laceblade

Fucking loved it.

You can tell that Rian Johnson watches anime, in my opinion.

( spoilers )

---

I wanted to link to this post by thingswithwings about the labeling of certain foods as "healthy" and cultural messages about food. The comments are both thoughtful and staggering when taken as a whole.

I don't usually love Maureen Dowd, but I've gotta say that every time in the last two weeks that I've wanted to write a blog post about how much I despise Benedict XVI and the priests who represent the face of Catholicism to the world, she goes ahead and does it for me. It's just...UGH. IT IS HOLY WEEK, SIR. HAVE A LITTLE HUMILITY. Instead of saying shit like "We will overcome the people who are being mean to me right now!" How about saying, "I crawl on my knees and ask forgiveness for the horrible things I've done. AND NOW PEOPLE WILL GO TO JAIL FOR WHAT THEY DID."
I also liked A Nope for Pope.

I am so disgusted right now.

And the next time that someone asks me, "Why are you still Catholic?" or "How do you feel about that?" they will get kicked in the neck.

I FEEL REALLY GOOD ABOUT CHILDREN GETTING MOLESTED, THANKS FOR ASKING.

When congressmen molest boys, nobody says, "Shit, I'm going to stop being American!"
Nobody says, "Wow, doesn't that make you want to stop feeling patriotic?"
Nobody says, "Wow, so Mark Foley molested a boy. How do you feel about that?"
Because those questions are absurd and the answers are self-evident.

But when the situation is about a different aspect of someone's identity - their faith - THAT SHIT IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT, and it's okay to be abhorrently inappropriate.



.....OR IS IT?!

Friend nylorac15 would like to ask us [me and you LJ friends of mine] what we think of this article from today's Christian Science Monitor from a feminist perspective (or, any other perspective you have to offer).

I have many opinions, but I'll start with the fact that I find it problematic that this "consultant and former presidential speechwriter" only cites one one study in his article (and even then, not very specifically).

If more women had been in charge of things, I'm certain that we could just as easily have entered our current financial crisis. God knows lots of us are greedy jerks, too.

The author takes many behaviors and ascribes them to being biologically ascribed, as opposed to socially constructed. I don't really agree with his sentiment, or would at the least need data to be convinced.

The difference could be evolutionary. Primordial hunters (men) had to make rapid decisions and act on them, right or wrong, but quickly. Chase that bunny! Club that rival! Run away! Gatherers (women), meanwhile, needed an awareness of the larger context – knowing which berry bushes would ripen when, how to keep the kids from clonking each other with rocks, and generally holding the tribe together and getting things done.

:[

His conclusion is hopeful, but is it really related to gender, or to people learning how to be less bastardly?

By example, they will teach us to lead less through positional authority and more through positive influence- with more of a bias toward informed action and a clearer connection between everything we know, and all we have to do.

What do you think?

From here.

Thousands of protesters are dead and the bodies of hundreds of executed monks have been dumped in the jungle, a former intelligence officer for Burma's ruling junta has revealed.

The most senior official to defect so far, Hla Win, said: "Many more people have been killed in recent days than you've heard about. The bodies can be counted in several thousand."

And not only were these Buddhist monks murdered and dumped into mass-graves, but it was done under cover, and after the government had cut off the Internet. The government imposed a curfew under the guise of "maintaining order," but its actual purpose was so that the bodies of Buddhist monks could be removed from their monasteries and dumped elsewhere.

The BBC's latest article says that 10 people have been killed so far.

The New York Times has yet to say anything about this particular atrocity.

And right now, the most-read article on CNN.com is Britney Spears losing custody of her children.

What the fuck is the matter with people?

EDIT: The BBC reports with everything it can verify.
Sylvester Stallone and those filming a "Rambo" sequel encounter evidence of the atrocities on the Myanmar border.

UW campus' Student Organization Fair was tonight, and I feel ready to die from exhaustion. For most of the night, I was the only one at the table, which was sad, :( I like doing it, though. I have two and a half pages of names and email addresses to write to some time tomorrow.

The Fair was a bit different this year, though. Instead of having each student org share a table with another one, and cramming us all into different parts of Memorial Union, this year everything was very spaced out at the Kohl Center, which was nice. It was a lot easier to see the flow of people going by, though. As anime becomes more popular, the stereotype of a "typical" anime fan being a person who is socially awkward and very "geeky" by appearance is becoming less valid. Of course, many people like this exist, and I am glad that Anime Club is a place for them to come and make friends at college, and feel comfortable.

But it still pisses me off that others can be so judgmental about anime as a genre. I understand it's cartoons, but whatever. When you are with a group of friends, and stop walking, look at the table full of comic books and DVD cases, and then look at me, and walk over, and are barely controlling your laughter as you ask me how the Club works while you periodically glance back at your friends with CAN YOU BELIEVE PEOPLE LIKE THIS EXIST faces, and I explain it, are you not being the least bit childish? Do you think that I am not, in fact, fully aware of the fact that you have some weird perception that I have no friends, or don't realize you're laughing at me? Do you think I don't know that your friends just dared you to come over and talk to me? BECAUSE LET ME TELL YOU, I AM AWARE. Hi, I showered this morning, too! And I put on mascara just like you did. I also like going out for drinks with my friends! BUT PLEASE JUDGE ME BECAUSE I LIKE CUTE THINGS AND WELL-WRITTEN STORIES. Bitches. At least one of my Club cohorts consoled me by extrapolating the probability of one of them getting an STD in the next month.

Apparently, there is another anime club that started up this year, too. At first I was very much, "WTF, let's take them DOWN," but then I investigated their booth. An Asian girl was cosplaying adorably as Chii, from Chobits. It seems like their focus is on analyzing the role of anime in culture, and holding contests for people who draw their own stuff. They actually sent a representative over to our table, and we exchanged emails and agreed to advertise for one another for special events, such as said contests. They seem really nice, and hey - if there are ways for more people to enjoy anime, then all the better, right?

This year, it seemed like a lot more international students stopped by the table this year. There were a lot of mixed-gender crowds, in which guys would stop and look on as the girls would totally freak out, shouting, "Waiiiii! NANA! Hachimitsu! Faruba!" Some of them listened when I explained how to sign up to get an explanatory email, while others ignored me entirely, just grabbing volumes of manga and shaking them at their friends with expressions of disbelief.

All in all, it was a good time. I met lots of new people, and hopefully they'll show up this Saturday for Club. A lot of people who weren't freshmen seemed heartened when we explained that we were trying to make the Club more socially-focused, and less like a living room in which people came, watched, and left.

So. I've been complaining to Chad lately about how some people suck at feminism, and I feel the need to explain some things to the world (which is clearly best done by writing in my blog).

I will start with a hypothetical situation. We'll start with Chad - Chad has lived across the street from my house since birth, and is now a roommate of mine. I went through all of my schooling with Chad, and I am really hard-pressed to think of a single person who disliked him. He is a quintessential nice guy - the popular people liked him, the band kids liked him, the choir kids liked him, those marginalized for various reasons liked him. It is why Chad's/my plan for world domination mean Chad will run for political office, and eventually president, and I will be his chief of staff. He is well on his way, having now entered his first year of law school.

I digress. So, Chad, our quintessential nice guy (he is an eagle scout), when encountering a person of the opposite sex performing some act of manual labor will offer to complete the task for them. In Chad's mind, he is doing it because he is nice. When describing such mentalities, he uses the word "chivalrous." In his mind, it is honorable and right tell a girl, "You don't have to do that. I can do it instead."

I know that I can't speak for every woman, so I will speak only for myself. When a task involving manual labor needs to be completed, and it is sensible for me to be the one to complete the task - either because it is part of my job description, or because I would benefit from the task being completed - I see no reason why I should not do it. When I am told by a man, "I can do that instead of you doing it," I feel like I am being told, I can do this job better than you can or You are incapable of performing this job adequately. I feel this way even when people such as Chad are the ones to make the suggestion. Even when I know that people such as Chad have the best of intentions. Because what is behind that intention? A socialized mentality that men are "built for" physical labor, while women are not. It is not Chad's fault that he has been socialized in such a way, but the socialization process he went through does effect how he interacts with and treats other people. This is true of all people, especially men. It is possible to be sexist - to say sexist things - without being a mean person.

In fact, when having the conversation about whether or not I could blog about it, he tried to justify his position as righteous by saying, "I would help an elderly person cross the street." He quickly recanted, saying that that was a bad analogy, but it's still what came to mind first - and it really is a telling analogy. Comparing an elderly person, who is feeble and frail, to a woman who is striving to, say, cut the lawn. Making a comparison implies that it is beyond her limits for the woman to complete a task that requires muscular strength to perform.

None of this is to say that Chad is a bad person - verily, Chad is one of my best friends, and I think he is a very good person. The intention of this blog post is to show that sometimes, even without meaning to, a person (and it is not always a man - women do it all the time, too) can be sexist. This also applies to racism: Without trying to, a well-meaning person can say something racist. It doesn't mean you are now an enemy of all people of color, or of all women. All it means is that you should try to pay more attention to what you're saying, and why you're saying it. Similarly, if you benefit from privilege - if you are male, or if you are white, you need to do a really good job of listening. It can be really hard for a woman, or a person of color, to bring it up when they encounter sexism or racism with their friends, in class, in the workplace, or at the store. They are afraid of not being taken seriously, of angering people they care about and/or respect, and afraid of their words having no effectiveness.

So, listen - listen for subtle cues. Listen for when people hesitate, look for when people have fleeting looks of anger. Listen for where someone goes into a defensive mode by using a sarcastic quip or silence, and ask yourself why they're doing it, and if it might be something you did or said.

It's difficult to shift your mind into thinking in such a way if you're not used to doing it, but once you do, you'll be surprised at what you see and hear. Why is the default pronoun always "he"? Why is every class that I have contain a sea of white faces? Why do people of a certain color tend to ride on certain bus line, while people of another color tend to ride other certain bus lines? What areas of town do these bus lines go to - upscale or down? Why?

Most of all: if someone accuses you of being sexist or racist, the first thing you need to tell yourself is: "CALM DOWN." Chill out. Ask them why. Apologize. Tell them you did not intend to be offensive. But most of all, take their explanation seriously, and think about it for a while, even after the conversation is over. And try not to do it again.

It really is that simple!

So, there's been lots of wankery over at LiveJournal because of the staff permanently banning some people from their site because of Harry Potter fanart they drew. The art in question depicts fictional minors engaging in sexual acts.

I won't say whether or not I support such things, although I will point out that we're talking about 17-year-old minors (OF FICTIONAL CHARACTERS DRAWN WITH PRISMACOLOR MARKERS), and not 8-year-olds.

Regardless. Today, LiveJournal posted this response about how they must punish users who violate their terms of service, which includes, "content that is unlawful, harmful, abusive, obscene, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable."

One user comments with an excellent point: If LiveJournal is so keen on banning everyone who violates their terms of service when it is reported, then why do they not ban the many extremely disturbing pro-anorexia communities that are on LiveJournal? These are communities in which members encourage one another to not eat, and to lose weight when they are already underweight. Among other things, LiveJournal's response included:
We fully recognize that anorexia is harmful and that these communities are dedicated to maintaining a lifestyle that has the potential to cause harm.

Suspending pro-anorexia communities will not make anyone suffering from the disorder become healthy again.

Anorexia has only "the potential" to cause harm? Even if one suffering from it doesn't kill themselves, I can't think of a way in which a person would suffer from it and not experience emotional and mental trauma.

As for the latter point, while it's true that suspending communities that are pro-anorexia will not make anyone healthy again, the point also stands that suspending users on LiveJournal who draw fanart that happens to be erotic will not stop instances of child molestation from occurring. Pornography is not illegal. Maybe some people are unhappy about it, but that's the way it is. And, as Avenue Q will tell you, some people feel that the Internet is for porn! It is certainly easy to find on the Internet. I just don't understand how the staff at LiveJournal and Six Apart can build straw dummies so as to uphold one part of their Terms of Service, and expect the rest of us not to notice how much they utterly fail at enforcing their rules where it matters - where the violation of their terms of service produces real, tangible harm. I mean, if I'm anorexic and I find this community of people just like me, who tell me that my illness is okay, who in fact encourage me to harm myself, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the community is harmful.

Really, while it is fascinating to watch the users of an Internet website and its maintainers struggle over what is and is not okay to be placed on the website, it does leave me feeling a bit hopeless for the realm of Internet law as a whole.

I consider myself to be a religious person, although I don't really bring my faith up very often in conversation (although, once some people find out that I'm Catholic, they assume that I agree with every single tenet of Catholicism, and will grill me about why the Church believes what it believes). Still, I don't really believe in divine providence. I don't believe God is controlling all of us with puppet strings, breaking our hearts to "teach us lessons," and making sure that "there is always a way."

But I still laugh when divine justice happens. I've decided that having celebrity gossip pervade the media is totally okay when the celebrities are getting owned.

• Grey's Anatomy star Isaiah Washington (Dr. Preston Burke) has been kicked off the show for anti-gay remarks made against T.R. Knight (George O'Malley). The best part of the story (which is now often left out) is that Patrick Dempsey (McDreamy, Dr. Derek Shepherd) told him to 'fuck off' when it happened. I really love that Katherine Heigl (Izzie Stevens, my favorite) stuck up for Knight in public. DIVINE JUSTICE: People who are homophobic and are mean to their co-workers lose their jobs. YES.

• "It's not right! Mom!"

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Screaming and crying, Paris Hilton was escorted out of a courtroom and back to jail Friday after a judge ruled that she must serve out her entire 45-day sentence behind bars rather than in her Hollywood Hills home.

"It's not right!" shouted the weeping Hilton, who violated her probation in a reckless driving case. "Mom!" she called out to her mother in the audience.

Hilton, who was brought to court in handcuffs in a sheriff's car, came into the courtroom disheveled and weeping, hair askew, sans makeup, wearing a gray fuzzy sweatshirt over slacks.

She cried throughout the hearing, her body shook constantly and she dabbed at her eyes. Several times she turned to her parents, seated behind her in the courtroom, and mouthed, "I love you."

I just don't understand how can anybody could say "it isn't right" for them to pay for breaking the law. Like, me personally, I was upset with myself for getting a speeding ticket, but I'm not about to say that it isn't fair or undeserved. I was speeding. I got caught. The end. Things that "aren't right" would include, I don't know, children starving to death and innocent people being murdered.

Please, God, let this happen in Wisconsin while I'm working.

Anyway, last night was fun. After work, we went out to a couple of bars because one of my bosses will have his last day sometime next week, and then leave for Afghanistan for a year. I love my co-workers. One of the coolest, most fun group of people I've had the pleasure of spending time with. Even if they make fun of my self-purported claim, in a high-pitched voice, "But I am badass."

Cultural Appropriation Revisited Part One

Politics, Race, Class, and Religion•Senate B• Saturday, 2:30-3:45 p.m.

As part of an ongoing discussion of the issue of cultural appropriation, this year's panel will address what is perhaps the most controversial, and certainly the most discussed, aspect of cultural appropriation in fiction: the use or exploitation of cultures across racial, ethnic, or national lines. Writers and activists who concern themselves in their work with issues of dominant and marginal cultures will discuss the use in narrative of markers and artifacts of cultures that are not the authors' own. Should this be done at all? Where do the limits fall? How is it well done and how poorly done? Sponsored by the Carl Brandon Society.

M: Candra Gill, M. J. Hardman, Yoon Ha Lee, Nnedi Nkemdili Okorafor-Mbahu, Victor Jason Raymond

----------------

First of all, I highly recommend you read up on what happened last year, at Wiscon 30. To my knowledge, has compiled the most complete list of posts that have been referred to as a "blog war." Essentially, the same panel was present at Wiscon last year, but instead of focusing on the prescribed topic, it declined into a conversation about white people and their guilt. rilinaHer link roundup is here, and she was even kind enough to put everything in chronological order.

Before I write my notes on the panels, I will say that I am white and don't have a lot of experience talking about race with others. If I say something that pisses you off, please tell me. I promise that I won't accuse you of being racist (wtf), deny the fact that white culture exists, or tell you that you're imagining things. Seriously. Tell me.

----------------

I don't have anything to say about this panel that hasn't already been said.

There is also a fairly elaborate transcript here.

You should also read oyceter's writeup.

Book Recommendation:
Mindscape, Andrea Harrison

----------------

Cultural Appropriation Revisited Part Two: Facilitated Discussion

Politics, Race, Class, and Religion•Senate B• Saturday, 4:00-5:15 p.m.

The panel on cultural appropriation at WisCon last year raised issues that were hotly discussed online, and the panel that this forum follows is likely to do the same. This open forum is meant to give you the chance to explore these issues and how they matter to you. Through passionate discussion we can improve our awareness and find the common understanding that lies beneath our disagreements. The open forum will be facilitated by Alan Bostick, who has been practicing Worldwork since 2003. Worldwork is a process-oriented approach to group facilitation and conflict developed by psychologist Arnold Mindell (author of Sitting in the Fire and The Deep Democracy of Open Forums) and collaborators. Attendees are strongly urged to also attend the immediately preceding panel discussion on cultural appropriation.

M: Alan Bostick

----------------

I was a little skeptical about the "process-oriented approach to group facilitation and conflict," but I thought that Bostick was a good moderator in terms of getting people to say what they meant, and clarifying issues for both the speaker and the group as a whole. I don't feel like he lead the conversation in any direction in particular, but rather helped people to not dissolve into screaming matches.

I was disappointed that so many people left after Part 1, and didn't stay for Part 2. I know it's a Con, people had places to be, and these things happen - but still.

And really, looking at my notes, I didn't take many. I'm sorry. It was just a weird, uncomfortable conversation. I am going to cop out and say that for details on the panel, read oyceter's excellent write up of Part Two.

I will, however, take the opportunity to write about the one situation that upset me the most. I think I got positioned to dislike the comments made by this particular audience member because they were constantly interrupting others and offering comments that weren't really helpful to the issue at hand. But the one that took the cake was the one that cropped up in the following situation:
A woman who was black said that she and her husband, who is Jewish, have a son. The woman (whose name was Rosalyn, I think; I later attended a reading at midnight, and her prose and plot ideas are amazing!) said that she has told her son that despite his "mixed" background, the world perceives him as a black man; she tells him this so that he will understand why others act toward him the way they do. The audience member told the woman that her son needs to know that he is an individual, should accept himself, and that nothing anyone else thinks of him is important, and that all he can do is be himself.

I guess that sounds great rhetorically (not eloquent, but you get what I mean), except that what you think of yourself is not all that matters. Another audience member instantly brought attention to this fact: that it's great to accept yourself except that it does matter what people identify "black man" with when those people are police officers, etc. Encouraging people of color to just "accept themselves" is extremely unhelpful, in my opinion. I don't think that most people of color have a problem with being a person a color. The problem is that society has a prejudice related to how people look. Racism is an institution, and it does affect daily life in many ways. It affects who gets hired for jobs; it affects who gets arrested and who gets let off on the exact same charges; it affects who people avoid when they're walking down the sidewalk. Racism is real, and closing your eyes and focusing on how much you love yourself, however much that is, doesn't make the racism go away.

I don't know. It was just that comment in particular that made me think "WTF" the most.

Recommended Reading
"Writing the Other" - Nisi Shawl
The Color of Water
White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack - Peggy McIntosh
How Not to be Insane When Accused of Racism (A Guide for White People)

I really don't have time to write an entire blog post, which is sad, because I have things to say. So I guess I'll just pick one and go with it (and close one of my open tabs in my web browser).

Antoine sent me a link to this article, which you should read. The premise is that the population of people with Down syndrome is dwindling because when pregnant mothers find out they have such a child, 9 times out of 10, they abort it. Fewer people with Down syndrome means those that have it have less of a chance to socialize, and for parents to network with one another. It also becomes more difficult for them to lobby for funding for things like scientific research.
I find it incredibly sad that 90% of pregnant women who get a positive test for Down syndrome babies abort their babies. I get really disgusted when people think they can play God. Especially if you want to have a child - but what? Not that child? There are conservative Christians who have said that if there was a way to find out whether or not their child was gay, they would abort their baby. What kind of a society is this, where we can decide which babies do and do not deserve because of their genes? Their genes which we give them? 90%. What the fuck.
So, let me ask you, blog readers - if you or your significant other became pregnant and you knew the child had Down syndrome, would you want/get an abortion?