Judy Blume & Dylan Mulvaney

[BabyofMine]

I think I just had some sort of revelation.
I’m actually furious. Maybe I’m overreacting but Judy Blume wrote a book called Are you There God? It’s me, Margaret in the 70s. My myself, and I bet many others of my era, it was the first time I ever read a book that depicted a girl going through puberty like me. It made me less afraid of periods, and growing breasts which I did precociously. It meant so much to me.

So there is a film adaptation coming out and I was ecstatic when I saw the news.

Just seen the first piece of promo apart from the trailer that I have come across - TikTok suggested it to me - and it’s a cosy little chat between Judy Blume the author and Dylan Mulvaney. Talking about what it’s like to be a girl, grow breasts and such…
Really, Judy fucking Blume? Why of all people would you choose to promote the movie, which I would presume would have a target audience of preteen and teen girls, with a person that will never go through female puberty, will never bleed between their legs like a girl, never has to worry about buying sanitary products, or a million other things girls worry about.

I’m sure they have their own many and varied things to worry about, and lots of experiences that might be great to share with their audience, but really?

I just feel like I’ve been pissed on from a great height. I may well be overreacting - forgive me, I’m due on.

@CremeEggQueen those examples, one of which was mine, are not saying what you are suggesting.

I'm really not sure why you struggle so much with basic comprehension.

So who is DM's target audience?

No idea. Certainly none of the teens I know think anything more positive of DM than an eye roll, and most think he is repulsive.

So who is DM's target audience?

American politicians and marketing execs?

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4785548-dylan-mulvaney-created-in-a-boardroom

Quotes this article, with input from someone in marketing:

https://savageminds.substack.com/p/rainbow-washing-women-out-of-existence

'My first theory is that CAA created Dylan to smash and grab during the Zeitgeist. Trans is the deflection du jour—especially since he is non-threatening on the surface. Tweens, his target, see him as asexual—he’s feminine with a lot of help'
...
'Nike and Bud Light probably find Dylan appealing as a one off, cheap and fast media PR stunt. He doesn’t form any of the major campaigns, he is limited to TikTok and other platforms that attract a younger audience. Plus, those channels expect the content to look user generated, so the production values are meant to be cheap to be relatable to the consumer. It’s win-win. Dylan has huge followers, Nike and Bud Light can attract a young audiences without have to pay big bucks. Dylan is cheap celebrity fodder with a big social media following. '

Are 'Tweens' DM's target audience? In that case, this interview makes sense, at least on paper. Tween girls are of course Judy Blume's target audience.

Not sure Beer should be targeting a young audience like that, but I guess they are learning their lesson.

Yes, if 'tweens' are the target audience then Bud Light was an odd choice. Perhaps they're just trying out various different audiences? Or maybe the outrage generated by one audience can feed the hype for a different audience?

I’m going to see the film anyway, it looks really good. I loved Margaret when I was 11.

That Mulvaney twerp isn’t going to ruin that for me.

What’s with his Mary Tyler Moore hairdo?

I watched an interesting youtube video recently, where the woman making it had been going through Dylan's insta to make a video about something else but had noticed that Dylan is obsessed with Audrey Hepburn and has been since before Dylan transitioned and so got sidetracked with a theory.

She reckons Dylan is not transitioning into any woman i.e "female" Dylan, but is literally trying to become Audrey Hepburn. Which is not sinister at all.

She reckons Dylan is not transitioning into any woman i.e "female" Dylan, but is literally trying to become Audrey Hepburn. Which is not sinister at all.

Most men who transition have a obsession with a particular women or a 'look' thats set in a particular time or fashion

The 60 year men who're pretending to be women in my town all look very 1980s. I bet the ones obsessed with anime now will still be dressed like Korean school girls when they are 60.

Something yo look forward too.

I think theres something to this. It makes no sense from a sales point of view - why alienate one market in the hope of gaining more approval from another. But its what Labour are doing when they say they dont want GC women voting for them.

So she's been put on the back foot with all of this. She is clear about freedom of speech and thought.... I think she equates some of the concerns about things like school books that have explicit content - drawings of oral sex, or telling kids how to hook up for sex online - with objections to her books. But the fact is that unless you want to say any sexual content, even pornography, is ok, there are lines somewhere that could be crossed.

I agree. Additionally, I think she's acting completely of her own free will without any pressure (but presumably with the delight and encouragement) of the film's PR team to distance herself from the Hadley Freeman interview where she was force-teamed to be aligned with JKR. I agree with her that her views on JKR were taken out of context, either by Hadley Freeman herself or the Times editor. I actually felt uncomfortable reading the article in relation to the headline. I've always valued Hadley Freeman's journalism on this subject but not on the specific point. From the way I read it, Judy Blume was empathising with an author who had been attacked for her views being misrepresented, not specifically commenting on the content of JKR's views.

So in short, an emotional knee-jerk reaction to the forced-teaming that was done by the Times article, combined with a) the passion that she attaches to information on puberty and adolescent discussions on sex being positive b) an ignorance on what is currently being shared with children in books, other media and schools in the spirit of "sex positivity" c) not taking any time to explore the nuances of all of this before speaking out.

The Spectator review of the film was a great read. Thanks for sharing@ArabeIIaScott Hopefully she'll read something like that at some point and snap her head back in to place on why it's ridiculous to indulge a transwoman on a "shared experiences" campaign to promote a film about female puberty.

I added a comment on her fan page outlining the above (including the fact that I thought she was misrepresented in the Times) and giving her a link to this thread if she's curious to know more. I can't imagine it'll get published on the page but a moderator will have to read it and it felt cathartic writing it 😂 She is being an utter numpty (sorry Judy if you're now reading this thread 😂) but that won't stop me watching the film. Judy Blume strikes me as a great critical thinker with a wealth of experience navigating and pushing for change against societal injustices on how girls and adolescents navigate the complexities of growing up. But everyone has a limit on how deeply they want to look in to any subject before they form an opinion. She's formed hers very quickly on this. Time will tell whether she wants to do any further looking or she's settled on it exactly where she is and that's that.

When I was about ten, I read Forever by Judy Blume. It's a propaganda piece written to promote underage sex to kids.

Judy Blume is a disgraceful woman. She's a groomer with a typewriter. I'm not surprised she's on board with the latest developments in transgenderism.

When we are looking at marketing, especially in the film industry, this is unlikely a decision made by the figureheads involved. All arranged by committee and quite probably scripted by committee, too.

Absolutely. I just think she agreed to it all completely of her own volition because of her emotional responses, without any introspection or deep understanding of the values she thinks she's upholding. That's why she's a numpty. A numpty that has written great books. If she'd disagreed with the marketing direction, I'm sure she could have vetoed it.

@AbsolutePixels I read Forever as a young teen and agree it was "promotional" regarding sex but the main character was 18 years old.

When I was about ten, I read Forever by Judy Blume. It's a propaganda piece written to promote underage sex to kids
Judy Blume is a disgraceful woman. She's a groomer with a typewriter.

Bloody hell. I remember reading it when I was around 12 I think, and it definitely didnt make me want to go out and have sex.
Like it or not though, a lot of young teenagers are starting to have feelings though.
Would you rather they stay ignorant and therefore vulnerable, or an age appropriate fiction book with characters they can identify with?

but the main character was 18 years old
Probably over 30 years since I read it as a young teen, so didnt realise was 18, point still stands though that it is s relatable book for many who may start to be questioning or having feelings for others. Whether they're say 13, 14, or 18

Lady Di's infamous see through skirt photograph seems to have inspired a lot of older gentlemen down our way.

@AbsolutePixels are you sure you read the same book as everyone else? No one in 'Forever' is underage.

Oh for god's sake. Just because you read a book before you were mature enough to deal with it doesn't make Judy Blume a groomer. She wrote a wide range of books about a variety of subjects for young people. Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing was for kids of around 9, Forever for around 14.

Everyone in Forever is of age, and the relationship doesn't last, despite the protagonist believing it will be "forever". She discovers she's wrong, and intense feelings in your teens doesn't translate to a fairytale ending.

Agreed. Same with films like Grease and Dirty Dancing. Sandra Dee was 18 in Grease and Baby was 17 in Dirty Dancing, but pretty much everyone watched those films when they were way younger.
It feels "relatable" or possibly "encouraging" for people who are way younger. I don't think it helps that everyone who acts in these films is way older than the characters they are playing so there is no point of reference for age. From memory, there isn't much/any age refenceable context in Forever either. But it's been a very long time since I read it too, so I can't remember the specifics.

Grease and Dirty Dancing go further, to effectively validate that girls are there for blokes to enjoy. From my memory of Forever, it wasn't about that at all and she concluded that the bloke and his Ralph could do one.

It was a issue with blumes books. It was easy to assume every book was aimed for the same age range. Superfudge was aimed at the very young, Forever much older.

But i remember Forever having a reputation before i even picked it up. Its probably why is many of us read it.

I remember Forever having a reputation before i even picked it up. Its probably why is many of us read it.

Same here. It was a "have you read it yet?" kind of book, even in the geek circles that I moved in.

Bloody hell. I remember reading it when I was around 12 I think, and it definitely didnt make me want to go out and have sex.

Same. Personally it reaffirmed my geekness.

Like it or not though, a lot of young teenagersarestarting to have feelings though.
Would you rather they stay ignorant and therefore vulnerable, or an age appropriate fiction book with characters they can identify with?

Agreed. However, there is a line. That's the difficult bit. Everyone's line is different and everyone's line is influenced by so many personal and external factors. My view is that Judy Blume hasn't taken the time or trouble to think that there is a threshold between her line and Dylan Mulvaney's. She's just jumped right in. I suspect we may disagree on that last point @CremeEggQueen , however I would say that if we do it's simply because each of us is aware that we can be in agreement on something up to a point. Each of us has no idea where the other person's line is until that gets explored in a conversation. I think Judy forgot that bit. She probably finds it odd that Dylan is talking about Dylan's own breast development journey but she's overlooking it because it's less effort (and less embarrassing, in the short term at least) to do that once you've already jumped right in.

The teenagers in Forever are 17 (the heroine passes 18 in the book), which is hardly underage, so the book does not promote underage sex at all (the age of consent in Europe ranges between 15 and 16 btw). I am too old to have read Judy Blume during puberty but it seems to me that knowing that others are going through the same experiences and the same dilemmas and embarrassments is a good thing. I don't know whether Blume supports transgenderism but that is her right if she does.

Jeez, the pressure on Rowling to be the last sane voice in this wilderness of Orwellian Let's Pretend.

I'd love to know if the PR wonks who thought this up would also have invited Jacob Rees-Mogg to discuss his experience of growing up black and female in the ganglands of the banlieues to promote the French film Girlhood?

I'd watch that.