wrong” and I feel like I’m being made to feel “ashamed” for liking or wanting to read sex in romance

mariaslozak:

romancingthebookworm:

mariaslozak:

romancingthebookworm:

You’re definitely not the only one to voice that concern! And it’s one I share as well. 

The actual industry tends to refer to romances without sex as “sweet” romances – which I think is much more fitting. Harlequin has a new sweets line that it calls “Harlequin Heartwarming”, which I like as well! “Clean” is a word that gets bandied about by readers. And while there isn’t always a stink of condescension about it, there definitely can be depending on the speaker (or tweeter…).

In fact Tessa Dare had a thread on twitter at the start of November (2017) where she discussed phrases that could “

burn on the sexism bonfire

“ and one of them was “clean romance”. She prefers to call them “chaste” romances. She also talks about the need to burn alive the phrases “smart romance” and “guilty pleasure”.

Whether someone is or isn’t being snide when they discuss “clean” romances, I think the phrase in general needs to be dropped since the implication is still there that certain romances are supposedly “clean”, wholesome, and worth while, and others are therefore dirty, sinful/improper/inappropriate, and should be shunned.

I think we have enough of a “purity culture” problem (and not just in America, though we manage to take it to terrifying heights.) that the Romance community doesn’t need to be encouraging and propagating purity rhetoric by supporting “purity good/sex bad“ language. 

The romance genre is still fighting the societal pushback against the ideas that: women have sex, women can want sex, and women can specifically want satisfying sex. They’ll never stop fighting us on this point because the Madonna/Whore complex is eternal. The last thing we need to do is open up inroads for them by creating internal division over the presence of sex in what is, for the foremost part, an inherently sexual genre. 

Great summing up of the issue.

Side note. I think I can see what you mean by “for the foremost part, an inherently sexual genre“, yet the implication gives me pause. It’s probably the wording more than the concept: I think I’d be more inclined to say it’s an intrinsically sexual genre. While courtship and sex may commonly, though not automatically, go together in life, sex is not, as shown by the debate over terms and content, present everywhere in the genre. Sex is part of the genre, yes, but explicit and implied sexual content can be removed from character development and plot without affecting the structures that define the story as a romance. So I’d argue that while sex is a prominent and important feature of the genre, it is not an inevitable one. In addition, with greater openness toward and understanding of a broader spectrum of sexual identities, asexual romance (which obviously is not the same as chaste romance) should, one hopes, at some point become an established segment of the genre.

You’re right, intrinsically is the word I should have used. Thank you and apologies for the mix-up. I’m so used to combating a wave of “mommy porn”/”smut” accusations with arguments about positive sexuality that I don’t spend enough time considering the less sexual/sexless portion of the genre. I certainly didn’t mean to exclude those authors and readers by declaring the genre to be centered around sex. 

“Mommy porn” and “clean romances” are equally obnoxious accusations that both shame readers for liking sex, and my knee jerk reaction is defend the sexual identity of the genre. Even if it isn’t all encompassing. But of course we want to be open to all forms of the romance, or else how can we expect the genre to diversify.

Well, thank heavens above for romance stalwarts like you who can be depended on to charge into the fray to do battle for genre recognition and understanding. As you point out, the obnoxiousness levelled at sex in romance as well as at women and sexuality in general is thick and suffocating, which causes much of the defence to revolve around sexual empowerment and agency. I don’t think anyone having the slightest familiarity with the Tumblr romance community would assume that focus means diversification isn’t important to you 🙂

Thank you both for your thoughts and words on this issue! Always appreciate a good academic talk about a genre that so many people often look their noses down upon and gag on the idea of calling romance “literature” (which it is!)

How big a role do you think faith plays in Tom and Sybil’s lives? I kind of think that Tom’s Catholicism is more political than anything else, and he flaunts it just to thumb his nose at the more conservative characters. My headcanon is that he’s rather neglectful of religious matters, and Sybil’s encouraging him to attend Mass, not because she’s converted, but because she wants them to remain on his family’s good side. And because the best socializing will be at a church, like it or not.

Hey Anon, thanks for the ask :o)

That’s an interesting question!  I do think that part of Tom’s Catholicism is connected to his Irish identity–it differs from his fellow English/Anglo counterparts, and it is wrapped up in his patriotism for a free state. 

And while the Crawleys are Anglican like most of their aristocratic neighbors, so often upon the upper classes “going to church” was more of a social thing one did to be seen, rather than out of any feeling of spiritual devotion. I imagine for Sybil, she always saw right through her family’s “church outings” as simply that: “we’re playing a part because we’re supposed to, not because we really want to” And I imagine Sybil despising any sort of “empty ritual”, be it Catholic. Anglican, or anything.

Now I am a religious person (Protestant) and I do go to church every Sunday, and my faith is a big part of who I am. However, I am also quite liberal in both my politics and theology, and see the two going hand-in-hand, rather than being polar opposites as sometimes people on both sides, want to do. The reason I’m explaining this is because when I write characters, be they for fanfic or something else, it’s impossible *not* to put “a little of yourself” (or your ideas) into what you write. Therefore, while I’m not saying that Tom wouldn’t struggle with his faith (and I’m sure he has and has moments of doubt like many do) I don’t see him entirely turning his back on all religious matters.  I certainly think after returning to Ireland, and after having children, he decides to take on a few more of those religious responsibilities, both in the sense of raising his children with a strong, Irish Catholic identity, as well as to be close with his mother and the rest of the Branson family. And yes, I think Sybil would certainly encourage him too! I have yet to make up my mind on whether she fully converts or not (sometimes I think she would, after their children are born, other times I think she remains as she is, but attends mass with Tom and the rest of the Bransons) but I can easily see her getting something “more” out of going to church with his family, than with her own, because I think with the Bransons, it would have a deeper layer and meaning–and I think this would be true regardless of what church they attend, because the whole “fashionable thing” wouldn’t be a part of it; it wouldn’t be an “empty ritual” to them, it would have meaning.

At the end of the day, if your headcanon feels right to you, then embrace it :o) I think what you say makes a lot of sense and I can envision it, as well as other possibilities too.

address change!

For those of you who have been very kind in the past and have sent Christmas cards my way, I just wanted to shout out that my address has changed, so in case you are like me and try to keep other people’s addresses saved on a file for such occasions, I have an entirely different one now. Just PM me for details :o)