starfire11: (Mira)
I think I've figured out the solution. Or at least a sort of one.

It is actually perfectly fine if Hawkeye looks like he's doing a sexy pose when he's transposed into the pose of the female character. Guys can do sexy poses. Guys can be sexy and be silly and be enticing and seductive. Unlike certain beliefs of morons on the Internet, "sexiness" is not a strictly "female" attribute. It's even fine if the clothing he uses is obviously there to show off "teh sexy" and so on. There is no problem with that.

This actually promotes the cause. With Hawkeye, rather than a woman, you can see that the pose (ignoring anatomical impossibilities, discomforts, and action failures) is made to make the character look sexy. It is most likely impractical as a fighting pose. These are poses you would probably see from someone trying to attract the attention of someone else, typically in the search for sex or money. Just look at what strippers do: all of that movement may require a lot of dexterity and body strength, but most of their poses are very open and would not help them in a fight or if they were attacked. Or look at what happens when people try to be cute and play "sexy" with others - they leave themselves very open and typically get surprised if there's backlash. This is not what you want in a fight. You want to be ready for anything and you want to present a show of strength. If you want to hide your strength, then typically you keep a calm pose, not an exposed one. When I look at the Initiative and say a pose looks "stupid", I don't mean that "ew, why is a guy doing that pose?" I mean "are you TRYING to get yourself killed by those eight people pointing guns at you while you pose sexily in the foreground and face the completely wrong direction?" The Initiative is hopefully helping people realize that these poses are not only not strong, but also dangerous for the character in quesiton. There's a BIG difference between an experienced fighter taking down an enemy and having fun while doing so because of the adrenaline, the distraction, or whatever, and an idiot orgasming and making out with their foes in the middle of combat and choosing to show off 'teh sexy' rather than try to SURVIVE the battle.

The point of the Hawkeye Initiative is not to laugh at how stupid a guy looks in thongs or when he's showing off his butt. The point is to completely trash the argument that purely sexy poses/sex imitation poses a) make women look strong, b) are THE strong pose for women, and c) form the majority of female fight sequences. It is also to show how impractical certain costumes are for women. If they're impractical on a guy, then they are certainly impractical on a woman. Yeah, both can look REALLY good in them. They can look REALLY sexy in them. But if this were real, they would be complete numbskulls to choose to fight in them. Not because "that's something a woman should wear, not a guy", but because of problems like 1) lack of protection (boob windows/short shirts that don't cover the stomach, short sleeves, no sleeves, thin cloth rather than light/heavy armor, short shorts, miniskirts), 2) bright colors/designs that make you a target, 3) random bits that get in the way/weigh you down during a fight or when you have to move (extra-long hair, useless metal bits), 4) costume bits that actually could/do hurt the wearer (high heels, thongs), and 5) costume bits that make no sense in the environment in question (bikinis in the Arctic, thongs just about anywhere, dresses on a character who runs for a living).

When I look at the Initiative and I see a guy in heels, I'm not shaking my head because I think "ew, a guy in heels!" I'm shaking my head because I hope people out there who think it's practical for women to fight and patrol and move around a lot of area in high heels are seeing this image and realizing "wow, that looks really impractical and he probably has trouble walking in those." People are so used to the image of a woman in heels that they don't seem to consider the pain involved there - one of the sacrifices for what our culture considers beauty to be. They think "gee, I like women in heels", and then don't stop to consider what women who are ACTUALLY involved in combat wear. They just want the fantasy, which they think is the same for everyone.

When I look at the Initiative and I see a guy in a thong, firstly, my sexometer is going off. Secondly, I can see how impractical it is for him in the same stance. He would not fight that way, because unless he's invulnerable (or happens to the Thing, the Hulk, Luke Cage, Captain Marvel, or Superman), he's exposing most of his body to enemy fire, and he's going to be in a lot of pain when he tries to move around. Why would a woman do so? We wear bras, carry tampons and sanitary napkins around with us and take birth control pills for a living. Why would our gut reaction when we're throwing ourselves into a dangerous situation be to EXPOSE ourselves?

People who think that is a woman's reaction need to remember this: there's a BIG difference between Clark Kent taking off his glasses to become Superman, and Starfire wearing spray-on lines to fight in.

Argo

Oct. 15th, 2012 02:07 am
starfire11: (Default)
Argo was a very good movie, actually. I think it's shit that they felt the need to shit on the contribution of the Canadians (wtf Ben Affleck and Co.) and I'm sure it pissed off the Iranians, but I still enjoyed it.

I have a lot of luck with movies my mom picks that I'm either not aware of or not really into beforehand. "The Queen", "Argo", "Pride and Prejudice" (the TV series), "Out of Africa", "The King's Speech"... and so on.

I'm very annoyed. Well, sort of. On the one hand, I did read a lot of "Bleak House" today. On the other, I'm just behind where I should have STARTED for today.

I also don't have an English version of "Cradle of Stars" (Kiddy Grade) and cannot find one, even though I would really like one.

I still have to write a journal article, my workshop story and my hangman Computer Science project. I don't really know if it's worthwhile to re-do my homework 3, especially since I don't know what went wrong with it and the things he wanted us to run through them never got to my email for some reason.

But I have finished the Irish plays, read the school newspaper, gone over the two workshop stories I do have and read a lot of "Bleak House"... sort of. Plus, I've been running through ideas for the stor(ies) in my head.

I really want to and don't want to write this article. I have no idea how to write it.

On the other hand, I'm REALLY tempted to write something on gender roles at school.

In two classes now, several students have presented gender roles as if they're established fact, everywhere, which obviously isn't true and for some reason no one takes umbridge to this, other than friends and I outside of class. In one class, a girl took issue with the fact that the male protagonist was effeminate, in relation to the fact that the protagonist's sex is not identified until page two or three. Three classmates then proceeded to suggest ways to get around this: make him do stereotypically heterosexual masculine things. When I suggested "Just start with 'My name is Alvin, and I like the beach because blah' (which is basically how her story started, minus the name) and then move on", people laughed. I like making people laugh and I'm glad no one openly disapproved, but I mean COME ON! Yeah, I was a little confused about who or what was specifically talking (was it a kid, an adult, a man, a woman, a disembodied narrator?), but I didn't care all that much and I wasn't so desperate to identify who it was that I had to pick one sex over another. You get the guy's name out there, BAM, you know it's a guy (unless told otherwise, which we weren't) and you don't have to change the character. I don't see Alvin doing the ridiculous stereotyped things they suggested. I do not want her to change the character like that. I think he's fine as he is. The only person doing something wrong in relation to his being marginally "effeminate" is his accuser, the moron in our class who has this obsession with fitting men and women into specific little gender role boxes.

I find it amusing that "I'm" the conservative Jew and she's the reform Jew and yet "I'm" apparently the more liberal, at least when it comes to gender discussion.

Every time she does this she acts like it's a BIG. ASS. SHOCKER. Her reaction was like this: "OMG, he was just SO effeminate! Wasn't that WEIRD?"

Wow. The guy acts like he walked out of the Romantic Period and he's automatically homosexual to you, Miss I Walk And Breathe Stereotypes.

So he likes the beach. So he notices his surroundings. The only reason the narration before he gave his name didn't seem "masculine" was because it was lacking action, crassness and/or references to women as sexual objects. I mean, seriously? Seems like a person I'd want to be friends with over some of the guys I know who like spitting on the ground, punching walls and laughing when sexism is brought up in discussion.

Note, we never learn his sexuality. He shows what might POSSIBLY be a slightly attraction to the other character: Orelia. A slight something that's never really explained. But it's not really sexual or romantic and we don't really know what their relationship is going to be after the story ends. It never really turns into anything other than friendship, as far as we're aware. The author could have easily explained away Alvin's personality by using sexuality stereotypes. "Oh, he's just gay." "Oh, he's bi." "Oh, he's asexual". She could have.

But she didn't. I don't know whether it was purposeful or not, but she didn't.

And I am so tired of people sticking people into these boxes. I sat in the car with a friend while driving back from wherever it was that we went together and she was talking to me about her "gay friend in denial". I asked her why she thought he was gay and she told me about his clothing choices and the type of water bottles he drank from.

...

I asked her if she had any other evidence. Like did he comment on the attractiveness of men or did he have a boyfriend or was he not interested in women or something?

She repeated the clothing choices.

I tried to explain that clothing choices don't make you anything. Well, other than a member of the KKK or MAYBE Muslim, I suppose, but people can wear head scarves and not be Muslim.

She didn't believe me.

I RESPECT this friend. I LIKE this friend. I MISS this friend. But I think of this conversation and I just cringe.

Heck, I even liked Miss Moron until I realized that this was a thing with her.

I kind of liked the other guy who does this until I realized that... well, there are a number of issues with him. Besides the fact that he never shuts up.

My issue with gender roles comes from what I know and experience. Yes, people need to be aware of the way our society and different societies reinforce them. They deserve studying. The media's portrayal and reinforcement of them deserves studying.

But forcing them on others because that is the way you view the world is ridiculous. If a writer wants to write about a guy who's a nature lover and not a skirt chaser, then I say by all means.

You know who's bought feminine hygiene products and taken my sister to Victoria's Secret when she wanted nice underwear? My Dad.

You know who makes more money from their job? My Mom.

You know who likes Enya and New Age music? My Dad.

You know who likes the supernatural, horror and ghost hunter shows? My Mom.

My parents are both computer engineers. They both scuba dive. They both cook and bake and do it well.

And you know what? I liked barbies. I liked barbies for a long time. I liked Polly Pockets. I listened to Britney Spears, the Backstreet Boys and N'Sync (admittedly, only one CD), and thought that was good. When I was little, of course, and didn't know what good music was. I also watched and read "Sailor Moon" and thought it was amazing. Before I knew what good art and story was.

You know what I also liked from a young age? "Gladiator", 3rd Grade (eight years old). "The Last Samurai", 6th Grade (eleven years old). "The Mummy Returns" 5th Grade (ten years old). I liked "Ronin Warriors" from when it aired on Toonami when I was in 2nd or 3rd grade. I watched the 1984 film version of "Dune" on laser disc many a time when I was in Elementary School and beyond (age seven and earlier). I watched the mini-series when it premiered on TV in 2nd grade. I ADORED it. It was the first soundtrack I fell in love with when I didn't even know what that really meant. It was the first series that made me love specific actors and voice actors before I knew what that meant. In 5th grade I waited with bated breath for and watched the premier of its sequel: "Children of Dune", in the hopes that it would be just as good. It was good, too. I grew up watching "Doctor Who" on laser disc. Dad started collecting the old series episodes on DVD LONG before Christopher Eccleston showed up in 2005 (7th grade, age 12) as the 9th Doctor. We were prepared for the new show beforehand. I was skeptical. He was anxious. We were surprised and pleased when we saw what it was.

My most-read manga genre is shounen. My favorite manga is "Rurouni Kenshin", hands down. I started reading the swords-manga in 4th or 5th grade when I realized that I wanted to get into mange because a) I like books and b) the anime looked cool on Adult Swim. I picked up volume 1 in the bookstore of the University of Maryland. I was immediately hooked.

Of the three serial manga I read, "Bleach" is my favorite, due to the preponderance of bishounen and the beautiful art. "xxxHolic" is probably my second-favorite manga, followed by "Fullmetal Alchemist", "Buso Renkin", "Fruits Basket", "Sailor Moon", "Ranma 1/2" and then "Flame of Recca".

I think pink is an okay color, but it's not my favorite. It's too bright for some of my moods. Cerulean blue is my favorite color. I always kept and never used the Cerulean crayon because I didn't want to run out and it was so pretty. I like country, rock, heavy metal, folk, new age, classical and electronic music, but I have far more soundtracks and Musical CDs than anything else. My favorite artists are composers, not singers and not bands: Joe Hisaishi, Hanz Zimmer, Yoko Kanno, Yuki Kajiura, and Vivaldi. Enya also possibly wins out, but that's a slight thing. She's like everyone else out there: after a time, it's all the same sound. Big Bang also fits into this category.

I like action-adventure books and webcomics. Currently, I'm watching the on-going series "Supernatural" (sorta), "Sherlock", "Doctor Who", "Young Justice" (fav), "Legend of Korra", and "Once Upon a Time" (eh). I'm reading two hard SF books and an assorted number of high fantasy books, as well as an autobiography from WW2, the fourth "Wizard of Oz" book, and a thesis about the Holocaust, Judaism, Christianity, social theory, politics, perception, religion and so many other things.

My desk bookshelf features "Howl's Moving Castle" (fav book), next to "Macbeth", three hard SF books, a Steven Brust (high fantasy) omnibus, some "Gargoyles" comics, an "Avatar: The Last Airbender" comic and an assorted group  of manga. My Chris Hemsworth Thor bobble-head stands beside my Black Knight sans limbs bobble-head, a Pocahontas action figure and three Pokemon action figures.

I am good at cooking. I do not do it often. I do not necessarily enjoy it. When I have a choice, I weigh the pros and cons: "Is it worth having to prepare and clean up after, as well as wait for it to get done?" Typically it's not. I do not hate gardening, but neither do I like it. I do not dislike sewing, but neither do I like it, nor am I necessarily good at it. I like singing. I have, like many, a special relationship with God (not that I'm better than others, but that I approach religion in my own way). I like cats and dogs, but now prefer cats because they require less maintenance. I play computer games, and play WoW rather well. I write fantasy. I enjoy swimming and soccer. I'm okay wearing a dress or skirt but I prefer pants. Heels make me look better but non-heels are more comfortable and practical. I do not enjoy putting on make-up or fixing up my hair. I hate clothes shopping because it takes forever, women's clothes are too flimsy and pricey and nothing really nice fits me anyway.

When I was little I wanted to be a mixed version of Superman and Pocahontas from Disney's "Pocahontas", with Ariel's hair from "The Little Mermaid", AndrAI's body from "ReBoot" and Bell's fashion sense from "Beauty and the Beast". I wanted Morticia's personality from "The Addams Family" and Velma's sense of humor from "Scooby-Doo", as well as her intelligence. I also wanted Sailor Jupiter's fighting abilities. When the Ridley Scott "Spider-Man" film came out in 2002, I wanted to be Spider-Man and that was it. When the "Justice League" TV series aired in 2001, I wanted to be Wonder Woman.

People are not what gender stereotypes you label them with. People are complex and weird and surprising and interesting and amazing and disappointing, but you need to find that out for yourself. Don't fit people into boxes.
starfire11: (Default)
Like a lot.

So some things have happened. Unimportant things, as usual.

I finished "FLCL", which was... interesting. I really like one of the songs in it, so that was nice, but, well... I don't see it as rewatchable (at least for me). I mean it was funny and presenting some interesting points, but, well... eh.

After discussion we watched this OVA called "Ultimate Teacher" which was... really, really awful and just... I mean, part of what they did was rip off the Wolverine story and it was made more amusing because the guy who voiced the 80s Wolverine from the TV show voiced the parody Wolverine character... and I bet he thought this whole thing was rather hilarious. I hope he had fun.

I read the first volume of "Sailor V"! And that was, well... it was better than I expected. Interestingly, Takeuchi continued writing the "Sailor V" story until (it appears) the end of the syndication of Sailor Moon. Which explains some of the artwork and the way the storyline ran as you get further from the beginning. I always understood that Sailor V was created first, and then Sailor Moon was the after-product after V's popularity.

Volume 2 looks a lot better and rather bittersweet.

I started reading "Oliver Twist". That's rather interesting. It's kind of mixed up with all the reading I have to do for the weekend. Yes, I'm watching anime and reading manga and writing rants rather than take care of all of my reading. Yes, I know that's bad. I have gotten some work done! I've made my way through this handbook that we have to finish for Tuesday, and I have been keeping up-to-date with the Oliver Twist portions I need to read so I'm not swamped with reading. I'm done with my Lit Resistance reading. I finished the Computer Science reading. I finished photocopying the thing I have to read for my other class on Tuesday.

I've also been writing some, which is nice.

We had an officer's meeting for the club I'm VP for. And it was interesting. I managed to probably be completely obnoxious and gross and kind of took over... sigh...

[Sailor Moon R (yes I'm still watching this show)] Reversing the flow of time does not do that. Even considering how it should not be THAT simple. It would be easier to have some sort of wind spell. JAPAN! STOP IT!

We did go over a lot of things, though! I think we got a lot accomplished.

I'm actually tempted to finish Code Geass R2. That's a lot shorter than oh, R, S, Super S, and Stars, plus two movies.

Did I mention that I really don't want to read all this stuff I have to read? It's like 230 more pages of material and AGH...

Well... 106 pages for that photocopied article. At least 17 more for "Oliver Twist". Then there's like 140 more pages for the handbook. I'm probably just not going to bother with rereading "A Modest Proposal".

Aaaaand I really don't have anything to write here today. I just felt bored.

I got caught up on the tropes vs. women (or whatever) on YouTube. It's quite interesting. I never realized how many female characters I knew well became pregnant (somehow) on their respective shows. I also don't think that Batman Rises passes the... Ichdal test? Or something. The one where at least two major female characters must exist AND speak to each other at least once about something other than men. I"m not entirely certain that Talia and Catwoman, the only main cast women, ever speak to each other. I think Catwoman looks at Talia once. Beyond that, though... we never see Talia conversing with another woman in the entire movie. Catwoman has a brief conversation with a female helper of some sort early in the film. And that's about it for her female discussions.

[R2] Is that... is that the Chinese ambassador's voice? Does Japan like really not care about China or something? Or like, not care about insulting them?

I'm also not sure that the new Avengers movie passes the test. There are two main cast members who are female: Agent Hill and Black Widow. I can't exactly recall any conversation between Hill and BW. If they spoke, it was EXTREMELY brief. I think they shared looks and MAYBE stood close to each other once or twice. Beyond that, there's that waitress who likes Captain America, who doesn't ever even stand in the same room as the two women.

Captain America doesn't pass the test. There is one primary female cast member. She interacts once with another woman, and it's in anger over the second woman coming onto Steve.

Iron Man doesn't pass the test. Pepper has one conversation with a female reporter, and it ends up being about Tony (through implication). Iron Man 2 passes. Barely. BW and Pepper speak a little together every now and then, while completely ignoring Tony's presence or any other male around. They're very brief with this.

Thor passes the test. Also barely. The Earth romance character and her intern talk together every now and then and don't ALWAYS talk about men. They discuss the research project and some of their woes and new discoveries. The other two relatively primary female cast members, Sif, and Thor's mother whose name escapes me (did she even GET a name?) never speak to each other. I don't think Sif even talks with the two Earth women, and the only time she speaks to Thor's mother, it's about Thor.

The last Hulk movie doesn't pass the test. As far as I can recall, there was only one woman with any speaking lines in the entire film, and that was the love interest.

Dark Knight doesn't pass the test. There are four women who get speaking lines in the film (outside of maybe screaming), and that's Rachel, the blackmailed cop, the judge who dies, and the woman making out with the random rich dude during the party the Joker crashes. Well, and that woman who the Italian dude is with for a grand total of like, fifty seconds, maybe. None of them speak to each other. Rachel is the only one with more than a scene or two of talking.

Batman Begins doesn't pass the test. There are, again, four female characters in the film: Rachel, Mrs. Wayne, and the two women Bruce escorts into the restaurant when he comes back from being, well, dead. It's kind of presumed that the two nameless women talk to each other off-screen and I guess... giggle or something. I don't know what about though, and we don't see it. I'm not entirely sure that Mrs. Wayne actually gets a speaking part of any kind. Rachel doesn't talk to any women in the entire film, from what I can recall.

The new Green Lantern movie doesn't pass the test. There are a couple female characters that I can remember: Lawler, the love interest... uh... maybe some Lanterns that I can't remember... that's about it. Lawler and the love interest don't talk with each other, from what I can remember. I'm not entirely certain the recent animated one passes, either. I remember there being maybe three "principal" female characters: the love interest, the evil chick, and the blonde one (who was apparently Gordan's apprentice or something). None of them speak to each other.

Superman Returns doesn't pass the test. There are two principal female characters: Lois and Luthor's current gf. They don't speak to each other, from what I remember.

The animated Wonder Woman movie passes. There are at least a few conversations between some of the Amazons on duty, combat, history, and informational bits concerning battles and such. Nothing really long, but it's still there.

I don't think the New Frontier movie passes. There are two "principle" cast members who are female. Again, Green Lantern's love interest, and Wonder Woman (who, SHOCKINGLY, is the ONLY super-heroine with a speaking part). They don't speak to each other.

Just a personal run-through to see if any recent comic-based movie passes the test, since this series focuses on comics, movies, and video games. And the answer... is really no. Wonder Woman, Thor, and Iron Man 2 all barely pass the test. Wonder Woman only does it seemingly out of a superiority of cast members, much as they still try to outnumber them with men. And what happens? Two principle plot points involve the presence of a male villain bent on enslaving the Amazons trying to take back his powers, and the arrival of someone from "Man's World", who wants to help save the world from Hades. So even with POSSIBLY a cast made of 50% women, the plot is centered around men.

Batman Year One passes the test, barely, along with the Catwoman short, which both scrape by for the same reason: Catwoman has a conversation or three with her sister/friend/whatever about money/stealing/TV or something. The other principal female character in BYO never speaks to another woman. We don't even see her talking to her BABY. The other female character who shows up (the woman Bruce hires to maintain the illusion that he's a lazy playboy when Gordan comes over) has no speaking parts. Well there's also the female cop, who, of course, gets involved with Gordan (for some reason), and then has to leave to "make things right" or whatever. She never talks to Barbara, Catwoman, Catwoman's relation, or the female hiree.

The Green Arrow short doesn't pass the test. The only conversation between the only two principal female cast members, Black Canary and the princess, is about having a knight (aka Green Arrow) around.

The Jonah Hex short doesn't pass the test. The only two women with speaking parts never speak to each other.

The Spectre short doesn't pass the test. There's only one female character in the entire thing.

I think it would be more painful to go through shows like Batman Beyond, Justice League, JLU, and so on. Despite the fact that JL has not one, no, but TWO principal female characters, they still spend a lot of time talking about at least one of the five guys who make up the rest of the team, although they do have at least a couple conversations about other things. There's also Diana's mother and Lawler (who... might have gotten introduced in JL? I forget) and Meera, Aquaman's wife.

Whatever.
starfire11: (Default)
I find it amusing that I never really noticed this as a problem until relatively recently... yet whenever I've drawn a female superhero of any sort of my own design in an actual attempt to draw a half-decent OC (which is more like a little kid's drawing than anything else, and may POSSIBLY resemble a fake person), I haven't given them heels. I typically give them flat shoes, thick boots, tennishoes of some sort...

What is the obsession with giving female supers high heels?

You can tell when they're drawn by guys. I promise I'm not trying to sound sexist here, but honestly? Any woman who has worn heels and who's considered what the average female super has to do on an average patrol would not give them heels. They would consider "what do I walk around in that's most comfortable?" "What do I run in that's most comfortable?"

I can assure you that the majority of responses to these would not include "high-heels".

A woman who does this anyway is either inheriting a character or is considering aesthetic/marketing appeal over logic.

These women are typically doing a lot of movement on a daily basis. If they're not running, then they might be walking or standing. All three of which are very painful in heels, even "comfortable" ones.

Comfort will heels is different than with other shoes. It doesn't mean "I slip these on when I want to feel happy". It's "these don't make me feel like I'm stopping on foot-long nails."

When I go to an event in heels, one of my first priorities after locating the bathroom, food, and greeting people, is finding something to sit on where I can rest my feet. Sometime after that is finding a place where I can take off my heels while not offending anyone. You do not dance in high heels. You do not run in high heels (and if you do, it's for short spurts and only when it's life or death, and even then, you're better off taking them off because you will kill your feet, even if they're shortish high heels). If you are working a job where you stand the majority of the time, your first preference will be to not do it in heels. If you have to, in order to maintain appearances, I pity you sorely.

If you'll notice, doctors do not work in high heels. Female soldiers (and male soldiers) do not work in heels, outside of (possibly) formal occasions. Gym teachers do not wear heels while working. Policewomen do not wear heels while working. Postwomen do not wear heels while working. People who work in grocery stores, at the cash register, do not wear heels while working. Athletes do not wear heels while doing whatever sport it is they're doing. The closest you'll get to that is golf and soccer. Cooks do not wear heels while working. Security and bodyguards do not wear heels while working.

Are we getting the picture here?

Why the heels? It's an aesthetic choice. There is no other reason, unless there's some cultural/ceremonial thing (which I've frankly never heard of, outside of Japan).

"It makes them taller and it makes their legs look thinner and thus nicer."

-head-desk-

I'm going to ignore the aesthetic bit in here and address the former. While height/size is linked to intimidation in the animal kingdom (which includes humans), this isn't always a good thing for supers. They have to hide BEHIND things or beneath things. Being smaller or being able to fit more easily into or behind something, and being able to do it fast, are boons. Heels do not make this easy. Heels make this EXTREMELY difficult, if not impossible.

"It shows off their wealth."

While this may have been true way back in the BCE era, and kind of is now, how exactly does this help a crime-fighter? They kind of want to keep their identity SECRET. Identifying themselves as having access to money... is not such a good thing, especially if those heels are crazy. Plus, depending on what it is (say, pleather v. solid gold or something, I dunno), you could probably get it really cheap somewhere, so as a wealth identification symbol, it's kind of lame. What do they do, shout "ADMIRE MY AWESOME HEELS" and then punch the enemies in the face while they're distracted? I'd kind of think any half-intelligent enemy would notice this flaw and take big advantage of it, like find a way to knock the super over or something, or heck, melt their shoes. That'd hurt.

Christmas presents for the senshi in "Sailor Moon":

- five sets of combat boots
- five light armor suits that cover their arms, legs, torsos, necks, and hands in some manner
- bras
- hair ties and coupons to a hair salon with some helpful sketches on good fighting hair styles
- protective headgear of some sort

Christmas presents to the DC Comics Universe:

- boots for Wonder Woman that lack the killer heels, and possible pants of some sort, as well as a full torso leotard maybe made of light armor, and probably something that covers her arms. I love the typical costume, too, but really? I don't know about you, but I've run around in a bathing suit and a leotard for long periods of time. I wouldn't want to fight in either, and I CERTAINLY wouldn't want to spend most of my life in them.
- pants for Black Canary. Maybe some cream for the chafing caused by the stockings.
- pants for Huntress, as well as boots without heels, also a costume without a cape
- suggestions about hair ties and trips to the hair salon for MOST of the women in the DC universe - did you notice that almost every male super in that universe has short hair?
- Batwoman's newer boots look good (they just have normal flat, low heels), and I know the cape is part of the effect... but eh...
- a strong suggestion that Miss Martian stick with her newer costume in Young Justice. You know, the one with the pants, that's most likely easier to move around in than her miniskirt costume in season 1, and maybe even more protective and less embarrassing while she's flying
- I just... okay. Lemme put up some pictures for Superwoman/Supergirl.

Superwoman idea 4Superwoman idea 5Superwoman idea 1Superwoman Idea 3Superwoman idea 6

I understand that these are probably different women and thus not all Kara or even Supergirl or Superwoman (or at least the one I'm thinking about), but these are ideas. The one thing I love about the first two is that they feature in a world that is parallel to ours, where Superwoman is a female version of Superman and Batwoman is a female version of Batman.

What? Superwoman and Batwoman were supposed to be like that?

Uh huh. Sure.

In this parallel world, they're done at least SOMEWHAT the right way - which is that their costumes mimic their original male counterparts in, well... every way, as far as I'm aware. It's not the same general cover scheme or a borrowing of some parts. It's THE SAME COSTUME, except it's on a woman and thus for a slightly different body shape.

Why they couldn't have done this before is beyond me. I understand character identification (which is most certainly NOT the primary concern creators had back in the day) and keeping characters individual... but honestly? You could have given them the same costume and made the color schemes different. That's kind of what they eventually did ANYWAY.

No. Those characters were designed when every woman portrayed for entertainment never wore pants, and mostly wore a miniskirt if she wore anything.

So anyway. If Supergirl/woman could have a design change... something like any of these could work. I still don't like the capes. I think they're kind of dumb (although we're talking about characters who wear leotards and have their underwear on the outside of their clothes, so, sigh). If you think about it, another thing soldiers and the police share (outside of formal occasions) is that they don't wear capes while they work. Getting tangled up in them or caught in them and all that stuff.

NO CAPES!

And then everything made sense. Forever.

The last three designs (minus the white cape) are probably my favorites. They don't REALLY feature outside underwear, and they're nice to look at. They kind of scream LOOK AT ME I'M A TARGET, but we're going off of Superman, so, well... The multicolor one kind of looks like it has some sort of skirt thing on it, but that might just be sewn into the pants (or it could be). There's also still the hair problem, but that could be fixed with ties and creative hair styles. Power Girl would also work well with something like this, or something like what Nebeziel styled, which would still make the character recognizable while giving the costume semi-feasible functionality.

I'm not one of the crazy "women should be modest!" people. I swear I'm not.

I'm looking at functionality here. I've lived over twenty years as a woman, so I have experience with female clothing and footwear, and I'm also somewhat well-read, and I'm always eager to learn more.

If you want any proof, I have a weird stance with the "head coverings" a number of religions order their women to wear. No, it isn't just the Muslim community. There are plenty of Christian communities that do that and it just... I don't like talking about it. Most likely because I'll offend someone.

I understand that it's part of their faith. In understand that it's typically part of their culture.

I don't understand WHY it's part of either. Men have no such restrictions for the most part. Why should the women? What is so awful about being a woman that they have to hide it?

That's my problem more over "it's a sign of oppression". To me it feels like women are being shamed by their culture into believing that there is something about them that they must hide by simply being female. It also cuts people into two gender groups: men and women. I don't know anything about how they handle people who don't fit into those two categories, but until I see something about them, I can't imagine it as anything good.

ANYWAY. It's more of a "this makes more sense as a costume for fighting and patrolling, and it will also garner you more respect (which also sounds like the "modest is best" dogma, which annoys me, but, well... who exactly are you impressing when you wander around in a metal bikini? Unless that's like... your thing, I guess) and it will be comfortable and, well... you have a smaller chance of dying. And stuff." End quotation.

I simply do not understand the obsession with high heels. It... annoys me. Intensely.

Why does this come to mind NOW?

Because I'm doing this stupid PowerPoint (which I actually enjoy and find intensely amusing except I'm never posting it because I've found some things out about Takeuchi and the early drawing days and I feel kind of bad about it, but, well...) and I keep coming up with certain things, and, well... I feel like I'm one of those people saying "women should be modest!"

When that's not what I'm doing, really.

I love it when I walk up to someone and ask them if something I think might be uncomfortable is annoying and they tell me "actually, this is my most comfortable x and I love wearing it".

I think that some of the costumes in comics are gorgeous. Wonder Woman looks amazing in her costume, as do Huntress, Black Canary, the newer Batwoman... and I apparently don't know that many female heroes in the DC universe, which is very much concerning me at the moment.

Honestly, I've always thought Supergirl's costume was impractical and kind of silly, but I wished I could wear it and look good, and I've always loved how beautiful she looks in it. I've always thought that Sara Pezzeni wearing the Witchblade was gorgeous. And that her outfit was completely ridiculous when it turned into basically webbed metal hands grabbing her boobs and all of her skin showing because FOR SOME REASON she's constantly naked when she's wearing it. I understand it ripping clothes, but it could just as easily cover them.

It just hurts to learn more about them and realize that... these things were made, yes, to make them look good.

But not a kind of good I think the people they are would appreciate. Not just the woman, but the sensible, intelligent person. The warrior. The protector. The person who wants to do what they can, but who can't be taken seriously because they've got boob holes and run around in mini skirts or are known to flash their underwear at bystanders as they pass by and who have NO ARMOR ON of ANY kind to protect themselves in a fight and UGH...

And maybe some of this came out of the fact that I was one of those girls who wished I could grow up to look like "insert female superhero here" (and also learn the kick-ass moves and get the men and become really smart). And this lens has been ruined by that. I can't look at the women as people. I look at them as posters for "what I'm not and what I wish I was". It's part of the reason I could never look at things like Sailor Moon for the story or what I felt was wrong with it. I looked at Sailor Jupiter and thought "I wish this was me. I want to BE her."

And now I'm... not them. And I probably never will be. And I care more about those things I didn't think about before. And I've read a lot more.

It's part of the trap they get other people to fall into. People who are in it for the skin value. Not the story. It's what spawns idiots like the troll from the other day. Who don't see the prejudice or the insult. They just see the action hero.

Ta.
starfire11: (Default)
I honestly have a lot to take care of. Most of which I'm not planning to bother with until tomorrow. I feel like writing about a new project that I'll probably forget about in a couple days, nerds, and stupid people on the Internet.

A truly unimaginative rant. But, well. That's me.

So I had an old logic puzzle left over from seventh grade that I never solved, which our teacher commented was especially hard, and which no one in the class solved, and which I kept in order to one day finished. I've tried it several times over the years, to no avail. And... I finally solved it today. I checked it over three times, too! It's rather large and complicated and you have four groups of variables to put together and it just... I mean, wow. Should I have been able to solve it back then? Yeah... maybe. Thank you LSAT classes! I actually feel accomplished now! (And a little sad... I mean, really? All these years and it took me YEARS to solve the damn thing?).

On that note, let's pretend I'm intelligent.

Anyway. I don't remember what I was planning to rant about last night/this morning, but it wasn't quite what I actually did rant about yesterday/this morning. So it was kind of a "let's point out the bad art points in Sailor Moon, cause no one's ever done THAT before, right?"

The thing about that, is that it kind of looks like I found one specific panel that had a lot of problems (and it's not even a big panel, at that, kind of just a throwaway panel) and got nit picky. That's just sad.

So, rather than play more Diablo 3, I went around and gathered some more panels from the manga... and started putting them together and doing the same thing. And, well... I've gone through six chapters. That's it. And I already have lots of pictures. And it's interesting because I'm seeing similar problems. The artists have issues drawing knees, elbows, and legs in general, as well as accurate spines.

It's kind of fun. Kind of sad, too. But fun and really funny. How far will it go? I don't know. Like anything truly worthwhile (and this isn't to anyone other than me and other people who procrastinate too much and have too much time on their hands), it takes a while to do everything. So who knows? I don't have a chance of running out of material any time soon, so that's not a problem. It's just effort.

So I was on deviantart and an artist I like, Nebeziel, put up a drawing of Wonder Woman. He made a comment about how one of her original vulnerabilities was bondage. Which, like kryptonite and Superman, gave people a lot of excuses to draw a woman in bondage in comics. Now that's been taken out (for the most part at least), and he thought it would be funny if an old villain came along and still thought that was her vulnerability... and then she kicked the person's ass.

This was informative for me. I didn't know that she had that sort of vulnerability at one time. So someone posted a link to a video they'd seen previously about Wonder Woman's history on escapist.com. So I checked it out, and it was interesting. Somewhat insulting, too, but informative, all the same.

Personally, I shrugged off the comments in the video as male nerd testosterone (or just male idiot testosterone), because I've heard the like before.

Then I read the comments. Personally, I'm curious for the most part about what people think about videos like this. Other times, the comments are pretty funny.

Honestly I know I'm just asking for trouble. Why read it if they can make me angry? It's comments on the Internet, of all places. I'm just asking to fall into that "responding to stupid people on the Internet" trap that is just... stupid, really.

Most of the comments I read were fine and typically to the tune of "this was interesting" or "I never this!"

Then there was one really long comment that was just... Ugh...

You know it could have been a troll. It really could have. I'm not very experienced with the people. In WoW and Diablo 3 I typically just ignore them and offer that same advice to others. I also don't explore much of the sight other than the Escapist dude who talks about video games. But I read this anyway. And... well... Also, this author has stated that English is his third language, so bear with him. Hard as it is. And I don't mean the level usage of English.

"But, then, even after all the time saving advencments that girls have at their disposal. weakened and brain dead majority of the recent generations, failed to really produce any segnifican number of female leaders, or scientist, engineers, mathematicians, inventors......
(below this is a lot of skipable BLA BLA, read at your own bordum, just kidding... or was I?)
Also I *some what* hat feminism, simply because they tend to be way-one sided, and almost blameful towards all men. People who are over invested into a side tend to over stereotypes and character attack their opposition.
I had women literally tell me that they don't need man to populate the planet, so therefore men were useless. Heh, sure sure. Someone wasn't paying attention in school, maybe she was to busy texting?

Yet, I find that people are waying gender and race
fare to heavily, wile the fare more important individualism is forgotten.

I don't like the fact that there seems to be some lobbying against any form of "anti-feminism" in the media.
The fact that girls have an upper hand in many judicial proceedings is abuse in certain cases and loop holes. Another miss-judgment of the overly brisk and over-compensating judicial system.

Also, some episodes get canceled because of lobbying against what some consider to be discriminative against females...
(When it makes no difference or just happens to be part of the plot).
For example, apparently one of the Star Gate episodes was taken of, because of such a case.

Over all, I think his short sited theory fell on it’s head, that said a theory is just a theory, so who knows, maybe there’s an alternate universe where all woman are wonder-woman females and are more man-like, but then they would become man O.o” so what is gender any way?"

The editor in me is very, very glad to just give this over to the very annoyed scholar/feminist/intelligent human being.

I can only conclude that this person is a complete idiot, on top of being racist and sexist.

They have probably never paid proper attention in history class, or their history classes were extremely censored and screwed up in comparison to, well... reality. Yes, we're working on making our history textbooks and classes more accurate, but we haven't been THIS bad in a long time.

I'm curious about where this person is getting their statistics on the make-up of scientists and politicians based on gender or sexuality (the lack of specification is also informative). There have been female leaders and scientists of one form or another for centuries in many cultures.  Well-known figures, as well. True, they most likely weren't as populous or well-known as the men in every case or even most cases, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. If you study anything related to English literature or history, you've probably heard of Queen Elizabeth I. If you study any American history, especially related to the Civl War, you probably know Harriet Tubman. There have been female astronauts in a field that still numbers in only the double digits. There are female chemists, female doctors in just about every field of medicine, female astronomers, physicists, theoretical scientists, research scientists, professors, teachers, school leaders, politicians, and a growing number of women in different jobs in the world. As a matter of fact, my mother is an engineer. She's worked on one of the space shuttles. My chemistry teacher was a woman, as were my pre-calculus, pre-algebra, and geometry teachers.

This person is literally saying that they hate a stereotype because they stereotype and hate the stereotype.

Complete. Idiot.

He obviously has no idea what feminism is or what any type of feminism is about or that there even ARE different types of feminism and feminists and that not everything you see on television or the Internet is true.

I somehow think that whichever women this person actually managed to get to talk to him said a great deal ELSE other than "men aren't needed to populate the planet, and are therefore useless". He was probably too busy texting or staring at their boobs or inserting "BLA BLA" in capital letters into what he was hearing from them.

So individualism is important. Just because people value gender and race does not mean that people do not value individualism. How is individualism ignored? Like most of the things mentioned here, he doesn't say.

Actually, it's rather untrue that women have the "upper hand" in judicial proceedings. That's why "victim blaming" is a problem. A very prevalent problem that people are still trying to deal with. And it's almost always directed at women and people who aren't white. I can only assume that this comment stems from someone who, like many people who watch Law and Order or any of the police shows (although not all of them by any means), has no idea how the actual judicial system works.

TV episodes have been cancelled throughout television history for an assortment of reasons, just like almost every kind of entertainment. Ballet was controvertial when it first started out, as were musical compositions with words that weren't hymns and movies with people talking. What you can and cannot do on screen and in front of an audience has changed constantly throughout human history. If you want weird examples, think of this one: Disney once made a short informational episode about menstruation that was cancelled, most likely because it was considered "inappropriate" for viewers. Women and men weren't allowed on-set without a chaperone at one point in history, or to be shown serving alcohol to each other, alone. Flirting that showed a woman being in control, sexually, wasn't showed. Married couples in a single bed wasn't shown. Their bedrooms featured two single beds. No suggestion of sex occuring, no sirree. What are children, anyway? Non-white people couldn't be shown in anything other than low-paying or villainous positions. Divorced couples were not shown or referenced, nor were family problems outside of, well... the villains.

I love how he says that this happens... and then fails to list the reason for why the episode was controversial, let alone why he doesn't believe this matters in the specific case. So it was cancelled. Which episode? And why? Stargate had seven seasons, two spin-off series, a spin-off animated series, a number of comic book series, at least one video game of some sort, and three movies. Saying "an episode" was cancelled is a little unspecific. Or is the fact that someone DARED to cancel an episode of a show as vaunted as "Stargate" supposed to be the point?

I can't understand what he means by commenting about how the discrimination problem has nothing to do with the plot. I'm guessing he has no comprehension of why people care about these things. He probably doesn't have much comprehension of what's going on in Stargate, either, if this is the way he looks at things.

What short-sighted theory? That women are bound to take over the world (according to the creator of Wonder Woman)? Short-sighted HOW, exactly? And how does it fail? He hasn't proven anything. He hasn't even stated ANYTHING to prove.

Then there's the last paragraph.

-headdesk-

He's one of THOSE people. Those people who think wearing purple or pink or a sweater vest makes you gay, or all poets smoke or only men think or cooking will emasculate you or something.

[Doctor Who] On a side note, there was a dude who looks a lot like Will Ferrell on this episode. Of course, Will Ferrell isn't that old by far, so. That was weird.

Being intelligent is not genetic. Any trait giving you an increased intellectual capacity is not a strictly male trait. Strength is not a strictly male genetic trait. Agility is not a strictly male genetic trait. Flying an airplane, using a lasso, fist-fighting and any fighting style are also not genetic or strictly male traits.

Wonder Woman is a strong and powerful person who happens to be genetically female and considers herself female. Superman is a strong and powerful person who happens to be genetically male (by human standards) and considers himself male. Both could hold their own against the other in a fight. Becoming strong or smart or fast or good at a specific skill does not decide one's sex or even someone's gender. The person picks their gender and how they wish to identify themselves to the rest of society, if they care. Sexuality is an ever-evolving topic involving an increasing number of sexes and how to decide on such things. I play video games, like science fiction, plan on being an attorney, and read Sailor Moon and like playing with my hair. The former stuff is all traditionally male, yet I am not a male, do not consider myself male, and have no BECOME male. The latter does not designate me as female. It's just something I enjoy. I know plenty of men who like Sailor Moon and playing with their hair. I know plenty of women who dislike Sailor Moon and playing with their hair. I know plenty of men who dislike video games, science fiction, and science in general. I know plenty of other women who share my interests. Saying that enjoying something decides your sex or gender is a completely ridiculous phrase, and I literally cannot say that enough because people will not stop saying that it DOES. People who include my mother, sister, at least two of my best friends, and many, many peers, and not just generic people on the Internet or in the media. Heck, my maternal grandmother thought that all cats were female for some reason, and I've recently become aware that this is not an unknown and unusual phenomenon.

I'm glad he asked "what is gender anyway?", because he obviously has no clue about what gender or sexuality are. The first true glimpse into this person's psyche that makes sense.

Complete idiocy.

So anyway, there was that. Now I want to take a shower and... I don't know. Add more to my powerpoint, finish an episode of Doctor Who, watch another episode of YST... or something.

I might stop watching this, too. This show is just... ridiculous, especially considering the stuff I've been ranting about.

Later.
starfire11: (Default)
So I'm taking this LSAT prep course for when, well... I take the LSAT.

And our teacher is pretty smart. Like, really smart. Like, if this course wasn't way over-priced, I'd love to sit and talk to him for an hour or two. Maybe. Just about life in general.

At least I think I would.

So he has some issue with global warming. I don't know if he supports increasing knowledge on it and making efforts to deal with it and is annoyed with people who think it doesn't exist, or if he thinks people being concerned about it are morons. It's hard to tell. He tries real hard to keep his opinions to himself and not insert political agendas into the course, like most teachers and professors. Most of the time.

So anyway, we were talking about diversity considerations in the LSAT (it's a very important thing and really helps you solve things fast).

Diversity considerations are quite varied, and include considerations towards women. I don't exactly remember how we got to the subject, but somehow he ended up making a comment about how women stick to things even if they're not good at them, while men give up when they're not good as something and go do something else. He then went on about how he thought woman's way of doing this was the better option.

Principal on my mind was the fact that this implies that a) all women are the same and all men are the same, mentally b) mental decisions like choosing what things to do in your life are possibly genetic. Neither of which is true.

Everyone thinks differently. Everyone has a plethora of reasons that have a high chance of varying from everyone else's reasons for doing something, even if they do the same things. That's not even going into HOW they do those things.

Playing piano is not genetic. Playing on a computer is not genetic. Playing football is not genetic.

Here's my problem. For starters, I understand that you could look at "historical precedent" for this idea. After all, if women had just given up when people said no to women's suffrage, then we wouldn't be voting now, would we? While we MIGHT have eventually gotten the vote anyway, here's a thought: some people thought that women a) did not have a god-given right to have a say in any type of politics, and/or b) didn't vote and didn't care to even if they could, and/or c) wouldn't vote even if they could.

There's historical precedent for many women refusing to give up when the going got tough and no one was giving an inch on women's rights or what things women wanted to do. Being accepted in different jobs. Getting what you say out. Writing things. Heck, today that happens.

Female bloggers aren't surrendering under the barrage of rape threats and racial slurs and "get in the kitchen" commentary whenever they open their mouths to say what they think about the weather in the gaming community. Good on them!

That doesn't mean it's GENETIC. That means any number of things. Among them, that women are breaking ground, still, in fields that were formerly closed to us. That giving up means giving into threats. Giving into selfish people who are only out there to hurt others because they have nothing better to contribute to human society.

I could make a comment about how men don't do things like that because they've never had to, they've always had rights (which women have typically had to fight for, tooth and nail), but that's wrong too.

Saying that every man has been deemed equal by human society for forever is entirely untrue. The first thing that comes to mind is slavery. Women AND men had to fight for their freedom, even when people didn't want to give it to them. And then they had to keep fighting and fighting because people (at least in America and a couple African nations) viewed them as second-class citizens. African-Americans still fight for their rights today, just like women. The Jews fought for their right to a Jewish state. Many religious leaders and groups have fought for the right to follow their own beliefs with their families and friends and congregations. Look at the Mormons, the Quakers, just about every religious group that came to North America when Britain was colonizing it originally. People said it couldn't be done. People burned others at the stake. People formed lynch mobs. People launched missiles. People ignored them. People carried out assassinations, wars, protests, mass trolling... and still, others refuse to give in. This isn't a sex-based boundary that separates a group from b group for inspiration. This is the needs of a person or people fighting for what they think they need for themselves or others.

Heck, internet trolls are typically bad at being funny. Doesn't stop them from keeping it up. Being bad at school didn't stop a lot of people from going. And I mean PEOPLE. Not women OR men. PEOPLE. All-encompassing. I'm curious about what his theory has to say about people who don't fit into the men/women categories like transgender, Two-Spirits, etc. Do they just mix it up?

Being a bad spouse doesn't stop most people. Nor does being a bad parent, since your parents don't teach you how to be a parent. They try to teach you how to be an adult. Parenting is something that typically comes (today) with a lot of guidebooks, advice from friends and parents, and experience. Also therapy. Especially for poor relationships. Sure, improvement may be a really, really, really slow-to-come goal (or something that never comes), but people still try. They don't always say "Well, I guess I suck at this, I'll guess I'll either be a bad spouse and stop trying to be good, or just stop being a spouse." They try to work it out, which is part of what being in a married relationship is about. Understanding each other. Living with each other. For everyone else, there's separation, divorce, adultery, and the cowards who abuse their spouses. Also note: being a spouse, partner, or parent is not tied down to father/mother/husband/wife. Any and all can be bad examples of their... category or whatever. As the child of divorcees with LOTS of friends who are ALSO children of divorcees, I am very, very well aware of this fact.

Also, did anyone care to mention that step-fathers never really stick out in fairy tales? It's always evil stepmothers or stepsisters. What about an evil step-brother?

Being a bad movie creator didn't stop M. Night Shyamalan (at least I have no official proof that he's stopped trying to push another Avatar: The Last Airbender movie - when I see this, I'll change my position) or Kevin Costner. Being bad never stopped Nicholas Cage from, well... acting. Or Kristen Stewart. Never stopped Stephanie Meyer or Christopher Paolini from spewing out the Twilight Series and The Inheritance Cycle. Never stopped Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin from running for political office. Or Rebecca Black from creating not just one, but TWO really terrible songs. Never kept Justin Bieber or Lady Gaga from being stars.

Being bad at ruling hasn't stopped any NUMBER of rulers throughout history, female AND male.

Also: saying that some people stop when they realize that they're bad at something, just in general, implies that there is one and only one definition of "being bad at something". For starters, there are a number of different ways to be "bad" at just about anything. You could be a good violinist, but you might not be an inspiring one. For some people, that's considered bad. You could be a good violinist, but you might not be a fiddler. For someone who learned the instrument to play fiddler music, that might be considered bad. Maybe you're good at playing classical music but not pop. A lot of people who learn some kind of musical instrument (including singing - your body can be considered an instrument, by certain standards) are very disappointed by this. Playing popular music today is hard because of the requirements for that music, while a great deal of the very old stuff people groan about when they see the majority of what music players play in orchestras and concert bands is rather simple. For starters, there's typically far less improvisation. Improvisation can be incredibly hard. Or it can be incredibly easy. Yet another spectrum of "good/bad".

Being good at playing an instrument isn't the same time of good as being good at a sport (or anything else). I'm not saying one is better than the other (personally, I rate violin, piano, and singing over football, but then again, a lot of athletic men getting paid to jump each other, frequently, on television... always makes me waver), but they have no equivalent rating system, unless you just use the general rating of "pro", "amateur", "prodigy", etc. A system which can be rather extensive, depending on what you're looking at.

Things having different "good/bad" scales at least in part because they require different skills. Playing a stringed instrument like the violin, viola, cello, and bass requires a lot of hand-eye coordination and a skill at reading music while watching a conductor and listening to the people around you, along with a plethora of hand skills. Playing football, depending on your position, requires skill with running, a certain body weight requirement, physical fitness, good eyesight, and certain areas of body strength, as well as a knowledge of football rules, and a number of others I know I've missed. Why I picked football instead of soccer, which I'm more familiar with, is beyond me.

Books have different good/bad scales. I don't like "Howl's Moving Castle" for the same reasons I like "Hardball" or "Crown of Slaves" or "Bridge of Birds". They all make me laugh, but if I kept everything that made me laugh... well... I'd have a significantly larger library and far less self-respect. Genre makes a difference. Stephanie Meyer and Christopher Paolini are both bad at writing for a number of similar and different reasons. While I argue whether both ever actually sat through a whole English course (I only assume Smeyer did because she has a degree in English)... if I were to write yet MORE summaries on why their individual series suck IMO, they would not be the same, but with different character names and plot points. Genre writing can also be different. Someone writing modern fiction is most likely going to write differently than someone writing fantasy or science fiction. Just like a Shakespearean actor is going to have a different acting style than a non-Shakespearean actor. While I love Shakespearean actors, I don't rank them over non-Shakespearean actors, and I don't dislike non-Shakespearean actors. They just act differently. Some are bad, some aren't. Some are even good.

That was actually rather tangential, so back to the topic.

The Olympics is actually a great example of the array of good/bad. A fencer might not be good at pole-vaulting or running track. A gymnast might be a terrible swimmer. Each of them have a different assortment of things to be good at.

Or they might vary their sports. Maybe this swimmer loves wrestling, but he's better at swimming, so she went with that. In his minds he might be a lot better at wrestling because he enjoys it more (which is also a scale on which to judge "good/bad" for a lot of people), but by other people's standards he's better at swimming.

There's the whole concept of doing what you love. There are scientists who live their entire lives without making a significant discovery in their fields, or any fields, for that matter (which is how the general populace seems to judge "good/bad"). But they do what they love because they love it. They research, watch, theorize, teach, explore... they just do it. Because they want to. Heck, there are teachers out there who loves their fields, but teach middle school courses because all they want to do with their lives is inspire kids to go into their fields and be even better. There are counselors who live their lives just wanting to help as many people as possible. They don't have to believe that their work will change the entire world. They might just be satisfied with the kids they know. With the people in front of their eyes. With making what big or little differences they can. And that's how they judge good/bad.

So maybe a police officer, just by being a police officer, does not, in her entire life, make a dent in the crime rate. That doesn't mean they're a failure as a police officer. Maybe they just kept things stable. Kept the lights running a little longer. Maybe they solved some important cases. Or just cases that were piling up. Maybe they followed in a parent's footsteps. Maybe they look at every single person they help, and, at the end of the day, smile because they made a difference somewhere. Or maybe they sit in their offices and thank whoever they thank, if they thank anyone, that the lights stay on, and that the world keeps spinning, and everything hasn't gone completely to hell yet.

Not everyone gives up dieting or exercise because they're bad at it. Some do. Not everyone does.

In fact, if everyone gave up what they were bad at, the human race would probably still be in the Stone Age. Not everyone is born with "talent" or prodigy-levels of skill. Not everyone has a CHANCE to do what they're "good" at. Some people just find something they can do that's valued, and that's what they do with their lives. Most people have to LEARN to be good at something, contrary to what televisions offer. They had teachers who taught them their letters and basic math and grammar and how to eat at a fancy table and how to clean up after a baby and how to create soda flavors and how to play the accordion and how to crack a good joke and act and ski and drive a car. Not every good driver out there is male. Not every bad driver out there is female, contrary to the theory that only women are bad drivers.

If everyone gave up what they were bad at, we wouldn't have most of reality tele-I mean... Wait. Wait.

... We might be onto something here. Hmm...

People create lots of ways to categorize being a good human being. For some people, it's doing something value with your life, like helping starving children in whatever country is popular to help this week or pushing the agenda of burning homosexuals at the stake. For some people, being a good human being is following certain values. See the requirements for different religious groups or countries. Countries have different values. And citizens who argue what specifically those values are. And what those values mean. And how to use those values. And what is supported by those values. And so on and so forth. Some people think being a good human being is killing yourself and taking other people with you because those people are the embodiment of evil. Suicide missions are rather common throughout human history. This is not something only just discovered in WWII or 9/11. Maybe being a good human being is helping to raise your nephew. Or getting your sister away from her husband. Or informing the world about proper grammar. Or fighting the POWr of those who say that "I" as a pronoun is supposed to be capitalized and "presdnt" is missing a couple vowels.

Standing by your principles. Acting on your principles and not just talking about them. Staying out of other people's business. Knowing when to interfere. Taking an active role in your world.

Pinning something down to something as simple as "guys know when to quit" and "women don't" is a ridiculous theory because of the holes riddled in it.

I wish I could have told this to him then. I NEVER have good arguments when they could be valuable. I don't even know if sending him this is a good idea. He intimidates me. That's part of being a good debater: intimidate your competition, even if you're wrong and they're right. Oh, logical fallacies and drama!

So there. It bothered me and I never got to tell him then and I couldn't quite figure out then why I had a problem with his statements other than the basics I had up originally.

Ta.
starfire11: (Default)
So yeah, I'm reading a lot of comics. A friend just linked me to this hilarious blog about something called "Eschergirls". It's... too funny. Sad, but funny. I basically deleted half of my deviantart favorites as a result. Ooh, fear my backlash at the sadness that is the art world! It also gave me a new thing to look at when I read more comics.

So there's this panel... that uh... Well...

I want to scan it in and post it somewhere to get some more opinions on it. It's uh... well... So this is the second volume in the "Ultimate X-Men" series, and Jean Grey is talking to Kurt Wagner/Nightcrawler in his mind to get around the German language barrier. And she's explaining to him what she's doing, and why they're in a different place than where their bodies are (some nice paradise-like field Kurt's familiar with). And while they're talking, you can see the pair, sitting under a tree. For some reason, they're both in their underwear. Which is odd, considering that most mindwalks I'm familiar with feature people in their most comfortable clothing (off the top of my head, in the Marvel universe, I see Professor Xavier in a suit, walking; then there's Spider-Man, who was knocked unconscious, and was sitting in street clothes in a mental library with a bag of Twizzler's; then I'm picturing the Cat Legend folks, who were basically wearing what they were outside their bodies, which makes sense - people aren't that good at imagining clothes if they're not in the business of designing clothes, writing, or such; then there's Bleach - Ichigo always appears in his Soul Reaper uniform; in Naruto, the characters appear in their most recent clothing - Naruto typically wears his ninja uniform; in xxxHolic, Watanuki and Yuuko typically appear in the clothes their real bodies are wearing). I don't know many people in the world comfortable in their underwear.

So just when I think they're never going to get around to answer this question... Jean starts to explain when he looks at her, and she says "Don't feel bad that you're picturing me in my underwear. Most people do, and I'm used to it."

I kid you not.

Now, I understand someone adjusting to a nickname. There's this rather common trope in stories where characters will pick up an insulting nickname and make their own to get back at everyone else. Or ignoring it. Heck, I've gone through that!

I can understand people picking up an image. Maybe people see them as the strong one, and they move into it. Maybe people think of them as the silent type. And they move into it. Me, I'm the sleepy type. Don't bother putting that one aside.

But I do not know anyone beyond the temptress or prostitute (and even then not all prostitutes) in fiction who is perfectly fine with other people picturing them in their underclothes. I certainly don't know anyone in REAL life who thinks that way. Maybe everyone you walk past will think that way... but I don't see anyone taking pleasure in the fact. Since it typically objectifies the person when it happens, it isn't something people typically enjoy. You want to be admired as a person, not as a thing. You know the saying "my eyes are up here".

Guys are also frequently subjects, especially since everyone has this theory that only women are subject to it. And they don't like it either. Maybe they should start realizing how much women hate it.

Also, if this wasn't COMPLETELY OOC for Jean, I MIGHT be more likely to let this off the hook. For starters, Jean is a very strong character. Even ignoring the long list of ways she's threatened Wolverine and other characters for thinking the wrong thing or looking the wrong way, well... there's the long list of things and times she's threatened people for doing that. She's done it in Ultimate Spider-Man, the movies, and later Ultimate X-Men comics! It doesn't make any sense for her to act this way. This isn't like accepting a name like "peach" or "sledgehammer". It basically means she's okay with people treating her like walking boobs and a vagina.

You don't accept that. You just don't. This is misogynistic bs about how women "feel" or how they "should feel" according to sexist pigs or people who think that not only are women not intelligent enough to understand how these kinds of people look at them, but also that they're okay being treated like dirt. It's disgusting.

Again, I'm glad I never bought these things. Jeez. Back to the library they go.
starfire11: (Default)
So it's apparently really, really bad for me to actually read the emails TOR.com sends me. Thanks to today's email alone, I read at least thirty articles. Not short two-paragraph articles. Okay, there were like three of those. I mean like three-page articles.

Do I regret the entire experience? No, not really. The articles were very interesting and informative. I learned a lot about current news, genre writing, literary analysis, and writing as a style. Also about human generosity, kindness, and hilarity(?).

My only real regret is that I didn't do any LSAT work. Which cuts down the time I have to spend on my next lesson's homework and the second half of my previous lesson's homework to tomorrow, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday. Considering that apparently most of tomorrow is going to be spent driving or with family, Saturday I'll be moving a lot of crap with my dad, and Sunday I'll be seeing a movie... plus eating, sleeping, trying to spend time with my mother and taking care of my cats, working out, moving around to avoid the cleaning people... and the fact that LSAT homework sucks. A lot. Like I'm pretty sure I spent at least two hours on the first half of one night's homework. I'm not entirely sure I was even halfway through. And I could have spent three or more hours... I'm not entirely certain, because I had breaks.

Going back to the TOR article spam. The email is basically a page of recently published articles on their website. So from the email alone I opened at least twelve articles from that. And then these articles made references to a bunch of other articles and blogs and such. So I opened even MORE articles from there. And then I scrolled down the email and opened yet MORE articles. And when I was reading through the second round of article links, I was linked to MORE articles, and a short story. And articles on the articles. And it was AHHH.

They were all good. I liked them a lot. One of the articles was one of those "things you should read to prepare yourself for this movie coming out" around the next Batman movie coming out tomorrow. I actually... can't recall ever following those... but I have read a number of Marvel comics, and I like Batman, and I've read a few comics in that universe, and well... I figured that it wouldn't hurt to read through at least some of them. My library has a reasonable amount of those. I ended up checking out like fifteen graphic novels (like, three of which were on the list - I just thought the others looked interesting). Although one of them was apparently a volume containing this single issue I read years ago and never saw more of... So yeah. That was nice. Although it was marked as volume 1 and there weren't any more so... that's kind of annoying.

So there was one blog that seemed to be a critique website of anything written? I don't really know. It had a lot of interesting blog posts on it. A couple I still want to read - notably about the Sookie Stackhouse novels. I'm not all that impressed by what I read so far of the first one, and I'm mildly impressed by what I've seen of True Blood but uh... I don't know. I reserve judgement until I've seen and/or read the whole thing.

There was another blog that apparently received death threats and other threats for daring to comment badly on "A Song of Ice and Fire" in this rather humorous summary of the series... while remarking on how creepy the author is. And he is very, very creepy.

Before I go into a mini-rant on one of the reasons this interested me greatly... there's the feminism thing. A number of the articles were about women in science fiction, abuse towards women, misogynistic tendencies in some writing, hypocrisy, nihilism, women in writing, rape (principally against women, although there were at least one or two articles on rape in general)... Well... there were a lot of people commenting on these things. It was all very interesting.

Well, one of the reasons the commentary on ASOIAF interested me greatly (besides being one of the funniest things I've read in a while) was that I recognized certain things "I'd" thought about while reading. There were a couple comments about how Tyrion is basically EVERYONE'S favorite: the reading audience, the TV audience, and the author.

But there's a couple things wrong with this. Firstly, Tyrion was MY favorite character, from the little I've seen of the show, and from what I was reading in the book. He was my favorite character for a long time (although that's probably more because the actor did a great job). I'm going to say that this was because he was my favorite character from a distance. There is no character I actually LIKE in the series, when it comes down to it.

It's always sad when you have to do that. When someone asks you about a story and you say "yeah, I liked it" and then they ask what your favorite character was or what your favorite part was and you completely blank out. At least that happens to me a lot. Honestly, at the end of the day, you just have to take a step back from reading/watching/researching whatever, and think: is there anything specific I like about this? Do I actually like it? The answers could surprise you. It's one of the things doctors and nutrition people try to get people to do with food, because of habitual eating and eating from boredom. Thankfully no one's asked me about Ronin Warriors. That would be a VERY uncomfortable conversation.

I suppose that there are bits and pieces of some characters that I like. But anyway... I liked Tyrion because he was the funniest character. All of them are flawed - they're human, it happens - and a lot of them are downright vile in the worst way... but of them all, Tyrion was the funniest. Well... besides the Greatjon, Varys, and that dude who got killed beyond the wall that was a Wildling (for that short scene where he and Jon were exchanging alcohol, anyway), he's probably one of the four funny characters in the entire series.

He WAS. If I had to pick a favorite, he would still probably win out. It's the problem with not liking well, anyone in the series.

Well, the guy who plays Jon Snow is pretty attractive, physically, but beyond that...

So I like Tyrion. Was starting to not like him for a big reason... and then he strangled the woman who'd been sleeping with him for no other reason than she slept with his dad, too.

Well, that was the thing that was just... really weird. There were a couple other things. But this... I mean... it's bad enough he just strangled the woman because she happened to be sleeping with someone else (big shocker - she's a prostitute, it's kind of her job, plus Tirion was on the executioner's block, so she needs some new way to make money when he's no longer paying her). Besides the fact that it was hinted that Tywin blackmailed her into doing it... I mean, honestly. She's a commoner, and considered the lowest of the low, at that, since she's a lady of the night (at least in this world, prostitution seems to be the "lowest of the low"). If she were a noble or something who was indicating favor toward Tyrion initially, but secretly sleeping with Tywin behind his back, I could at least vaguely understand Tyrion's having an inkling of anger towards her (although even in THAT case, it should still be more of a feeling of "well-played, guess I have to redraw the court political map" and not "MUST STRANGLE TO DEATH"; even in court politics, unless she arranged for the grisly death of his person, close relatives, allies (and there was some insanity thrown in on Tyrion's part), she wouldn't deserve to be STRANGLED to death). But she has no pull in court, no money, no servants, no power whatsoever. Heck, she could be killed right alongside him for being even remotely related to him (and heck, she was publicly identified as sleeping with him - women have been sworn to die with their husbands in numerous historical cases, and there are numerous historical cases where people who were remotely related to a bad incident for killed off, too). And yeah, she was one of the "witnesses" speaking against him during his "trial", and she lied to some extent. But it isn't as if she made the case against him, or if her testimony was the most important part of it. Or even a minorly important part of it. Honestly, if her main and currently only source of income was Tyrion, who was almost definitely going to be executed anyway, she needs other options. Getting money for testifying against Tyrion was probably her best source of income. Heck, she might have gotten money from the Queen Regent, who's an heir to Casterly Rock! There's really nowhere higher to go! Tyrion also knew that she wanted the finer things in life: money, clothing, a nice mansion... and he WAS paying her (at least until he had to hide her, and even then she still had a job of sorts, and didn't even have to sleep with him nearly as often, to boot). And he spent the entire time strongly believing that she wasn't in love with him - that it was jut an act to keep his coin in her pocket.

And if anyone should have been aware of this, it should have been Tyrion, who is one of the smarter characters in the story.

But he strangled her anyway... I get that he narrowly escaped death. That he learned that his first wife was actually just in love with him. That he actually gang-raped a normal woman.  That his brother helped in the deception, along with his father. That he's actually even more alone in the world than he was before (and he was pretty damn alone before).

But none of that REMOTELY gives him the excuse to STRANGLE someone to death. I get his killing his dad. Sort of. It fits with the whole "angry vengeance" thing that Martin is striking for here. Martin's PROBABLY gonna end up killing all of the Lannisters by then of this series, so yeah, whatever.

There was NO reason for him to kill Shae. If anything, according to his character, he should have taken her with him out of the city and at the LEAST released her out to find her own way, free of him.

One of the marked obsessions in this series is female virginity and where women are sleeping and with who. What do guys talk about before they fight? Who they'll rape after the fighting's over. What do they talk about during the fight to inspire others? Who they'll rape when they're done. Who do they talk about AFTER the fight when they're laughing and drinking with their buddies? Who they raped after the fight was over. What do they talk about x days/weeks/months later? Who they raped way back when. What do they do when they get drunk with their friends? Who they've raped and/or paid to sleep with them. What is the first/second question about a prospective bride? Whether she's been deflowered, either by some former spouse, or by any random men. Or whether she's flowered yet. What do they wonder when they're around a group of people, with a lot of women? What the women are like in bed. Or what they will be like when they're flowered, if they're too young.

A big part of the reason why I stopped watching the show extremely early on was the amount of blatant sex in it. I don't care for it and typically find it boring. Especially when I don't care for any of the characters. When that happens, and you don't really know where the story is going (other than towards more of the same), and all that seems to be happening is, well, incest, rape, pedophilia, slavery, selling your family, lots of prostitute buying up... Besides the fact that there are more naked women than attractive men. A a heterosexual woman, is there some reason I should watch this? Honestly?

I read the books because I wondered if the books would be less filled with the things they'll put in a TV show meant to attract viewers. And honestly, nothing attracts viewers more than sex and lots of skin. And I was... somewhat right. At least in a small respect. A very small respect. I also wanted to know what was going on without constantly staring at one or another person having sex with someone else.

The books are easier to bear. They aren't necessarily better. I've known that since I started reading book 1. Part of the reason I'm up to 4 is because the idea of watching the series is dimming ever more as I read, and I like finishing what I start. If I don't finish the series and I meet people who like it (it has a large following, so it's likely), and we get into an argument about it, I can't very well say "I only read up to book 4 and I just hate it". So.

It was bad enough that Tyrion gang-raped someone (yeah, SURE his father ordered him... if my father ordered me to gang-rape I MEAN WHAT? SERIOUSLY? NO. JUST NO! At that point, you WALK. AWAY. We know you're a nice guy Tyrion, and just because the woman was POSSIBLY trying to make a living (being hired by a noble, and one of the richest in the land, to boot) she deserves to be GANG-RAPED? WHAT?). Then we go on to Jaime and Brienne's stories. There's clearly some sort of mini-romance working up here. Sorry, but I don't really like Jaime. Maybe I'm knit-picking, but I don't have that much respect for someone who calls someone "wench" constantly. And then uses it as an endearment. The use of the word "bitches" as a term of endearment for friends is somewhat similar, in my opinion. She has a name. She is a person, not an object. Not scenery.

Do I think he deserves to die for that? No. But I don't think Brienne should suddenly fall in love with him because he's shown a few acts of kindness like giving her weapons and rescuing her. He still calls her wench. He still treats her on a standard in comparison with men, not as a person.

There was also the whole marriage to Sansa thing. I get that his father forced it on him, and Cersei backed it (as did Joffrey, no doubt). I get WHY the wedding happened. And I actually sort of understand the obsession with consummating a marriage. Hey, it got King Henry out of his marriage to Bloody Mary's mom, which led to, oh... a lot of death. It's pretty darn important, yanno. I also do understand that women married much younger back then. They still marry pretty young in some places around the world. Women could become prostitutes very young, way back when, and now. But uh... I mean, really? Getting a boner by starting at a 13-year-old girl? That scene was creepy to Mars, and he hadn't even taken his own clothes off yet! But then he did the noble thing, of course. He said he wouldn't touch her until she wanted him to, should it take years. And then of course the audience thinks Sansa's an ass because she says "what if I never want you to?" and we feel REALLY bad for poor Tyrion who's doing the NOBLE thing of not RAPING A CHILD (she didn't give her consent for any of this; she may be doing what "duty" is making her do, but "duty" for Sansa at that point was STAYING ALIVE, which means that she was threatened. Consent doesn't happen when you're threatened.. Gee, Martin. Really?

Then there's the male cast at large. While counting the number of rapes shown or alluded to in the series is extremely interesting (and sad), I think that counting the number of male characters who haven't threatened or performed rape would be an interesting find. I can think of three for certain. And only because the last is eight and kind of dumb, at that.

Did I mention the part where this one girl got raped by "half of Kingsport", as is often quoted? And then she basically gets blamed for it and ignored by society at general? Cersei actually says that she lacked the sense to avoid getting raped. As far as I can recall, she was one of the families getting held hostage in Kingsport. She didn't have a choice to be there in the first place. And as a lady in this world, she spent her entire life being pushed away from any form of physical combat protection. And even if she HAD any combat capabilities, how exactly was she supposed to fend a RAGING MOB off?

Oh, I forgot. Cersei, the only female fighting the system (other than Brienne, who seems to spend an awful large amount f time being ashamed of her ugliness rather than pretending she doesn't care and getting on with her life) is getting turned into a Lady MacbethxCleopatraxQueen of Hearts love child.

My point is that long before I read this, or anything related to the series in a review-sort-of manner... I already felt greatly insulted by the books as a woman and as a person. This is a world where women don't fight. They're discouraged from fighting. Which means that when their homes get sacked and all the men get killed... what, they just get raped and/or killed?

So then I read this. And, well... it's a lot funnier than anything I could have thought of. The summary of book 3 is simply hilarious. And it wasn't "well, I didn't think this before, but now that I read it I know this is how I think". I picked this up before I read this. It's rather interesting to see how deeply insulting and disgusting this series is. I just love learning about how many more popular misogynistic stories there are out there.

So that was interesting.

So I forget what else specifically I wanted to write about... but there was this crazy idea I have.

So I'm watching the Yoroiden Samurai Troopers sub. And golly gee, is it interesting. I've learned more about the boys from watching the first two episodes than I did watching the entire dub series.

So the sub is a lot better for a lot of reasons: a) the information reveals, b) the dialogue is more intimidating in Japanese and not in stupid random English accents (why was Shin British, and why were Touma and Ryo from like New York?) that make no sense anyway, c) it's interesting to see how much Japanese I can recognize, and d) I can ignore the bad art better if I focus on the text.

And then there's the things I realize about the series.

Firstly, the sub is worse for a specific reason that I've seen in a number of anime and manga. A lot of dubbers and translators are very good script-writers. It helps them get rehired. Being good as a script-writer for a translation typically means that you actually exaggerate what the actual writing is supposed to be. There can be a number of meanings used in translation (you know that plot where someone's using a translator to talk to someone else and they're insulting to person to their face, but the translator only says nice things? Yeah, that). The problem with reading any translation is that you're stuck with the translator's version of the story. Not your own. Translators in manga and anime tell you the story. While in an anime you theoretically have the ability to "read lips"... a lot of different things can be put to any character talking. Honestly, all most mouths in anime do is move up and down. They don't have all that much expression. Why? Because expression takes a LONG time to draw. When you have to create a lot of scenes and panels, using as little detail as possible to save time is the best option.

My problem isn't so much that the sub is bad because of the interpretation. My problem is the realization that, after reading the sub... the dub actually IMPROVED to a certain extent on the script because they had at least a semi-decent scriptwriter around. For most of it, I suppose. Considering how BAD the dub is, that's REALLY saying something.

Did I mention that Arago rules "The Empire of Doom"? Did I mention that? Cause it's kind of really really really funny and sad and when I saw that I thought "oh my gawd, you canNOT be serious."

He also uses "the power of doom". Yes. It's a thing. A commonly used thing.

And then, of course, when you have the Empire of Doom, you have Soldiers of Doom.

It's like the entire thing is one giant headdesk moment.

So here's my theory!

So much of this series is about cookie-cutter story design and cookie-cutter characters (damsel, at-risk child, brainy-but-useless female character, physically strong woman who secretly doesn't like fighting like all women because that's part of why women don't fight, Evil Empire, Evil Empire Soldiers, Evil Emperor, Evil Badass Soldiers, Angst-Wridden Hero Leader, Heroic Team, talking/friendly animal companion, World at Peril, Kidnap...) Um... Yeah. And even with a decent base premise, the series completely screws the pooch and never uses anything even half as decently as it could.

Since I haven't seen anything as poorly done as this series (at least with a premise this decent), and not serving as a member of a line of mass-produced genre similar stories that aren't typically meant to be remarkable in any way, and only serve as a path for merchandizing... I have only to assume that the series is made as a satire of these many devices. It's saying "look how much these ideas suck, actually!"

That's my theory. The ultimate-conspiracy-this-can't-honestly-be-as-bad-as-it-seems-for-no-reason. Of COURSE!

It's my only explanation for why the series is as bad as it is when it could have been so good. And it really could have been good. But then you have civilians hanging out by the rims of active volcanoes (without gear) and standing too close to battles so they get captured and then not RUNNING THE FUCK AWAY after they get rescued, and then you have random stops WHEN THE FATE OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT IS AT STAKE, to check up on some RANDOM KID WHO GIVES NOTHING TO THE STORY BUT IS THE AT-RISK CHILD STAND-IN's home, when we all know his parents aren't there. They've been kidnapped. By the Empire of Doom -snigger- for reasons unknown. I honestly don't recall why the... the Empire of Doom (by all that's holy, REALLY, Japan? REALLY? I thought only Americans were that stupid) did that. I guess just cause they're the Evil Empire, so they have to do Evil Things. The series does seem to have an obsession with damsels in distress. Ryo, Naste, and Jun trade off most of the time, but Byakuen also gets his moment in the light, along with the other Troopers. Why NOT just capture ALL of Tokyo to be one giant distressed... being. Of some sort.

You've got enemies who don't shut up and just ATTACK, or shut up and kill enemies rather than "holding them so they can watch their friends die, and then oh shoot! We lost and they got away, to fight us another day!" Really? REALLY?

Here's the a recent episode partial synopsis: Ryo was blinded. BLINDED. As in FULLY. BLIND. WITHOUT EYESIGHT. COULD NOT SEE. If he didn't have the vibrating armor-detecting swords (must stop reading into yaoi subtext), he would have been SCREWED. See, he's a member of a ninja clan. And for a sec, I REALLY thought he was gonna dip into that stereotypical pool of "sight beyond sight"-I mean, "seeing without seeing". But no. He kind of just fails.

But does he get killed by his near and completely uninjured-unencumbered foe? No. He gets rescued by his friendly white tiger, who carries him into the cave where Seiji is... and then the enemy buries the entrance under a rock slide. Because it's not like Ryo's demonstrated that he can demolish entire buildings or anything, right? I understand the sheer idiocy of trying to blow up an enclosed space (especially an underground complex) while you're INSIDE it... but they never explain it. Naaza acts like shutting them on the other side of a wall of rocks is going to make them die of starvation or something.

But that's all right. Because blocked entrances don't stop Soldiers of Doom. No, they just find other entrances in. So you say that negates the drama of BLOCKING OFF THE FIRST ENTRANCE? Psh. He's blind. He'll probably fall of a convenient cliff.

Well, he doesn't fall, but he sure does JUMP OFF OF A CONVENIENT CLIFF.

And what does Naaza do when he corners Ryo, who is STILL BLIND? Kill him fast, just to be safe - he got away once. It would be okay to be certain.

Oh no. That's in LOGICWORLD. The place that makes Paolinis and Charlaine Harrises and George R.R. Martins and Smeyers scream in fear.

What he does is he just stares and laughs.

And guess what? After what I can only presume is GETTING HIS EYES BURNED OUT OF THEIR SOCKETS (which we of course don't see, he just keeps his shut so we can see his abnormally large eyelashes; the type that you see some women wear that really creep the fuck out of you), he still gets his vision back. On top of surviving the poison attacks. Which were apparently just like... fire attacks. Maybe acid or something?

So there you have it. Ta.

Trends

Jul. 8th, 2012 11:38 pm
starfire11: (Default)
So I noticed another thing. There's this trend in shows for skinny women to like overweight men. But I don't often see the reverse. In fact I can't really recall anything other than "Hairspray" where that actually happens... and since "Hairspray is a sort of parody of everything... I don't think that's a great example.

Matt Smith must be very intimidating when he's being the Doctor. I've read and watched a number of interviews and back-stage videos and other things... the man is rather silly and apparently highly accident prone (self-admitted, along with crew commentary)... and he's very sweet according to these same things. Just watching him doing his Doctor routine and it doesn't sound like a guy who uses a puppet badger to attack his own face. It looks very intimidating.

I've got a theory.

So the best actors (people-wise), are, in my experience (because you can trust things you watch on television, right?), the antagonists.

I have a couple theories about this. One of them is that people who are good at playing antagonists and villains, but are really sweethearts IRL a) have a lot of held-back rage they just reach to when they need it for stuff, b) are just very good at being mean and spend the rest of their time off-set being as nice as they can to apologize to their fellows actors for acting like asses on-set (also because they don't want the reputation of being an ass), and c) they lived their entire life secretly wishing to be a cheesy evil character, so they play it out as much as they can.

I have to stand around waiting for my conditioner to do its work for three minutes every day when I take a shower. I have to think of SOMETHING!

Of course, the secondary protagonists also tend to be the best people, too.

Being a decent person, even if they're the same as they're portrayed in interviews and back-stage stuff... is a relevant term. I think it just goes against the childhood notion that people act in real life like they do on the screen. Which is very confusing when you begin to take note of how many actors have played "both sides of the coin". It has to do with learning about gray and so on. So this is probably more of "oh, they can make actually humorous jokes without cruel jibes with other actors on the set, including the goodie-goodies".

They had railings in medieval England? You know I never even considered that before. When exactly were railings invented? How old are they?

The Merlin extras must have loved chucking veggies at the titular character in the first episode.

I don't really have anything to write here. I felt like writing something and I'm putting off getting as much of "A Song of Ice and Fire" book 3 read as possible before the end of tomorrow and I felt like writing and the first three seasons of "Merlin" are on Netflix and Methur fans keep spamming my dashboard and... sigh... today was weird. And I don't really know what to think of it.

And Arthur just owned Merlin with a broom. That's pretty BA. And no wonder there are Methur fanatics. I'm reading way too much into this, THANK YOU Methur fanatics.

I think I'm going to read this chapter of "Embers", some more of that book... and maybe finish this episode. I might do that tomorrow because this is interesting but it's a little silly and the Methur commentary going on in my head (which creeps me out enough on tumblr) is getting irritating.

Ta.
starfire11: (Default)

On the agenda for the evening: FINISHED THE DAMN BOOK HAHAHAHA, Britney Spears and fridge logic, "Am I being gay?", and Iron Hans 2.0.

And possibly other things. Hopefully I'll get to them all. It's not like I spent oh... three hours typing up an outline last night. A REALLY long and detailed outline. If it weren't, it would have taken me like... two minutes.

So.

I FINISHED DRACULA!!! HAHAHAHA! And I didn't go blind doing it either! HAHA!

So yeah. I finally finished it. I was rather surprised by the ending. SPOILER:

I thought they all died. But ah well. Good endings aren't so bad (because they honestly can be at times, which... is very weird, because that wouldn't make it good, would it? And it probably means that you're a sadist).

And I did most of it while going for a good walk. I have started my descent to eventually running in the mornings! Woot! Exercise ftw!

I would never reread Dracula. I mean... I hope I don't have to reread it for class, ever, because I would reread it again (to refresh my memory)... but I really didn't like the story at all. It was an interesting look on vampire mythos and such, especially concerning the original Dracula, not the 50 billion Hollywood iterations that are out there.

The book suffers from that same thing that many books suffer: being a product of its time. I have stated before that I can understand the viewpoints presented in the work, since the book is a product of its time, and that's the way people thought back then (at least many of the peoples represented in the book). I can't forgive, but I can understand. Still. I've read romance novels that were less sexist than this thing. I thought it would be about mythology and fighting vampires, not about "oh look, damsel! So frail and weak, we must protect her!" Yup. Spoiled by Hollywood. Le sigh.

Also... it was just plain boring. There was only one largish action sequence, and maybe two or three small ones. I didn't like any of the characters (all that sexism being there and what not - YES I GET THAT IT WAS THE TIMES BUT DID I MENTION THAT I STILL FIND IT INSULTING?)... none of them really appealed to me, save for the American and Jonathan... and even then, there was too little appearance of the former, and Jonathan kind of lost my interest.

So that's over.

So I was humming "Baby One More Time" the other day. Yes, I liked Britney Spears when I was little and she was a thing. Consider this: I'm a person who frequently has their name misspelled, almost shares a name with the woman, and, back then... I didn't know anything about music, I couldn't understand most of the lyrics in songs (except for occasional bits), and I knew only a couple bands by name (versus now, where I know several, hehe): N'Sync, the Backstreet Boys, 98 degrees, Britney Spears (yes, not a band, but a singer or whatever), Enya, ATeens, Madonna, and S Club 7. Maybe the Dixie Chicks, maybe that's a big maybe. And the only bands I could somewhat recognize music from what Spears, N'Sync (because they weren't BSB songs, which I knew most of), BSB, Enya, S Club, and ATeens. Of course, I didn't even really know Enya, because my Dad would also play Clannad, which I didn't know the name of. Clannad, being the family band Enya was originally part of, has a similar sound. So I was familiar with it, but I just thought it was all Enya. I didn't actually learn the difference (or about the existence of Clannad) until... either late Middle School or High School.

Also, they used to spam Britney Spears and other pop bands at my summer camps. It was ridiculous. I remember a number of occasions where "Oops I Did it Again" would come on and the room would resound with everyone singing along.

Also: the reason why I originally liked Britney Spears? I was in a store with my Mom and my sister (and I think it was a Target) and my sister got a CD, and, being the spoiled, jealous child I was, I wanted one too. So Mom let me pick (even though I didn't know ANYONE). And I demonstrated that I didn't know anyone by standing there, staring at the CD rack, wondering which to pick. I don't remember if I saw it or Mom saw it first, but the CD with BRITNEY SPEARS in big letters was picked up because "look, you share a first name". Seriously. That's the only reason. Back then I thought it was a sign from God.

Ah well.

SO, I was singing this song, yes? So I'm humming while I'm doing some stuff on the computer... and suddenly, the meaning behind the lyrics begins to dawn on me... and I feel deeply horror struck that I know this song well enough to hum it when I'm bored...

No, I'm not 100% sure that the song means what I think it means... and there are a couple meanings I'm willing to allow. I have no source material here other than the lyrics and what I'm reading. And the interpretation I'm particularly leery of is very likely colored by my own life and experiences. As are all things. But anyway... the first interpretation that popped through my head began with the chorus "hit me baby one more time". Way back when I gave no notice to this. Over time, I began to think of it like the phrase "hit me up", which tends to mean "give me another drink" or piece of food or something (it can also be used for information). I was also more caught in how good the album sounds overall (which it honestly does - if you're willing to ignore what most of the songs actually mean).

But if you look at these:

"There's nothing that I wouldn't do"

"Show me how you want it to be
Tell me baby 'cause I need to know now"

"I must confess that my loneliness is killing me now"

And then take into consideration the fact that "hit me baby one more time" is used five times in the song. It's part of the chorus. So this is sung by someone, to someone else, saying that person A screwed up without realizing it, and that they'll do anything to fix it. And then they ask person B to hit them, possibly to get person B's lesson through to person A.

This kind of sounds like an abusee to abuser relationship. Abusers often make abusees think that they have nowhere else to go if they decide to leave the relationship. Perhaps that the abusee is worthless or ugly or stupid or some other reason that would make no one else want to have them around. Basically, the abuser is doing charity and being deeply kind by taking in the abusee.

I understand that it is important to understand the other person's side in a relationship. This could just be person A saying that they didn't realize they did something wrong, and they'll do anything to make it up to person B. The "friendly" punchout is also a common concept in escapist literature, movies, and television. So that could also be what's happening. "Punch me to make you feel better." "We good now?" "Yup."

But it doesn't sound like that. It sounds like person B's perspective of the world is the one that takes precedence. "Show me how you want it to be" - setting up how things will work in the relationship, according to person B. While one person in a relationship may know more about relationships and making them work... a relationship is not set up and maintained by only one of the individuals. It is a partnership. Both sides contribute. Or else what is the point of the relationship in the first place? Sex, sure... but what kind of relationship is that? It's empty and sad.

So this kind of screams to be "this is supporting abuse!" And even if that's not what the song is REALLY about (given Britney's later stuff, I wouldn't be surprised if this is just foreshadowing of her later career, although I'm willing to admit that maybe she just CHANGED big time down the road, as most people do)... this is how I hear it. And I can't listen to a song where, every time it pops up, I think "I'm singing about an abusive relationship. Great."

So yeah.

And it's not the only problematic song on the album.

"Sometimes I run (sometimes)
Sometimes I hide
Sometimes I'm scared of you
But all I really want is to hold you tight
Treat you right, be with you day and night
Baby all I need is time"

There's "Sometimes". It actually sounds quiet nice, for a pop song. Bouncy, sweet. Pretty, really. The chorus runs nicely off the tongue.

This is a song sung by someone who is concerned that someone else is trying to move things too fast. And possibly that the singer is either a victim of Stockholm Syndrome... or is being stalked by person B... or is just trying to sweeten things up so that person B doesn't hurt person A.

"Sometimes I'm scared of you" is NOT something a person should be saying about someone else who they want to go out with. It is REALLY bad if a member of a relationship is saying this. I say this about my stepfather. I HATE my stepfather. I say this about spiders. I do NOT want to get into a relationship with a spider, outside of one that involves my hand on a fly swatter, and them squished under the big, far end.

Also, if you HIDING from someone else, it's a good sign that you don't want to be around them. If you are HIDING, then there is probably a reason for it, especially if this person is scaring you.

Now, this song could be about a very shy person and, maybe, their first boy/girlfriend. Maybe person A doesn't really get it all, and doesn't know how to jump into a relationship, and they just want patience.

But you don't SAY that you are TERRIFIED of the person. You don't say it that way!

There's also another song that I've never really liked anyway that could be about sex, drugs, alcohol, and a party. The kind cops come to in order to arrest people. It also starts with a rapper calling Zeus and Agamemnon poets. I get Homer as a poet... but what?

Then there's a song that could be something cute about person A saying that they're always thinking about their person B.

Or it could be the song Stephanie Meyer put on endless repeat while she write the Twilight Series. Cause it pretty well describes Bella's relationship with Edward, and the response other people have to it.

The rest are mostly about the singer saying how much they screwed up the relationship. And maybe sex. Probably sex.

Other than the sound... there's really nothing I like about this album.

"But it's music! Isn't sound... the point?"

There is music where the sound is enough to make up for any other shortcomings. Even in songs with lyrics. Music with a foreign language (where I don't get a translation) falls into this category. There is also music sung in English that can fall into this category.

But if a song comes on and my thoughts include "oh... sex. Failure in a relationship. Alcohol. Abuse. Uhh..." That's enough to overpower that "oh, this is catchy!" portion. None of these songs have amazingly written lyrics that just sound nice together. I don't currently like Britney Spears (I only ever bought two CDs and a single, anyway, and that was back before 4th grade), and I haven't listened to this music in ages. That uneducated spark that made me like this before is just... gone.

Moving on. I don't know if I ranted about this before. I actually wanted insight into this from some people I know. Maybe I'll post it on facebook or something...

So I was in chorus and I was sitting and waiting for class to start. Most of us were there. People were talking to each other. It wasn't absolutely quiet, but it wasn't very loud either. Have to say that I don't know the names of any of the girls in my chorus. I started to last year, but even then I only knew like three, and then I changed choruses. (I also think they were all named Sara...) So I don't know her name. I'd recognize the face, but I don't know her name, and I didn't know her personally. She was just someone else who sat in my section. Who also didn't sing very well, but meh.

I think she was playing with her phone. She was trying to do something and it wasn't working, and getting annoyed with it. She made the other girls nearby (who were friends) aware of the situation, and, at one point, she asked, "Am I being gay?" to express something along the lines of "what am I being stupid enough to miss that isn't making this work?" That's what it translated to in my head, even while a big question mark popped up in my head, along with the thought, "What? What does "Am I being gay?" mean? Who says that?"

So I find myself in the interesting situation of understanding rude slang (if that's what it was), and also trying to understand why people think the word "gay" means stupid. The original usage of the term is for "happy".

I understand "Am I being an idiot?" "Am I being a moron?" "Am I being stupid?" "What am I missing?" "Am I missing something?"

But why do people do this? Take two things that literally have nothing to do with each other (the feeling of being happy or, more likely, having a sexual preference for people of the same sex) and stick them together like this, as an insult, or to vent frustration?

I had a similar experience the other day. I can't quite remember what he said, but this person was referring to something that annoyed them, and called it a "whore". It had nothing to do with prostitution, wasn't in reference to a person, or, more specifically, a person who was sleeping around. The term was just used as an insult. But not just "this is a rude thing to call you, so I'm going to use it". It was used as if to say "the definition of 'whore' works perfectly to describe why this is insulting me, so I will use it". People who do this clearly expect others to understand completely what they mean and sympathize. I was just very confused, because I could not connect the object of his anger with the term.

We live in a society where people are this stupid or prejudiced. They just go with it. If they were sat down and told, explicitly, what they are saying by quoting these words, about themselves, their beliefs, their culture, their society, or others... maybe they would understand. But no one does that. Everyone just goes with it.

I've been in this situation. I thought "constipation" was an insult for the longest time until my sister and father laughed at me and explained the definition of the term to me. After which, I went from using the word a LOT to almost never using it (not because it's taboo... but honestly, how many times a day do you say "someone's constipated"?).

Then there are other curse words that involve sexual preference, sex in general... a word that is insulting because it implies that you have no father. Who cares about your mother? The important thing is that you have no father who will claim you.

The term 'slut' has not, in my hearing or reading, been used to address a man, except jokingly. Rape is considered a joke. "She was asking for it" is still a joke.

We live in a society where this happens. I can understand a lack of knowledge and education. I can understand how the meaning of words change with time. So these words are simply considered insults, and people don't have to know what they mean or how they became insults or WHY they're considered insults... everyone just recognizes that it's an insult to say them to others. But if that's the case... what's the point of saying them? If you want to insult someone, the best way to do it is to be specific. To really hit them where it hurts. Just throwing random curse words at them is rather childish, and just makes you sound belligerent, and not intelligent (which is frequently considered a strength, especially if you're good at cutting people down). And all it does is subliminally support being cruel to half our planet's sexual population, and a large percentage of its sexual preference population.

Basically, everything in support of these words and phrases is just a lame excuse. This is just wrong. It needs to change.

Anyway. To end on a mild high note. I was looking a number of tumblr posts on "Snow White & the Huntsman", and even watched a decent song made by Florence and the Machine for the movie. Then I looked up some information on "Mirror Mirror". Neither of which I've seen. I'm still curious about them. I would like to see at least "Snow White & the Hunstman", KStew or no. And of course, thinking about these two adaptations of Snow White made in close proximity to each other (because there were just NO other fairy tales to use for movie material, right?), made me think about "Once Upon a Time", which ALSO uses the Snow White storyline. At least vaguely. A TV show which was on-going in its first season while these two movies were getting publicity before they came out. And then there's "Grimm", which also uses some of those familiar Brothers Grimm stories. In a very, very vague capacity. So vague I don't that if they didn't make these episodes so contrived... there would be no apparent relation.

So because of that... I've been in an Iron Hans mood lately. It's my favorite fairy tale. Manliness and 'good christian values' and all that aside. Maybe it just had the best art interpretation in my Elementary School library. I don't know!

Anyway. Apparently Grimm did use it... to some extent. I'll have to look that up again to be sure (they at least use a quotation from the story, but then again, their quotations tend to not have anything to do with the episodes themselves... so meh). But "Once Upon a Time" is going to need some more characters to populate its Fairy Tale world! They've barely scratched the surface on the number of things they can use! Even looking at Disney alone, they haven't used "The Frog Princess", "The Little Mermaid", "Treasure Island", "Rapunzel"... heck, they could even make an excuse to stick Mulan in there if they wanted! Then there are so many other fairy tales they could use! I would love to have them try and interpretation of "The Boy Who Did Not Know Fear" or "The Troll King's Daughter" (or whatever they're called) or that one where the Princess wraps herself in fur and it's like part of "East of the Sun, West of the Moon"/Cupid and Psyche. Or "Silver Hands" (whatever it's called) where the protagonist gets her hands chopped off after her parents make a deal with the devil. And honestly? They've barely scratched the surface on the Aladdin and Sleeping Beauty fairy tales, even though they've partially referenced them. They could do a lot more with them. Or Peter Pan! Sure, they have fairies, but they don't have Peter or Tink flying around! Pulling them in could make an excuse for having mermaids. And Bella's last name may be Swan (possibly implying that SHE is to be the Swan Princess - can you say love story and more magic from Regina, now-remagified people?), but they haven't actually USED the Swan Princess storyline. Or the Nutcracker storyline! Or Goldilocks! No one likes Goldilocks... Heck, they could even make an excuse to have Robin Hood in here! Or "The Last Unicorn" - now that would be an interesting throw-in!

But while I have seen a number of interpretations and reinterpretations of these stories... I have seen very few reinterpretations of Iron Hans. No movie or television interpretations, certainly.

So I figure... if Hollywood has no ideas (considering that two companies came out with movies using the same fairy tale... at the same time, and they have this history of companies stealing scripts and ideas and fighting over who can do it better, and because they completely fail in original story-telling as of late), why not try their hand at who can make the best Iron Hans? I'm completely game for that.

But then I thought... you know, I did try my hand at re-imagining the story way back when. I wanted to see what would happen if you switched the gender roles - made the protagonist female. Never really got anywhere with it.

But I have two completed outlines for a re-imagining of "The Little Mermaid" and "Sleeping Beauty" sitting on my computer, waiting to be written.

Why not give it another go myself, rather than wait? It'll probably never be published, but it would make me happy.

So I gave it a shot. And, as stated earlier, I spent three plus hours on it. There are still a couple problems that need to be worked out (some cultural research I need to do, how the prince is sort of blackmailed by Iron Hans to free him, why he flees the tournament/festival when the princess throws the golden apple... and so on). But most of it is out there, waiting for me. I'm planning to pick one of the three stories to work on for NaNoWriMo. If they're too short (which I highly doubt, considering that, well, it's me), then I'll just move on to one of the others. Iron Hans and Sleeping Beauty are both Brothers Grimm tales, so it would make sense to start a mini re-imagined compendium. "The Little Mermaid" isn't, but... well, it's so reused that I don't think people would care. I won't care, as long as I have stuff to write.

So there you have it. A lot of writing. My hand really hurts. I might just delete this whole CD and throw it away. Oh, my wasted youth. And humanity, oh humanity... I hope we can improve.

starfire11: (Default)
Two things I'd like to rant on here: 1) 'compliments' and the perception of sex and gender in relation to action as exemplified by gothic literature, and b) failed predictions in science fiction.

I think I'll go over the former while it's on my mind.

So "Dracula", while being one of the most boring novels I've ever read, has a number of GREAT quotations on the perception of gender differences at the time. Am I surprised? No, I have had a great deal of instruction on the Gothic era in European literature and culture, throughout high school and my two years in college. Frankenstein happens to be one of my favorite novels. Why? Because it's an early form of angst. That's my theory, anyway.

Here's the most recent example I've read: "she was born with a man's brain, and a woman's heart". Ahhhh, compliments! We love them!

Now, I'm just imagining walking into the 1800s and being told this myself, and punching this person in the face. Put in current context, this is quite insulting (for the same reasons that, put in its actual cultural context, it's still insulting).

This requires me to take this apart properly to understand fully what is being said (insofar as I've been taught). To be "born with a man's brain" at the time meant that this was a person who had intelligence. Only men were intelligent. Women were not, it was believed, genetically capable of being intelligent. So clearly, if a woman were to demonstrate some measure of intelligence, they were born with a MAN'S brain, and not a woman's.

No, I'm not angry that Mina Harker is being told that she was born with a wrong body part (because male and female brains are hardwired differently 9_9). This is insulting because it demonstrates a common cultural view: women were not intelligent. Only men are.

This "woman's heart" idea is that women possess feelings and emotions that men do not. They are more emotional. They are "sweet" and "gentle" and "kind" creatures while men are, well... "manly" creatures (whatever that's supposed to mean, depending on the century - for the most part in Europe, it seems to mean heterosexual, strong of body, and more ready to do violence than not).

And then there's this: Mina is told not to participate in the hunt for Dracula because she is so precious that she must be protected while all the strong men go off to do this thing.

On the one hand, this ups Mina's chances of survival, so hurray for that.

On the other... seriously? You people are ridiculous in your use of resources. Give her a cross or a bunch of garlic or, heck, teach her to shoot and give her a gun! Jeez.

The book, like most classic literature, rankles me. Every mention they make of "men not being able to confide in a woman, where such feeling is proper to confide in" or on the differences between men and women and so on that I've harped on before and I just WANT THIS BOOK TO BE OVER WITH. UGH.

Ironically, put in today's cultural context, I would still find this insulting (yes, I am aware that a woman back then would probably find this flattering - I mean to say that if I were time-jumped to back then and told this, I would understand the meaning and find it insulting) for similar reasons.

If someone told me I had a man's mind, I would think that they were telling me I was stupid in one way or another, depending on who gave me the comment and when (or still that men were superior). If someone told me I had a woman's heart, I might think they were telling me that I was weak. Or I could feel complimented, while also being annoyed because the compliment giver is relying on the stereotype that only women have empathy. All of this understanding relies on gender/sex stereotypes in our culture. And sexist humor.

Moving on from that: failed science fiction predictions.

A friend brought this up by putting up a meme of a screenshot from the dolorian (or however you spell it) in "Back to the Future". I forget which movie, but it's a picture of when they were looking at what year the car was being sent to. Apparently it was sent to June 25th, 2012. When we apparently have hoverboards. Hello toy companies? The last big thing we had was roller tenneshoes. Are you just waiting to release the hoverboards?

So that's wrong. It's not alone, though.

Then there's the original "Lost in Space" TV show, which was made in the 70s, and was supposed to take place in 1996. Accordingly, we had moon colonies, cryo stasis, androids (that, admittedly, looked like screwed up garbage cans) and flying saucer space ships. I KNEW NASA was hiding something!

The 1999 "Bicentennial Man" starring Robin Williams as an android begins in 2005. Admittedly, the Information Age took off WAY beyond what anyone expected, I feel like people in the 90s were a bit over-expectant when it came to what we could accomplish in the early 2000s. I understand the way our world has changed drastically in a little over a decade... but honestly, we don't have anything approaching an android slave army.

If I find some more examples, I'll put them here. I've actually stayed away from some of the really old science fiction. Most of what I've read (and watched) takes place in a future so far ahead that years are kept in a completely different format, so as to make it nigh impossible to know how many years stand between now and then.

Most the bad continuity comes from the advancement of technology overtaking "future tech". Miniaturization, the advancement of knowledge of physics and electricity, the advancement of medical science, changing fashion, increased understanding of our planet and environmental science... it all catches up, and looking at the way people in the past viewed the way the future looked is... humorous, among other things, and a little sad, in others. But without them, we wouldn't be where we are today, so we should still be grateful.

A good example would be the original command deck of the Enterprise. What's the console? A black board with a bunch of glowing rainbow buttons. What's the instruction during a scene? Probably press random buttons in the relatively correct area to make it look like you know what you're doing.

Anyway, things have changed. Things have happened that no one predicted. In ways people didn't predict. And so it goes.
starfire11: (Default)
Mike made Mom lunch and biscuits. I got one, and finished the last two years of "Grim Fandango". Still love that game!

I also read an interesting fanfic for SladexNightwing.

I finished "The Claw of the Conciliator". Interesting book. Severian obviously doesn't really hold much respect for the women he cares about, but likes sex a WHOLE lot.

I watched some of "Pride and Prejudice" with Mom.

Profile

starfire11: (Default)
starfire11

January 2013

S M T W T F S
  12345
678 9 101112
131415 16171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 23rd, 2017 12:40 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios