Blood is Compulsory

We're more of the love, blood, and rhetoric school. Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. They're all blood, you see.

Since I'm doing the procrastination thing anyway, I wanted to share a conversation I overheard the other day at my favorite local cafe/deli:

Well, actually, it was a month ago, so I don't remember the exact words, so I'll have to paraphrase.

The grown-ups at the table next to me are talking about YA books...

Oh, wait, I'm a grown-up.

Let's try that one more time:

I came to gradually realize that the group at the table next to mine are talking about YA books...and they sounded like librarians. So , being the nosy person I am, I started eavesdropping on their conversation. Much of it was blah, but I did find one bit to be both amusing and annoying. They were talking about what books were popular and good for teens. Stephen King was mentioned, and then dismissed by one of the librarians - because they have sex scenes.

If anyone reading this has yet to see This Film is Not Yet Rated - stop and go see it right now. Just go buy it since you can't get it at Blockbuster, Netflix takes forever, and you'll be glad you did anyway.

Aside from raising such good questions as "why is blood compulsory?" it also points out that, while violence is more acceptable than sex in kid and teen rated movies (in the US), exceptions are made for sex which includes violence. Which is an even scarier observation than the ones that led to it, if you ask me.

Dworkin gets lots of crap for having said that all sex is rape, which besides being not true, has to be one of the worst examples of taking a quote and using it out of context. What Dworkin was talking about is pretty much the same thing that John Water's comments on in This Film is Not Yet Rated when it comes to rape and sexual violence and movies. He argues that part of the reason that there are so many BDSM porn sites on the internet is not just due to it being more accessible, but also due to rape, assault, and derogatory remarks being the first type of sex most kids are exposed to when it comes to media portrayals of sex. When rape is how we define sex, how can we distinguish sex from rape?

I'm not sure how much of a direct connection there is between ratings and online porn, but I can't see it being healthy for us to shield teens from consensual sex, but not violence. And I really don't see how it's healthy for them to have seen more fictional depictions of rape than fictional depictions of people having consensual sex. Especially (relatively) realistic portrayals of consensual sex.

Which is why I take issue with the MJ statue as is, and the number of similar items, but disagree with those who argue that it does not belong in comic shops because it is pornographic.

PS - if you want a much better written response to This Film is Not Yet Rated and these specific ideas, go read Amanda's take, which was good enough to convince me to go buy the movie just so that I could see it.

Eulogy

(This is days late because that's what happens when you don't read the regular news)

I'm not sure if I've ever made this clear, but the title, blog address and screen name I use are all taken from two of my favorite characters. I picked them in part because Sara Crewe, Meg, Anne Shirley and the like we're all taken - but also because they happen to be adventure stories, and I had such a hard time finding adventure stories featuring girls while I was growing up.

The True Confessions of an Hourly Bookseller is an homage to Avi's The True Confessions of Charlotte Doyle. A story about a girl who dresses up as a boy and stows aboard a merchant ship - and then ends up having to solve a murder mystery. I haven't read it in ages, but I have a very clear memory of her being "rescued" in the end, and her choosing to continue her life at sea instead.

Westmark is a series about a kingdom by that name. It was written by Lloyd Alexander, the author of The Black Cauldron series. I picked Mickle as my screen name not just because the more recognizable Eilonwy is both harder to spell and pronounce, but because I always liked Mickle more than Eilonwy. She is not the main character of the story, especially at first, but her character is both strong and interesting, and it's very clear throughout the series that she is not an addendum to the story or a plot point needed for Theo's character development. Westmark is more of a parable about democracy than it is a fantasy series, and Mickle's final act as the rightfully restored Queen Augustus is to step down so that the people may rule. Combined with the nature of her relationship with Theo and her actions during the invasion of her country, the end result is a character who has learned how to take charge when needed, but without letting her strengths and good fortune silence the voices of others.

Avi is still alive and well, but Lloyd Alexander passed away on May 17th. He will be missed, and we were lucky to have him for as long as we did.

I Also Find it Funny

When people say stuff like this:

Debate sex and sexism in comics, sure. I'm all for it. Come out with a bingo card as a shorthand for people too busy to actually listen or consider opposing viewpoints ("oh we're sick of repeating ourselves"), and you're filed along with all the other crackpots who, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, can't change their mind and won't change the subject.

Listen girls, you only get to make jokes if they poke fun at just you, not other people as well as yourself. Most especially when those other people happen to be less emotional and more grounded in reality than you are. (What, me, sexist?) Plus, we we all know feminists aren't funny by definition - so stop trying to be. And completely ignore the irony that you now have bingo!.

PS - from WFA, that evil hive mind of feminist rantings.

SQUEEE!!!!!!

CBS has trailers for their new fall shows up (from Lyle) and I so can't wait for September. Mostly 'cuz this just looks sooooooo cool.

I mean, it's like Two Guys and a Girl (and a Pizza Place) - only without the funny. And better yet, this time only the chick is hot!

And really, who cares that their marketing department is apparently unaware of the fact that quarks are a subatomic particles, as long as their set crew can totally copy from college textbooks, it's all good!

Plus, it's called The Big Bang Theory. Get it? The Big Bang Theory. How perfect is that?

I am soooo looking forward to that very special episode where Short Geek learns that Hot Chick has special talents all her own. (No, not those kinds of talents, you dirty boy.) I'll bet puppies are somehow involved. I love puppies.

Who wants to take bets on who she kisses first? I'll bet it's shy boy - but only on the cheek. (No, not that cheek. You're so rude!) And he'll totally freak out. I can't decide if he'll swear to never wash that cheek again, or start praying for Allah to save him from temptation. What do you think?

I Am Amused

By the people essentially saying "ha! ha! I'm going to remember to buy that just to piss those feminists off!"

(A statement, btw, that does just so much to convince me that you buy such crap for the simple reason that you like looking at pretty girls and not all because you get off on degrading women.)

Dear dweebs, I'm really not so much caring that it sold out. Drop in the freakin' bucket my sweets.

I mean it's sad, but despite false accusations to the contrary, I do actually care about this a lot more than I care about you buying bad art.

I'm not terribly overwrought because I know that you, personally, buy ugly statues. This may come as a shock to you, but I don't really care about you that much at all. Certainly not if you are going to demonstrate such bad taste.

What I do care about is that it doesn't seem to be possible to buy anything but crap like that. I care that I don't get my pinup of Dr. Reid. And that most everyone pretends as if this:



is somehow an adequate consolation prize.

Seriously, people - that's supposed to be sexy????? Wha? Huh? How?

Please do explain. I rather think I'd find the attempt amusing as well.

And needless to say I could do with some humor about now. I'm trying really hard not to take potshots and the people over at Whedonesque who actually do mean well, but can't seem to stop themselves from saying "gee whiz Joss, I'm so glad that you're not shrill like all those other feminists" - over and over again.

Plus, I have a feeling your lame attempts at doing so will give me really good examples of why the idea that that is appealing to women does in fact have more to do with Dua Khalil's brutal, public murder than most people want to admit.

Research, People. It's Called Research

So, not that I don't consider When Fangirls Attack to be feminist - both because it's run by feminists and because, sadly, anything that gives fair and balanced coverage about women is feminist...

And it's certainly true that both of the site creators wrote about the broohaha on their personal blogs....

One can also argue (though I'm not sure I would) that without the hard work of Ragnell and Kalinara this may not have become as big of a deal, since their work has made all those complaints easy to find....

However, Aaron Albert, whomever you may be, When Fangirls Attack did not "[rail] against the statue in a very strong voice, as well as those whose ideas don't line up with theirs."

WFA is a freakin' linkblog, and it links to all kinds of posts about women in comics - including your asinine and inaccurate entry for About.com - without any commentary except for the occasional topic grouping.

If simply doing that is considered to be "railing...in a very strong voice" no wonder we are always told that "you don't catch flies with honey!" No matter how polite we are. Apparently simply speaking is considered to be a rant.

He does have the good taste to see that the statue is not worthy of being called art (albeit partly because he thinks porn doesn't belong in comic shops, which I disagree with). But I ask you, dear readers, how can I not make fun of statements like these:

The lack of women producing comics is a real loss.

Now, where was that post about how harm done against women is constantly being framed as acts of god or nature? Did women not being in comics just sorta happen one day like a tornado?

DC comics is trying to get into the comics geared for girls with their Minx line – ironically most of them are made by men.

I'm not sure ironic is quite the term I'd use. I, mean, it's at least correct, which is an improvement, but the whole phrasing of (in the context of his other statements) tends towards the "gee, how did that happen?"

Wherever you stand on the women in comics issue...

Is it just me, or does that phrasing sound vaguely like "the women question?" What exactly is "the women in comics issue?" I was under the impression that, what with women being individuals and discrimination taking various forms, there was more than one issue when it comes to women and comics. The variety of links found on When Fangirls Attack seem to support on that.

This statue just doesn’t seem to shout, hey girls comic books are your friends!


Just me.

Well no, sweetie, it's not just you. It's also all those "feminist websites" too.

You know, I'd be a lot easier on clueless but sometimes well-meaning twerps like Aaron Albert if they didn't go to such great lengths to pretend that we don't actually agree on anything. Aside from being rude, it also just one more example of men ignoring what women are actually saying while simultaneously taking credit for it having been said.

Ragnell Is My Hero

This is one of the many reasons why.

I just wanted to temporarily come out of my temporary retirement to say that.

Peoples? If you want to try to convince other peoples that something isn't really that big of a deal, perhaps you might consider not spending so much damn time screaming at the people who think that it is. Not surprisingly, it tends to have the opposite effect than what you'd hoped.

(Assuming, for no reason related to logic, that you are being truthful when you say that your intentions really are to help us poor confused, hysterical people out - not to intimidate us into silence.)

PS - I rather think the insane popularity of the new Buffy comics has something to with this. I mean, it's one thing when those silly fangirls ask an annoying question or two at comic conventions, but if Buffy can overshadow the death of the of the likes of Captain America* who knows what horrors await us if we allow these silly fangirls to continue bitching without forcing them to face the consequences. When Fangirls Attack and Girl-Wonder are tolerable as long as they stay out of the way, but what if they don't?

*perhaps not in comicbookland, but my dad heard about the Buffy comic from someone other than me, and I rather suspect he hasn't a clue about Captain America.

update: I (partly) take that back about Buffy. After reading crazy raving hobo's post, I think she's very much onto something when she talks about casual fans being the one's most outraged about the statue. Spiderman 1 and 2 were really popular among the general public. Even more so than the X-Men or any screen incarnation of Superman, I'd argue, because Peter Parker and Mary Jane are much more everyday people kind of characters - that's part of Spiderman's enduring popularity after all.

This statue coming out right around the time the third movie is coming out has brought a lot more attention to the former than we would see otherwise. Which means that a lot of people who identify with Mary Jane and Peter Parker - in ways they don't identify with Superman or Wonder Woman - are looking at something that is quite blatantly objectifying and they are taking that very personally. So they are complaining, loudly and in places where non comicbookland people are listening. This spill into the "real world" has gotten the panties of many members of the often insular comicbookland into quite a twist.

update 2: With that idea in mind, I rather wonder if part of the mainstream outrage is not so much that Mary Jane is doing laundry or that she is objectified, but that the combination and manner of doing so is seriously pissing a lot of people off because it mocks the hard work that (mostly) women do do keep our homes running. Some female/feminist comic fans are arguing that it doesn't annoy them as much as some other stuff because (for example) MJ isn't a superhero herself, so to them it's not undermining women's strength as much as other stuff does. However, such a ridiculous looking statue of MJ is demeaning women's strength in the eyes of women whose authority has its foundation in areas traditionally considered women's work. And those women (currently) outnumber female comic fans.

Idiots Be Forewarned: I Am In The Mood To Do Some Major Ass-kicking

I'm not terribly certain that I have much say that hasn't already been said in response to Kos' most recent "insert foot in mouth" moment, but also figure that if there is ever any time that gratituitous piling on isn't really gratutitous at all, this is it.
 
I'm also pretty much incapable of writing a nice, neat, concise, coherent essay on this topic at the moment, so instead I'm just going to pick apart a bunch of the more idiotic and rage inducing comments from Markos and his defenders.
 

What surprised me was the obvious fear and surprise she showed despite being a public figure in a public arena, and that such things would stop her.  She let the bastards win.

Jackass.
 
I have a feeling I'm going to want to say that about a lot the people I will quote in this post.  So in the unlikely event that I don't work it in each time, just consider "Jackass" to be the unspoken tagline for just about every blockquote until I say otherwise.

Hmmm...I wonder if I could write some code that would do that, like have a special "Jackass" version of the blockquote tags.
 
You know, Jackass, when someone surprises you, it might do everyone some good if you spent a few minutes thinking about why that might be instead of immediately assumming that the other person is the one who made the mistake.
 
People who go to the same work related conferences as Kathy Sierra threatened her repeatedly, violently, sexually, publicly, and graphicly.  The fact that this scared her makes her anything but stupid, and while it's true that the bastards have won for now, it's not Ms. Sierra who has let them win.  It's people like those who defended or dismissed Harlan Ellison's public assault of Hugo winner Connie Willis last August.
 
Oh, have we forgetten that already?  I didn't.  Somehow I doubt Kathy Sierra has.
 
But you go right on ahead dismissing women's fears of sexual and sexualized violence despite the fact that it's so common that Ellison can do that to a fellow honoree at a national awards conference and get very little flack for it outside of certain very small circles.
 

If you run a blog of any kind, you bound to get this kind of attack. After awhile it's just silly to get outraged about it. Plenty of random crazy people out there.

 
Random crazies......In what way are collegues and fellow students random people?
 
In other news, I don't run a blog.
 
I must admit, though, that it's nice to now know that I shouldn't take threats of random violence seriously.  I was complaining quite recently about all the stupid advice I've been given about the various things that, as a woman, I shouldn't do - because doing them makes me more vulnerable to random violence.  Since worrying about such stuff tends to not only cut down on the amount of fun stuff I get to do, but make it hard or impossible to do some of the stuff I need to do, this is a huge relief.
 
Thanks, Jackass!  You're a peach!
 

everybody sets their own standard of behavior on their own blogs, as is their right in a free society.

 
Actually, Jackass, in a free society, society uses government to pass and enforce laws regarding certain activities, and then leaves the rest up to community standards.  Since Ms. Sierra has already said that the law considers at least some of the threats against her to be illegal and credible, I really don't know what the fuck you think you are talking about.  Whether or not Tim O'Reilly's specific proposal is good or workable or not is beside the larger point: bloggers should try to not let illegal threats remain on their site.
 
There will be people who violate this more general code of ethics, but before kos's diary, I wouldn't have thought that people would consider it controversial for anyone to ask that bloggers pledge to uphold the law so that visitors will feel - and be - safer on their sites.

am i missing something or are people out there believing that the type of person who would send a death threat would follow a code of conduct?

 
Yes, like Kos, you are missing the fact that the code of ethics isn't aimed at the people who make death threats, but rather the bloggers who let death threats against others stay up on their site.  In light of the fact that several Kos supporters have commented that DailyKos troll rates physical threats, and a few have even gone so far as to say this helps increase civility, I find the cries of "language police!" especially obnoxious.

Locks only keep out honest people...

 
No, they keep out thieves, too.  They just don't keep out all thieves.  The trick in risk-assmessment is to balance the cost of the lock with the risk of danger.  I.e. balancing getting to spend a decent amount of time in Glasgow with the possibility that I'll be raped while walking from the train station to the youth hostel alone and in the middle of the night.  Or, balancing curtailing public appearances with the possibility that people who have posted really nasty and violent threats about you on trade blogs will try to hurt you in some way if you go to work-related conferences.
 
I get the pile on for O'Reilly's specific proposal. However, I'm failing to see what Ms. Sierra's ordeal has to do with why it's bad. And I really don't get why simply admitting that this is serious a problem is so very controversial.  And arguments along the lines of
 

I run an educational website about a historical topic that 99.9% of people consider non-controversial, and I still get the occasional crazed, foul-mouthed, verbally abusive tirade similar in tone and coherency to the one Kos published above.  There are people out there who just like cursing at strangers on the Internet.

 
sound suspiciously like the usual, dismissive "boys will be boys" arguments - especially considering the type of threats that Ms. Sierra and others have received.
 
To spell it out more clearly for you all:

the online threats against Kathy : online cursing at strangers :: sexual harrassment in middle schools : use of foul language among middle schoolers
 
Oh! speaking of middle schoolers! Um, no, let's not at the moment.
 

Kos said that the worst we use against people is a cream pie.  His meaning is that we do not typically see people use violence or carry out death threats.

 
Oh, well, then.  If Kos says that it's true......
 
There's this thought on the tip of my tongue...something about media figures equating "liberal" with "traitor"....and the government itself spying on left wing peace groups...
 
Or maybe it was about radical right wing groups posting personal information about certain types of doctors....and those doctors ending up dead....
 
Or maybe it was about jackass lawyers in training threatening all sorts of things....and following through with several of them.....
 
Or maybe it was about media depictions of certain minorities....and their ability to get a job....the probability that they will do jailtime....the amount we are willing to spend to help people we keep crushing down.....

Or maybe it had to do with men who kill their significant others....and how often they threaten to do so beforehand.....

And something else...about all these being lie....lib...l.... ..... pro...pra...pre........ damn, I lost it.......
 
....there seems to be a hole in my head through which all logical thought is leaking out.  Must be going around.
 

LMAO i really enjoy those emails.  People need to develop a thicker skin and a sense of humor. Seriously, kos. Could you post more of those?

 
Nadai has suggested, in all seriousness, that bloggers do this.  I think it's an excellent idea.  I can definitely see a lot of men being unintentionally ignorant of the extent to which women are harrassed, online and in real life. Even I was unaware of how virulent Amanda's hate mail was until I read some of her comments about it. A hollaback style site may help.  (At the very least it will give women another space to help each other deal with it.)
 
That does not, of course, excuse idiotic comments like those above.  Especially in light of the fact that it's fairly easy to find out that the threats Ms. Sierra received were nothing like the e-mail Kos equated them to.
 

Quite frankly I have three words for the young women who find themselves being threatened online followed up by three more, self defense course and conceal carry permit.

 
(I'm sure Kathy is surprised to hear herself described as "young" seeing as how she turns 50 this year.)
 
Re: words 1-3:  Done.  Oddly enough, my little brother mocked me when I talked about taking it. Said it wouldn't do much good against a big, strong, man like him.  The fact that I think he was being an asshole, and that I still consider the class well worth the time, does nothing to negate the fact that he would be right in certain situations.
 
Re: words 4-6:   I work in a public library.  I don't think a conceal carry permit would extend to preschool story morning.  Besides, I don't want to have to carry a gun simply because I'm a woman any more than I want to not get to travel alone because I'm a woman.
 
Try another answer.
 

If you are that worried by threats you really have two options 1) give up blogging (which gives the nutballs what they want) or 2) ensure you can defend yourself if some psycho were to manage to track you down.

 
Those weren't them.
 
How about number 3) pressure people to take down personal information, number 4) expect the vast majority of people to react negatively to actual harassment, and number 5) expect support from those that consider themselves to be progressive and allies.
 

I AM a woman. As far as I can see there are only two options open to people who are being threatened or intimidated 1) back down or 2) learn to defend yourself. [Choosing] any other option simply isn't going to work and one need only look at domestic violence to recognize that.

 
Yeah, those silly laws about alimony and rape existing within marriage have nothing to do with it.  Neither does feminists asserting that "no means no" or helping to build safe houses for victims of domestic violence.   Women deciding to stick up for themselves just sorta...happens - if you tell them to do so often enough.
 

I've observed the opposite: excessive desire for protection. I've also seen flagrant disregard for safety, but that's a different thing.

 
Finally! Someone who gets it!  I mean, it's one thing to deride the boogyman in the dark as being statistically unlikely and a handy tool of the patriarchy, but to dismmiss the statistically supported idea that many of the average guys you know are capable of sexual assault - just because he seems like a "nice guy" and nice guys don't do that - well...
 
Er, wait...that isn't what the Jackass meant?

I want civility as much as you, but I just can't get on board with this "victim" shit.

I really hate the "victim" mentality. Why can we not empower those that suffer from others actions?

I will never get the "victim" mentality, I suppose. I guess that's because I refuse to see victims, and choose to see people empowered.

o_O

You know, I don't care so much about civility as I do being able to take a shower without having to worry that someone will be hiding outside my window.  I have, in fact, argued before that I think civility can be overated - owing to the fact that those in power usually get to decide what is polite and what isn't.  Such as whether or not it's appropriate for me reveal certain personal facts about my (anonymous) brother when arguing that the preponderence of guys like my brother working in mainstream politics, and the dearth of Amandas and Melissas, has a profound impact on the nature, tone, and subjects being debated.

More importantly though, I don't get what is empowering about having my fears dismissed and derided as paranoid rather than grounded in experience.  But then I'm just some crazy chick who still talks about stupid stuff that happened to her as a kid.

Does that make me a bad person too?

No, just ....um...I'm having trouble coming up with the right words here? Anyone want to help me out?

And now, for a nice quote, because GreenSooner put it better than I could:
 

kos's failure to identify the ideology behind the Blogger Code of Ethics and his disparaging of Sierra are of a piece. Identifying all criticisms of online behavior as simply misplaced nanny-ism serves his purposes better than more careful analysis of either the Blogger Code of Ethics or the Sierra matter.

 
as did aimai
 

Kronos, its sweet of you to keep working at this from such an open minded perspective but I'd like to take a different step and ask you this--what makes you think the women who are posting here, and the many people who post anonymously/without gender who are women--*haven't toughened up?*...Every woman you interact with here and elsewhere has received some kind of anti-female attack at some point and yet she still posts, just as most of us have been sexually harrassed on the street and yet still go out, and sexually harrasse at work and yet still go out.

Frankly, I think its a bit odd to assume, given all you've been told, that the women around you haven't in fact gone the extra mile to laugh shit off and just shrug off a hostile work and play environment.*

aimai, I love you.

Update: forgot to add that MB is keeping track of the posts.

Apologies Once Again

...for the lack of posts.

I had an out of town wedding to go to and I got sidetracked typing up a series of posts that will likely never see the light of day because my ideas are all jumbled and incomprehensible.

Mostly, though, it turns out that Kingdom Hearts II is just as addicting as the original.

MUST. GET. OWN. PLAYSTATION.

grad school applications? what grad school applications? I have to go help Pooh get his memory back!

Everyone Else Is Doing It

So, people are actually finding me through google instead of just because When Fangirls Attack, the Carnival of Feminist Science Fiction and Fantasy Fans, and now Jade Reporting link to me sometimes.

Let's see if we think they found what they were looking for, shall we?

mary marvel fan service

doubtful, very doubtful

sue dibney rape

possibly, but again doubtful. there are a lot of people out there that are much more informed about this subject than I am

teenage boy tells stories about being a peeping tom looking in girls bedroom windows

again, very doubtful. very, very doubtful.

on the plus side, I'm actually slightly amused that someone who was trolling the internet for titilation was directed to these archives instead. since I'm not so sure I would have been amused at all by that a year ago when I wrote those posts, I'm taking that as a sign of progress.

politically correct sexual fantasies

um, ok. since I haven't posted any of my own sexual fantasies here, the answer is again "doubtful." since I'm also fairly certain that the kind of person who would type in such a search actually believes that "PC" means "walking on eggshells for overly sensitive people" as opposed to "a term that is mostly made-up" I'd say this gets bumped up to "very doubtful."

photo of andrew clements

sadly, that's a no. but at least we're in the same ballpark.

refuse male gyn

and we finally have a "possibly!"

jack and elizabeth fanfics

nope. especially since if I'm going to write Pirate's fanfic, I'm pairing Elizabeth with Will.

how to create search algorithims

at first I thought this was a "no way!" and then I realized it linked to my link to a post at She's Such a Geek! which talked about unintended sexim in google searches. so yay! a "maybe" and a "maybe someone learned something"

buffy getting fucked

most definitely not. go away.

can i see a slave being punished

then I suggest you do something about that. shame on me, but you won't find much help on that here. thanks for reminding me that I ought to do more posts about global feminist issues, such as human trafficking.

"women fighting back" and movies

and a "yes!" woohoo!

anime labels

I dunno. probably not.

y: the last man feminism

it feels so nice to be helpful

And that's all folks!

Comic Book Buying

I decided to stop by the local comic shop last night on my way to do other errands, and then immediately regretted it because it was market night and the shop is in the middle of downtown. It's hard to say which was worse, parking or getting around the store.

I picked up Dark Tower for a co-worker, and Wyrms (bleh. why did I do that?) and Wonder Woman for me. I glanced over the display of older Buffy comics and go to the counter. There was a line, so I had a few minutes to notice the boxes and sign directly across from the counter: "10 comics for $4, 30 comics for ..." some price I couldn't see because someone was in the way. (Someone who didn't move the entire time I was there, btw. Note to fellow customers: some of us need to learn to be a bit nicer about moving along and browsing a few feet over after a few minutes.)

"Ah-ha!" I thought "so this is what a bargain bin looks like!" Since I was waiting anyway, I started rummaging through the boxes. I ended up walking away with a couple of back issues of Manhunter, a few titles that I've never read but that look interesting (Arana and Neverwhere), and then a couple that just made me crack up. Mostly the Robotech (totally rocks!) and Voltron comics. Plus, it took long enough that the line was gone.

Comic store guy started ringing me up and asked "No Buffy?" and then immediately started to apologize for stereotyping.

I cut him off with "Wait! You have copies?!" all the while mentally kicking myself for not paying better attention to it's release date.

"Yeah, two left, I think." Said comic book guy #2.

So I ran to get one of them; they were in the section I had to look at by glancing around other people and the title is little itty bitty, so I don't feel too stupid.

I got back to the counter and cbg #1 apologized again and said something about me getting Dark Tower. I told him I was glad he asked and then feel a little guilty for making it more likely that women who don't want Buffy will have to hear that every time they come into the shop.

Whether he did the right thing or not depends on why he mentioned Buffy. If it was because I'm a girl, that was stupid. If it was because he had made a guess based on the reading material I was already getting, that's cool. As a fellow bookseller, I consider it part of the job description. If it was because I'm a girl and because of my reading material....that's the part I'm not sure about. But I also know I've been guilty of doing this myself.

ps - I was checking the dates for a couple of festivals/conventions that I'm considering going to, and I noticed that Comicon pre-registration (ie the cheaper tickets) ends Monday. I was thinking of going this year, but I hadn't decided yet. Any opinions on the matter? Does anyone have any idea how much the single day tickets cost?

Yeah? Well.....you're a whole pack of smokes!

First, an approximation of a conversation between me and two of my teen patrons as we got ready for our second Teen Game Night.

Teen 1: "He's a …. oh, except I'm not supposed to say that here. (pause) "[something to the effect of that's stupid because] fag actually means cigarrette in some countries."

Me: "Yes, but we aren't in those other countries, we are here…."

Teen 2: "[jumps in with more about the various meanings of faggot]"

Me: "…Besides, you obviously didn't mean to use that definition. That doesn't make any sense. Why would you call someone a cigarette?…"

Teens 1 and 2: "[more stuff about the various definitions of fag and faggot]"

Me: "And in either case, you meant it as an insult. You shouldn't be mean like that. So stop it."

Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure Teen 1 will use "fag" as an insult many times over in the near and far future, but at least they both shut up fairly quickly after that.

*********

Unlike preschoolers, teenagers respond fairly well to logic. They also still see a lot of black and white and respond really badly to the total absence of logic that a lot of people in charge of their education, safety, what have you, use. (Most often when they want teens to act responsibly but they don't want the headache of actually giving them the responsibility of making their own decisions.)

Take, for example, the teens that got suspended for saying "vagina" over the school loudspeaker. I have no doubt that these girls are fierce feminists, but they are also teens. Teens who are active and engaged enough to try to make an honest to goodness (and possibly unpopular) political statement in front of the whole school, during school hours, as part of something as geeky as a poetry reading...er slam.

I'm going to take a huge leap and hypothesize that these girls are not considered to be juvenile delinquents by their teachers or peers. Which means that while they may not always be obedient, or gracious when they are obedient, they do tend to follow school rules. So why choose this one to break, especially having been forwarned by their principal?

Is it because they believe in the cause that much?

They suddenly decided that being good was no fun?

Or did their principal manage to piss them off that much?

I suspect the first and the last.

I think that we probably never would have heard about this if the principal had simply said "Discussions about sexuality are not appropriate in a high school setting outside of health class (or extracurricular clubs that are formed for that explicit purpose) and so you need to find another passage."

Instead he said "Discussions about sexuality are appropriate in a high school setting - even to the point of being allowed during school performances.

But you can't actually say the technically correct words....you have to use juvenile euphemisms."

or something to the same effect anyway.

Which misses both the point of the poem and one of the main reasons one would allow discussions about sexuality to occur in high schools in the first place. The principal not only told them that they couldn't discuss what they wanted to discuss - he also showed them that he didn't even have enough of a backbone to just come right out and say so in the first place. Plus, he insulted their intelligence by acting as if the meaning of the poem was incidental to their decision to perform it in public . He also acted as if his censorship of the most important word in the whole poem did not have the same effect as censoring the meaning of the poem.

In other words, he did that wishy-washy, hair-splitting, la-la-la I've lost all sense of reason and logic thing that adults often do with teens. Which, understandably, drives teens bat-shit crazy.

It's made clear in all the articles about this that these girls thought about what they were doing. This wasn't a stupid prank. This was a deliberate "screw you, your illogical rules, and your belief that I'm too stupid to catch on."

Rock on.

Or, as Dar Williams says: "Teenagers, kick our butts."

******

Which brings us back to "faggot".

Forget "how do we teach our children to act responsibly when the president gets blow jobs in the Oval Office and pundits call other public figures faggots."

How about, "How the hell am I supposed to get these teens to treat each other with respect when we act as if it's the word that's taboo and not the act of insulting other people that's wrong?"

How do I teach them about context and intent when we'll all get in trouble for simply saying the word, irregardless of context?

How do I teach them to respect themselves and each other when I'm forced to implicitly support the idea that their bodies and new desires are shameful ?

I understand why I shouldn't use many of these words or bring up certain topics, even when I think it would be helpful rather than rude. My position of power means that I keep my opinions to myself for a variety of obvious reasons. And so, there are certain words that I will never use with them, even though I personally think that they shouldn't be so taboo.

I'm also sure as hell not going to let them get away with saying such crap in the library. We're supposed to be a safe space for everyone, and that means no slurs like "faggot."

But the whole knee jerk "shush!" reaction that I see a lot of other adults do is annoying the crap out of me.

All that teaches them is to wait somewhere else to say it.

It also teaches them that a lot of really broad topics are off limits around me. Which really clashes with the whole "I'm a trusted resource" mission statement among librarians - YA librarians in particular.

(sigh) I get the feeling this isn't going to be easy.

Because I'm All About Procrastination Today

First, y'all should go check out Elizabeth Bear's stuff about Criminal Minds and screwing around with gender roles.

- I can't for the life of me remember who I first saw mention it , sorry. :(

I (heart) Reid. Have I mentioned that lately?

Ok, back now? Good.

So I was looking at my stats to see what blog entries people were actually bothering to read, and one of them happened to be this one. In it I mention how annoying it is when guys (non-boyfriend guys) put their hands on my back to guide me out of the way instead saying excuse me.

WTF? Where do they even learn that?

Anyhoo, I noticed Hotch (or was it Morgan?) doing that very same thing to another male character on Criminal Minds a few episodes ago and I thought "huh, that's weird, maybe guys do it to each other too."

And then I thought about it today in light of the all the evidence that the writers of Criminal Minds have all kinds of fun playing with gender roles and I thought "Dude! They are so deliberately screwing with us! I so want to meet whoever wrote that into the show!"

Or maybe I'm wrong and it is something guys do to each other too.

Thoughts?

On a Lighter Note

Go see, if you haven't already.

May favorite is the one with Robin and Spoiler*, just because it reminds me so much of the actual imagery tampon commercials use whenever they are doing the "active and beautiful" theme.

Has When Fangirls Attacked already linked to this and I just missed it, or (gasp!) have Ragnell and Kalinara not seen it yet?

*I am right and that's Stephanie and Cassie? right? Sorry, I'm still just starting to branch out from manga and Runaways. Some of the superheroes that have had multiple secret and real life identities still confuse me.

"Look, Nora, in lots of things, you're still a child. I'm older than you in many ways and I've had a little more experience."

I adore my alma mater to pieces.

Quirks and all; and trust me, it has plenty of quirks.

Such as...a PE requirement.

Yup, that's right, we had a PE requirement to fulfill before we could graduate. I took Badmitton, Rennaissance Dancing, and Self Defense. Which....yeah, that says a lot about both me and my school right there.

If memory serves me, the self-defense course was the most popular PE class available; owing in no small part to the college being both liberal leaning and all-women. Our instructor was tiny, not much taller than me. I'd imagine most people saw her as pretty non-threatening. as just your normal, slightly overweight, middle aged woman. She was also in charge of campus security and had a black belt in karate. One of our final classes included a demonstration of her breaking boards with her karate chops and kicks (with one of us nervously holding the boards up for her).

At the time, the class was - to use an over-used and often abused phrase - empowering. Of course, pretty much anytime we got together and had the opportunity to yell simultaneously was an empowering experience - Convocation, Disorientation, Graduation, Friday Night parties, etc.. Adding in the practice punches and learning how to get out of a choke hold certainly gave the class extra kick to it, though.

However, one of the most memorable parts of the class was not so empowering in retrospect.

Part way through the course we got the lecture from our instructor about acting smart so that it would be less likely that we would ever have to use any of this stuff. Now, I do give her props for not pretending as though following her advice would for certain save us. I will also adore her forever for being the first person to ever tell me about the FBI's research about rape, and how they concluded that women who act confidently - as if, you know, they have every damn right to be wherever the hel they happen to be at that moment - are statistically less likely to be targeted by rapists.

Her list of advice - which sounded a lot more like dire warnings - was endless. Don't have an apartment by yourself if you can help it. Don't say your name on your answering machine. Don't walk alone at night. Don't take trips by yourself. Don't trust strangers. Watch your drink at all times. Never carry your keys with your fingers through the key rings (they can be easily broken that way if you are attacked). Carry your keys in a fist with one key poking out between your fingers. Make sure someone knows where you are going if you do go out alone. Glance under your car as you walk towards it whenever the area is deserted or it's nighttime. Have your keys ready to go so that you can get in your car quickly. Don't make your routine too normal. Get a second floor apartment if you can. Don't listen to music while jogging outside. Don't jog at night. Make sure your dorm blinds are closed before dressing and undressing. And on and on and on.

Now, a lot of this advice is perfectly reasonable - as long as it's taken with a grain of salt and one balances trying to be safe with not missing out on opportunities. Unfortunately, when people give out such advice, they usually leave out the bit about the salt and weighing various costs.

Which is part of why my reaction at the time was mixed. I wanted to be smart and safe, and her advice seemed mostly reasonable, but....some of it rubbed me the wrong way, and it was one of the most logical and reasonable bits of advice she gave us that bugged me the most.

Closing one's blinds before undressing is a pretty normal and low energy task. It might seem odd to you that she would even mention it. Unless, of course, you happen to be living on a fairly isolated campus with a student body that is all female. Privacy boundaries change. The topic of periods becomes acceptable in normal conversations. Pajamas are worn to communal dining spaces. Third story blinds that look out over the lake or the athletic fields are often left open for the view and sunlight.

Side note: when people ask me why I went to a women's college, I want to point to experiences like this. Nothing opens one's eyes to the subtle way that culture and other institutions blindly favor men than going to a school that is focused only on women. Not that one needs to do so to see that "male" is the constant default "in real life", but - for me, anyway - there's just something about having spent several years in a culture where "female" was the default that solidifies this knowledge in a way nothing else could have.

Back to the main topic....

I immediately knew why the thing about the blinds bugged me. I was convinced I was behaving illogically as well, but I still rebelled at the suggestion and deliberately ignored it. Not because I thought the 15 seconds it would take to do this was really all that much of an inconvenience, however.

Here's where I explain, because I'm sure very few of my current readers know this, that I spent my entire high school career checking not only my windows - but also in my closet and under my bed - each and every time I got undressed. I didn't do this because I was irrational or paranoid. I did this because it was the precaution that I had learned to take in order to prevent my brother from spying on me. It was the safety measure that I found worked best. It became so automatic that I didn't stop doing it until I had been living in the dorms for quite a while. What had started out as a logical response to clear and present danger had morphed into something closer to a tic or a security blanket. Until one day my brain noticed what my body was doing....and I stopped and pushed the horror of what I had become back into the dark corner of my mind where everything else about that time dwelled.

Until we got the lecture.

And all I could think when she mentioned the thing about blinds was that I didn't want to go back to being afraid all the time. I refused to go back to living in a world where even my own bedroom was unsafe. I thought at the time that I was being illogical, but in reality I was being very logical, I was just to scared to examine everything throughly enough to realize it.

I wasn't living on a co-ed campus in the middle of a city, in a bedroom that looked out into the street. I was living on a relatively remote all women's campus and my bedroom window looked out over lots and lots of green space surrounded by forest. Yeah, some creep could hide out by the trees with binoculars, but I it seems to me that such men are looking for victims, and will find them no matter what I do. Yes, a couple of extra seconds spent doing a simple chore was certainly low cost enough to be worth the safety gained by doing so. The problem is that this would never be a mindless task for me ever again. I would never be able to go to the window and simply consider it normal behavior, like closing the door to the bathroom or keeping my mouth closed as I ate. This had gone far beyond normal cultural mores long before I'd ever gotten to college. And it wasn't ever going away - at least not anytime soon. It's still something that I often think of when I go to open or close my bedroom blinds.

So my choice was not between having to do normal, simple, short tasks and endangering myself. It was between doing something that would make me a tiny bit safer and not expecting to feel like shit for at least a few seconds every day. What would seem to be the logical choice to any outsider was no longer an acceptable option to me.

At the time, I didn't question any other particular bits of advice our instructor gave us (remember, I thought I was being illogical), but the experience did leave me with a vague uneasiness with such advice. As time went on and I had to decide more and more often whether or not I would follow her safety measures, I found myself looking more critically at what I would be giving up by doing so. I've decided in favor of ditching her advice to a degree that would shock and alarm many, I'm sure. I've walked down streets alone at night. I traveled alone by myself dozens of times. I've done so without making sure anyone has my itinerary (what itinerary?). I've even walked alone, by myself, in a foreign city, with no cell phone, at frickin 1 am at night, and I was perfectly fine, thank you very much. And no, no one knew where I was except me.

Do you know when I wasn't safe? In the middle of the day on a crowded subway full of normal people. That's when some guy decided my boob was his little pet.

And in my bedroom, when I was alone by myself, and no one else was home except my own family.

And do you know what else? I don't regret getting on the subway that day. If some fortune teller had told me that my choices were getting on that subway and experiencing that humiliation along with everything else I did that day - or staying home where it was safe - or even choosing to travel to Paris with a group and doing group things instead, I still would have taken that damn subway. Because that was the subway that took me to Monet's Waterlillies.

So, I'm with Sheezlebub on this one: you can take your "advice" and shove it you know where.

An Apology to All Female Gamers

I'm afraid I managed to reinforce some of the not so nice stereotypes about girls and games over the last few nights.

I didn't mean to, I swear!

See, here's how it happened:

YALSA came up with the idea to start a new annual teen event called Teen Tech Week and being a YA librarian and all (yeah, yeah, I'm technically just a "library assistant") it was my job to come up with stuff for the teens to do. Besides, I thought it was a pretty cool idea anyway.

However, since I was never cool even when I was a teenager, and since I'm still getting to know the teens from my area, I put out a survey asking them to rate some ideas that I had...well, ok, some ideas I got from YALSA's wiki and site.

The overwhelming winner was...well, it was actually a movie night, but we couldn't get the license in time, so we opted for a Teen Game Night, which came in a pretty strong second. So, I borrowed my brother's Playstation, hauled my teeny tiny TV up the mountain, ordered some pizza, and told the the kids they were welcome to bring any of their own games and game systems. Several brought in games and handhelds, and we left the computers on and provided board games as well, so there was plenty for everyone to do. One of the teens actually brought in a big huge TV*, so we were able to set up another station with yet another kid's XBox.

Overall it was a HUGE success. I saw lots of faces I had yet to see ever in my entire four months working there and I know several of the kids came in because their friends told them about it. Dude, I'm getting word of mouth advertising!

However, I haven't played anything other than puzzle games on my computer for, well, several years. Not since my brother and I shared an apartment and a Playstation, I'm ashamed to say. (A different brother and Playsation.) So...I sucked. Plus, I was only half paying attention to the game (for the whole two minutes I played any) because it was my job to keep an eye on things.

It also didn't help that I was all nostalgic about all the old games, or that I had to keep asking "so how do we do this?", or that I just tried laughing my miserable failure off as if it were a joke.

Grrrr...

Well, I may be able to keep the Playstation for a while, so I might see about practising some so I am less of an embarrassment to my gender the next time around.

Of course, that probably means I should pick something up besides Kingdom Hearts and Kingdom Hearts 2....


*yeah, so, there's lots of obvious potential problems with letting them do this, but the kid who brought the TV in is 17 and is leaving for Boot Camp and then Iraq in less than 6 months, so I kinda figured he was old enough to make his own decisions about such things. And all the other kids had carrying cases for their gear and games, so it was quite obvious that they do this often, and that their parents know they do.

Since When

do Thin Mints come wrapped in foil tubes instead of plastic ones?

And why is this bothering me so much?




Oh...yes, because after spending two evenings in a row hosting a teen game night, I really don't need anymore reminders of how old I am.


"Nintendo Gameboy Color! I remember when this was the coolest thing ever!"

"Super Mario Bros.! I remember when we got our first Nintendo!"


Yeah...I think I'll shut-up right about now.



(the game nights were super cool, though)

Congrats!

Apologies for disappearing again. I'm giving my cousin a bridal shower this weekend and I've been busy getting ready for the last week or two. I've also been sick, so any other spare time I've had I've spent sleeping (or at least resting - by breezing through almost all four seasons of Remington Steele).

But I wanted take a moment to say congrats to all the 2007 ALA literary award winners, most especially John Green for following up his Printz winning debut novel with a Printz honor winner for his second try (not too bad) and Kate DiCamillo for not only knocking everyone's socks off with every book, but also writing award winning books for more than one age group.

Gems, All

From the DC boards (via Occasional Superheroine)

Shyguy and Herald: why don't you give your point of view about why the blog ISN'T feminist

Mr.M: Give your point of view about why you think it IS?

I'm torn. I can see both sides.

Context : The thread is about Occasional Superheroine's Goodbye to Comics posts and what they are actually arguing about is whether the term "feminist rant" as posted by "Mr. M" (whose handle, is not, in fact "Mr. M" - but rather starts with M) is dismissive.

Methinks "Mr. G" - the author of this odd question - is confused as to why "Mr. H" considers the phrase "feminist rant" to be dismissive.

To be fair, apparently so is "Mr. M":

I entered into this civilly, I attacked no one, esp. Valarie, who I'm sure you think I did by describing her work as "feminist."

But, wait! There's more.

...Do you know what feminism is? Do you think it is the opposite of chauvinist? Or misogynist?

(dear god where do these people come from?)

"Mr. H" states the obvious

You didn't JUST say "feminist", pal.
You called it a "feminist RANT".
There is a WORLD of difference.

(psst - herald - I love you)

I was, of course, on tenderhooks to see how "Mr. M" would respond.

Unfortunately, he dissapoints with usual fallback of the dictionary definition of "rant". Because, of course, he went through all the words he could think of that meant "a bombastic, extravagant speech" and decided that "rant" worked best. He in no way choose rant because it's what feminist complaints are usually referred to. And well, the dog ate the part of his dictionary that explained that "rant" also means "To speak or write in an angry or violent manner" and "A speech or piece of writing that incites anger or violence" and gave such example sentences as "The vast majority [of teenagers logged onto the Internet] did not encounter recipes for pipe bombs or deranged rants about white supremacy” He also must have confused it's synonym "rave" with that thing you go to.

But he makes up for it by later stating

I have some trouble calling her work "feminist" because it's not calling out men as a whole, nor is it a "call to arms" for the women of the world to rise up and overthrow their "vagina-challenged" opressors. It just doesn't have that smack to it.

See, guys, that's why I'm so bitchy. I like being called a feminist....and if I don't bag on men all the time, how the hell are you going to know that I am one? I really hate it when people mistake me for a "I'm not a feminist, but...."

Another "Mr. M" seems like he might be taking this all as seriously as it ought to be

The fact that mainstream comics has not dealt with this subject is a crime. Rape should leave you feeling outraged, invoke feelings like you wish it never happened, it should make you react!

but then shows his true colors

In stories about heroes saving people from mass murders and drug pushers and evil despots and corrupt presidents...rape should not be so taboo that we are not able to confront it like all of these other concepts. And even if there are kids reading this, how is it different than watching the nightly news? Kids need to know about these subjects and the earlier they learn the more of a chance a potential rapist can be averted or educated.

Yes, because Sue Dibny's rape was motivated by the same concern that prompted Speak and was dealt with in the same, responsible, thought-provoking manner. Complete with information on how to contact RAINN and Men Can Stop Rape.

He then responds to the obvious point that DC used rather than addressed rape with

In your opinion. You keep forgeting to write, in my opinion after you say things like this, 'cause that's all you're really speaking for. Just you. The rest of as get to make up our own minds. Thanks for caring though...

Cuz, you, know, everyone else on the board is using their "imho"s as they should!

And nevermind that it's quite obvious from what Valerie writes, and conversations not on the DC boards, that a large number of women (you, know, the people who are more likely to live in fear - or live through - sexual assault) agree with people other than "Mr. M" #2

Although, I must say my personal favorite from that thread is everyone arguing that without Sue Dibny being raped, there would have been no reason to go after Dr. Light. Call me crazy, but I rather think it wouldn't have been difficult for the masterminds at DC to come up with a reason other than "save the princess from, shocking, titilating violation!" to get the team on the hunt for Dr. Light.

Heck - I'll bet if they thought real hard they might have even been able to come up with a reason that allowed Sue Dibny to continue to help our amazing heros!

- side show (if you can stomache it) another commenter complains that Valerie brings everything back to her "broken vagina." Commenter is schooled by others in the basic literary terms "metaphor" and "theme." Hijinks ensue!

Yes, I know, I'm a bad person for picking on such easy targets. But it's so much fun!

Besides - how else is "Mr. M" #1 going to know I'm a feminist!

Speaking of Terms That Need to Dissappear:

(at least for a while)

Fan Service

Now, I'm going to admit here that I wasn't actually aware of what this term meant until Ms. Tokyopop came to visit and she explained it in her "What is Manga?" presentation.

I'd heard it used before, and I had a vague idea of what it meant, but I didn't hear it all that often and so I wasn't entirely clear on the exact definition. I honestly didn't really care.

But when she stated it as baldly as she did, and I thought of her examples and all the other things that I've heard the term used for, all I could think was "what a completely stupid phrase."

Because, of course, all the examples of "fan service" are not only sexual, but they are meant to appeal to heterosexual boys and men.

0_o

Am I not a fan?

How is this serving me?

'Cause I generally find it to be very rude, actually.

Now, I'd be willing to let such fan service slide as simply "not my cup of tea" if there was (more) stuff that was serving me AND if said stuff was referred to as fan service as well.

Because if panty shots in manga is fan service - then so are the lovely butts that Kalinara and Ragnell adore so much in the Green Lantern comics. But no one calls them that. Because girls aren't fans, I guess.

No, when fan service does come out for women, it's not only botched all to hell, it's derided as bad writing and pornography by all.

Look, I'm under no illusions that the latest Anita Blake books are smut, and not always well written smut at that. I also don't see how anyone can find the comic book adaptation to be anything but poorly adapted and poorly drawn.* However, I don't really see why the comic is more deserving of a smackdown than half the stuff I pass over as I'm picking up the latest Runaways or Wonder Woman. And I will defend Laurell K. Hamilton over Piers Anthony - often a favorite of fanboys - to the death. And I won't be the one dying.

The Anita Blake comic deserves all the derision it's getting, but I have to question the underlying motives of many who are deriding it. Is it really because it's so much worse than everything else? Or is it because the idea makes so many people uncomfortable? People, after all were making fun of it long before it hit the stands. And yeah, there's a lot to make fun of in the source material, but no more so than half the shit that makes the bestseller lists. There's just very little on those lists (largely due to the makers of said lists screwing with the numbers btw) - or in comic stores - that focuses so much on women having sex.

There's plenty that are all about women getting fucked, however.

>:p

I really didn't mean to go on a tangent about Hamilton's books, I'm just getting really annoyed at derision for fan service and/or porn for women masked behind derision for the not surprisingly low quality of such porn and/or fan service.

And while I don't mean to be the feminist police, may I politely suggest to my fellow feminists and fans of shapely male butts - and our allies - that if they'd like to see more of the same - even if only for other's sake, they may want to think about making it clear that they are dissing DBPro/Marvel for doing such a shitty adaptation of what has been widely regarded as a fun book and not dissing the basic idea of said fun book. 'Cause we all know we aren't dealing with mental giants here.

Please, please, please demand that comic book publishers do leaps and bounds better next time. But please try to make it clear that we want better - not that we want them to drop the idea. That we love Manhunter and we want our adolescent power fantasy, but we sometimes want that other kind of fantasy too. We just want it done well.

And please, everyone, stop calling boob shots fan service unless you are willing to call shirtless Mal and Simon fan service as well.

(Personally, I think Mal in a dress and Jayne getting knifed should count too, but I can deal with the definition remaining sexual.)

*well, actually, having seen Brett Booth's sketches, I think it's not so much that they aren't pretty, but that they don't work well for comics and that the penciler and colorist made tons of bad choices in trimming them down for mass publication.

Doh!

I am a frickin' idiot.

The Colleen Gleason who wrote the book that I've been going back and forth with myself about buying (it looks interesting, but I'm not sure, and I just bought a whole bunch and...) the Colleen Geason whose new book was given a huge thumbs up by The Smart Bitches (always a good thing, maybe I will pick it up...) is the same Colleen who reads my blog. Er, well, read a post and left a nice comment anyway.

Don't ask me why it all suddenly clicked today when started reading her interview over at SBTB's - but it just did.

So, sorry for not picking the book up yet, Colleen. I work at the big box store on Friday and I promise I will do so then.

And I swear - I am working on that post I promised.

Damn

Now I actually have to do one of these things.

OK, here goes.

1) My first crush was on an anime character. And since I'm not that young it was - of course -

Rick Hunter!

(My little brother teased me about that for years, the little snot.)

ROBOTECH RULES!

As does Fraggle Rock, The Gummi Bears, and Voltron.

Power Rangers and that stupid purple dinosaur can kiss my you know what. Children's librarian be damned - I only have to pretend they're cool when the kids are around.

2) I like to drink pickle juice.

Not all the time, but I really, really like pickles. Not the big ones that you can barely fit in your mouth, but the thin wedges that let the juice dribble along your tongue. Once I start, I have a hard time stopping. And if my craving isn't satisfied when the jar is empty, I'll pour a couple shots worth of pickle juice into one of those itty bitty jam glasses and sip it slowly.

3) I am currently watching Reminington Steele.

(Well, technically, I'm currently at work, but you know what I mean.)

Earlier this week, I picked up seasons 1, 4 and 5 (which, from what I can tell looks to be only a single episode) for a total of less than $40. It is soooooooo my new guilty pleasure.

Yes, the pseudo-early 80's-feminism is grating, the storylines are just awful for the most part, and Remington Steel can be quite the dick (sigh - yes, pun intended).

However - it's Pierce Brosnan! A young Pierce Brosnan!! Who runs around getting into fistfights with mob hit men after falling into overly large water harzards at miniature golf courses!!! And occasionally gets his ass handed to him by his (inconsistently) competent female boss/partner/....whatever!!!!

God I love technology. What would I do without the internet and TV shows on DVD? Read even more novels, I suppose.

4) I didn't get my driver's license until I was 24.

And yes, I grew up in southern California.

Somehow the whole fascination with cars and being able to drive on our horrendous freeways completely passed me by. I don't think it really helped that my physics professor father would explain physics to me using the relative momentum and stopping time required for various vehicles at typical speeds. Neither, I'm sure, did the fact that I was perfectly capable of grasping everything he was trying to explain to me.

I also failed my first driver's test because I didn't wait for a pedestrain. Now, it should be noted that said pedestrian was about to jaywalk and was obviously doing the sensible thing and waiting for me to continue on my way. But it was still a stupid thing for me to do during a driving test.

5) I almost got a perfect score on the logic portion of the GREs.

(and I knew which two questions were wrong when I turned the test in, but I didn't have time to fix them, dammit!)

Not, of course, that you'd know it from my blog posts. But then my score had everything to do with my doing logic puzzles for fun in junior high and in no way reflected my abilty to string words together persuasively and coherently.

BONUS!

I usually hate these things - and love them at the same time. Generally, I hate chain letters, and these things are kinda like chain letters. I especially hate figuring out who to pass them onto, so I usually don't. Except these memes are fun - but too fun because I keep wanting to go off on tangents and add more stuff.

But I had to do this one either way bc it was 100littledolls that tagged me, and I feel bad for not emailing her the words of support that wouldn't post to her blog for some reason.

So, I did it! But I'm not passing it on yet. I'm going to wait for that. And I may. Or may not. You can drop hints if you want to be tagged. Or I may decide to keep it all to myself. I'm weirdly anti-social that way.

The Myth of the Boogyman Rapist (Warning: Long, Rambling Post)

I know that I've said similar before (and I'm sure this won't be my last post on the subject) but I'm going to bring it up again because it can't be mentioned often enough. Although this time I'm going to let twf in the comments at Feministe do it for me:

I guess I’m just saying that part of where blame-the-victim comes from is thinking that “rapists” are not real people

Often times, the response to pointing out that one should be asking why rapists rape, rather than why women "get raped", is either that "no one wants to think about that" (which begs several obvious questions) or that such people are just plain sick - which is implied by the first response.

That reminds me of the quote - that I can't quite remember - about how everyone who commits murder is insane at the time. Sane people don't kill. Which has some truth to it - but no one would ever suggest that only obviously bat-shit crazy people could possibly be guilty of murder. And yet many people assume something similar when it comes to rape. Only evil men rape. Which isn't true at all - at least no more so than the idea that every murderer is insane.

This really seems to be where the majority of guys mess up. They just can't imagine that the guy sitting in the cubicle next to them at work - trading sports scores, TV gossip, game strategies or what have you - could be a rapist. Their drinking buddy? No way. The guy they see opening doors for women all the time? Pshaw. The die-hard Buffy fan? Are you kidding?

Which a lot of women I know would find funny in a dark humor, you gotta laugh if you don't want to cry, sorta way. Because we spend so much of our time wondering if the guy sitting in the cubicle next to us could be a rapist. Or the janitor. Or the security guard. Or anyone else who may be in the building with us long after most everyone else - including all our female co-workers who reminded us not to stay too late because "it's not safe." - has gone home.

Granted, a certain amount of this is that we have a hard time believing that the people we interact with on a daily basis could do such a thing. But a part of it is also a willfull blind spot on the part of such men - willfull because it allows them to cede responsibility for their own actions. They aren't required to worry that their friend may be capable of such things. They aren't required to examine their own behavior and change it accordingly.

Most criminals justify their actions in some way - even if it's only along the lines of "they deserved it." Rapists often believe that not only would conviction be unfair (which, I'd imagine, is quite common) but that no one was even inconvenienced, much less hurt. Many men see anything that leaves bruises or causes bleeding to be highly suspect, but dismiss a whole host of other behaviours that hurt women.

It's not a coincidence that many of the jokes about consent revolve around the idea of legal documents. The inescapable implication is that there is some exact - and ridiculous - procedure that feminists are asking for. Which in turn suggests that there's a reason why it's silly to expect clear consent to be easily obtainable. The obvious one being that women don't want sex - at least not as much as men. Which kinda makes the whole idea of enthusiastic participation a farce. Consequently, just about any way of getting a "yes" - or even the silence of previous "no"s - is acceptable as long as it doesn't require physical violence - because how else are you going to get it?

Recently, a commenter at Pandagon dug a hole for himself in arguing that the suggestion of safewords was a reasonable response to a woman whose boyfriend had raped her while she was tied up (she had agree to sex, but had made it clear that she did not want to do the specific act he ended up forcing on her). While there are all kinds of things to pick on in his comments, the part that I found interesting was how much this real life scenario mirrored a hypothetical rape scenario argued over at Alas, A Blog.

Both women were with their boyfriends? Check.

Both women had repeatedly said no? Check.

Both women's choices were restricted in some way by the rapist? Check

Both women made choices that contributed directly to being restrained? Check.

Now, there are some big differences. In the second, the girl never screams out "No!" during sex. (It's unclear if she ever says "yes" and, as just stated, she has said no repeatedly. It's also made clear that she is simply giving in to what he wants - her desires haven't changed.) The second victim is also not brutalized enough to require an overnight stay at the hospital and the restriction was mostly veiled threats and psychological ("Don't you love me?", boyfriend is her ride home, she snuck out of the house) rather than the physical restraint in the first.

It is quite clear when comparing the two, however, that they are simply different degrees of the same thing. In both cases the boyfriends do not respect their girlfriends stated wishes. Both rapists see getting what they want - rather than mutual pleasure - as the main goal. Both are willing to ignore - or get around - the entire concept of consent in order to get what they want.

Many, however, would only see the first as a rapist. Even disregarding legal definitions and (supposedly) looking at both scenarios only through the lens of what consititute's consent in the true meaning of the word - many would claim (and did) that the second guy is merely an asshole.

Considering how many people are willing - on the other hand - to conflate copyright violations with stealing, I find that very telling - and frightening.

Putting aside the logistics of legal definitions and punishment, this hypothetical rape scenario - although less violent than the real one - certainly deserves to be called such. If it doesn't, we're going to have to seriously rethink how we use words like "steal" - even outside of talking about copyright. If one can "steal" a parking spot - this can certainly be called rape.

But men especially get uncomfortable at the suggestion because it's safer for them to think of rape as something strangers do in dark alleys. Or psycho boyfriends that send their victims to the hospital. The very logical assertion that sexual violence is a spectrum and not a clearly defined act tends to put them on the defensive.

From the comments at Alas:

Rape is so horrible to me, and I view it as one of the most violent acts against a woman that a man can commit, either through physically violence, emotional abuse or emotional manipulations, and I have no desire to view a man that has raped as any other than horrible person, I can’t have all these gray areas about what rape is

Which, unfortunately, seems to sum up many people's views on rape. The fact that life is messy and uncertain, and that otherwise good people can do bad things, is too scary to be worth contemplating. Even if people get hurt because of it.

I, however, don't want people simply hurt because we're all too scared to look inside ourselves.

So, listen up, everyone:

1) Women like sex. We don't need to be "tricked" into agreeing to pleasure. We just sometimes need to be convinced that sex with you will be worth it. And sometimes you just aren't going to be able to do that. Because sometimes it just isn't. And the fact that sex with you isn't always (or ever) worth it is not proof that women do not like sex.

2) Rapists are not monsters. Or, at least, they are no more monsters than murderers are. And very few people around saying "I can't have all these gray areas about what [murder] is" Especially the justice system, which recognizes at least a dozen type of murderers if you add possible state and federal charges together. Some of which include the word "involuntary." Meaning - you aren't an evil person who wants to harm anyone, you're just a stupid shit who cares so much more about your own wants than other's needs that you ended up causing someone's death. I'd say that idea, at the very least, can be applied to our hypothetical rapist. Especially when one is talking about morals rather than legal definitions.

3) Safewords - and even notarized consent forms - only prevent rape if both people understand the meaning of "no", "yes" and "willing partner" to begin with. Because rape, like murder and theft, isn't just a legal definition, it's something people do to other people. "Date" rape, marital rape, the rape of prostitutes, and all kinds of other rape existed long before the law recognized such rapists as worthy of punishment. The law is merely a tool for protecting people's rights and the current interpretation of the law is not a trump card to be used to ignore the ways in which people hurt each other. We really don't need to providing would be rapists with more excuses.

4) The only way to prevent rape is to educate people about what causes rape - and it has nothing to do with short skirts or women going out to bars. It's caused by people disbelieving that women like sex, pretending that all rapists are boogeymen, and acting as if rape is something that happens rather than something someone does to someone else. Death is something that happens. Rape and murder require perpetrators who fail to respect the rights and desires of others.

VM Forever

I got seasons 1 and 2 of Veronica Mars on DVD (thank you, mom and dad!) and I've become obssessed all over again.

I've also realized (because I'm slow that way) how loaded with meaning everyone's names are: Kane, Woody, Mac, Mercer. It makes me think all I need to do to figure out "whodunit" is review everyone's names. Plus - Keith Mars losing the race for sheriff to someone named Lamb - not effing likely.

And I really, really want that shirt she's wearing in the episode where she tracks down Wallace's girlfriend's sister when she disappears after her bachlorette party. The shirt that's like all the truck flaps - only it's a guy.

'Cause that's just too cool.

Sadly, it's not one of the things listed on CW Style.

This is Just Too Perfect and Too Sad

at the same time.

From She's Such a Geek, we get the discovery that when you put

biologist OR physicist OR scientist “she says”

into google news search, google responds with

Did you mean: biologist OR physicist OR scientist “he says”

It does not do the same if you replace "biologist OR physicist OR scientist" with "teacher OR nurse OR housekeeper."

I also tried searching with

teacher OR nurse OR housekeeper “he says”

and I didn't get anything back but the search pages I asked for.

Now, I generally dismiss conspiracy theories based on Occam's razor, and this is no exception. I don't think this bit of sexism was purposely built into google. The most likely possibility is that it's simply a result of the combination of search algorithims, the number of instances in which female scientists, physicists, and biologists are quoted, and the number of times that people search for such quotes.

But that's what makes it all the more interesting. It's such a perfect example of how prevailing biases in one area, and the absence of activisim in another, can combine to turn even something that wasn't meant to be sexist into a tool of sexism.

It's such a perfect rebuttal to the idea that lack of action in a culture were such biases exist means that one is being neutral.

After all, if you add negative 1 to 0, you've still got negative 1.

Yes, I Will Most Definitely Go See Blood and Chocolate

(Ok, maybe I'll just rent it, but still...)

It's directed by Katja von Garnier - who also directed Iron Jawed Angels. Which, yes, had some problems, but was still very, very good.

Poll: which trailer is cheesier:

Blood and Chocolate

or

Rocky Balboa

??????

Ahem - just sayin'

Some Thoughts on Mary Sue

I think there needs to be a temporary moratorium on using the term "Mary Sue."

Why?

Because it is, in the end, a sexist concept.

I get why it came about, and I don't really see sexism as the motive for the original idea, and I don't doubt that teen girls writing fanfic are more guilty of writing Mary Sues than teen boys.

But using it to refer to popular media as often as people have been lately is just stupid. And annoying.

Yes, Joss Whedon's female leads, Anita Blake, and probably even Vivian from Blood and Chocolate and all of Tamora Pierce's heroines all deserve the title of Mary Sue in some way or another.

But you know what? If they do, so do half (or more) of the male leads in popular culture.

My pet theory for why girls are more likely to write Mary Sue fanfic? A) they are more likely to write fanfic and B) They need it more because fewer of the female characters out there fulfill the same function for girls and women that Rocky, Eragon, Batman, Luke Skywalker, James Bond etc. fulfill for boys and men.

So, yeah, any female equivalent of Rocky is going to have aspects of Mary Sue-ness - because Rocky has aspects of Mary Sue-ness.

But we only call River a Mary Sue, not James Bond. And seriously, which is more deserving of the title of Mary Sue - James Bond or River?

So, please, unless you are willing to deride Harry Potter for being a Mary Sue, please refrain from talking about Buffy's - or anyone else's - Mary Sue-ness.

That goes double for not being happy with the direction of a series because the writer did something you don't like to the characters you do like in order to do something he or she likes with his or her favorite character.

Feel free to not be happy about it. Feel free to deride their writing, choice of favorite character, not so secret fantasies, whatever. But complaining that Whedon's Astonishing X-Men has turned into a Mary Sue story about Kitty Pride just seems a bit silly when there's an entire X-Men series devoted to Wolverine. The way in which he has done so may be worth complaining about. Aside from personal taste, the fact that he has done so isn't.

Synergy and Sexism Mess Up Blood and Chocolate Marketing

So, you've got this cheap (but possibly fun) movie about a love triangle between two werewolves - one a rising leader in the pack and the other the daughter of the old leader - and a human boy. It's based on an older YALSA pick.

Most people are going to see it as an Underworld knockoff as both have to do with werewolves, intrigue, and love stories. This is partly true since the book has been around for longer, but the movie probably finally got the green light because of Underworld's success and is produced by the same people (and possibly "borrowed" some of the werewolf visuals).

In reality, however, the story is more along the lines of a cross between Win a Date with Tad Hamilton and the coming of age stuff in early Buffy episodes (and other superhero type stories). As such, the main target audience will be teen girls (the main audience for the book) and scfi/fantasy/superhero fans that prefer Spiderman and other coming of age type stories over say, The Matrix or The Lord of the Rings.

So, what movie are you going to put the trailer before?

Eragon?

Freedom Writers?

No - apparently you put it before Rocky Balboa.*

WTF?

I realize there's not a whole lot of movies out there to choose from, but - WTF! That has to be the least likely crossover audience ever.

Needless to say, the audience laughed their asses off.

Just like they would have if there had been a trailer for Ever After or The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants before any of the Rocky movies.

Because of course, MGM is doing both movies, and Blood and Chocolate has scifi/fantasy stuff in it, so the perfect place for the trailer is before the umpteenth (and reportedly awful) movie in the ultimate macho macho movie series about the ultimate macho guy doing macho guy stuff.

Yeah, ok. That makes sense.

One person who saw it and laughed and says (same link as above):

I love metaphors, but after watching a couple of minutes of teeny bopper garbage and then having that cerebral title drop on the screen, the absurdity is obvious. You can't give such a stupid looking production a brainy title like Blood & Chocolate.

Completely ignoring the fact that he may be looking for brainier stuff to go with his metaphors, but the "teeny boppers" the film was made for really do not.

Trust me.

A name change might help get more teen boys in, but the the title is perfect for appealing to fans of Midnite, Tithe and The Sisterhood. Which (should be) the movie's target audience.

The book may be sophisticated, it could be great "literature", but the movie is pure cheese...

The book is great - but it's not Jane Austen. It's mostly just really good cheese with a little bit of deep thought thrown in. Like most really good teen books.

It is a PG-13 movie. It is aimed at children, and children are not gonna get this title so Blood and Chocolate is in trouble.

It's aimed at teen girls (and, to some extent, women in their 20's), not children. Note the change from teen characters - which would appeal to mainly tweens - to adults in their 20's - which will appeal to an older audience.

And, I don't know about you, but I can't think of a single teen girl alive that needs "blood and chocolate" explained to them.

Ever.

Blood and chocolate. Chocolate and blood.

Violence and sex. Sex and violence.

Not terribly complicated.

Which would be why a) I first picked up the book based only on the title and b) there are so many damn books in the romance section that have chocolate in the title. Chocolate is not an intellectual metaphor for sex the way that nosebleeds in manga are, it's a physical one that just about every woman instantly gets because chocolate triggers the chemicals in our brains that tell us something is pleasurable. So, it's hardly an intellectual metaphor. It's about the least intellectual you can be, and still call it a metaphor.

The only reason the film is "doomed" is because it's a movie for a niche audience, and so by definition it's got limited potential. More importantly, it's the niche audience that studios rarely make movies for, so it's the audience that's least likely to be in the habit of going to see a specific movie (as opposed to going to the movies as simply something to do) and there's less potential for easy publicity since it's not as if the're were a whole lot of choices for where the put the trailer.

The solution to that, however, is not to try to market this as another mainstream movie, it's to make more movies that appeal to this niche audience so that, they too, will get into the habit of making a point of seeing specific movies rather than just whatever looks halfway decent on whatever day they are in the mood for a movie.

But then, maybe I'm just weird, because while there are lots of nice serious, mainstream movies lately that I ought to get around to seeing sometime, the only movies that really have me wanting to make a point of going to the theatre are Bridge to Terebithia - because it was my favorite book as a kid- and Blood and Chocolate - which I've also read and really liked.

You know what else, though? If I hadn't read either of the books, I'd be more likely to make sure I saw Blood and Chocolate than Bridge to Terebithia. The trailer for the latter just makes it look silly and sweet (which it's not) but the trailer for the former looks like some nice mindless fun. With lots of pretty eye candy.

And (gasp!) a female lead. One who, unlike Kate Beckinsale in the Underworld trailers, is presented as someone for us to connect with rather than simply watch. I liked the Underworld trailers, but Beckinsale's character was presented in a cross between the typical hero voice over and a damsel in distress explaining her situation to her hero (too much emphasis in the sexy, and not enough on the scary monster who can easily rip your throat out). Vivian is presented as more relatable, but still physically strong and the focus of the story in the Blood and Chocolate trailer.

The fact that I've read the book and know that it may (like the book) manage to be a little bit more than that, is simply the icing on the cake.

*Has anyone else seen trailers for this anywhere else? I can't remember where I first heard about it, but it was recently (nd the movie comes out soon) and I know it was online rather that from a trailer.