Every single one of these posts is meant to be a masterlist of books that pertain to a certain identity. They are periodically updated as new books come out or are brought to my attention, so don’t hesitate to check back. Race & Ethnicity representation Books with Black main characters. Books with latinx main characters. Books with Native/Indigenous main characters. Books by South Asian authors.192 books Books by East and South East Asian authors. 432 books Books with north african and middle eastern representation. Books written by Pacific Islanders. LGBTQIAP+ representation Books with bisexual main characters. Books with pansexual main characters. Books with main f/f relationships.430 books Books with transgender and/or non-binary main characters. Books with aro-spec main characters. Books with ace-spectrum nain characters. Disability & Neurodiversity representation Books with anxiety representation. Books with depression representation. Other Books by Muslim authors.
Of those 2,600-plus “elites,” the vast majority are journalists, pundits, or news organizations…
If you’re not following at least one of those accounts, your Twitter use is likely bereft of news, not just political news.
🤔 They clearly don’t follow a lot of artists, writers, activists or academics if they think you see no news or politics without expressly following news accounts. I saw just one person I follow on the list but would not characterize my feed as apolitical 😂 Authors have been extremely vocal about reproductive rights and politically motivated book bans. Queer and disabled people call out problems constantly.
In our case, 59.6% of a random sample of users (856,853 of 1,437,774) were insufficiently politically interested to follow the accounts of the president, key senators, or major news media organizations.
I’m not sure you can draw the conclusion someone isn’t interested in politics because they don’t follow national level politicians or large news organizations on social media. For example, I’m more interested in local, county, and state level happenings than national policies totally beyond my influence, so I follow local policy advocates to learn about housing issues and bike infrastructure in my community. I can’t imagine I’m the only one who’s turned my attention and energy away from the national level, to my community.
Another facet is feeling unrepresented by politics at a national level. The national Democratic party is filled with old, out of touch, ineffective and spineless naifs who will fiddle us into fascism while conservatives chortle. I have little patience for moderate Democrats who are afraid to piss off racists, sexists, fascists, and homophobes. I’d wager many other progressives are likewise fed up.
I also think it’s not unreasonable that people might choose to use social media for entertainment and get their news and politics elsewhere.
Moreover, while they call this finding bleak, I’m not sure it’s such a bad thing to be disconnected from the ugliness of political spin. Frankly I consider politicians to be a terrible source for political information. The two major parties have become so antagonistic, it seems that every single thing the other side does must be condemned, even if it’s helping supply infant formula during a shortage 🤦♀️ (That certainly dragged the idiot politicians and pundits who have never talked to a mother in their life out of the woodwork 👀 I don’t have kids and I know that not all babies latch! Among the many other reasons “just breastfeed” isn’t a valid response.) The news often becomes an elitist form of entertainment that doesn’t necessarily inform action, but spurs hopelessness or anxiety.
Somehow it’s this minority of people that do follow politicians and news organizations who are driving the vast majority of the nasty political discourse on Twitter? If so, they’re doing enough damage to our political division as it is. We hardly need to feed more people with The Discourse of the day.
There’s also a large grey area between an Offensive Stereotype and “thing that can be misconstrued as a stereotype if one uses a particularly reductive lens of interpretation that the text itself is not endorsing”
And at the end of the day it all boils down to how people see marginalized characters as Representation™ first and narrative tools created to tell good stories later, if at all. White/ straight characters get to be evaluated on how entertaining and tridimensional they are, whereas minority characters get to be evaluated on how well they’d fit into an after school special. Fuck this shit.
I saw this list of life-changing books, and couldn’t help but notice the comparative lack of women on the list, even when it came to fiction. Of more than 70 titles, a mere 7 were by women (2 of those co-authored with men, and 1 was a biography about a man). Less than ten percent.
I don’t want to pick on the author of the list, because I see this happen time and again. I’m sure it wasn’t intentional. He may yet be unaware. But it makes me wonder where this deficiency starts:
- from a lack of women in the literature of habits and productivity (I feel like I have noticed this since starting to seek out female voices in this sphere) – and is this due to publisher gatekeeping or author self-selection in what they write about?
- from different marketing angles used to sell women’s works in those genres – do men read Gretchen Rubin and Laura Vanderkam or are they marketed to a female audience? (Not that I would necessarily include their books but they’re the biggest women’s names I can think of in the genre) Or a real, different way in which women write about these things? Are women writing in this field for women, perhaps specifically speaking to mothers? Or writing in an emotional way that conflicts with traditional masculinity respected in the business community?
- or a cascading succession of best of lists created by people who decided what was worth reading from older lists that centered male authors? Does more effort need to be taken to seek out other voices?
I think this is just a sign of how important it is to be conscious of who we are reading in addition to what. Men and women, Black and white, straight and queer, cis and trans, disabled and neurodiverse as well as able-bodied and neurotypical. Because I can’t believe that women only have ten percent of the wisdom to share.