This is so important! Some people may forget that the work an artist does is most likely not their full time job but also a "side project".

I wonder if crowdfunding platforms like Kickstarter and IndieGoGo are making this easier? Independent publishers can now find funding from potential audiences from all over the world.

It's easy to ask the questions, but it doesn't really matter unless you find, or try to find, answers for those questions-- and to then make it so those questions no longer need to be asked. And one way is for those who have privilege to use it in a way that helps answer those questions. I am reminded of our various readings and how people who have had the ability to have their voices heard used it to help others.

I wonder what they define as "published" as we have seen throughout the course, there are non-traditional/mainstream ways of publishing your work.

She says that they "don't usually show up" which means that on occasion, they do. Don't those who do have these traits at an older age deserve to have that representation too?

The danger of the "single story" where when a marginalized group is portrayed the same way in all of the mediums we consume, we start to believe that that is the correct representation.

I wonder what "comfortably ahead" looks like. Without the numbers to look at, "comfortably ahead" may not mean much at all.

While not the same, in an interview with NPR in 2013, Geena Davis (who does research on Gender in the Media) said that "if there's 17 percent women, the men in the group think it's 50-50. And if there's 33 percent women, the men perceive that as there being more women in the room than men."

Could this be applied to different marginalized groups then?

The Big Five are: Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins, Macmillian Publishers, Penguin Random House, and Simon and Schuster.

Simon and Schuster recently closed their digital imprint Crimson Romance which was the only publisher that published at least 25% books by authors of colour last year.

Could this cause issues though if the sensitivity readers work for the publisher? If a publisher gets final say, they could get final say with the sensitivity readers too. If your job is on the line, and the publisher wants to keep a certain "image" or audience, you might not flag as many things in fear that you could lose your job.

I wonder where the balance is. If she hadn't put much about the illness into the book, would the sensitivity readers then say there needs to be more?

I am reminded of the show "Fresh Off the Boat" as the real life Eddie Huang has distanced himself from the show saying in a tweet "I'm happy people of color are able to see a reflection of themselves through #FreshOffTheBoat on @ABCNetwork but I don't recognize it"

I think this relates back to earlier class discussions about allyship and telling stories about/for communities that you may not necessarily belong to.

I'm not sure I agree with this example/statement...Not all women who visit beauty salons will have the same interests. It also seems like an easy/stereotypical example to make about women being comic book readers. I know women who do read comics, but like the other article mentioned, comic books can portray women in sexualized ways or as the damsel in distress, and I wonder if this deters women from reading some of them? (Or maybe I'm reaching here...)

This is definitely true for video games I think, and it starts early -- the best example I think would be Princess Peach and Mario. While not the typical example, for decades Peach has always been in need of saving throughout each Mario game.

I have recently learned about a program "Ko-Fi". The program allows fans to "buy a coffee" for a creator that they like-- and the money given is a donation equivalent to the price of a coffee.

Despite the general belief that all have access, there is still the huge issue of the digital divide, even in major cities. There is also the current issue of Net Neutrality in the US.

This reminds me of zines and how some of them were simply given away and the creators sometimes rely/relied on crowdfunding in order to continue to create them. I feel like there are similarities between zines and podcasts and how they differ from the traditional/mainstream magazine and radio.

Podcast = "iPod" and "Broadcast". Interestingly, when you look up podcast on Wikipedia, there is a picture of the "Serial" podcast.

I wonder if people weren't just simply talking about it, and not talking about it "again". In 2004 the world wasn't as mobile as it was now, and I don't think podcasts were that popular as technology wasn't at the point where anyone could make one like now.

I'm not sure if these are put up by the creators or if they are just shared by readers, but this site has an archive of zines from all around the world. Some are links to blogs and some are scanned/digital versions of the physical "traditional" zine. It's amazing to see all the different topics and styles that people use, and from where they come from.

http://www.grassrootsfeminism.net/cms/sortable_node_list_digital_grass/134

As a reader, this would be super confusing. How would one know that it was the same zine/creators of the previous zine? If you kept changing titles, you wouldn't be able to keep your readers unless you were handing them out to each reader.

This seems like it would stop people from wanting to read zines, limiting one's audience even more. While I understand wanting to be different than the dominant/mainstream magazines, if your work isn't reader-friendly, how are you able to attract and retain an audience?

Questions - Based off of all three manifestos.

1. For the femme shark movement to say "F-- everything" and call for a type of chaotic disruption to the establishments, it reads like they have a lot of rules and contradictions. It can read as being intimidating and exclusionary while saying they are about inclusivity. They simply said to not be anorexic, to eat food and be fat but to also be body positive - so what about those who are naturally thin? Saying "fuck intersectionality, but be it". Do you think it's possible to reject the label while embracing the definition of intersectionality? What does this type of rejection/acceptance along with the contradictions in the manifesto do for their cause?

2. Do you think manifestos can be a successful way to communicate your cause, or does the genre only reach a niche audience? If there is no program offered to reach the better future the writer has envisioned, will people be motivated to change their behavior?

3. Is the reliance on metaphors and visual imagery an effective means of relaying an idea to an uninvolved audience? Would these manifestos be as powerful if they did not utilize hyperbole as much as they do? Which of the three did you find the most powerful and engaging, why?

I do think that this is really important, especially for marginalized groups. If you allow someone to tell their story, but alter it and don't put the effort into having it marketed and distributed on the same level as other stories, you aren't really allowing their story to be told. Having your voice heard in all stages allows one to speak up when they see that the work is receiving unfair treatment.

I think this is similar to to the first week's readings of literacy and slavery. It's important for groups, especially marginalized groups, to be able to tell their own stories. The Native Voice gave Indigenous people the ability to have their voice heard, no longer being spoken for by the dominant voice.

This paragraph reminded me of the conversation we had on Tuesday in class with how there can be a tendency to focus on a women's femininity instead of her accomplishments. While describing her appearance is interesting, I don't believe it was of importance.

How we use language can really be powerful, either to help or to harm certain populations.

We talked before about how a name can help you or hurt you, especially in publishing. Maisie was able to use both her given name and her less-formal name, switching between the two whenever it would benefit her.

Women have often journalism and publishing as a means to be politically involved when they were restricted from doing so on the front lines. I am reminded of the political climate today, and how while women may not be holding high positions of power in various industries (politics, hollywood, etc), they are taking to publishing to be seen and to have their voices heard.

It's really interesting, to read about how authors found ways around 'the rules', (even breaking some them with inspectors) to get their works published.

Being able to create and share your own stories, even if it's just to a small number of people in the beginning, can help to create change, especially when it comes to framing. We continue to see this now with POC creating their own media and sharing it, even if their audience is small.