Ok, let’s try this again.
This has nothing to do with games and is not a matter of legitimate public interest, but is simply a personal matter. I would hope and request that the games press be respectful of what IS a personal matter, and not news, and not about games. This is explicitly about my private life, which has been regrettably forced into the public and framed by people who pose a threat to my safety and well being as well as that of the people I love. I would hope that the effort people have gone through to dress it up as anything more would not be enough to have those who see it for what it is take the bait.
I am not going to link to, or address anything having to do with the validity of the specific claims made by an angry ex-boyfriend with an axe to grind and a desire to use 4chan as his own personal army. This is not a “she-said” to his “he-said”. The idea that I am required to debunk a manifesto of my sexual past written by an openly malicious ex-boyfriend in order to continue participating in this industry is horrifying, and I won’t do it. It’s a personal matter that never should have been made public, and I don’t want to delve into personal shit, mine or anyone else’s, while saying that people’s love and sex lives are no one’s business. I’m not going to talk about it. I will never talk about it. It is not your goddamned business.
What I *am* going to say is that the proliferation of nude pictures of me, death threats, vandalization, doxxing of my trans friends for having the audacity to converse with me publicly, harassment of friends and family and my friends’ family in addition to TOTALLY UNRELATED PEOPLE, sending my home address around, rape threats, memes about me being a whore, pressures to kill myself, slurs of every variety, fucking debates over what my genitals smell like, vultures trying to make money off of youtube videos about it, all of these things are inexcusable and will continue to happen to women until this culture changes. I’m certainly not the first. I wish I could be the last.
Because I’ve had a small degree of success in a specific subculture, every aspect of my life is suddenly a matter of public concern. Suddenly it’s acceptable to share pictures of my breasts on social media to threaten and punish me. Suddenly I don’t have any right to privacy or basic dignity. Suddenly I don’t get to live out normal parts of life, like going through a bad and ugly breakup in private. I have forfeited this by being a blip in a small community, while those who delight in assailing me hide behind their keyboards and a culture that permits it, beyond reproach.
My life and my body are not public property. No one’s life and body are public property.
Sexuality is one of the most personal, hurtful, and easy things to demonize a woman over, and also has nothing to do with my games. Yet large swaths of the gaming community are either unable or unwilling to separate the two. I’m convinced that my ex chose 4chan as the staging ground for his campaign of harassment and character assassination because he knew this; he knew that someone claiming to be “from the Internet” has shown up at my house once already, and he is counting on the most reviled hubs of our community to live up to their sordid reputations. This is another example of gendered violence, whereby my personal life becomes a means to punish my professional credentials and to try to shame me into giving up my work. I’m still committed to doing my small part to create a world where no woman is at risk of experiencing this. That said, I am thankful that even boards with a reputation for being the most hostile places online have been able to tell the intent behind these threads and banned them outright, seeing the hate speech for what it is, and not-news for what it is.
As much as those leading the charge against me will do mental backflips to make posting pictures of my tits about “ethics”, the real agenda is plain as day if you give it even a moment of sincere critical thought. No one who would terrorize someone and the totally uninvolved people they love in this way on such a massive and public scale could ever honestly claim to be interested in “ethics” of any kind. These kinds of accusations have been levied against any woman of status in any industry, ever. I have been judged because, if you are a woman, you are expected to constantly “prove” yourself, and even mere accusations can somehow undo all the good you’ve done and justify any measure of depraved brutality against you. Meanwhile, I see major support thrown the way of my male colleagues when they are accused of any sort of wrongdoing. Neither of these attitudes is correct, and they are patently unfair and reductive. Nobody exists in a vacuum, and anyone can change and grow into a better person. Heroes and villains don’t exist - just regular boring-ass people with scars and fuckups and moments of brilliance. And every single boring-ass person deserves the space to keep personal matters private and handled outside the shark tank of anonymous internet boards.
Once again, I will not be addressing the specific validity of any statements about my private life. If you have good-faith questions or doubts, I am more than happy to discuss private matters in private, where they belong. But I refuse to be coerced into making my private life or anyone’s private life a matter of public record, and I refuse to be continually emotionally terrorized by people who have long decided to hate me regardless.
I’m looking forward to moving on and getting back to work. To anyone else who has had to deal with this kind of indignity on any scale, you have my undying support and my ear if you ever want to talk to someone who might understand. To the people who support my work and can see this crusade for what it is, thank you from the bottom of my heart. To those people, I love you, I always have, and I always will.
On this day in 1918: After a mass meeting at Willesden bus garage in north-west London the day before, women workers begin their strike for a pay increase and equal pay with men.
A short history of the partially successful wildcat strike of women workers in London’s public transport network during World War I for a war bonus payment and equal pay with men.
As World War I progressed, thousands of jobs normally done by men were taken over by women, and nowhere was this process more marked than in public transport.
By the end of the war, the London General Omnibus Company alone was employing over 3,500 women, and thousands more were employed by the other bus and tram operators in London as well as on the tubes.1
Both management and the unions had consistently opposed conceding the principle of equal pay for what was obviously equal work. On August 16th, 1918, there was a meeting of women at Willesden bus garage which decided, without consulting or even informing either the management or the trade union leaders, to strike the following day. The next morning Willesden stopped work; they were immediately joined by women at Hackney, Holloway, Archway and Acton depots or garages, and thereafter the strike spread like wildfire. By the evening thousands of women had stopped work. The striking was initially for a 5s War bonus, a demand which was superseded as the struggle continued by the straight issue of equal pay, or as the strikers put it ‘Same work - same money’.
The strike continued to spread. By August 23rd, women bus and tram workers at Hastings, Bath, Bristol, South Wales, Southend and Birmingham had joined in, about 18,000 women out of the 27,000 employed in the industry had stopped work, and in addition women working on the tubes - supported by some men - had stopped work on the same issue. The strikers had a series of mass meetings at the Ring, Blackfriars, where 4,000 women, many of them with children, well supplied with sandwiches and lemonade, made a day out of it. The strike was settled on August 25th after a tumultuous meeting at the Ring, and against very strong opposition, while the tube women remained out until the 28th. The women received the extra 5s War bonus, but the principle of equal pay was not conceded.
The details of organisation of this important struggle are obscure; indeed it is rather surprising that this strike, which must be one of the largest ever engaged in by women for their own demands, has not attracted more attention from historians of the labour movement.
Taken and slightly edited from Don’t be a soldier! by Ken Weller.
- 1.The struggle of women transport workers was not isolated. In the same month there was agitation among school teachers, and the unrest spread to workers at Woolwich in November - when 6,000 ‘munitionettes’ took the day off and demonstrated in Whitehall. There were numerous other smaller strikes and demonstrations. For example, in October 1918 women street cleaners in Holborn struck; that they had strong local support was shown when there were violent clashes when housewives set about blacklegs with brooms. There was also a series of upheavals among the thousands of women ‘temporary’ workers at the Mount Pleasant postal sorting office at Clerkenwell; the unions representing ‘inside’ staff had refused the women membership, so they had to set up their own unofficial committees.
I’m making this post about medievalpoc as a black male and I am risking my safety on the internet considering that medievalpoc is backed up by so-treu, crackerhell, and co., which is a group of abusive tumblr users who hide behind the guise of “social justice” and wreak havoc on other groups. This alone should be enough to discredit medievalpoc but I’m not stopping here.
For some time now, medievalpoc has received criticism from various blogs due to comments made about marginalized European ethnic groups, namely the Rroma and the Jews. The issue has been with their racialization of the groups as white and defending what has been described as an “American/US-centric” lens. Beginning with the Rroma, medievalpoc received an ask that requested for more images of medieval Rroma, to which medievalpoc made this response:
I have some queued up right now, and plan to do more. It can be difficult because many Romani people from bygone eras don’t meet the set of “racialized POC features” criteria in the U.S. By which I mean, most Romani and Roma people who came to the United States immediately began passing for being passed as white. The “white” members of my family are actually Polska Roma; my uncles and grandfather used to say they were “Sicilian”. That doesn’t really change the fact that my grandmother had to flee the Holocaust hidden inside a suitcase carried by a Jewish family. [x]
Several Rroma on tumblr took issue with this for a variety reasons, largely because they are not white in most cases and face racial discrimination from neo-nazis as well as European immigrants to America (and by white people in general). I pointed this out to medievalpoc to which they said:
First of all, they are “treated as such”, by which I mean, white-appearing Romani in the U.S. aretreated as white. In the late 1600s, the laws and social structure of the United States changed to elevate people with specific features-yes, including the Irish-over ALL people of color, especially and specifically people of African descent with dark skin. These changes also profoundly affected other people of color who were immigrants, as well as reducing Native Americans to less-than-vermin.
I’m an American and I’m pretty much going to see everything through that filter. This blog doesn’t happen in a void, it’s created by a person who has had a life and experiences and lives in a country and is a race; nothing here happens outside of that context and it’s incredibly arrogant to think so.
And that, in short, is why “everything has to be so US-centric” on this blog. No one is forcing you to follow it. [x]
So here, they claim, again, that their lens is a limitation and that they accept support and shaping from other people, primarily by submissions. However, while they says this to me, with other bloggers they deliberately lie about what they said and again makes a way out by saying they aren’t qualified to speak on such matter, and yet continues to do so without apologies.
In another post, one of their followers discussed examples of PoC literature written during the Middle Ages, which they reblogged. I reblogged the post, primarily because they mentioned St. Augustine of Hippo, who has been whitewashed by Western literature, to explain that the Imazighen, though being PoC, exhibit genetic diversity, in which many Imazighen can be white passing. This is perhaps most humorously (or not so humorously) illustrated when Bouchra Benaissa was mistaken for the missing white child Madeleine McCann. I noted, however, to tristifere, that Berber is a slur for the Imazighen (indigenous North African) and in their response, they mentioned that even white-passing people are not considered white in Europe, at least where they come from. Interestingly enough, they cite medievalpoc, in which they again say that they’re writing from an American perspective and open to learning, this time mentioning the difference in American and European perceptions of race. I have called out medievalpoc several times on their use of Berber and they never once replied to me, however, they did finally respond whenbeauchampfraser called them out, and said they would continue using it for “clarification.” If it’s a slur, they should drop it altogether.
Let us discuss this for a moment. As several people have noted, racism is constructed differently in Europe than it is in the United States. In the U.S., racism is primarily color-based with some axial differentiation on white-Others. White-Others (mainly non-Germanic/WASP white people, especially European immigrants) face some xenophobia and a significant degree of stereotypes, but ultimately they assimilate into whiteness and enjoy most, if not all of the privileges available to white people. In Europe, however, color simply doesn’t constitute whiteness. European racism consists of xenoracism (where immigrants/non-natives are othered/face discrimination as a race) and ethnoracism (where members of a collective ethnic group constitute as white and everyone else doesn’t.) In Europe, unlike America, simply having light pigmentation doesn’t make you pass. They take into account your country of origin, ethnic background, and family heritage. If you are not of the specified white group, you are either a degenerate white group (the Slavs, Balkans, Iberians, etc.) or not white at all (Saami, Jews, Rroma, etc. such groups faced heavy assimilation in their host countries, resulting in a large population of light pigmented people.) This is evidenced by the Nazi targeting of the Jewish “race” (die jüdische Rasse, they developed racial theories and racial biology that categorized Jews as a separate and degenerate race; because of this usage, the word race has such negative connotations in European languages that only neo-Nazis use it) by searching family records, genealogies, and historical documentation to determine Jewishness (eerily similar to the Limpieza de sangre of the 16th century, [x] [x], but then again, much of the antisemitism Jews faced during the Holocaust was simply a reintroduction to things they had already experienced since the Middle Ages).
Another example could be found in the Bosnian War, in which the Serbs and the JNA perpetuated ethnic cleansing of the Muslim Bosnians and Croats due to their Muslim heritage (evoking non-white “Arab” connotations). Northern Italians often discriminate against Southern Italians, especially Sicilians because of their Moorish/Arab heritage.Spaniards are not considered white by most of Europe due to their Moorish history. owning-my-truth has written several excellent posts explaining this, coming from an Afro-Swedish background. [x] [x] [x] [x] [x] He has also written his own post about race in antiquity as well as responding to medievalpoc [x] [x]
In light of this, it should be understood that race is fluid and its construction varies upon geographical standing. Racism isn’t lateral, it’s multi-axial. So, especially when you involve pre-19th racial constructions, racializing ethnic groups must include intersection of religion and sociocultural context within historical settings. medievalpoc “acknowledges” this, yet blatantly ignores it. The url medievalpoc is a misnomer because PoC isn’t a universal term for non-white people. owning-my-truth has written an excellent post concerning this issue.
Granted there are white Jews, but when talking about European Jews in Europe, where the majority of their discrimination is centered, their whiteness is non-existent. medievalpoc tries to argue that because the primary purpose of antisemitism was religiously fueled during the Middle Ages, the assimilated European Jewish population cannot be seen as people of color. There are a couple of things wrong with this. For starters, one simply can’t make blanket statements like that exclude a group of people in racialized as non-white in their localized form of discrimination and regard them a certain way simply because they aren’t compatible with your localized understanding of what constitutes as a person of color. Secondly, medievalpoc entirely erases the fact that the so-called “White Jews” of Medieval antiquity gained their collective European phenotype through involuntary assimilation.It is convenient for bloggers to call all these people “white” simply because they “look it” disregarding the fact that the Jewish population in Europe was originally non-white and became light-pigmented through assimilation. I wonder, then, why are people so quick to racialize this fraction of the assimilated Jewish population as white, but the white-passing Saami people are free from the accusations of whiteness, and people suddenly understand that they underwent heavy assimilation under Scandinavian occupation. We understand that the Indigenous Australians are PoC, even though a many of them are extremely white passing. [x] [x] We understand that diasporic Africans are significantly lighter than their mainland African counterparts due to slavery, accordingly we understand the lighter-pigmentation of Native Americans because of white settlers and assimilation. And yet when it comes light pigmented Jews, whether they identify as white or not, we will racialize the entire group as white and defend our statements despite erasing identities and experiences. Yes, there are white Jews. Yes, some Jews identify as white and pass as white, but no, that doesn’t exclude them as an entire group from being non-white (especially when most Jews are non-white.)
the-orb-weaver perfectly sums up this with this quote:
I get pretty PO’d when people try to apply some blanket definition of whiteness on us - because there’s almost always some kind of agenda connected to it. To the white supremacists, we are not white, and are lumped in together with all the other non-white people they want to be rid of (and sometimes given extra special discrimination because of the fact that some of us DO pass, so we’re imagined to infiltrate the power structures in ways that other minorities can’t). But to the leftist brand of anti-Semites, we’re very, very conveniently white and lumped in together with the colonialists and globalists. [x]
Jews and Rroma both come from non-white regions. The Jews come from West Asia and the Rroma from South Asia. Both groups are non-white but have light-pigmented populations due to forced assimilation. This isn’t to say that light-pigmented people from these regions don’t exist (Aishwarya Rai, Poopa Dweck, Saleh Bakri, Sharbat Gula, etc.) but that the presence of light pigmentation in West Asian and South Asian diaspora has been obtained via assimilation. Further still, these groups are not racialized as white, despite the appearance of some, (look at these depictions of Rroma) considering therampant anti-Rroma and antisemitic tandems on the rise in Europe. Additionally, there are Ashkenazim (European Jews) that aren’t white in America (Drake, Lisa Bonet, Lenny Kravitz, Kat Graham, etc.) Conflating Jews with whiteness doesn’t only erase the large majority of non-white Jews and Jews of Color, but it also erases the complexity of Jewish ethnicity. This is why medievalpoc’s statements, such as “there are white Jewish people. and there are Jewish people of color," are wrong because not only because Jewish people aren’t white in Europe, secondly, not all Jews are white.
medievalpoc repeatedly states that they post what would read as non-white to a white American:
If Rashi looks white to a white American policymaker or educator, he will be included in the curricula.
If Blanche of Castile looks like a person of color to a white American policymaker or educator, she will be omitted.
If someone is not-white, whether they appear white or not they are NOT white. This is hugely gross because for one it erases light-pigmented non-white people and perpetuates the larger issue of white people claiming light-pigmentation as their own and erasing the narratives and identities of non-white peoples. For example, St. Augustine is sometimes depicted as what medievalpoc would consider “PoC,” and yet his Amazigh heritage is largely ignored and glossed over in mainstream white academia. The presence of “PoC” coded artwork doesn’t stop or negate white academic erasure of non-white people from the historical narrative. Furthermore, what is read as “PoC” to medievalpoc is subjective, and this is exemplified in their posts on the Bristol Psalter, an illuminated manuscript from Greece. Considering that Greek people created this manuscript, it’s highly likely that the manuscript depicts Greek persons. This shouldn’t be uprising, considering that Greek people can fit the range of features depicted in the manuscript. On another note, most Mediterranean people fit the range of features presented in the manuscript, including those from the Mashriq, which is what the manuscript actually depicts, considering characters from the Bible were of West Asian extraction. medievalpoc, however, ignores this, and calls King David “black”, to which I objected, because (1) It’s a Greek manuscript and Greeks and Mediterraneans can easily fit the depiction (2) regardless of how he is perceived, the character depicted is Levantine Jewish (3) racializing an ambiguous character as black, considering that medievalpoc is not black. Additionally, they say that they are “not in the business of telling Black people how to feel about any of my posts on constructions of Blackness" and yet they speak over me and tell me that they see an ambiguous character as black, and sarcastically nods me off for "disagreeing" and doesn’t continue to listen to me on why I, as a black person, take issue with their misconstrued racialization of painted figures.
I’m not going to comment on medievalpoc’s other blogs or their alleged fabricated ancestry (though the fact that they said most Rroma people passed as white even the most Rroma don’t pass for white and that Jews were “white” in Nazi Germany even though Nazi racism categorized Jews in the lower Semitic race, and that Rroma people couldn’t immigrate here without difficulty until the 60’s, when LBJ got rid of the quota acts, is super super fishy to me) — that’s something other people have done and are continuing to do.
I love the idea of promoting non-white narratives and identities in eras and regions where non-white people have been repressed, but medievalpoc has a lot of cleaning up to do before I consider them legitimate and well-rounded.
As one blogger stated:
POC is also a completely anachronistic term that really doesn’t apply to pre-modern time periods. and using it in the way medievalpoc does further cements the idea that being a POC is a matter of possessing certain phenotypical traits instead of being a racialized person who takes on a political identity for solidarity. [x]
Let’s not forget this and please be sensitive when talking about issues that are not your own.
(1) Madeleine McCann is British, not American.
(2) Drake is Canadian.
(3) Apparently what I wrote about the ethnic hierarchy in Italy is incorrect.
(4) *Aborigines* is a slur.
Each mistake I post here proves that no one has the all the puzzle pieces and how Americans are really ignorant about issues outside their own experiences.
There is a difference
between showing solidarity and support for oppressed people when they riot and pointing out that true violence comes from the ruling class, even saying that riots are a fine means of struggle in the context of mass social upheaval
advocating spontaneous riots and random vandalism as the core aspect of revolutionary strategy, above say, building organisations, uniting the class or building fucking counter-power.
Anonymous said: White people did build america though. They built the trains and railroads, blew up mountains in the way, basically everything. The only thing blacks did was pick cotton. Back then the couldnt be trusted with other jobs. Seriously, learn more about history before you start making false accusations.
LOL white people sat on their ass whipping brown people as they built america.
Seriously, all you have to do is google railroad workers and everything but white people come up. Just because white people OWNED the railroads doesn’t mean they did shit. Slaves did a hell of a lot more than pick cotton, and there were other brown people here other than black people who also built america. White people literally sailed to another continent to avoid doing work.
did anon really try that tho….
They really did
I mean it’s like I said: the only thing whites invented was how to steal credit for things someone else did.