Bad Art Friend

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On racism: I don't think it is accurate to say that Dorland experienced racism here. If you define racism as the combination of institutional power with bigoted beliefs based on race to harm, regardless of whether you believe white people can experience racism, I don't think Dorland experienced it. Now, I think there is possibly an interesting theoretical question about Gay and Ng and their use of their power, because they do have significant power and Gay at least seems to be open about displaying bigotry towards white women in particular (not men, which is another twist), but I don't see any real evidence of racism against Dawn in this scenario. In other words, I reject the theoretical narrative that POC cannot be racist, because POC with institutional power and bigoted beliefs that they act on to harm members of one race based on that power falls into the definition of racism, to my mind. However, because of the racist structure of white supremacy, I think racism against whites happens far less frequently. I'm not saying it can't happen, because I do think that POCs with institutional power can and do use race in bigoted ways, but that it happens much less often because of the larger and more overwhelming structures of white supremacy.

What happened in this situation instead is a grossly cynical misappropriation of the language of anti-racism to justify deeply classist and sexist behavior. Keep in mind that some of the worst actors here are white. Castellani, Murphy, Hennick, Scharer, Marzano-Lesnevich, most of the other Chunky Monkeys, and later Kolker and Rosner: they are all white. In fact, although Ng, Larson, and (later) Gay are POC, if you lay what happened to Dorland solely at their feet, that itself is a racist act, because some of the worst and most toxic people in this were white. Making what happened to Dorland into a racist act excuses the terrible behavior of the white people involved.

I've seen commentary elsewhere and there was some earlier in this thread about how a lot of contemporary DEI discourse is actually used in the service of preventing the solidarity of working class members. I think that's what is happening here: in-group members with significant power (Grub Street executives, literary establishment figures like Rosner, blue check authors like Gay, etc.) are weaponizing the language of anti-racism in the service of keeping a lower-class member from accessing power. Dorland's race in this view is just a mechanism for UMC and UC people with power to exercise deep classism.

Brava. Agree on all points.

+2 Great analysis

[Anonymous]

I feel like Sonya's philosophy of her own writing ends up better describing the terrible NYT article that would one day be written about her:
"Increasingly, I’m modeling my fiction on “the dress” photograph of 2015. My work is designed to be a Rorshacht test– to be that dress. It is meant to reveal our perception of a thing, on the most visceral of levels. My fiction is not to be read by yourself and then put down. It is to be debated among whole groups of people, to dig up and examine racial dynamics in our culture."
http://bostonvoyager.com/interview/meet-sonya-larson-sonya-larson-somerville-ma/

[Anonymous]

By centering so much of this conversation on Ng and Gay, we miss how many WOC have publicly acknowledged Dorland. One Twitter comment from a Black woman said early on, "I hate Sonya Larson because she made me side with an annoying white woman," which made me laugh. Some may have been more quiet. I checked the likes for some authors, and one prominent AAPI writer who is friends with Ng was liking tweets in favor of Dorland and kidney donation.

Ng and Gay are loud, but do not let them dominate the conversation, nor speak universally. If we are asking WOC to see that not all white women are the same, we also have to respect that not all Asian women are the same. Not all Black women are the same. While they certainly are happy to push buttons, both Ng and Gay are both married to white people, so I am fairly certain they see nuance. Maybe their online reactions stem from deep hurt; I know that Gay has had people ask weirdly about a chair size and someone assumed she was a maid at her own house - that's really shitty. While I think what Ng did was shitty, I also believe that she must be pretty sad/hurt for whatever reason to engage in such sustained vitriol. I also think it's fine to feel that they aren't your type, and that you won't buy books from them in the future. I've decided that myself. But, precisely because there are so many WOC voices out there. Someone pointed out the Mikki Kendall was tweeting favorably about Dorland, and if that makes you happy, then buy her book Hood Feminism (which is great and all white women should read). We need to help amplify the voices we want to hear!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dawn seems desperate and narcissistic; Larson seems cliquey and plagiaristic.

They both have their faults. One’s desperate for affection and validation, one’s just sort of cold.

Larson’s portrayal of Dawn as having White Savior Complex for donating a kidney seems misplaced and, almost a cliché or low hanging fruit, or is just wrong. But perhaps Larson’s upbringing as mixed race in a white community, and in the current era of racial reckoning or what have you, would have her instinctively posit that racial component to the donation. I don’t see where she used the kidney to gain racial points, but who knows.

I am a man writing this. Is this how women generally are to one another? Maybe it’s my sexism or sterotyping, but are women just mean to one another? If so, why? I’ve seen so much catty behavior over the years and this story is another example. Men are more straightforward with their interactions. I guess people view us as generally less emotionally nuanced, but Jesus, it seems better than sickly sweet backstabbing behavior like these two writers.

I am a woman. I made it to a pretty far professionally. I usually would rather deal with men than women but just minimally. You aren’t wrong that women are frequently mean to each other in this catty way. Men tend to be more direct…unless they can’t get their way. Then they will resort to mind games.

I think the people that engage in those types of behavior are exhibiting their feelings of powerlessness, whether real or perceived.

But anyways, most women experience sexual harassment in the workplace. Many women also endure mental abuse from male partners. Outside of direct assault or stalking, isn’t most of that behavior by men towards women essentially catty social tactics and mind games? Maybe you don’t witness men doing it as much because you’re male?

[Anonymous]

This thread about how a lot of the convo re: Dawn is actually misogynistic is really good IMHO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:By centering so much of this conversation on Ng and Gay, we miss how many WOC have publicly acknowledged Dorland. One Twitter comment from a Black woman said early on, "I hate Sonya Larson because she made me side with an annoying white woman," which made me laugh. Some may have been more quiet. I checked the likes for some authors, and one prominent AAPI writer who is friends with Ng was liking tweets in favor of Dorland and kidney donation.

Ng and Gay are loud, but do not let them dominate the conversation, nor speak universally. If we are asking WOC to see that not all white women are the same, we also have to respect that not all Asian women are the same. Not all Black women are the same. While they certainly are happy to push buttons, both Ng and Gay are both married to white people, so I am fairly certain they see nuance. Maybe their online reactions stem from deep hurt; I know that Gay has had people ask weirdly about a chair size and someone assumed she was a maid at her own house - that's really shitty. While I think what Ng did was shitty, I also believe that she must be pretty sad/hurt for whatever reason to engage in such sustained vitriol. I also think it's fine to feel that they aren't your type, and that you won't buy books from them in the future. I've decided that myself. But, precisely because there are so many WOC voices out there. Someone pointed out the Mikki Kendall was tweeting favorably about Dorland, and if that makes you happy, then buy her book Hood Feminism (which is great and all white women should read). We need to help amplify the voices we want to hear!

I'm the PP that wrote the "on racism" post above and I agree with most* of this, especially the endorsement of Mikki Kendall. Hood Feminism is a terrific book. I also now admire Kendall's strength of character even more: early on, very early on, she broke apart from the rest of the blue checks on this matter

And let's be absolutely clear on this: it is flat-out racist to treat WOC as a monolith. I'm never buying a book from Ng or Gay again, but I will also never buy a book by Castellani or Kolker again either (and I am an avid consumer of books). Centering this on Ng and Gay (and especially Gay since she was only secondarily involved as far as we know now) without including Castellani, Kolker, Murphy, Cheek, Scharer, etc. is itself a racist approach.

* I don't agree with the part about Ng and Gay's hurt, not that I think it isn't possibly true, but because it is speculative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dawn seems desperate and narcissistic; Larson seems cliquey and plagiaristic.

They both have their faults. One’s desperate for affection and validation, one’s just sort of cold.

Larson’s portrayal of Dawn as having White Savior Complex for donating a kidney seems misplaced and, almost a cliché or low hanging fruit, or is just wrong. But perhaps Larson’s upbringing as mixed race in a white community, and in the current era of racial reckoning or what have you, would have her instinctively posit that racial component to the donation. I don’t see where she used the kidney to gain racial points, but who knows.

I am a man writing this. Is this how women generally are to one another? Maybe it’s my sexism or sterotyping, but are women just mean to one another? If so, why? I’ve seen so much catty behavior over the years and this story is another example. Men are more straightforward with their interactions. I guess people view us as generally less emotionally nuanced, but Jesus, it seems better than sickly sweet backstabbing behavior like these two writers.

I am a woman. I made it to a pretty far professionally. I usually would rather deal with men than women but just minimally. You aren’t wrong that women are frequently mean to each other in this catty way. Men tend to be more direct…unless they can’t get their way. Then they will resort to mind games.

I think the people that engage in those types of behavior are exhibiting their feelings of powerlessness, whether real or perceived.

But anyways, most women experience sexual harassment in the workplace. Many women also endure mental abuse from male partners. Outside of direct assault or stalking, isn’t most of that behavior by men towards women essentially catty social tactics and mind games? Maybe you don’t witness men doing it as much because you’re male?

The entire framing of this dispute as a catty catfight is deeply misogynist and sexist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you to the PP around page 80 who provided the timeline. I will admit to being on Team Larsen before I came to this thread.

I am furious at the NYT. Can someone please write a letter to the NYT about this?

That's the infuriating thing about the article. The use of virulent sexist and classist tropes to turn what actually is a fairly straightforward factual situation into a wildly inaccurate and demeaning catfight between two women is a horrifying misuse of the editorial power of the NYT. I'm obviously never buying anything by Kolker again, as I'd never trust the truth of his narrative, but I'm not sure I can ever trust the NYT again. I looked up the cost of subscriptions to the WSJ this morning, God help me, because when I opened my NYT app to read this morning, I realized I didn't trust a single story. What good does the subscription do me?

What about an open letter/petition style letter ? Would anyone agree to author it and post a link for the rest of us to sign? Because I would sign it. I feel like one of the posters of the timeline or the truly gifted writers posting here should write it. But I will sign onto this. Maybe kidneygate could post it on her/his Twitter as well. I do absolutely think NYT should be held accountable. Otherwise they’ve seen it as a success. So many clicks - would be easy for them to view this as successfully driving “engagement”.

[Anonymous]

Re Mikki Kendall: she was one of the blue check writers that early on promoted the (non-blue-check) kidneygate account that has been exhaustively documenting the facts, as laid out in the discovery evidence. She is one of the reasons that account -- which has since become widely read -- got traction on Twitter.

And Kendall was very early in siding with Dawn. She showed courage early on when other blue checks were hiding, and then doubled down over the following days, for instance the below Tweet (it is a whole thread):

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dawn seems desperate and narcissistic; Larson seems cliquey and plagiaristic.

They both have their faults. One’s desperate for affection and validation, one’s just sort of cold.

Larson’s portrayal of Dawn as having White Savior Complex for donating a kidney seems misplaced and, almost a cliché or low hanging fruit, or is just wrong. But perhaps Larson’s upbringing as mixed race in a white community, and in the current era of racial reckoning or what have you, would have her instinctively posit that racial component to the donation. I don’t see where she used the kidney to gain racial points, but who knows.

I am a man writing this. Is this how women generally are to one another? Maybe it’s my sexism or sterotyping, but are women just mean to one another? If so, why? I’ve seen so much catty behavior over the years and this story is another example. Men are more straightforward with their interactions. I guess people view us as generally less emotionally nuanced, but Jesus, it seems better than sickly sweet backstabbing behavior like these two writers.

I am a woman. I made it to a pretty far professionally. I usually would rather deal with men than women but just minimally. You aren’t wrong that women are frequently mean to each other in this catty way. Men tend to be more direct…unless they can’t get their way. Then they will resort to mind games.

I think the people that engage in those types of behavior are exhibiting their feelings of powerlessness, whether real or perceived.

But anyways, most women experience sexual harassment in the workplace. Many women also endure mental abuse from male partners. Outside of direct assault or stalking, isn’t most of that behavior by men towards women essentially catty social tactics and mind games? Maybe you don’t witness men doing it as much because you’re male?

The entire framing of this dispute as a catty catfight is deeply misogynist and sexist.

The fact that the NY Times and Kolker haven't addressed this feels like being sexually assaulted and not believed. Again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:By centering so much of this conversation on Ng and Gay, we miss how many WOC have publicly acknowledged Dorland. One Twitter comment from a Black woman said early on, "I hate Sonya Larson because she made me side with an annoying white woman," which made me laugh. Some may have been more quiet. I checked the likes for some authors, and one prominent AAPI writer who is friends with Ng was liking tweets in favor of Dorland and kidney donation.

Ng and Gay are loud, but do not let them dominate the conversation, nor speak universally. If we are asking WOC to see that not all white women are the same, we also have to respect that not all Asian women are the same. Not all Black women are the same. While they certainly are happy to push buttons, both Ng and Gay are both married to white people, so I am fairly certain they see nuance. Maybe their online reactions stem from deep hurt; I know that Gay has had people ask weirdly about a chair size and someone assumed she was a maid at her own house - that's really shitty. While I think what Ng did was shitty, I also believe that she must be pretty sad/hurt for whatever reason to engage in such sustained vitriol. I also think it's fine to feel that they aren't your type, and that you won't buy books from them in the future. I've decided that myself. But, precisely because there are so many WOC voices out there. Someone pointed out the Mikki Kendall was tweeting favorably about Dorland, and if that makes you happy, then buy her book Hood Feminism (which is great and all white women should read). We need to help amplify the voices we want to hear!

I’m sorry, is that bigoted response supposed to help your argument here? If you changed the race on that statement all hell would break loose. There’s the open bigotry of the oppressed. No wonder white people don’t want to give up their power. Because all humans are the same, we’re all bigoted and will give as good as we get if we have the power. If you don’t want to be talked about that way, don’t talk about others that way. Hateful AF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you to the PP around page 80 who provided the timeline. I will admit to being on Team Larsen before I came to this thread.

I am furious at the NYT. Can someone please write a letter to the NYT about this?

That's the infuriating thing about the article. The use of virulent sexist and classist tropes to turn what actually is a fairly straightforward factual situation into a wildly inaccurate and demeaning catfight between two women is a horrifying misuse of the editorial power of the NYT. I'm obviously never buying anything by Kolker again, as I'd never trust the truth of his narrative, but I'm not sure I can ever trust the NYT again. I looked up the cost of subscriptions to the WSJ this morning, God help me, because when I opened my NYT app to read this morning, I realized I didn't trust a single story. What good does the subscription do me?

What about an open letter/petition style letter ? Would anyone agree to author it and post a link for the rest of us to sign? Because I would sign it. I feel like one of the posters of the timeline or the truly gifted writers posting here should write it. But I will sign onto this. Maybe kidneygate could post it on her/his Twitter as well. I do absolutely think NYT should be held accountable. Otherwise they’ve seen it as a success. So many clicks - would be easy for them to view this as successfully driving “engagement”.

I would sign. I'm deeply disappointed in the NYT for misrepresenting the facts and the timeline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dawn seems desperate and narcissistic; Larson seems cliquey and plagiaristic.

They both have their faults. One’s desperate for affection and validation, one’s just sort of cold.

Larson’s portrayal of Dawn as having White Savior Complex for donating a kidney seems misplaced and, almost a cliché or low hanging fruit, or is just wrong. But perhaps Larson’s upbringing as mixed race in a white community, and in the current era of racial reckoning or what have you, would have her instinctively posit that racial component to the donation. I don’t see where she used the kidney to gain racial points, but who knows.

I am a man writing this. Is this how women generally are to one another? Maybe it’s my sexism or sterotyping, but are women just mean to one another? If so, why? I’ve seen so much catty behavior over the years and this story is another example. Men are more straightforward with their interactions. I guess people view us as generally less emotionally nuanced, but Jesus, it seems better than sickly sweet backstabbing behavior like these two writers.

I am a woman. I made it to a pretty far professionally. I usually would rather deal with men than women but just minimally. You aren’t wrong that women are frequently mean to each other in this catty way. Men tend to be more direct…unless they can’t get their way. Then they will resort to mind games.

I think the people that engage in those types of behavior are exhibiting their feelings of powerlessness, whether real or perceived.

But anyways, most women experience sexual harassment in the workplace. Many women also endure mental abuse from male partners. Outside of direct assault or stalking, isn’t most of that behavior by men towards women essentially catty social tactics and mind games? Maybe you don’t witness men doing it as much because you’re male?

The entire framing of this dispute as a catty catfight is deeply misogynist and sexist.

The fact that the NY Times and Kolker haven't addressed this feels like being sexually assaulted and not believed. Again.

As a fellow sexual assault survivor, I get you. I'm appalled at the institutions here: the NYT and GrubStreet. Without the weight of their institutional power, this would not have happened.

And of course, because we know abuse never happens in a vaccuum, what else has been handled this way? What other complaints did GrubStreet torpedo? What other abuses were condoned -- in fact encouraged by executive management -- at GrubStreet? The NYT writes about vulnerable people: which of their stories have been twisted? What stories have been inaccurate and slanted? Whose lives have been turned upside down because of unethical reporting? What's unusual here is only the discovery, so there is factual evidence to contradict the NYT reporting. But what about NYT stories where we can't collectively fact-check the NYT? What of the NYT reporting can we actually trust? Any of it?

I think it is a real misstep to lay this at the feet of Larson alone, or even Larson and the Chunky Monkeys. The worst actors here are the institutions with power that they used in immoral and unethical ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By centering so much of this conversation on Ng and Gay, we miss how many WOC have publicly acknowledged Dorland. One Twitter comment from a Black woman said early on, "I hate Sonya Larson because she made me side with an annoying white woman," which made me laugh. Some may have been more quiet. I checked the likes for some authors, and one prominent AAPI writer who is friends with Ng was liking tweets in favor of Dorland and kidney donation.

Ng and Gay are loud, but do not let them dominate the conversation, nor speak universally. If we are asking WOC to see that not all white women are the same, we also have to respect that not all Asian women are the same. Not all Black women are the same. While they certainly are happy to push buttons, both Ng and Gay are both married to white people, so I am fairly certain they see nuance. Maybe their online reactions stem from deep hurt; I know that Gay has had people ask weirdly about a chair size and someone assumed she was a maid at her own house - that's really shitty. While I think what Ng did was shitty, I also believe that she must be pretty sad/hurt for whatever reason to engage in such sustained vitriol. I also think it's fine to feel that they aren't your type, and that you won't buy books from them in the future. I've decided that myself. But, precisely because there are so many WOC voices out there. Someone pointed out the Mikki Kendall was tweeting favorably about Dorland, and if that makes you happy, then buy her book Hood Feminism (which is great and all white women should read). We need to help amplify the voices we want to hear!

I’m sorry, is that bigoted response supposed to help your argument here? If you changed the race on that statement all hell would break loose. There’s the open bigotry of the oppressed. No wonder white people don’t want to give up their power. Because all humans are the same, we’re all bigoted and will give as good as we get if we have the power. If you don’t want to be talked about that way, don’t talk about others that way. Hateful AF.

Please read Hood Feminism and get back to me.

[Anonymous]

PP above, I agree with this. Grub Street has to fire the CMs who participated in the abusive chats, revamp HR, hire an ombudsman, and have public results of an investigation. The Times will never fix their culture, ever. Post Judith Miller, the Times unofficial posture is, “don’t hate us because we’re beautiful.”