Home
glass_icarus
- Shakira!fail on DWTS results show last night = this is why i'm hot; this is why you're not. )

seriously, lady, you need to NOT take a page out of Gwen Stefani's book, 'kay? i love you and your music and your GQMF dancing lots, but gimmick!Asians are not cool.

- it's Party of Mock time for this latest gem of misogynist SF bitching. how many ways can these entitled white male assholes come up with to be complete fuckmuppets (tm [info]yuki_onna) on the internet? oh, that's right; COUNTLESS. *is utterly UNsurprised*

- and now for the happy; fellow Yuletiders who haven't already seen this, Yuletide nominations are OPEN! :D mine are as follows:

Saving Face (film)
Guy Gavriel Kay- Ysabel
Patricia McKillip- Riddlemaster Trilogy
Kuroshitsuji aka Black Butler
Shounen Onmyouji
Cain Saga aka Count Cain aka Godchild


how about you? :)

This entry was originally posted at Dreamwidth. (comment count unavailable comments)
 
 
glass_icarus
15 September 2009 @ 08:38 pm
You guys may have seen this already, but for those who haven't yet encountered it, [info]karnythia wrote a fabulous post on race, gender, and the oppressive public gaze.

It makes me think of Guy Gavriel Kay's essay* on the importance of privacy in today's society, particularly this:
Is privacy important? Something with ethical value attached to it? Enormous elements of cultural conditioning underlie this question, of course, and so we should at least pause to acknowledge the complex history of private life, the way in which the very idea of a sequestered space to be alone, unobserved, has been alien to many cultures, and is still today a dream or an illusion for many people, even in our own society.

[...] We seem to now be a culture that rushes to embrace exposure. It is as if a colossal inversion is taking place: we want to be naked on the stage in public. The attention accrues more value than protected autonomy. Nobody knows you when your blinds are down and you're not out.

How does one discuss the importance of privacy, or even speak of the unwanted gaze, in the age of the jennycam, where a college coed becomes an international celebrity simply by putting cameras in her dorm rooms so websurfers can watch her, realtime, all day and night? One might deride her as naive, since most of those who have followed Jennifer Ringley down this path of proud self-assertion have at least had the simple decency to charge for it - allowing us to see the process as mere commerce - but the onlie beggeter, Ms Ringley, offered a pure, transaction-free model of exposure and ensuing fame to contemplate.

Might we make the case, as the rabbinical code did, that when this becomes a norm, when we collectively participate in that gazing process, the injury caused by seeing is to all of us?

Good thoughts (if very much western-hemisphere-focused on Kay's part), and definitely a topic I wish more people would consider.

This entry was originally posted at Dreamwidth. (comment count unavailable comments)
 
 
glass_icarus
02 September 2009 @ 11:39 am
WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK. blockquote- with rhesus monkeys!- is cut for high blood pressure warnings )

Seriously? SERIOUSLY? There are so many problems with this statement, and I am way too pissed to unpack them all, but FIRST THINGS GODDAMNED FIRST.

STOP. WITH. THE RHESUS MONKEYS.

If you are more willing, "Dr." Ogas, to read up on primate behavior than to actually listen to what human women ARE FUCKING SAYING TO YOU, then that tells me a hell of a lot about what you think of me, of the people you are trying to survey, of >50% of the world population that just so happens to include your hypothetical and/or future wife/sister/daughter/cousin/mother/grandmother. And do you know what? This does not make you a rhesus monkey; it merely makes you a SAD AND SORRY AND HOPELESSLY IGNORANT AND PRIVILEGED EXCUSE FOR A HUMAN BEING.
 
 
glass_icarus
31 August 2009 @ 11:35 am
Via [info - personal] such_heights, although news of this is probably fairly widespread already:

- please don't take the fanfiction survey-- details from [info - personal] eruthros;
- check out the comments here, which list all the ways in which people have found the survey problematic.

The more I hear about this, the more I am skeeved the fuck out. DO NOT WANT.

ETA: Actually, I am now reminded that I meant to pimp the talk like Warren Ellis generator thing, as my first result seems strangely apropos:

Good morning, Cockblisters Deluxe!
 
 
glass_icarus
26 August 2009 @ 03:14 pm
- Via [info]karnythia [here]: what. the. FUCK?

- In other news, RIP Ted Kennedy. :(

*** In other other news, the Asian Women Blog Carnival submissions post is now up at [info]truthrages! *\o/* Details within.
 
 
glass_icarus
10 July 2009 @ 02:53 pm
Folks in the US, I'm sure you've all heard about that pool incident by now, but here's a petition from ColorofChange:

Two weeks ago outside Philadelphia, sixty-five children from a summer camp tried to go swimming at a club their camp had a contract to use. Evidently, the club didn't know the kids were largely Black.

When the campers entered the pool, White parents took their kids out of the water, and the swimming club's staff asked the campers to leave. The next day, the club told the summer camp that their membership would be canceled and that they would refund their money. When asked why, the club's leader said the "kids would change the complexion ... and the atmosphere of the club."

A "Whites only" pool in 2009 should not be tolerated. The club's actions appear to be a violation of section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act. Whether or not any laws were violated, a "Whites only" pool should be something every American condemns.


If you're as tired of this shit as I am, please add your name here!
 
 
glass_icarus
07 May 2009 @ 09:09 pm
WARNING: RANT AHEAD.

So I've been commenting on that Thirteenth Child review, because I am in a cluebat-wielding kind of mood this week. Or something. We've had a couple of derails already, as anyone could have predicted. What I didn't predict was the extent of the MASSIVE FUCKING LOGIC FAIL someone came in with just now.

Basically, as part of the spiraling alt!history discussion thread, we were talking about the putative existence of megafauna- basically, mammoths- in the North American continent. (Alt!history, okay, guys? Let's just call it alt!evolution/alt!climate for now and ignore the wobbly biological particulars. (Er. That sounds like it has a lot more innuendo than it does in my head, but I am tired and my vocabulary is beginning to fail me here.))

Someone said (what boils down to), "Why couldn't megafauna and NDNs exist at the same time?"

To which someone else responded:
Given the following two things happening at roughly the same time:

A) A group of people migrating into a region that had not previously had human inhabitants.

B) Extinctions of a number of species of mostly large animals.

The OBVIOUS explanation based on most of human history is that A was an important factor in causing B. It may not always turn out to be the correct explanation but it had better be one of the explanations that is considered.

This isn't being insulting to the native peoples of the Americas, it's simply understanding that they ARE people.

To which I have to say: what the fucking fuck? I'm sorry, a nomadic hunter-gatherer society migrates over to a new land and hunts their fucking means of survival to extinction? Think again. SUBSISTENCE LIFESTYLE, PEOPLE. Subsistence: it means don't fucking take more than you can use. Have a little sense and do not project "civilized" European ideas of "more is better!" onto the people who never came from that background, who took the time and had the sense to learn to live off the land without destroying it. Also, look at your timeline again, please: passenger pigeon extinction? Post-European settlement. Buffalo? Post-European settlement. Et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam. I am not saying that Europeans were the only ones who fucked up the natural balance of this planet, but if you're looking to put the blame somewhere, don't put it on the people who fucking did it right.
 
 
glass_icarus
12 April 2009 @ 02:36 pm
My anger buttons are being overused these days, but oh my god. Heads-up credit for this one goes to [info]such_heights and [info]copperbadge, respectively!

From [info]markprobst [here]:
On Amazon.com two days ago, mysteriously, the sales rankings disappeared from two newly-released high profile gay romance books: “Transgressions” by Erastes and “False Colors” by Alex Beecroft. Everybody was perplexed. Was it a glitch of some sort? The very next day HUNDREDS of gay and lesbian books simultaneously lost their sales rankings, including my book “The Filly.” There was buzz, What’s going on? Does Amazon have some sort of campaign to suppress the visibility of gay books? Is it just a major glitch in the system? Many of us decided to write to Amazon questioning why our rankings had disappeared. Most received evasive replies from customer service reps not versed in what was happening. As I am a publisher and have an Amazon Advantage account through which I supply Amazon with my books, I had a special way to contact them. 24 hours later I had a response:

In consideration of our entire customer base, we exclude "adult" material from appearing in some searches and best seller lists. Since these lists are generated using sales ranks, adult materials must also be excluded from that feature.

[info]copperbadge also notes [here] that by stripping sales rankings from gay and lesbian literature, Amazon is killing publicity for these writers while leaving "adult" literature of a heterosexual nature completely unaffected. Furthermore, it's becoming clear that non-adult LGBT literature is also being affected by Amazon's discriminatory policing.

Please take a minute out of your day and sign the petition against this policy!

ETA for Googlebomb: Amazon Rank
 
 
glass_icarus
11 March 2009 @ 12:48 am
Oops! I thought I'd poke my head in to see if any productive conversations were being had on the RaceFail front, and instead I ran face-first into this. (First-alert credit, for me, at least, goes to [info]luzdeestrellas.) Here's a few glimpses, with my Fail-o-meter in bolded text.

Strike one: Dismissal.
People imprint on what they know as they grow up. They can work to change that imprint, or to alter it. But growing up white in the U.S. isn't an automatic ticket to being racist.

What sets me off every time is the pity whine "You don't know what it's like to grow up (insert ethnicity here). You're white, so you don't understand my paiiiinnnnnnnn!" Yeah, whatever. Until you can understand

[airing out of laundry here, which I would empathize rather more with if not for the rest of the post]

I don't want to hear about how you've been prejudiced against all your life.


Strike two: Resentment and Dismissal (or, since when was Toni Morrison top of the "pretentious" list?).
When I was in graduate school, I took an African-American lit course. I didn't make it past the second book that we had to read, not because of the topic of the class, but because I'd bitten off more than I could chew, and the other two classes were required. The two books I did read were Ralph Ellison's The Invisible Man and Beloved by Toni Morrison. I loved the first and hated the second. Why? STORY. Ellison's book had so many shamanistic elements in it that fascinated me to no end, told in easy-to-understand prose. I loved the book. Very Taoist. Morrison's book...oy, the pain. The first 36 pages made absolutely no sense. The prose was beyond thick; it was incomprehensible. I kept reading, and fortunately the book got easier to understand from there, but by that time, I was completely turned off by the pretentiousness. What should have been a fascinating ghost story with powerful undercurrents in African-American culture became something that I rejected. Morrison talked down to me in that book, at a scholarly level. I won't read her again. I don't even care if Song of Soloman is a much better book. In Beloved, she did not respect the reader, or at least this reader. I have no time for authors who are like that.


Strike three: Not Listening and "Reverse Racism."
Straight to that stupid meme that some people feel they should post in the fall-out of RaceFail '09. I'm not going to dignify its text with a copy here. Sufficient to say, I think the post itself is bigotry. I'm not going to turn into a Pharisee, sit in the temple, and wail that I've been bad, look how bad I am, look at how evil I am, and look at me trying to be good again. Excuse me, but no.

I've been studying and working my ass off to understand cultures, and one of the things I've learned is that prejudice is prejudice. If it isn't the color of your skin, it's your accent, it's your hair, it's your social status, it's the actions of the past or the suspicion of future actions. Every culture has its prejudice, and while it's a good struggle for each individual, to mea culpa in this manner is to hand power over to those who would make you feel guilty to give themselves power. It's not a sane or safe transfer of power. No matter the wording, this meme is being used as a big stick to keep any one of a number of categories down, and I refuse to participate.

I am not beholden to anyone or anything except my conscious in the matters of prejudice. My ethics and my morals are my guidelines, and while I will not claim to be perfect, I will claim that I'm already doing my damnest. Anyone who demands proof will never be satisfied with that proof. Nothing that I can say or do, up to and including posting that ludicrous meme, will be accepted beyond a begrudging "at least she's trying." That response is vile beyond belief, and I refuse to drown in it.


Well, hey now. Your life is your business, and we've all damn well got our own baggage to deal with. That's something we have to work through on our own, and I'm certainly not looking for tea and cookies from you. But what you just did right there is what I call White Privilege, because you're trying to invalidate my baggage as an internet meme. You're speaking your piece and, you being white, everyone on the whole damn internet is hearing you talk, but when I and other PoCs and allies are telling our stories, not everyone on the whole damn internet is hearing us. And when you lock the comments to that post after people call you on what you're saying, that's called silencing, and not listening. And for the record, it's most definitely not trying.

And that's what I wanted to say, since my original response* was really quite intemperate and not phrased in a constructive manner. But hey, in the interests of fair play, I'll put up my comments, too, even though they're screened at the moment and you probably won't deign to reply anyway.

ETA of some importance: I don't know if it's better or worse that you posted that as a "research study", but... I'm done wasting words about it, since other people have expressed exactly what they, and I, think about that.

*cut for edited-down-prior-to-posting-there mini-rant )
 
 
glass_icarus
19 February 2009 @ 11:19 am
So I was going to continue reposting, but I am too pissed off to do so right now. Return of the Failboat Fleet! News at 11! Heads-up credit goes to [info]sheafrotherdon, as always.

From ColorofChange.org [<-- link goes to the petition; please sign!]:

Yesterday, the day after President Obama signed his stimulus bill into
law, the NY Post ran a cartoon depicting the bill's "author" as a dead
monkey, covered in blood after being shot by police. You can see the
image by clicking on the link below.

In the face of intense criticism, the Post's editor is standing by the
cartoon, claiming that it's not about Obama, has no racial undertones,
and that it was simply referencing a recent incident when police
shot a pet chimpanzee. But it's impossible to believe that any
newspaper editor could be ignorant enough to not understand how this
cartoon evokes a history of racist symbolism, or how frightening this
image feels at a time when death threats against President Obama have
been on the rise.

Please join me and other ColorOfChange.org members in demanding that
the Post apologize publicly and fire the editor who allowed this
cartoon
to go to print.


FYI: The New York Times on the cartoon.

Ah, rage. What an excellent catalyst for activism. *sigh*