Deadliest Warrior

Sometimes I find myself watching shows and I think to myself "Oh, dear lord, this show is so clearly aimed at dudes, why am I enjoying this?" And yet, Deadliest Warrior has totally sucked me in, because it's exactly the sort of stupid geeky debate that guys like me had when we were in our teens. Except that now they've got "experts" and a computer program (named Slytherin!) to try to determine the "real" winner. It's ridiculous and stupid, and yet I can't stop watching it if I come across it on the tv. I didn't even know I wanted to know who would win in a fight between the Green Barrets and the Spetsnaz, but once the show started, I had to find out.

It's like Mythbusters meets History Channel meets teen boy "who would win a fight" debates.

I want to see them pit Amazons against someone, though. I know that the Amazons are one of those groups where there's less fact than fiction to the myth, but, hell, they put ninjas vs. Spartans up, and ninjas are completely fictitious in the way they showed them, so why not pit the Amazons against someone?

I also find it interesting to note who I end up liking and disliking in this show. During the Green Barret vs. Spetsnaz episode, I ended up finding the Spetsnaz guy sort of humorous and likable, even though, you know, he's a trained killer. The Green Barret guys just came across as overly macho assholes, and I found myself rooting against them. Which is weird to me, because it's not like either group lacked testosterone. If there was any more chest beating or posturing, they'd have had to pull their dicks out to compare. Which I'm pretty sure would have made it no longer Spike TV material.

This fits into a larger conversation that I've been having and thinking about for a while, but I'm still sort of working out and fleshing out, about violence and the media. Here's a show that airs at 3 in the afternoon on Saturdays, where they spend the whole time talking about and demonstrating how deadly various weapons are. They test the weapons on pig corpses, impale test dummies, and then, at the end, they have a simulation of a battle, and one guy/team dies at the end. It's a pretty violent show (as if the title alone wasn't indication enough). On the one hand, as I've already stated, I find it fascinating. On the other, it does seem a little fucked up that it's presented as regular old Saturday afternoon entertainment. Like "Hey, let's watch dudes kill each other, and find out which of these two guys is the more deadly fighter!" And, honestly, I found a couple of the matchups a little... I don't know...

Taliban vs. IRA? Maybe not super cool. I don't think that many people have an actual investment in Spartan vs. Ninja or Pirate vs. Knight, but there are people alive today who've lost friends and relatives to the activities of the IRA and the Taliban. It just seems insensitive, at the very least.

Anyway, welcome to my new guilty pleasure: a show on Spike TV of all things.

And, since I finally watched Funny Games, I hope to eventually get a post up about the violence thing, in more depth. Eventually.

On violence and the media...

From an interview with Michael Henek:

Cineaste: Funny Games seems to be a contribution to the self-reflexive films about media and violence along the lines of Natural Born Killers or Man Bites Dog.

Haneke: My goal there was a kind of counterprogram to Natural Born Killers. In my view, Oliver Stone's film, and I use it only as example, is the attempt to use a fascist esthetic to achieve an antifascist goal, and this doesn't work. What is accomplished is something the opposite, since what is produced is something like a cult film where the montage style complements the violence represented and presents it largely in a positive light. It might be argued that Natural Born Killers makes the violent image alluring while allowing no space for the viewer. I feel this would be very difficult to argue about Funny Games. Benny's Video and Funny Games are different kinds of obscenity, in the sense that I intended a slap in the face and a provocation.

Full disclosure: I have not watched Funny Games (either version), but I have seen both Natural Born Killers and Man Bites Dog. In fact, when I was invited to present at symposium my last year of undergrad, it was for a paper I wrote about Man Bites Dog. Anyway...

I think that there's something to that criticism of NBK, and it was one of the same criticisms I had of MBD, too- for a film that seems to be suggesting that the media has at least some burden of the blame for excessive violence, these films glorify and entertain through the use of violence, too. Having not seen Funny Games yet, I can't say whether it falls into the same trap, but it's a problem I'm certainly interested in. I can't say how good the rest of that interview is- I stopped reading it because they go on to talk about a number of other films that I'm interested in seeing but haven't yet, and I didn't want them spoiled, so to speak.

I'm a big film fan, and I recognize that a lot of the films I like contain some pretty violent stuff. I'm a big horror fan (with the exception of slasher films- I hate most slasher flicks), which tends to involve some violence. But, one thing that I think is interesting is that I'm really fond of films that push me to places I don't usually go, or that create extremely strong reactions, or that force me to confront uncomfortable feelings or truths.

Take the film Hard Candy, for example. I'm a big BIG fan of Hard Candy. It's not a fun film, though. It's not the sort of thing that I think I'd sit down with a beer, a bowl of popcorn, and some friends and say "Hey, guys, let's throw in Hard Candy and get tipsy!" It's an extremely intense and horrifying film full of extremes. After watching it, I couldn't stop talking about it and discussing the premise of the film with the people around me. It was a film that was essentially a piece of wish fulfillment, but where, I think, many viewers found themselves placed in an uncomfortable position of almost feeling sorry for the antagonist of the film- while we might wish terrible things on people, when we're forced to see those terrible things taking place, the reality can make us profoundly uncomfortable.

Now, of course, this is manufactured. The film is designed in such a way on purpose. Would we feel as uncomfortable if the protagonist were someone else? Would we feel more comfortable if the action were presented in a different way? The ways that violence is used in a film can completely alter our perception of the film.

For me, violence in film can be many things. It can be entertaining, it can be gratuitous and exploitative, it can be interesting and informative, it can be educational, it can be an important tool for forcing the viewer to question something, etc. It all depends on the context.

I could (and still might) write at great length about this, but I'm interested to know how other people perceive violence in film- do you avoid violent films? Only certain types of violence? Do you think that films can use violence to teach a point or a raise important questions? Is it possible for a film to use violence to implicate the viewer (as Funny Games supposedly does), and if it does so, does it also implicate itself (as, I think, Man Bites Dog does)?

Friday Phallus Fun...

This reads like a joke- I mean, they're "looking to have a firm grip on Government spend"? "They're going to get more column inches"?

And, while they're a real org, that's not the logo on the homepage.

So, my general feeling is that it's a joke (insert pun about "yanking our chain" or "pulling our leg" if you must), but, I have to admit, I giggled. Yes, it's fifth grade penis humor, but it's also fifth grade penis humor done with fonts.

And fonts are fun.

Quick Hits...

Sorry for the relative quiet lately. I feel like every other post is my apologizing for light posting, at this point. That's embarassing. I'm in the process of preparing for a cross-country move at the moment, stressing out about looking for a good job in MA (anyone looking to hire someone with a BS in Lit/Phil? Because I'm looking to be hired!), and generally feeling overwhelmed by how much stuff I still have to do in order to get my ass moved. So, here are a few things I'm also thinking about/being annoyed by...

1. Discussions about being trans that generally ignore or deny the experiences of people who identify as such really piss me off. Read the comments- there are a lot of them, but you can mostly jump to the end and see what I'm talking about. When you start dismissing the experiences of transpeople and suggesting that it's all just a big mental illness? Yeah. That's a problem to me.

2. Comparisons between homosexuality and incest.

3. The ways that some people seem to think that "it's just a movie" or "it's pop culture" make something beyond reproach or critique. Pop culture is tremendously important, and, quite frankly, we don't spend anywhere near enough time examining it. We ought to be taking more time to critically examine the things that succeed as pop culture, and examining how our attitudes are shaped by the media we consume. Pop culture both reflects and shapes culture, and it's just stupid, imo, to ignore it or pretend that it's "just" anything.

4. I'm making tacos for dinner tonight, and I'm really hungry. I'm really interested in learning how to make my own taco seasoning. I wonder how hard it would be to do that with fresh ingredients? I mean, what even goes in it? There's almost certainly tomato in there, right? Maybe? I don't know. But, damn, I loves me some tacos.

5. I don't even know what to say about this story, yet. It's heartbreaking.

6. I was sitting in a diner waiting for my food when I first heard about this compound.

The answer is clearly "Yes"...

This might be one of my favorite ever "you stumbled on my site via what google search?" searches.

Well, that, and the one about the truth about chocolate milk.

Where Activism and Advertising Collide...

I just stumbled upon Osocio today. It's an interesting site that describes itself as being "dedicated to social advertising and non-profit campaigns." It's a blog that collects and links back to a variety of non-profit and activist advertisments.

They collect posters and ads from around the world- and there are some that I think are really interesting- like these DV ads. They're visually striking, and I think that they illustrate the point well (that the threat of violence doesn't always come from outside).

I also like these ads about teen romance, dating, and sex, advertising Real Life. Real Talk., which was initiated by Planned Parenthood, and seeks to "positively change the social climate in communities by creating more open, honest, and balanced talk about sex and health" and "reframe sexuality as a component of healthy relationships, instead of as a commodity, the way it is often promoted in popular media."

Anyway, it's a very cool site- go, check it out!

*sings* "And I don't wanna miss a thiiing"

I got a message in my e-mail this morning from a friend of mine- I'm passing it along without further comment, because... well, what more is there to say?

Um... Is George Bush really now literally stealing national defense strategies from movies? I wonder if he's booked Aerosmith to do the soundtrack for the military maneuver....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080215/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/dead_satellite

Don't wanna close my eyes... don't wanna fall asleep...

(okay, one comment: Seriously, 80%?! I mean, we're launching a missile at the thing, and we're only giving it an 80% chance of hitting? I'm not saying I've got a better idea, but, damn, that doesn't really seem that great.)

Super Tuesday Analysis...

Despite my bitterness about the primary (or lack thereof) in my state, I'm obviously interested in the results of Super Tuesday (which I always imagine being said in an echo-y booming voice, like a monster truck announcer). Pam Spaulding, at Pandagon, discusses the reuslts over here. She notes that this is a pretty close race so far, and that it's refreshing to see a primary that's actually a race, and not a quick coronation.

I was checking out the results on Salon this morning, and there were a few things that jumped out at me.

If you look at "Tuesday's results by state: Democrats", you see some interesting things happening there. As far as delegates won, Clinton is in the lead with 458 to Obama's 357. But, the breakdown of where those delegates come from is what was really interesting to me. While Clinton took the majority so far, in the places where she won, it was pretty close for the most part. In the 8 states that she won, she won by an average of 56.13%, with her biggest victory coming in at 69% (which was the only victory she had above 57%). She took 3 of the 4 biggest states, and both of the states with over 200 delegates (NY and CA).

Obama, on the other hand, has a number of states where he took an overwhelming majority, despite having taken fewer delegates, overall. The first thing I noticed was that Obama took more states overall- 13 to Clinton's 8. On top of that, in the states where he won, Obama tended to win by a larger margin, with an average win of 63.15%. His biggest win was a whopping 79%, with three wins coming in over 70%, and 8 of his 13 coming in at over 60%.

I'm not sure what, if anything, that means, but I found it interesting.

Things continue to be intersting when you start looking at the Republican results, too- The Republican vote is being pulled three ways, so, overall, the candidates tended to come out with lower percentages than the Democrats, but, right now, McCain is pulling the most delegates. This, despite the fact that he doesn't have a single result over 55%. Romney, even in a 3-way race, takes the single biggest win with 90% of Utah, and 60% of Colorado. McCain has a pretty strong lead there.

Also, Huckabee is the only candidate not to get a caricature illustration. Not that they could have picked a less flattering picture for the guy.

Commercials make me laugh and cry...

I've been watching more television since I moved a few months back (the curse of having cable television again is that my love of crime drama and cartoons can be fed more regularly. Curse you CSI, and your intriguing characters and stylistic who-done-its!). One of the drawbacks of watching of television over movies is that, well... there are commercials. Most commercials are just stupid or annoying, and a few are kind of funny or interesting.

One commercial that I've seen a number of times, now, that's been really getting on my nerves is the commercial for Mirena. You can watch the ad there, too. Mirena is an IUD, is 99.9% effective, and lasts for up to 5 years. It's also, apparently, for women who "have had a child" and "are in a stable relationship". When you click on the "Who can use Mirena?" under their FAQ, it tells you:

Mirena is appropriate for women who:

Have had at least one child

Are looking for an effective, reversible form of birth control that's easy to use

Are in a mutually monogamous relationship

Now, my initial reaction was to be annoyed by this. It's the same problem that women who want to get surgically sterlized face- they're basically being told that, if you don't have kids yet, you're not the right person for longterm or permanent birth control. Still, I thought, there might be a reason... after all, pregnancy does alter your body, so maybe there was a reason?

So, I checked the World Health Organization's Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use: Intrauterine devices page. A little research, and I learned that Mirena is classified as LNG-IUD. So, we take a look at the Parity section- that is, have you had children or not- and what do we find? If you're parous, you're rated at 1. That's good. It means that you are very eligible. If you're nulliparous- have not had children- you're rated a 2. Which is still very good, especially when you read the evidence note:

Evidence: There are conflicting data regarding whether IUD use is associated with infertility among nulliparous women, although recent, well-conducted studies suggest no increased risk.

(Also: They have a section for Romacing the Bedroom? Ugh)

So, yeah, I still find it annoying. But, I'm willing to admit that I'm coming to this with limited understanding of all of the medical stuff. Is there legitimate reason why a woman having multiple partners shouldn't use an IUD?

Moving on: Burger King has a new ad where they show what happened when they had one of their locations stop serving the Whopper. To quote the commercial- people freaked. It was "Whopper Freakout". Which is fine, if stupid. After all, if McDonalds stopped serving the Big Mac or Happy Meals, you'd likely get a lot of people saying things like "This is stupid. That's crazy." etc.

Near the end of the video, they give people the wrong burgers and act like it's the customer's fault. Which, of course, pisses them off. They see this as evidence that people just have to have the Whopper. I see it as evidence that customers don't like to be treated like idiots and want to receive the things that they paid for. I suspect if I went to McDonalds and served a Whopper instead of a Big Mac, people would get pissed, too. But, whatever.

You can see the part that really has me annoyed and confused at 4:30.

"If Burger King doesn't have the Whopper, they might as well call themselves Burger Queen."

I mean... what does that even really mean? Burger Queen? Like, what, if Dairy Queen started serving a shitty burger covered in Thousand Island dressing they'd become Dairy King, but since they don't, they're just a Queen? It's obviously meant as an insult, but I just don't understand what the insult is supposed to imply- Whoppers are manly and if you don't have them you're a girl?

I guess it's convenient that I think Burger King is shite anyway.

A commercial I did like, though, was the Mr. T spot for World of Warcraft. No feminist analysis, it's just him talking about his Night Elf's mowhawk or something like that. And when the devs try to tell him that there aren't mowhawks, Mr. T yells at them. I bet he pities the fools. It made me laugh. *shrug*

Holiday shopping...

I'm sure that at least a few of you are probably like me, and wait until the last minute to get your shopping done. You might be looking for that perfect gift, or maybe you're just a procrastinator. Either way, it's tough. You want to find something super cool for the awesome feminists in your life, or you want to support small businesses, or you want to get gifts that are unique, or, or, or...

Whatever your reasons for waiting, I'm here for you, looking out for you, and generally stuck in the same boat by virtue of my being: a. particularly picky about what I buy people (most of the time), and b. a bit of a procrastinator.

So, I thought I'd share some great links that I've found or that people (thanks Jaclyn!) have sent to me, in order to help you (and me) find the perfect gift.

The Big Moves 2008 Calendar makes an awesome gift. Big Moves is a great, great organization, and this high quality, full color, 13 month calendar lets you show support for their mission (proving that people of all sizes can get into dance studio and up on stage) while you give a beautiful calendar to someone you know. Or, you know, to yourself- because who can't use a little size-acceptence in their day to day life? You've got to hurry, though- you've only got two days to ensure delivery by Christmas.

Also: Sticks and Stones Clothing offers some great in-your-face t-shirts to subvert the hurtful words that are too often used against women who make waves in this world. If you've ever been accused of being a "lying, man-hating whore" or of "hating freedom" or of being a "hairy-legged lesbian" by people who didn't like your views, or you know someone who has, these shirts are for you.

But, let's say you're looking for something a little less political, but you want to support artists who still make things by hand- what do you do? You shop Etsy, of course! Etsy is a really great site featuring tons and tons of handmade items from candles, to clothing, to soaps, to sculptures. There are tons of great artists and crafters(?... craftists? craftsmen and craftswomen? What is the term for one who makes crafts?) selling all kinds of different things on there. You could easily do all of your holiday shopping on Etsy, and find the perfect gifts for everyone on your list, all while supporting the "little guys".

Speaking of supporting the underdogs- if you're looking to pick up some books this holiday season, check out In Other Words, a great feminist bookstore that runs on a non-profit basis. From their website:

In Other Words Women's Books and Resources is the last surviving non-profit feminist bookstore in the United States. For the last 14 years we have offered a comprehensive and diverse collection of books, magazines, and zines with a wide variety of subjects, including: feminist & queer studies, erotica, sex & sexuality, trans studies, spirituality, herbs, and non-sexist children's books, to name a few.
In addition to books, we sell eco-friendly menstrual products, cards, stickers, buttons, and a variety of locally made crafts for all your activist and gifting needs.

They've got an excellent selection (including awesome graphic novels!), and they're part of a dying breed- the independent bookstore. If you're going to be giving books- and they're a great gift- I definitely urge you to consider buying from an independent, local bookstore, or from on an idie store online if you don't have that option. As the little stores die and close up shop, we also lose the little publishers. Big box stores want to sell proven titles, and are less willing to reach out to niche markets the way indie stores were. That means fewer titles being published, and that means less choice.

Another option is to consider the gift that keeps on giving... like a subscription to Bitch: Feminist Response to Pop Culture. You get four issues of one of the best magazines on the stands today, delivered at no extra cost. They've also got an assortment of other products to consider, as well (the links appear to be broken right now, unfortunately).

If you're looking to give the gift of charity, consider investing in Charity gift certificates. This is the perfect gift for the person who has everything- you put up the money, and that person picks the charity that they want to donate to. Considering how many organizations could really use money this time of year, this is a pretty awesome investment.

And, lest I forget the children: there's the always awesome anti-coloring book series. Susan Striker created these as a way of helping encourage creativity in children, by having them color outside the lines. They're very, very cool.

That's a good start- feel free to add more to the list.

Is it just me...

Or is there a lot of tension around the blogosphere today?

It seems like it, to me, at least.

So, I just thought I'd share a couple of my favorite webcomics to lighten the mood a little bit.

Cat and Girl is almost pure awesome. It's got pop-culture criticism, a philosophical bent, and a slightly twisted sense of humor, and the source for one of my favorite t-shirts. Great stuff.

I'm also a big fan of xkcd, a very geek-oriented comic that plays around with computers, math, video-games, and general weirdness as well. Also: Bill Nye

So, enjoy!

And feel free to make some suggestions if you've got a webcomic you read, too.

Wednesday Randomness...

Did you know that Wednesday is named after Woden/Odin? Or that, according to wiki, it's "popular tradition" to wear sweater vests to work on Wednesdays? Does anyone do that? I've never noticed it, for sure.

I also didn't know that the line "Wednesday's child is full of woe" was the inspiration for Wednesday Adams. That makes sense, though.

I did know that Solomon Grundy (born on a Monday) was married on a Wednesday. It's a shame he died on Saturday.

Of course, that led me to discover that the name "Solmon Grundy" was most probably derived from the dish salmagundi, which, quite frankly, sounds awesome.

Which is to say that this post is just a little random weirdness and (I hope) fun stuff to get you through the middle of the week. Because, can't we all use a little bit of silliness in our lives?

Take, for example: The Superest! If you're like me, you've often pondered the imponderable ponders- could Batman really beat Captain America in a fight (Survey says "no", according to these fans)? Could Wonder Woman take down Tony Stark? Scarlet Witch or Zatanna? Well, you won't find your answers at here, but you will find a battle of super powers being played out to determine who is the superest.

Basically, it's a game being played out where each player tries to come up with a character that counteracts the abilities of the character before it. One of my favorites is Magma Carta, who limits the rights of the monarchy, while instantly vaporizing plastic (it vanquished Queen Zip of the Loch, a character who heavily taxed plastic bags). Sadly, my beloved Magma Carta was defeated by the cold jaws of the Iron Cabinet (who files documents away... forever!).

But, can anything really defeat the glory that is Poachbot 12-p6? It's the deadliest mechanical-monster-poaching poaching-mechanical-monster known to all of mechanical-monsterkind.

You know what else is awesome? Spot the differences. I know, I know. We used to do this silly things on the backs of the magazines in the doctor's office, right? Well, these are flash-based, and they've got some really cool designs.

Speaking of Flash: if you loath the undead as much as I do, you might want to take a glance at Herbert West: De-Animator- a Flash game by Bum Lee (and a sort of spoof on the Lovecraft story "Herbert West: Re-Animator"). It's pretty simple stuff, but I've killed more than a little time shooting zombies on it, I have to admit.

Someone needs to ask: What Would Buffy Do?

When you're a television actor on a really popular show, there's always that possibility, I suspect, that you'll become primarily identified with the character you played. To some degree, I imagine it's hard for Sarah Michelle Gellar to break out of that role. I haven't seen much of the works she's done since then, but the popular opinion seems to be that it's not good.

And I know that Gellar doesn't identify as a feminist, but it's hard, sometimes, to see an episode of Buffy and not start to identify Gellar with Buffy. That happens.

So, it's with a grim face and heavy heart that I discover two stories involving Gellar- now Prinze- doing things that I find, from a feminist standpoint, problematic.

First of all, she's jumped on the name-change train. Apparently, as a gift for her husband, she's adopted the Prinze last name. As. A. Gift. *gag* And if that weren't enough, she's posing for Maxim, too. Because, uh... she's playing a porn star in a movie, so she has to pose for Maxim... I guess? Like Jess, my reaction was pretty much the same as Dorothy Snarker's.
Double-you, tee, eff.

Friday Ten...

I do these rather infrequently, but I'm in need of a break right now, so here it is- my Friday ten...

Ten Random Tracks From My "Women Rock" Mix

1. The Breeders - "Huffer"
2. The Gossip - "Fire/Sign"
3. Shivaree - "Goodnight Moon"
4. Rilo Kiley - "A Man, Me, Then Jim"
5. Enon - "Knock That Door"
6. Robots in Disguise - "DIY"
7. Frogpond - "How Would You Know"
8. Aimee Mann - "Ghost World"
9. Skunk Anansie - "Hedonism"
10. Concrete Blonde - "Bloodletting"

If anyone wants to suggest some must-have tracks for a kick-ass mix cd, or just feels like adding their own random ten, I'm always interested.

Happy Halloween! (and why Medusa kicks ass)

Halloween is one of my two favorite days of the year. I love Halloween. I love that you get to carve pumpkins and dress up in awesome costumes and that kids get to go around and horde candy. Now that I'm an adult, Halloween is an excuse to play dress-up and watch horror movies- two things that I think are tons of fun.

I've been a little busy lately (I'm taking the GRE on Saturday. Saturday!), so this is going to be an open post: what are you doing for Halloween? Did you carve a pumpkin? Want to share a picture? What's your favorite costume? Favorite horror movie? Something else?

In the meantime, I decided- in an effort to continue with the "I'm not just posting terrible things that make me angry" effort- to create a list of fictional women I like. These are women from books, video games, comic books, movies, and mythology that I think are pretty kick-ass for various reasons. Feel free to contribute, criticize, or congratulate my choices. I'll probably (maybe) post more as time goes on, but here are a few:

First up: Medusa, Queen of the Gorgons.

Why: Because Medusa kicks all kinds of classic ass. I've seen some feminists adopt the image of Medusa as a symbol, and I love it. It makes sense. Now, the image that most of us probably have of Medusa is from Clash of the Titans, where she's a horrible monster whose sole purpose is to be there for Perseus to kill and use as a weapon against the Kraken.

But there's so much more there. According to some sources, Medusa was originally a beautiful nymph, until she was raped by Poseidon in one of Athena's temples. Athena cursed Medusa, and changed her into a gorgon.

So why do I love Medusa?
Because it's an excellent representation of patriarchy in action. Medusa is a woman who is raped by someone in a position of power. Rather than blame him for his actions, she is blamed- if only she weren't so beautiful. She is punished for the transgression of being too beautiful and causing a man to lose control. Her punishment is to be made ugly. Instead of destroying her, though, this gives her more power (literally, in fact- she is more powerful as a gorgon, since her gaze has the power to turn men to stone and her blood has the power to kill or cure). When Perseus is sent to kill Medusa, he is aided by Athena- the very goddess who transformed Medusa into a monster in the first place.

Medusa became a symbol of female power- and the fear that power represented. Her blood was alternately a deadly poison, or a life-giving cure. I also appreciate that, in a world designed around the male gaze, Medusa's gaze- the female gaze- was so feared. I love the idea of co-opting Medusa- a being typically thought of as a terrible, evil, destroying women- and reimagining her. She's not evil- she's a victim who was punished for being victimized, but turned that punishment into a source of power, and was eventually slain for it... and yet, her legacy lives on. She's easily more recognizable as a figure than Perseus or Athena are.

Next up: Warrent Officer Ellen Ripley.

Why: It's no secret that I love the first two Alien movies. I think that they're amazing films. The first one is one of the most tightly filmed horror movies ever. There's hardly a wasted scene in it, and it's still scary as hell today as it was almost three decades ago. Add to that the fact that Ripley is completely kick ass, and you've got a winner.

What's not to love about Ripley? She's written as an actual character, not as a stereotype of a woman. She's in the charge, commands respect from her crew, and isn't hypersexualized. The only real cliche that she falls into is that of being the lone-survivor of a horror film, but I can forgive that, given that she doesn't spend the rest of the movie screaming in fear or relying on other characters to protect her. She's smart, tough, and full of awesome.

One thing I don't understand: How does she rank lower than Clarice (from Silence of the Lambs) on the AFI 100 Heroes and Villains list? Clarice is cooler than Ripley? Really? Because I don't remember Clarice kicking a bunch of alien ass.

Also: Part of what looks to be an interesting article about "tough women" is over here.

A question about Halloween and costumes...

I love Halloween.

This is a fact that is hardly surprising to people who know me, and isn't really that remarkable amongst people my age, anyway. I mean, who doesn't like Halloween? It's an excuse to get together with a bunch of your friends and wear funny clothes and costumes. Oh, and candy.

Plus, you get to tell ghost stories and watch horror movies, and, really, the whole thing becomes a socially sanctioned day of getting to play dress-up and make-believe, and generally get to act like a kid without having to give up all the benefits that come with being an adult. In other words, it's one of the few times you get the best of both worlds.

With regards to costumes, though, this post on Feministing has me thinking and trying to figure out where I draw the line. I think that some costumes are really offensive, and some are just in poor taste, while others are completely fine, and I've never actually thought about where the line seperates them.

Most costumes are probably pretty inoffensive. Or, at least, not overtly racist or sexist. If you dress up as a ghost or a witch or a monster, you're probably not going to be crossing the line, right? Now, the weird way that women's costumes are almost always super sexied up is problematic, but that's sort of a different issue.

Now, there are some costumes that I think are almost always offensive- and a lot of times, I think that they're intentionally offensive. They're the costumes that people wear just to get a reaction. I've seen pictures of people dressed up as the twin towers from as far back as 2002. You don't dress up in that kind of costume unless you're specifically trying to get a rise out of people- it's the "Look at how shocking and offensive I can be! I'm a rebel!" costume.

I think that people who dress up as people like Hitler or as KKK members are probably falling somewhere along the same lines- they know that they've picked out a costume that people are going to be completely shocked by, and they're looking to get that reaction.

And then there are the costumes I'm more confused about- like the ones that were pointed out in that feministing post. How bright and well defined is the line between dressing as a character from another culture's history or mythology, and dressing as a racial stereotype?

I don't think that any of us are confused about the notion that dressing in blackface would be offensive. That seems to be well understood, and I certainly don't disagree in the slightest. What about that samurai costume, though? Or, to pick something that all of us almost surely seen at least a few times: the ninja?

Now, I want to make it clear that I think that there are some important differences between blackface and ninja, and that the two really aren't the same, but I think that they exist on a continuum, and I'm not clear where, or even if, there's an easy point where we can draw the line.

I don't think that dressing as a ninja is particularly problematic. While ninja are associated with Japanese culture, I think that most people are aware that they're not real (or, at least, not real as presented). The ninja as a person who wears all black and disappears in a puff of smoke is a mythological figure- a fictional character from stories. More important, I think, is that "ninja" is an occupation- it's something you do. It's not a race. If the goal was to dress up as a Japanese person, I think that would become more problematic. Ninja has more in common with, say, Cowboy or Superhero than it does with blackface.

The more troubling and difficult cases, though, are things like the American Indian costume from that post. I find costumes like that troubling because they're not really costumes of occupations or characters- they're reinforcing stereotypes. Costumes like that strike me as being a lot more like blackface in that the whole point of the costume is that you're pretending to be a person of a particular race.

So, I think I'd really like to hear what other people are thinking about this, because I find myself wanting to justify or excuse some costumes that pull from other cultures- matador or samurai or pharoah, for example- because I seem to find them less troubling than others, but I can't help but wonder how that looks from the outside. Is it that some aren't offensive but others are, or maybe they're all problematic, but some moreso than others?

Thoughts?

Yahoo has a dating advice file?

Via zuzu, over at feministe, comes this... article, from Evan Marc Katz, about women and dating. From yahoo? I didn't even know that Yahoo gave dating advice.

Conversations about dating and sex are always interesting, because everyone thinks that they've got the ultimate insight into What Makes a Relationship Work. It's not like I'm an exception, there. I'm always giving my friends advice about dating and relationships if they ask. I think that zuzu really nails a lot of the problems with this guy's advice. This notion that people need to lower their expectations or "settle" for someone is pretty harmful.

The problem with settling or lowering your expectations is that it usually ends up hurting the relationship. If you really want a person with quality X, but you try to lower your expectations and settle for someone without X, the odds are good that you're eventually going to want X anyway, and you're going to find yourself frustrated that your partner doesn't have X. You might end up looking for someone else, or resenting your partner or yourself. It's not healthy.

Of course, the assumption there is that X is a deal breaker of some kind. When someone asks you "what are you looking for in a potential partner", you're likely to list off all kinds of things that aren't necessarily deal breakers. You might prefer men with dark hair, or women with green eyes, or aliens with three fingers- whatever. The fact that you've got this idea in your head of a tall man with dark hair and blue eyes who rides a motorcycle and does community theater on the weekends doesn't mean that you expect to find that exact person. We're not the kids in Weird Science (thank gods).

Even if we have some kind of idea for a "if I was building a person from scratch" fantasy, that doesn't mean we're not open to the idea that potential partners might show up in some other form. How many of us actually date the sort of person we think we'd want to date when we're asked "what's your ideal person like?" We have a core set of a deal breakers, but everything else tends towards fantasy- we might hope for X, Y, and Z, but we might find ourselves thoroughly attracted to someone who only has X, or Z, or maybe has M, B, and Q instead.

zuzu also criticized an article by David Zinczenko, who writes for Men's Health. His article is about five ways that women can keep their man from leaving. The problem I have with this article is that it's got some reasonable advice, but it's so obscured by telling women that they need to keep their men from cheating that it's hard to see at first. The article takes some pretty general advice, and tries to twist it into a "you can keep your man happy if" statements.

A few commenters took issue with the article for slightly different reasons than zuzu, though:

All this “advice” basically implies that everyone concerned is stuck in some perpetual state of middle-class narcissistic adolescence with the fiscal resources and leisure time for various fun activities to “maintain excitement” in what is supposed to be a relationship between two reasonably mature adults. Funny that most families I knew growing up lived nearly everything in the “Go to work, come home, scarf down dinner, shuffle kids to practice, watch “Last Comic Standing,” and off to bed.” routine for years except shuffling kids to practice and watching late night TV part. Odd that most of my own and my classmates’ parents were able to maintain stable caring relationships despite not being able to maintain the levels of “excitement” required according to this “expert”.

After working effectively two or more jobs six or more days/week, most of our parents were lucky enough to come home to have a late night dinner with kids before heading to bed for what little sleep they could catch before the next workday started anew. Forget about “activity nights” or “guys night out”.

Now, sure, that happens. I'm not convinced that we should be holding that up as a gold standard, though. My parents lived like that for a long time- get up early, go to work, stay late, come home tired, work on the house, eat dinner, watch an hour of tv and go to bed. Rinse and repeat six times a week. My father routinely worked 60 to 70+ hours a week to earn the overtime pay.

I don't, for a minute, think that they wouldn't have been happier if they'd had more time to spend with each other. I don't think that it's a secret that getting stuck in a routine like that isn't really good for a relationship. I mean, yeah, it's possible to have a stable- even happy- relationship like that, but that doesn't mean that it's ideal, or that you couldn't be happier. The fact that some couples, like our parents or grandparents, were happy in situations like that isn't an argument against the idea that we could have a happier population if people could spend more time with their loved ones.

Now, I don't think that the advice, as presented, is very good, but I think that it's easy to see how we could reframe it in a way that makes it better (if completely unsurprising.

Consider:

1. Try to have some kind of long term goals: couples who share longterm goals tend to be happier and more excited about their futures than those who don't.

2. Make plans/dates with each other: many people report wanting to spend more time with their partners. It's easy to get stuck in a routine that doesn't leave a lot of time for connecting with your partner (wake up, go to work, eat, watch tv for an hour, go to bed). Making plans to spend time with each other- even if it's as simple as taking a walk, or playing a game together- can help you reconnect.

3. Make personal time: part of being in a healthy relationship means knowing when to spend time alone. This can be especially important if you're living with each other.

I think that those things are probably sound advice for anyone in a relationship- male or female, straight or gay or flexisexual or whatever.

WAM! 2008! You're Running Out of Time- Get Proposing...

The call for proposals is out, and in case you've missed the notice, the WAM!2008 proposal deadline is looming just over the horizon. You've got less than a month to get your porposals in. What are you waiting for? Everyone who comments on or reads my blog on a regular basis should be getting involved here.

This is your chance to get involved. It's a chance to network with the media, meet other awesome feminists, hear some fantastic presentations, and help get your message out there. If you've got something to say- and I'm pretty sure all of you do- you should be filling out that call for proposal, not sitting here reading my blog (although, you know, come back and keep reading after you've got your proposal submitted).

Look at some of WAM!'s previous presenters- Andi Zeisler (co-founder of Bitch: Feminist Response to Pop Culture), Jessica Valenti (creator of Feministing.com), Brittany Shoot (co-founder of HollaBackBoston.com), Deanna Zandt (freelance writer, designer, researcher for AlterNet), Valerie Boyd (founder of EightRock), Mikhaela Reid (political cartoonist for The Boston Phoenix), Gloria Feldt (former president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America), Rita Henley Jensen (foudner of Women's eNews), Elaine Lafferty (former editor and chief of Ms. Magazine), Garance Franke-Ruta (senior editor for The American Prospect), and Pullitzer Prize winner Ellen Goodman, to name but a few.

When else are you going to get the chance to rub elbows and exchange ideas with such an amazing group of feminist movers and shakers?

Even if you don't have a proposal to submit (and why the hell not?), you should at least consider attending.

If nothing else, I'm going to be there.
(I don't expect any cookies- but if anyone wants to get drinks and gush over how awesome the presentations are, you'll know where to find me)

In other words: get those submissions in, and I'll see you in Boston!

A Brief Diversion: Movie Game....

One of my blogging buddies, Mark, has been hosting a movie screencap game, and I was the winner of the latest round. I put up round 23, over at 79 Soul, but I wanted to take a moment to promote the game over here, too (there have only been a few of us playing so far).

So, if you have a moment, why not drop by Round 23, and take a shot?

I'm Not Surprised...

I just can't decide whether I should be glad that there was only one bid, or sad that it was almost a hundred bucks.
And that, you know, the auction was up at all.