On a different note: if you're watching Stargate SG-1, I thought you might be interested in dsudis's ongoing series of fix-it episode tags for SG-1 episodes that fail the Bechdel-Wallace rule (http://dsudis.livejournal.com/tag/bechdel+test?format=light) (as vee_fic wrote, a pass basically means the episode includes two women talking to each other onscreen about something other than a man). dsudis and ceresi recently put up a wiki called Characters Count (http://characterscount.pbwiki.com/) for charts relating to character demographics -- how many characters were female, how many were persons of color, and how often they talked to each other about things other than men/white people. Right now it's got charts for SG-1 seasons one and two, Torchwood, and Merlin. Most episodes in at least those two seasons of SG-1 fail both the Bechdel and the race-Bechdel. I've been loving dsudis's episode tags so far. If you've started watching SG-1 from the beginning, I recommend them!
I haven't been watching Stargate SG-1 in any serious way; as I recall, I hunted down "48 Hours", "The Pegasus Project", and "The Road Not Taken" (or whatever it is) because they had to do with Atlantis canon, and since then - having liked what I saw - I've caught an episode or two on SciFi when they're on. (And, of course, I saw the movie, which probably doesn't count.)
Usually, I'm not too excited about fix-its, but I'm game to give them a look-see. Do you know up to what point she's written them so far?
She started with the first episode of season one, "Children of the Gods," and has written stories through episode six, "Cold Lazarus." New ones almost daily! I do hope she keeps it up... I think she just started watching season three.
I like dsudis's series because the (very short) stories are like missing scenes: she provides a screen cap or two of the characters if they're very minor ones so you have a visual, and the stories themselves are anchored in circumstance and theme to important things left unexplored in the series; they're not frivolous at all, even if it's just an brief conversation between two people, one of whom has a name the other character can't recall. And of course, I'm always delighted to encounter dialogue between women in fiction that's not about a man—or stereotypically "girly" subjects, for that matter!
Not to mention, when she does tackle the "girly" subjects - and yes, I have been reading them, though not as fast as I'd like - she does them with respect and thoughtfulness, like in Uncommon Threads (http://dsudis.livejournal.com/498246.html). I love that story, even though I have no idea of the context; for scarcely a thousand words, it touches on so many issues, provokes so much thought.
And the end bit of Sisters in Arms (http://dsudis.livejournal.com/495600.html#cutid1):
"It's different here?" Sam asked. "Women aren't allowed to fight?"
Sha're looked up at that, and gave a wry smile--not the least bit downtrodden, not remotely oppressed and seeking to be made free, not again. She looked proud, and weary, and said only, "We have our own battles. We carry other weapons."
From a liberal American perspective, where all women are characterized as completely equal and identical to men - ideally, anyway - or the oppressed needing to be "freed", like the author said... it's interesting.
From a liberal American perspective, where all women are characterized as completely equal and identical to men - ideally, anyway - or the oppressed needing to be "freed", like the author said... it's interesting.
Yeah, there are fundamental problems with just about everything in that liberal ideal/goal for women, from what different groups of women with varying levels of privilege actually want "equal" to mean for themselves and for each other, to the anti-trans implications in strict nurture-over-nature interpretations of gender held by a good number of the people calling themselves radical feminists (I would not consider anyone feminist, period, who clings to transphobic views; I have failed at exactly that type of intersectionality before and have since repudiated that transphobia)... the themes of "Sisters in Arms" remind me strongly of what's covered in "How to Write About Muslims (for real)" (http://muslimahmediawatch.org/2009/03/04/how-to-write-about-muslims-for-real/) at Muslimah Media Watch, especially
Rule #1: Don’t assume that Muslim women need to be saved, or that you know how to save them.
By making this assumption, what one is essentially doing is:
* Assuming that all Muslim women are somehow oppressed at the hands of their fellow Muslims. The Muslim community is just as diverse as any other. By generalizing in such a way, one maligns the entire community, including the women. This is offensive to the many women who are treated with respect and equality by their fellow Muslims, including Muslim men. This assumption also ignores the forms of oppression that Muslim women may be facing from outside of the Muslim community, such as racism and Islamophobia (or even war and occupation, in cases like Iraq and Afghanistan), which for some women can be much more disastrous than anything they experience from their Muslim community. * Assuming that Muslim women can’t take care of themselves. This is very patronizing. Muslim women have agency, and a great deal of it. Throughout history and today, Muslim women have been taking various forms of leadership. In situations where women are being oppressed, they are resisting in all sort of ways that the media doesn’t always think about. Additionally, most Muslim countries have Muslim women’s organizations that are working hard to support themselves and other women. * Assuming that what you’re going to do for them is going to be helpful. The assumption is that you know better than them what’s good for them. It also suggests that you are actually in a position to help them, which might not be true.
(More on that from another MMW writer at "Truth or Propaganda: Muslim Women Need to Be Saved" (http://muslimahmediawatch.org/2009/01/21/truth-or-propaganda-muslim-women-need-to-be-saved/) and "We want more of the oppressed, helpless Muslim woman." (http://muslimahmediawatch.org/2008/07/16/we-want-more-of-the-oppressed-helpless-muslim-woman-2/))
All told, this kind of thing is why I've come to distrust liberalism in general (as opposed not to conservative but to progressive or radical or liberationist, as Jessica Hoffmann notes in her last footnote to "On Prisons, Borders, Safety, and Privilege: An Open Letter to White Feminists" (http://avp-virginia.blogspot.com/2008/04/on-prisons-borders-safety-and-privilege.html)), and also a lot of white middle-class feminism (a good example of this is popular white fantasy author Tamora Pierce's post complaining about some women of colour choosing not to call themselves "feminists" after some massive examples of racist fail in feminist blogging and publishing; Seeking Avalon's May 1, 2008 entry under this tag (http://seeking-avalon.blogspot.com/search/label/respectfully%20disagree) is a short but powerful open-letter response by Avalon's Willow, who identifies as black, an immigrant, and gay).
I've read the open letter before and you're right, it's several punches to the gut.
Of course, the other nasty bit about the American view of Muslim women - i.e. backwards and oppressed - is that the real problems about gender inequality in the Muslim community - as Faith said, the things that need to be given a "cold, hard look in the mirror" about - are so often used as excuse for American behavior towards Muslims, and conduct in the Middle East, but ignored when it's not profitable to us. We invaded to bring democracy and freedom! Or something. Because the Taliban oppress women (true) and they wear those scarf things and have oil! So there.
Of course, the other nasty bit about the American view of Muslim women - i.e. backwards and oppressed - is that the real problems about gender inequality in the Muslim community - as Faith said, the things that need to be given a "cold, hard look in the mirror" about - are so often used as excuse for American behavior towards Muslims, and conduct in the Middle East, but ignored when it's not profitable to us. We invaded to bring democracy and freedom! Or something. Because the Taliban oppress women (true) and they wear those scarf things and have oil! So there.
Indeed.
On Darfur, for example: silence.
We don't invade Darfur.
Yeah. Interestingly enogh, a while ago I was reading this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/13/AR2007071301714.html) in the Washington Post on post-colonial portrayals of Africa in Western humanitarian campaigns and news media.
sometimes I love reading outside the fandoms with which I'm really familiar for that very reason—when thematically, a story's that complete and thought-provoking in itself, it can be really rewarding! and I think one of the reasons "Uncommon Threads" succeeds is that it takes the dismissive, sexist (and strongly implicitly racist, given casting and the way that society is characterized in the episode) treatment of that "girly" embroidered dress by both Sam the character and the show itself, and just turns a 2D portrayal into something amazing and 3D. I am all up with love for discussion of dynamics of power and privilege and means of production, making visible what's usually invisible in industrialized societies—and a non-condescending exploration, however brief, of what they might mean for women and women's labor in more than one society... well, I would be all over portrayals of "girly" or "chick-flick" subjects in popular media if they habitually included this type of thing. as it is, though the often-overwhelming implicit classism and racism in such portrayals tend to put me off, I do think pervasive sexism in the potential audience is frequently responsible for the undervalued status of "girly" topics in popular media (and of course, if a work has more than a few scenes passing the Bechdel-Wallace rule, it's going to be written off as a chick flick or chick lit or whatever).
Ah, but the portrayal of women in media is like the portrayal of POCs: we don't need to think about it! We claim artistic license! So, of course, "chick flick" almost synonymous with "mindless stereotyped entertainment that reinforces sexist tropes, and often imperialist, anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim, or racist ones as well"! House Bunny, for a recently-watched example. Here is a movie about a woman whose greatest aspiration is to be on the Playboy Bunny calendar, reforming a sorority house of "misfits" (read: interesting individuals with opinions of their own) until they look and act just like her. Watch Barbie Shelley bend over backwards for a date, pretending to be smart until it's revealed that what the guy really wants is for her to be "herself": pretty, sexual, and brainless! Because no matter what anyone says, Playboy Bunnies do not pop fully formed out of the womb; they're made that way. And the movie ends in an uplifting number where the sorority numbers break free from their "ugliness", revealing underneath: thin waists! Big boobs! Long legs! Puffed up lips and no facial piercings!
All the women in the movie, of course, are portrayed as petty, jealous, and small-minded, while the men are even-headed and kind. And even though the movie is comprised of an almost entirely female cast, I'm not sure if it even passes the Bechdel-Wallace test. Not a word of anything real. No "Uncommon Threads" here.
You know what really pisses me off about all this, and all the movies like this one?
So, of course, "chick flick" almost synonymous with "mindless stereotyped entertainment that reinforces sexist tropes, and often imperialist, anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim, or racist ones as well"!
Woooord to all of that!
All the women in the movie, of course, are portrayed as petty, jealous, and small-minded, while the men are even-headed and kind. And even though the movie is comprised of an almost entirely female cast, I'm not sure if it even passes the Bechdel-Wallace test.
Well, thank you for the synopsis; I hadn't heard about the movie before. All told I'm feeling the need for a primal scream coming on. My new catchphrase may be something a friend said a couple of days ago: "All the vague faith I had that women are people when Observe and Report tanked is lost"... while House Bunny is (I begrudgingly admit) not as low as O&R, it's all part of the same picture, as you and I know.
(Sorry I took so long getting back to you, by the way: the computer and myself were undergoing a trial separation. Obviously, I was weak and fell right back into its seductive little arms. Which is to say, in a slightly more obtuse fashion: I was grounded.)
it's cool. I hope the grounding is over! I'm glad you have computer privileges back (if you do?).
one of my favorite blogs summarizes the Seth Rogen O&R date-rape scene, which is played for laughs in the movie. (http://www.safercampus.org/blog/?p=992) (that's "funny" because the victim's personality is established as "slutty" and a stuck-up "bitch"! and, you know, though she was already covered in her own vomit and falling down intoxicated with pills and booze before the rape, Anna Faris's character suddenly regains consciousness and yells at Rogen's character to continue, then passes out again! so he's perfectly justified in keeping on with the rape! no consequences, no acknowledgment afterward whatsoever in the movie that it might really be rape. and the clearly intended "lesson" of the film is that an incredibly repulsive person who does many other horrific things in the course of the film—well, if he's a man, all he really needs is the love of a woman to uplift him. all told, for a significant number of viewers... even if they concede it might be rape, they think she deserves it.) tigerbeatdown covers it thoroughly and concisely (http://tigerbeatdown.blogspot.com/2009/04/um.html), linking to the red band trailer (which includes the rape scene) and analyzing press coverage, including an interview with Faris at the Onion AV Club and enragingly (predicably?) appalling reviews by major publications such as the New York Times and Rolling Stone. "despise" isn't a strong enough word... maybe "abominate" would be closer? the message of that scene is evil. the movie's message is evil. I abominate Seth Rogen and his self-congratulatory rape-apologist interviews, and all the other rape apologists defending him and this movie.
blackcurrant commented:
... movies are escapism, right? Unless, of course, you happen to be one of those unfortunate creatures for whom misogyny is an inescapable part of life.
I am SO tired of people equating "escapism" and "not needing to be aware of anything real or how real people might react to your REAL MOVIE." I am such a fan of escapism, but it requires just as much respect for your world and your audience as anything else! Of course I guess a key issue here is that these people have no respect for their audience to begin with, but still.
Also, it's absurd to think that your audience would want to escape into something that's conceivably worse than their actual lives. Call it, I don't know, 'gritty cinema verite', but not 'escapist comedy'. Don't try to sell a story about a sociopath working a crappy job, in which there are multiple sexual assaults as a hilarious comedy. Making something horrible into straight comedy- not even black comedy, but, like, slap-stick- serves, in part, to normalize the behavior. Presentation is important: there's a difference between laughing at something despite how horrible it is- or because of how horrible it is, because if you don't laugh, you'll cry- and laughing at something horrible because you've been told that the horror is actually the funny part.
That's what irks me about Rogan's Taxi Driver comparison: Martin Scorsese never intended the audience to identify with Travis Bickle, or to think that he just needed the love of a good woman or that his actions were anything but beyond the pale. Nothing in Taxi Driver is normalized; the whole point of the movie is that the city of New York is collapsing under the weight of its own misery and indifference to human life, and that such an environment will inevitably produce only the most emotionally-void people. I know it's sort of weird to pick on that bit, of all the offensive crap that comes out of that guy, but it's sort of pathetic that he can't even get his own apologist arguments right. ...
Maybe I should write a comedy. I'd call it "Read and Type", about a female blogger who gets her jollies writing humorless feminist reviews of misogynist movies she hasn't even seen. When her readers reply to her posts with, variously, "You just don't get what he's trying to say", or "Lighten up, bitch", she copy-pastes the replies back at the posters until they get frustrated and leave. And then she laughs. Oh, how she laughs. ...
If "Observe and Report" had been, say, a harrowing peek into the secret, quietly desperate world of a man driven to emotional numbness and horrifying displays of 'masculinity' by a society that neither understands nor particularly likes people of either sex, it might have been a good movie. Hell, if it had been an honest look at what a dysfunctional, unhappy, desperate character its protagonist had become instead of laughing off both his stupidity and his violence as 'just the way guys are- jeez, what are you, some kind of girl?', it could have been great.
But it's not, so it's just another cinematic toilet.
belmanoir responded to another commenter at her journal:
I love Holocaust humor, for example. I love "The Great Dictator" and "The Producers" and Vonnegut's "Mother Night" and so on. But that is very different from, like, a wacky sitcom set in Auschwitz with a lovable commandant and his nagging wife, and the hijinx that ensue when he has to repair one of the ovens even though he's bad with tools. You know what I mean? A black comedy about date rape might be difficult to watch, it might not turn out to be my thing, but at least I could feel okay about its existence.
I, um. Wow. Don't really have any reaction to this except: squirm. And perhaps a gratuitous "yuck".
The sad thing, of course, is that I can see how this might be taken as a joke by some people. A funny one, even. I actually know people who would laugh at it, no further thought needed, and if that's not fucked in the head, I don't know what is.
I suppose they call it rape culture for a reason, don't they?
(subject line taken from a comment by snobographer on a positive review of a film about dudes who can't stand it when their girlfriends are smarter than they are.)
The sad thing, of course, is that I can see how this might be taken as a joke by some people. A funny one, even. I actually know people who would laugh at it, no further thought needed, and if that's not fucked in the head, I don't know what is.
I know people who would, too. there's the "she deserves it!" camp, the "bitch is too 'stupid' to realize it's rape if it is even rape, so who cares?" camp... I wish I didn't know people who've expressed those types of sentiments to my face, but there you go. and I wish I could say they didn't have a face after saying that to me, but violence is wrong and sometimes also a felony, so I have to restrict myself to scathing remarks. I totally sympathize with blackcurrant's hypothetical Read and Type blogger, because that's how I often feel! but with fewer laughs on my part.
I suppose they call it rape culture for a reason, don't they?
oh, and I love this pithy little review (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/may/05/observe-and-report-rape/print) of O&R, also by tigerbeatdown (a.k.a. Sady Doyle), who hits all the crucial issues in no time at all. note: I have javascript turned off by default, which means I don't see any reader comments after the article, but if they do appear when you look at it, please don't read those comments... the Guardian's "Comment Is Free" notoriously attracts the bottom of the barrel in commenters. I say this because I want to protect your sanity as I would like to protect my own!
Mm. Generally, I tend to avoid things on the bottom of pages, whether they be advertisements, comments, or credits; it's like the ocean. All the crap seems to settle towards the bottom. But thanks for the advance warning.
Generally, I tend to avoid things on the bottom of pages, whether they be advertisements, comments, or credits; it's like the ocean. All the crap seems to settle towards the bottom.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Re: "No, he should make some girl real happy. ...Slap-happy."
Date: 2009-04-21 12:32 am (UTC)Re: "No, he should make some girl real happy. ...Slap-happy."
Date: 2009-04-23 10:28 pm (UTC)Usually, I'm not too excited about fix-its, but I'm game to give them a look-see. Do you know up to what point she's written them so far?
Re: "No, he should make some girl real happy. ...Slap-happy."
Date: 2009-04-23 11:27 pm (UTC)oh, I forgot to note: SCC episodes are .avi format!
Date: 2009-04-27 04:04 pm (UTC)Re: oh, I forgot to note: SCC episodes are .avi format!
Date: 2009-05-02 02:17 am (UTC)Re: oh, I forgot to note: SCC episodes are .avi format!
Date: 2009-05-02 02:37 am (UTC)"It's different here?" Sam asked. "Women aren't allowed to fight?"
Sha're looked up at that, and gave a wry smile--not the least bit downtrodden, not remotely oppressed and seeking to be made free, not again. She looked proud, and weary, and said only, "We have our own battles. We carry other weapons."
From a liberal American perspective, where all women are characterized as completely equal and identical to men - ideally, anyway - or the oppressed needing to be "freed", like the author said... it's interesting.
"We have our own battles. We carry other weapons."
Date: 2009-05-02 06:01 am (UTC)Yeah, there are fundamental problems with just about everything in that liberal ideal/goal for women, from what different groups of women with varying levels of privilege actually want "equal" to mean for themselves and for each other, to the anti-trans implications in strict nurture-over-nature interpretations of gender held by a good number of the people calling themselves radical feminists (I would not consider anyone feminist, period, who clings to transphobic views; I have failed at exactly that type of intersectionality before and have since repudiated that transphobia)... the themes of "Sisters in Arms" remind me strongly of what's covered in "How to Write About Muslims (for real)" (http://muslimahmediawatch.org/2009/03/04/how-to-write-about-muslims-for-real/) at Muslimah Media Watch, especially (More on that from another MMW writer at "Truth or Propaganda: Muslim Women Need to Be Saved" (http://muslimahmediawatch.org/2009/01/21/truth-or-propaganda-muslim-women-need-to-be-saved/) and "We want more of the oppressed, helpless Muslim woman." (http://muslimahmediawatch.org/2008/07/16/we-want-more-of-the-oppressed-helpless-muslim-woman-2/))
All told, this kind of thing is why I've come to distrust liberalism in general (as opposed not to conservative but to progressive or radical or liberationist, as Jessica Hoffmann notes in her last footnote to "On Prisons, Borders, Safety, and Privilege: An Open Letter to White Feminists" (http://avp-virginia.blogspot.com/2008/04/on-prisons-borders-safety-and-privilege.html)), and also a lot of white middle-class feminism (a good example of this is popular white fantasy author Tamora Pierce's post complaining about some women of colour choosing not to call themselves "feminists" after some massive examples of racist fail in feminist blogging and publishing; Seeking Avalon's May 1, 2008 entry under this tag (http://seeking-avalon.blogspot.com/search/label/respectfully%20disagree) is a short but powerful open-letter response by Avalon's Willow, who identifies as black, an immigrant, and gay).
Re: "We have our own battles. We carry other weapons."
Date: 2009-05-02 08:49 pm (UTC)Of course, the other nasty bit about the American view of Muslim women - i.e. backwards and oppressed - is that the real problems about gender inequality in the Muslim community - as Faith said, the things that need to be given a "cold, hard look in the mirror" about - are so often used as excuse for American behavior towards Muslims, and conduct in the Middle East, but ignored when it's not profitable to us. We invaded to bring democracy and freedom! Or something. Because the Taliban oppress women (true) and they wear those scarf things
and have oil! So there.On Darfur, for example: silence.
We don't invade Darfur.
Re: "We have our own battles. We carry other weapons."
Date: 2009-05-02 09:28 pm (UTC)have oil! So there.Indeed.
On Darfur, for example: silence.
We don't invade Darfur.
Yeah. Interestingly enogh, a while ago I was reading this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/13/AR2007071301714.html) in the Washington Post on post-colonial portrayals of Africa in Western humanitarian campaigns and news media.
Re: oh, I forgot to note: SCC episodes are .avi format!
Date: 2009-05-02 04:58 am (UTC)Re: oh, I forgot to note: SCC episodes are .avi format!
Date: 2009-05-02 09:02 pm (UTC)BarbieShelley bend over backwards for a date, pretending to be smart until it's revealed that what the guy really wants is for her to be "herself": pretty, sexual, and brainless! Because no matter what anyone says, Playboy Bunnies do not pop fully formed out of the womb; they're made that way. And the movie ends in an uplifting number where the sorority numbers break free from their "ugliness", revealing underneath: thin waists! Big boobs! Long legs! Puffed up lips and no facial piercings!All the women in the movie, of course, are portrayed as petty, jealous, and small-minded, while the men are even-headed and kind. And even though the movie is comprised of an almost entirely female cast, I'm not sure if it even passes the Bechdel-Wallace test. Not a word of anything real. No "Uncommon Threads" here.
You know what really pisses me off about all this, and all the movies like this one?
People think they're inspirational and uplifting.
!!!
Re: oh, I forgot to note: SCC episodes are .avi format!
Date: 2009-05-02 09:57 pm (UTC)Woooord to all of that!
All the women in the movie, of course, are portrayed as petty, jealous, and small-minded, while the men are even-headed and kind. And even though the movie is comprised of an almost entirely female cast, I'm not sure if it even passes the Bechdel-Wallace test.
Well, thank you for the synopsis; I hadn't heard about the movie before. All told I'm feeling the need for a primal scream coming on. My new catchphrase may be something a friend said a couple of days ago: "All the vague faith I had that women are people when Observe and Report tanked is lost"... while House Bunny is (I begrudgingly admit) not as low as O&R, it's all part of the same picture, as you and I know.
Re: oh, I forgot to note: SCC episodes are .avi format!
Date: 2009-05-14 03:25 am (UTC)(Sorry I took so long getting back to you, by the way: the computer and myself were undergoing a trial separation. Obviously, I was weak and fell right back into its seductive little arms. Which is to say, in a slightly more obtuse fashion: I was grounded.)
WARNING for triggers re: rape
Date: 2009-05-14 09:59 am (UTC)one of my favorite blogs summarizes the Seth Rogen O&R date-rape scene, which is played for laughs in the movie. (http://www.safercampus.org/blog/?p=992) (that's "funny" because the victim's personality is established as "slutty" and a stuck-up "bitch"! and, you know, though she was already covered in her own vomit and falling down intoxicated with pills and booze before the rape, Anna Faris's character suddenly regains consciousness and yells at Rogen's character to continue, then passes out again! so he's perfectly justified in keeping on with the rape! no consequences, no acknowledgment afterward whatsoever in the movie that it might really be rape. and the clearly intended "lesson" of the film is that an incredibly repulsive person who does many other horrific things in the course of the film—well, if he's a man, all he really needs is the love of a woman to uplift him. all told, for a significant number of viewers... even if they concede it might be rape, they think she deserves it.) tigerbeatdown covers it thoroughly and concisely (http://tigerbeatdown.blogspot.com/2009/04/um.html), linking to the red band trailer (which includes the rape scene) and analyzing press coverage, including an interview with Faris at the Onion AV Club and enragingly (predicably?) appalling reviews by major publications such as the New York Times and Rolling Stone. "despise" isn't a strong enough word... maybe "abominate" would be closer? the message of that scene is evil. the movie's message is evil. I abominate Seth Rogen and his self-congratulatory rape-apologist interviews, and all the other rape apologists defending him and this movie.
blackcurrant commented:
Re: oh, I forgot to note: SCC episodes are .avi format!
Date: 2009-05-14 10:02 am (UTC)Re: oh, I forgot to note: SCC episodes are .avi format!
Date: 2009-05-21 12:08 am (UTC)The sad thing, of course, is that I can see how this might be taken as a joke by some people. A funny one, even. I actually know people who would laugh at it, no further thought needed, and if that's not fucked in the head, I don't know what is.
I suppose they call it rape culture for a reason, don't they?
... the guy who actually cried because I corrected him on the nutritional content of peanut butter.
Date: 2009-05-21 03:36 pm (UTC)The sad thing, of course, is that I can see how this might be taken as a joke by some people. A funny one, even. I actually know people who would laugh at it, no further thought needed, and if that's not fucked in the head, I don't know what is.
I know people who would, too. there's the "she deserves it!" camp, the "bitch is too 'stupid' to realize it's rape if it is even rape, so who cares?" camp... I wish I didn't know people who've expressed those types of sentiments to my face, but there you go. and I wish I could say they didn't have a face after saying that to me, but violence is wrong and sometimes also a felony, so I have to restrict myself to scathing remarks. I totally sympathize with blackcurrant's hypothetical Read and Type blogger, because that's how I often feel! but with fewer laughs on my part.
I suppose they call it rape culture for a reason, don't they?
yeeeeaaah.
Re: oh, I forgot to note: SCC episodes are .avi format!
Date: 2009-05-21 05:49 pm (UTC)Re: oh, I forgot to note: SCC episodes are .avi format!
Date: 2009-05-28 10:14 pm (UTC)Re: oh, I forgot to note: SCC episodes are .avi format!
Date: 2009-05-28 10:52 pm (UTC)a sound philosophy, true!
Re: oh, I forgot to note: SCC episodes are .avi format!
Date: 2009-05-02 10:03 pm (UTC)People think they're inspirational and uplifting.
!!!
... yes, primal scream time!