Monday, 15 July 2013

Asian actors in Hollywood; Misogyny in the gaming community

"A Leading Man" Depicts The Asian Male Actors Struggle In Hollywood - Destroy to Rebuild, 28/12/2012


More Asians actors and actresses in Hollywood pls.

The above link goes to an old post but one that touches on an ongoing issue that doesn't seem to be getting much attention from the mainstream press.  'A Leading Man' is a movie about a good looking Asian American guy named GQ (yes, we all thought of the magazine) who is an actor trying to make it big in Hollywood but struggling to break through the 'bamboo ceiling', a barrier that is described by Lucy Liu as being rejected by Hollywood for not being Asian enough or not being American enough.  And thus, with no strong independent leading roles given to Asians, they are typecast all the time.  You're always playing the 'funny chink' or some martial arts expert.  Those who don't make it into film get by in LA doing advertisements, as GQ seems to be doing in one shot as he takes a huge bite out from a six inch subway.  But this constant struggle with Hollywood's 'quiet racism' takes a toll on GQ, who starts to get really pissed off at the lack of dignity he is given in his roles, as well as the lack of recognition he gets as a real actor.

So in conclusion, it's a movie about how Asian American actors are stuck in an awkward third space that nobody else recognises as a problem in the film industry.




Even now, most Asian American actors and actresses end up playing supporting roles or are eschewed completely for an all-white main cast.  Actors end up playing the stereotypical Kung Fu/Karate guy (Jet Li, Lee Byung-hu), a villainous bastard (Will Yun Lee in Red Dawn) or a comical sidekick (Jay Chow in The Green Hornet, Aaron Yoo in Disturbia).  Actresses get typecast as an exotic love interest (Katie Leung as Cho Chang in HP Jamie Chung in The Hangover II), a kickass karate/kung fu girl (Rinko Kikuchi in Pacific Rim, Lucy Liu in Charlie's Angels, Maggie Q in Nikita, Rila Fukushima in The Wolverine - NEED I SAY MORE?) or a prudish college room-mate who is conservative and likes to stick with her 'Asian sisters' (Pitch Perfect).

Even Justin Chon, who was supposed to be the central character of '21 and Over' became conspicuously sidelined by Skylar Astin and Miles Teller, whom the movie was really focused on.  I was disappointed but hey - at least he got cast?  Even if he were cast as that small funny Asian guy with the stereotypical 'YOU MUST BE A DOCTOR OR GET OUT OF MY HOUSE' sort of dad...

This is why I'm really looking forward to seeing Jamie Chung in her new movie Eden.  It's based on a true story about a Korean-American girl who gets kidnapped and forced into becoming a sex slave, so yeah, there really was no choice but to cast an Asian actress.  But I'm still really excited to see Jamie Chung get more screen time and being able to play a strong leading role in a Hollywood film.  It's still quite a novelty and I really hope I can see more Asians being given non-typecast roles.  Go Jamie.





Every Misogynistic Argument You've Ever Heard About Video Games - Jezebel, 12/7/13

Summary   

An opinion piece posted by UBERTROUT on feminist website/forum Jezebel that seeks to own every elitist male gamer who has argued the following:
"Games aren't marketed to women because women don't play games.""Women aren't REAL gamers, they're just casuals.""Anyone who came to video games late isn't a REAL gamer.""Publishers don't make games with female protagonists because they wouldn't sell. Men don't want to play a female character because then they might kiss a dude and that'd be gay."
The piece's conclusion:

So to anyone who has ever made one of these arguments: you too can be saved from being an asshat. Just, y'know, stop making these arguments. Have a tiny bit of empathy for people who aren't you, and ask yourself — REALLY ask yourself — if the problem isn't women playing games, but the men who are too scared to share their toys with the scary, unknowable ladypersons.



Tuesday, 9 July 2013

Egyptian boy talking politics becomes a Chinese internet sensation



http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1278640/egyptian-12-year-old-talking-politics-becomes-chinese-internet-sensation

But it was the boy's articulate political argument that struck a chord in China. "Where is the constitution that represents us?" he asked in Arabic.
On Chinese social media, one person commented: "The heavenly dynasty could learn from him," in a reference to China's Communist Party.
"He has an Egyptian Dream," many wrote, borrowing from President Xi Jinping's "Chinese Dream".

Three things to take note of here:

  • Obviously, his eloquence, knowledge and ability to clearly discern what is right and wrong even at such a young age and in such a volatile and messy environment
  • How big a role the internet has played in raising awareness
  • For people like my parents who continue to generalise middle easterns and Arabs as extremely religious, violent and oppressive toward women, this young boy shows a glimmer of what young reformist  Egyptians think of religion and how they have just the same hopes, dreams and principles as people in other societies 

Thursday, 4 July 2013

Eating out with another family

So my brother is sitting next to their daughter, and decides to charm her with his shy awkwardness: 

Hey...do you like lame jokes?


Uh, I guess haha.


I've got a joke about a sheep... but it's really BAAAAaaad. 


Oh really?  I'm sure it's not too bad.  I like lame jokes too and I laugh all the time.  I'm not good at telling jokes - my jokes are really bad. Haha.


Oh... ok... yeah... 


Me: HAHAHAHAHAHAH.





Biggest fail.

Monday, 1 July 2013

Movie: 'Finding Mr. Right' - teaching Chinese women that love matters more than money

Finding Mr. Right is an unfortunate C-grade appellation for a good movie with legitimate feels and a very important message for young Chinese women in today's age: money can't buy you happiness.

Context.

As much of a platitude as that is, anyone who knows anything about contemporary China will recognise how notoriously materialistic and superficial women have become in dating and courtship.  "I would rather cry in a BMW than laugh on a bicycle" is an infamous quote uttered by 22 year old Ma Nuo on China's top TV dating show after a suitor asked her if she would ride on a bicycle with him on a date.  These words have since become emblematic of the shallowness of modern Chinese women and a sad reflection of the society they live in.  


For a movie which so effectively attacks that culture, the title 'Finding Mr. Right' is like taking a massive stinkin' shit and then pissing all over the movie's credibility.  It makes the movie sound generic and dumb and shallow when it's much more sophisticated than all other Chinese rom-coms.  Admittedly, some characters were cartoonish and the ending was corny as but it's better to think of it as a fable - strong for its moral lesson and likeable simplicity.

I liked it because it sounds like such an innocuous, forgettable rom-com when really, it makes such a damning criticism of the superficial attitudes which permeate the social scene of metropolitan China: the growing obsession with money 钱, social status 社会地位and connections - 关系.

There are no shallow love triangles; no drop dead gorgeous hunks running around with roses and chocolates; none of that nauseating Katherine Heigl desperation being channelled by the protagonist as so often seen in rom-coms.

Instead, it focuses more on family interaction than dating, while striking a great balance between funny and serious social commentary.  It seems hard but director Xialu Xue manages to do it with sufficient skill, ringing the alarm bell loud and clear:  you may choose a man because he can afford you Chanel and Hermes, but is it worth it if your life ends up devoid of true love and happiness?  

Choosing a man for his financial assets rather than true love is something most Chinese women know is not right but they do it anyway, predominantly because of pressure from their family which is worsened by long-standing socio-economic conditions - soaring prices of real estate in China, discrimination against women in the workplace, the tradition of the man being the breadwinner etc.  It has come to the point where some young women don't believe that love is a concomitant factor in marriage.  What is marriage but just another of life's stepping stones?

Story.

The story is mainly centred around a beautiful young woman named Wen Jiajia, played by TANG WEI.  You may remember her from Ang Lee's much lauded espionage thriller Lust, Caution.  You may also remember loads of explicit sex in that movie and that Tang Wei alone was freaking blacklisted and effectively banished from the industry for two years by Chinese authorities.  This was despite the fact that it garnered rave reviews internationally and had people talking about her as potential Oscar material.  I haven't actually seen the whole thing but I was pissed off that she, the brilliant newcomer, was banned while Tony Leung, the main guy, got away scot free.  JEZUZ.


Wen, who speaks really shitty no English, first appears in the movie as a glamorous, spoilt, obnoxious, bossy, demanding, massive freaking bitch. She's a mistress.  And she's pregnant.  Like in reality, so many Chinese mistresses who get knocked up by their sugar daddies (干爹) end up jetting off to America to give birth.  Reasons:

1. Hide the child from authorities cos one child policy
2. Hide secret family from wife
3. Allow the child to get a green card to foreign citizenship

So she ends up in a suburban house for pregnant Chinese women, driven there by a reticent ex-doctor named Frank who has resorted partly to chauffeuring these women as a livelihood.  At first, Wen bullies Frank for being an incompetent chauffeur and tries to buy off the best room in the house as well as pay the lady who runs it to wash her clothes and cook ewwww seafood.  To Wen, whom has been spoilt by her lover with a continuous supply of shiny designer bags and an unlimited credit card, anything can be solved with cash.

Also keep in mind that such houses do exist in America and are considered illegal because the women they profit off are not actually travelling to America for 'pleasure'.  Yes, they lied.  They're just there to do all their shady stuff and get an American citizenship for their kid.


Meanwhile, we discover that the adorably timid Frank is actually a very kind-hearted father whose wife, a hugely successful businesswoman who now lives in a giannnnnnnnnnnnt colonial style mansion with wtf a Rolls Royce (??) in the front yard, had left him.  It is strongly suggested that she did so because her career had taken off and his has not.  She wanted someone better.  Someone who could match her.  Frank, despite being a well respected surgeon back in China who even Wen's father once desperately sought treatment from, could not practice in America until he passed the board, something he put off so he could look after his daughter while his wife went to work.

The contrast between these two main characters is something my dad really noticed and enjoyed about this movie because it highlighted the cultural differences between east and west, demonstrating the way women were not socially repressed in America and able to turn the tables on their husbands.  In China, the man is generally perceived to be the breadwinner and the wife.... a dutiful wife, lul, a supporting domestic figure.   And it's always the man who leaves his partner to find someone younger and prettier.  Suddenly, the film is like  HOMG LOOK AT THIS SHIT.  Here's a guy who volunteered to be a stay at home father and then was flung aside by his wife for someone richer and higher up the social ladder because he's not good enough.  And the notion of the wife as the breadwinner?

"Unthinkable," my dad said., "very embarrassing for men in China, even today."

SIXTY per cent of Chinese officials who come under investigation for corruption are also keeping full-time mistresses, according to a study by the Renmin University of China.
          - The Australian 

Moreover, my dad used to work for the Chinese government and when he went off to play tennis with his mates, there would always be one or two guys who'd show up with a pretty young girl - their mistress.  These men drank.  They smoked.  They gambled.  They were openly sexist. It would be unsurprising if some of them had engaged in corrupt practices.  My dad was the only one who steered away from these 'conventions'.  He and my aunt said a rich and powerful Chinese man who doesn't have a mistress is a social anomaly.

Most Critics who reviewed this movie and don't understand its contextual background are obviously perplexed at why a 'generic' rom com has been such a massive hit at the Chinese box office.  What they don't know is how institutionalised cheating is among wealthy and even middle class Chinese and the growing frustrations of Chinese women who feel like they must accept the status quo because they have no ability to change the power imbalance between men and women. It's a highly contentious issue and by attacking it head on from the perspective of the mistress, whom everyone is automatically positioned to hate, the director really struck a chord with Chinese audiences.



Significantly, Frank represents a reversal of these roles in a democratic western environment - he represents change:  it is possible to find a man who will sacrifice his career for family - it is possible to find a man who will respect you and truly love you, while women can also achieve great things and earn the recognition and respect they deserve.  And yet! women can also exhibit gross avarice for wealth and social status, taking love for granted and neglecting their partner.  It's not just misogynistic Chinese men who are capable of such selfishness.  And so the key principle to take away is that neither women nor men, who are equals, should ever treat their partners like an unimportant piece of shit.  Pretty much.

As the movie progresses, the predictable happens.  By interacting with Frank and his daughter, Wen begins to realise what having a family and true love really means.  An enjoyable and what my dad called a "nuanced" performance from Tang Wei sees Wen transform from the materialistic fobby brat to a humble woman who realises how meaningless money really is in her life, especially when her credit card suddenly stops working because her lover is being investigated for corruption - another veiled criticism of Chinese society.   Pregnant in America, knowing little English and without any money, Wen has to start working.  And Frank is always there to support her.

In comparison, I loved how we never saw Wen's lover appear on screen but were only able to hear his voice when she talks to him through the phone - a virtual lover.  He would console her, promise her he'd visit but these promises were always broken and inadequately compensated by another LV bag sent via mail.  His physical absence, especially during the penultimate scenes where she flies back to China for one last crack at a life with her original lover are a devastating reality for those women who think that being a mistress of a rich man is a satisfying expedition to happiness.


In those scenes, Wen walks around an apartment where the huge rooms are literally gold and filled with ostentatiously expensive Louis XIV furniture.  The camera pans across the rooms and shows us how utterly magnificent the apartment is... and yet, it's an airy, empty place - a home completely devoid of love and warmth.  We knew that she was reluctant to fly back but now she has truly recognised how pathetic her life has become.

With tears streaming down her face, Wen leaves a life of LV bags and Mercs and carves out a happier life in America as a single mother, starting her own cooking blog and learning how to fix her own broken taps (literally).  Of course, you get your happy ending with Frank, which is what audiences want but which I actually disliked because it ultimately perpetuates the idea that a woman needs a man to be happy.  Wow I sound like a feminist.

The great thing about this movie is that it doesn't demonise Wen because she is a mistress and thus doesn't exacerbate the current rifts among Chinese women.  It demonises Chinese society for encouraging spoilt, selfish and superficial behaviour, with Wen symbolising this perfectly at the beginning with her obnoxious tantrums and money-solves-all attitude.  Because she is able to improve, the movie shows that China too can change.

Overall, Finding Mr. Right is a deeper movie than its rom-com genre paints it as and would mean much more to a Chinese audience than audiences elsewhere.  Not quite an award winning masterpiece but an effective and simple caveat for Chinese women to look beyond the ¥¥¥ and perhaps more implicitly, strive to break the social conventions that have suppressed them for so long by empowering themselves through their own achievements.


Sunday, 16 June 2013

So you think you’re smarter than a Chinese high school student? WELL DO YOU?



Global times Facebook page:

Over 9 million Chinese high school seniors take the most important test of their lives on June 7. Experience all the pain and glory by taking a crack at our Gaokao Mini-Essay Contest during June 7 to June 16 on Sina Weibo and Facebook. There’s no character limit, so go nuts. Post as much as it takes for you to get your point across in our Facebook page, and cross your fingers. Winners will be announced on June 20, keep checking our Facebook page and Weibo account for updates!

And if you know anything about Gaokao questions, it's that:
1. They are a literal equivalent of life or death for students and for animals (in one city, frogs from a nearby lake had to be put to death so they didn't disrupt Gaokao exams with the noise they made)
2. They have the most fucked up questions you'll ever encounter in the course of your academic life or just, life in general.
3.  It's so competitive that diligent students get hooked up to IV drips in the classroom

Beijing Cream recently posted a hilarious parody piece about the sort of questions the Gaokao churns out to those poor mainland students every year and here is an example:


“If Edison was able to visit the 21st century” is a short stone’s throw away from, “If Jesus were alive today,” or, “If dinosaurs landed in San Diego…”
WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
Old McDonald’s farm was glorious and prosperous, except for foreign agents who hated cell phones. Explain your high school existence, keeping in mind Isaac Newton loves apples.
In conclusion, WHAT WOULD YOU DO if donkeys could mate with the skeletons of pigs?
And check out this explosive diarrhea of a question:


Again, that’s:
Everyday [sic] we strive for what we think is important, but there are more important things in this world. People have different opinions on the matter. Please select a point of view and write an essay about your thoughts.
Can I pick the point of view of a rubber duck?
Every day, afloat upon the patchy waters of Victora Harbor, I wake to a red sun that speaks to the cold flame of my solitude. There is an everlasting sadness that you cannot know, burning fierce in the east where the schoolchildren of our country once tilted their heads to sing. Where is that joy, now?
I look west, and the pebbly eyeballs which glance back are not round with a child’s wonder but flat like a jianbing, grown-up but not mature. The adults that stand at their side flick the butts of cigarettes at me, as if my skin, though made of rubber, does not react to the embers of their scorn.
They speak to me, too. They squawk and squeal and cluck in coarse imitation of language, but I do not understand because I am a duck and do not speak Cantonese. I turn my back, face south, the tears glistening behind plastic eyes, yet they do not stop. Nothing stops them. They come. More of them come. Like a great tsunami, the waves do not wane, they come, oh they come.
I am a duck. What do they want? What spiritual void can a duck fill? What dialectic truth can we discern, them on the shores, me on these choppy waters of Victoria Harbor, staring into a horizon that reflects the recesses of the human condition? Boundless, bottomless, what is the difference? Infinity that wallows, sinkholes of the soul which drag us down, past paper bills that flutter like falling butterflies. Their problems are copper, less real than these eyes under God’s blue sky.
I am a duck, a humble duck. The sun sets in the west and the cool comfort of night’s veil is pulled over my head. In this silence, I listen. There is the sound of water. The faraway exhale of a tugboat. And if I really try, something sweeter, something like laughter, from a child who was here, and thought it important.
Holy shit I would’ve flunked so hard.


Also.


Sorry. I had to.


Saturday, 15 June 2013

Dan Pallotta: The way we think about charity is dead wrong



Activist and fundraiser Dan Pallotta calls out the double standard that drives our broken relationship to charities. Too many nonprofits, he says, are rewarded for how little they spend -- not for what they get done. Instead of equating frugality with morality, he asks us to start rewarding charities for their big goals and big accomplishments (even if that comes with big expenses). In this bold talk, he says: Let's change the way we think about changing the world.
Everything the donating public has been taught about giving is dysfunctional, says AIDS Ride founder Dan Pallotta. He aims to transform the way society thinks about charity and giving and change.
---------------
My thoughts:
Everyone wants to own their own home, have their own car, support their family and be able to afford all the nice perks of life that would make living a little more enjoyable - a luxury sedan, an expensive watch, some designer goodies, a trip to Paris, a night out with friends at Nobu.  It's why people work so damn hard.  And I'm assuming that most of us have similar material aspirations.  If we earn enough money, why not lavish ourselves once in a while?  
But what if you're someone who's also really passionate about charity; someone smart and innovative and able to provide appropriate technical advice on projects?  What if you want to work for an institution like WWF, World Vision (or a smaller institution) and want to take a direct part in project development and research?
Well, forget about that European sports car with the orgasmic obsidian paint you've been saving up for.  Working for a NPO may be morally rewarding but it means you will face a lifetime of socio-economic limitations - what you can do with the money you earn is strictly governed by moral standards attributed by society to those working in the non-profit sector.  And if you breach those standards for even the tiniest exhibition of using your own finances for personal pleasure (and not for saving African kids), then you're an uber demonic capitalist/satan/father of all lies.

You want to drive a luxury Audi A8 instead of a fugly green Toyota Prius?  Well NO.  Because everyone will be like "you could have given that money to starving Ethiopian families man."

You want a nice Hugo Boss suit tailored to fit your absolutely ripped body instead of a Target t-shirt and op shop jeans?  Well NO.  Could've sponsored a hundred kids from World Vision.

You want the newest generation iPod?  Well NO.  Could've fed a bunch of homeless people for a week.

You see the problem here?  Where does it stop?  What extent of frugality must we exhibit to show that we are dedicated to our charitable cause?  
So I guess, either you work for a NP organisation and sacrifice all the nice perks you would and could have bought (remember that it is NORMAL to want these things), or live like an ascetic so you don't face the backlash that comes with working for a NPO but also wanting to buy the newest LV bag/Louboutin shoes.
I know there are people who would be outraged at this idea - "if you're TRULY passionate about helping people and working for charity, then you shouldn't give a shit about money and material things because that's not what's important.  Saving lives is more important.  Feeding hungry mouths is more important.  Fuck your Audi."
But if you REALLY think about it, why is that so wrong?  What in the world is so wrong with wanting to enjoy your own life while helping the needy at the same time?  I don't see how a love for fast cars or high tier fashion should be considered mutually exclusive to a love for helping those in need.  
As long as you're making a difference and doing so effectively - fulfilling your personal material aspirations with the money that you earn (legitimately) should be none of anyone else's freakin' business.  So please shut up, purist sanctimonious vegan dread-locked hippies.  I mean, I don't see you guys giving upper east side philanthropists shit for driving around in Aston Martins.  Ya know why?  Cos these people (and yes, they are people) are some of the most important agents of change in the NP sector as well as the profit sector.  Sure, they buy lots of things they don't really need but if they've worked hard for the money, why shouldn't they?  They're still giving a fairly big amount of money back to charity and that's what counts.  They're making a bigger difference than most people.  
Obviously, I'm not going to extremes and saying that Tim Costello (CEO of World Vision) should be buying three Maseratis if he really wanted to.  But (I'm going to segue into a second point now) it's just this screwed up notion that NP workers should be receiving the barest minimum in pay since anything above that is considered a gross perversion of their job, is something that really irks me.  It also makes a lot of young people second question their ability to make a decent living out of the NP sector.  This isn't selfishness or some sort of fucked up Gen Y/Gen Z characteristic, it's realism.  It's pragmatism.  It's not wanting to be underpaid for overtime.  It's whether we can get what we deserve for the effort we put in.  Whether we have agency to exert personal freedom in the structure we've been confined to.

If not, people will start looking for different paths that are both personally rewarding AND helping starving kids is in developing countries.

And people wonder why there aren't more top graduates going to the NP sector instead of the profit sector/becoming investment bankers at Goldman Sachs lul.
As Dan Pallotta said, why not just go into the profit sector and earn tonnes of $$ and then give part of that back to charity?  Then I have some more leeway to buy all the crap I want while promoting a humanitarian agenda - WIN WIN.  I may even be able to make a greater contribution because I'm able to take more risks with my money and invest it in specific projects that no medical institution or government would sponsor, either because they have more pressing priorities or because they only want to work on issues that affect the majority and not the minority.    
Finally, that entrenched view that NP organisations should strip overhead to a minimum as well ....  ugh.  UGH.   Just watch the video and you'll get what I mean.

He's so right when he implies that we need to revolutionise the way we think about charities.  People need to STOP thinking that money spent on advertising, fundraising, campaigning and workers' salaries should be minimised as they don't contribute directly to donations and thus, the mission.  They are just as freaking important.
Watch the damn video.

Wednesday, 12 June 2013

tweet dump









Understanding what reclaiming the word 'slut' and 'victim-blaming' means


From Io9: 

“Honey, your skirt is a little short.”To be fair, it was a little short. It was short intentionally. I was dressed in a science officer costume from Star Trek: The Original Series. Not the sleek little work-appropriate but still sexy jewel tone tunics from the new movie, but the flared, strangely-constructed, unapologetically teal and chartreuse polyester cheerleader dresses that fit perfectly with the (now) retrofuturistic vibe of the original show. It’s a screen accurate dress. And by “screen accurate” I mean “short”. And at the beginning of the day, I just assumed the lady who commented was pointing out that I needed to tug down the dress a bit. That was the first comment. After the next 30 or so, I had had enough.

  ........ 

I do need to point out here, that none of this came from people involved with the con. In fact, everyone even slightly officially affiliated with Balticon was respectful, concerned and nerdily-excited about my outfit, my hair, the screen-accurate seams. The staff, the volunteers, the program participants, even the people working the tables for other events were all wonderful.

The people attending, on the other hand, were Not Comfortable With The Way I Chose to Present. I felt like they really, really wanted me to go back to my room and change into a long, historically accurate, shapeless Medieval dress. Or jeans and a geek t-shirt. Either would be acceptable: not too aggressively feminine, but not dressed nicely enough to make them nervous they were being invaded by mundanes.

We in the nerd community have a tendency to make fun of the “fashionable people” or the “cool kids”. The ones who dress alike and spend their lives being sheep to the newest styles. Part of the fascination on social media with watching Abercrombie and Fitch’s fall from grace seemed to be a form of schadenfreude, against the pretty people who had made our lives hell in high school/college/life and who so proudly wore that brand as a mark of tribal membership. 


....


There is no reason I should have to do this, but I came to realize something in reflecting on events at Balticon: I am, at all conventions, surrounded by people who accept me, who care for me and who are willing to hand me a gin and tonic or three when I look like I’m about ready to punch the next person who comments on my skirt. It’s not a position of power, but it is a position of safety. Every place I go will not be a safe space, but the people around me make it one for me.


So my solution? Not be invisible. Not anymore. Not let my legs and skirt short speak for my presence, but speak for myself. Challenge the male gaze both metaphorically and literally. Sitting in the bar and fuming at other convention attendees won’t help. Opening my mouth and answering them just might. Or it might make other people witnessing the exchange think about what happened. Point out that I can both wear a short skirt and have a brain under my beehive. Out loud. And probably snarkily.


Click on the above link to read full article.  It's really good.


Comments:


EridaniUEmily Finke – This View of Life

Hmm. I guess this is supposed to be striking a blow for feminism. You bust out some 3rd wave feminist terms here to make your case. However, I'm about to drop another layer of feminism on you.
And it is this:
Most of the geek costumes for women originated directly from the male gaze. For example, that tiny skirt was designed by, and for the enjoyment of, men. That it's now an iconic symbol of geekdom changes that not one bit. When you are wearing it, you are a walking billboard stating "this is how the mens want a geek girl to look" flashing over your head.
And here you are, ardently defending your right to comply.
That's the real rub here. You want to be free to wear things that were designed by men specifically to showcase women as sex objects, yet not be treated like a sex object. That's what I want you to be aware of. That's what I want you to understand when you're getting all feministy. If that's the tack you want to take, at least talk about how you're trying to own it or something. Taking it back from the patriarchy or whatevs. Because it's one hell of a mixed message you are sending, and the dudes who are receiving it aren't bastions of social awareness, generally.
So, wear that skirt. You look great. But understand that the issue is at least one layer deeper than you've made it out to be. Friday 7:47am

OssifrageUEridani
There's nothing complicated about victim blaming, and you aren't as insightful as you seem to think. Friday 7:55am
EridaniUOssifrage
Any intelligent rebuttal about anything I said would be very welcome. Where is anything I said not true? Specifically, mind.
I'm not saying it's cool for those people to treat her that way. I am saying that when you take a stand, it's a good idea to comprehend just what you're standing for. Friday 7:59am
PeregonUEridani
That's stupid, insulting, condescending, and ignorant of how society functions.
Problematic systems change hands by generation. Cultures internalize, own, and remix problematic ideas and make them "their own". Look at every genre of music, the pop cultures and subcultures we live in...hell, half of the socially-maladjusted things geeks do. It's all tied into owning once-shameful traits. Nerdy is cool. Redneck is cool. Gangsta is cool. And you know what? Sexuality can be reclaimed from patriarchy.
The true sign of success is when we are allowed to define our own terms, consciously, rather than just accept what's given to us. That includes from you. Friday 8:00am


Monday, 10 June 2013

Game of Thrones: Ultimate Birthday Rap Battle

I don't think anything else I will watch for the rest of the week (maybe except tonight's season finale) can top this:

Saturday, 8 June 2013

The Purge



Given the country's overcrowded prisons, the U.S. government begins to allow 12-hour periods of time in which all illegal activity is legal. During one of these free-for-alls, a family must protect themselves from a home invasion.

Reviews:

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/review-the-purge-is-a-provocative-and-subversive-home-invasion-thriller-thatll-be-sure-to-give-you-the-willies-20130604

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/b2ff72e6-c90a-11e2-9d2a-00144feab7de.html#axzz2Urgq7KCH

Apparently, it's actually good.