The Terminator TV show (all nine episodes that exist so far) is an extremely pleasant surprise — who would have expected it to be good? Heron61 deduces some implications of time travel in the Terminator show and movies (some spoilers):

Read the rest of this entry »

While I finish up grading my 1000 papers (I’m exaggerating a little), I figured I’d open up the discussion about the election. We have two big primaries today in Indiana and North Carolina. What are your thoughts? Any pressing issues you want to bring up. Anybody in Indiana or North Carolina, feel free to let us know what’s going on in you’re voting district.

A bingo card for arguments about whether or not racism can exist in fantasy and/or science fiction.

(Some commenters may be aware of the story and discussion that triggered this bingo card. I’m not going to link to it because I think the story itself is a red herring from this post. I think the use of an undigested trope was ill-advised, but I also believe it was a good-faith error, and that the author’s response to critics is genuine.

This Bingo card is presented A) in response to the comments on that story, and B) in response to the comments on every other story that spawns variations of these poorly formed arguments. As the Angry Black Woman said about the issue, more or less, whether or not one agrees with a specific charge of racism, using arguments out of the handbook for “How to Suppress Discussions of Racism” is NOT the way to prove your point.)

Feminist/womanist, anti-racist commenters only.

RICHMOND, Va. - Mildred Loving, a black woman whose challenge to Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling striking down such laws nationwide, has died, her daughter said Monday.

Almost a year ago, on the 40th anniversary of the Loving v Virginia decision, Mrs. Loving released a statement. Here’s part of what she said:

My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God’s plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.

I hadn’t realized that Mildred Loving was a supporter of same-sex marriage rights. She’d be a hero regardless, but finding that out makes me admire her even more.

(I’m already wincing at the thought of the political cartoons that will be appearing. My guess is that several cartoonists will do Mildred and Richard, reunited at the Pearly Gates, while Saint Peter comments that no one will be able to keep them apart now.)

Related link: NPR page on the 40th anniversary.

Curtsy: Shakes.

PortlyDyke wrote a beautiful post about reflexive, safety-making cloaking:

I doubt that most straight, cisgendered people think about, or notice, how frequently they touch their partner in public in ways that are not necessarily “sexual” (in addition to kissing, cuddling, and the odd bum-squeeze) — ie. holding hands, walking with an arm around the waist, smoothing the other’s hair back out of their eyes — nor do I think that most straight, cisgendered people are probably aware of the fact that when I touch my partner in public, it’s nearly always a considered act. […]

So, I issued her and her husband a challenge (and I’ll issue the same challenge to any straight coupled allies here who want to raise their awareness of LBGTQ issues):

Spend an entire week pretending that you’re not a couple. Don’t write a check from a joint bank account. Hide all the photographs in your home and office which would identify you as a couple. Take off your wedding rings. Touch each other, and talk to each other, in public, in ways that could only be interpreted as you being “friends”. Refer to yourself only in the singular “I”, never in the “we”. When you go to work on Monday, if you spent time together on the weekend, include only information which would indicate that you went somewhere with a friend, rather than your life-mate. If someone comes to stay with you, sleep in separate beds. Go intentionally into the closet as a couple. For a week.

They took my challenge.

They lasted exactly three days.

There’s lots more, and I recommend reading the whole thing. Curtsy: TeaOtter.

Jeff Dinelli at The Left Coaster just sent this email to his daughter’s vice principal.

Ms. (Vice Principal),

My name is Jeff Dinelli, and I am the father of two (local school) students, one of whom is (my daughter), a 6th grader. I am writing to express my extreme concern over a Physical Education project that started this week in Mrs. (Physical Education teacher’s) class.

The kids were to enter their height and age into a computerized program, which informed them of their “ideal” weight and percentage of body fat. They have been instructed to count their daily caloric intake. Wednesday night I picked up a pizza on the way home from (my 2nd grade son’s) little league game and (my daughter) was frantic because the box didn’t indicate how many calories were in each slice.

She and her friends now discuss each other’s weight, body fat, and how many calories they ingested the night before.

Frankly, I am furious. Let’s leave aside the very real problem of the overweight children in the class who assuredly are suffering from utter embarassment right now because they are heavier than their classmates and are surely being harassed for it. We live in a culture where the ideal of what a female should look like is extremely unrealistic. From the models on the covers of magazines, to actresses on television and in movies, girls are taught to starve themselves to match up with their role models. I’m sure I don’t have to remind you of the horrific prevalence of serious eating disorders such as Anorexia nervosa, Binge eating and Bulimia (if you need help please Google the Center for Mental Health Services or the National Institute of Mental Health).

If an “ideal” weight or percentage of body fat is taught to 12-year-old children in school, it should concentrate on the absurdities of what our culture expects girls to look like and the often deadly diseases that can easily begin to affect young women who become obsessed with squeezing into the latest fashions and looking “good” exposing their midriffs or wearing that two-piece bathing suit at the pool.

There are many ways to teach the importance of proper nutrition and exercise without being told what they “should” weigh or how their bodies “should” look.

I would like this program justified, though I cannot think of a way that could possibly be done.

Yay for Jeff! And lucky for his daughter to have such a great father. (And I say that even though he’s a Hillary supporter. :-p )

There’s more at Jeff’s blog. I hope he gets a good response… although I’m not optimistic. There’s a lot of pressure on educators to make children more focused on, and more fearful of, their own waistlines.

Rachel Edidin has given Hereville a glowing review on her blog, Inside Out. I’m very happy — Rachel works for a big comics publisher and is one of the people behind Girl-Wonder, and she’s also plain smart as hell, so she really knows what she’s talking about. Here’s a sample:

Hereville is good. It’s really good.

It’s the kind of good that makes me want to carry a copy with me at all times, just so that I can look at it every few minutes as a reminder that any world that produces books like this one is probably worth the benefit of the doubt.

Comics that can honestly be described as all-ages are few and far between. Knitting a narrative that appeals to adults and remains accessible to and appropriate for kids is no easy feat. Imbuing that story with layers of rich culture and tradition without overwhelming readers, and doing so while slyly subverting both form and trope take serious skill.

There are no spoilers in the full review, but there are criticisms of the artwork which will make more sense to folks who have read the entire story. I certainly agree with Rachel that the art changes (and, imo, gets better) as the story goes on. Rachel also thinks my coloring of the night-time scenes is too dark; I disagree, but I can see what she means, and a lot of people agree with her. I wanted to do something very different for my night-time scenes than I’ve seen other cartoonists do, but it may be I went too far; I’m still a bit of a fence-sitter on that question.

Those of you who are reading Hereville online will have to wait through another month or so of updates before you’ll get to see if you agree with Rachel about the night-time coloring or not. :-)

Posting on the Feminist SF Blog, the Angry Black Woman quotes people from both sides¹ of a debate going on about Podcastle, the new fantasy fiction podcast edited by our own Mandolin (in her secret identity as mild-manner fantasy/sf writer Rachel Swirsky).²

Essentially, some posters feel that Mandolin has infected Podcastle with (as ABW says) girl cooties, or maybe it’s feminist cooties. It’s hard to tell what the complaint is, because the goal posts shift.

Is it too many female-centric stories? No, wait, it’s not — because if that was objectionable, surely the critics would also be objecting to the fact that on Escape Pod, 14 of the last 16 stories had male narrators.

But we’re told it’s not too many stories about women, it’s too many female-empowerment stories in Podcastle. Except that “Come Lady Death” is hardly a female-empowerment story, unless “female empowerment story” is defined as any stories with strong female characters. Nor is four stories really enough of a sample size to say anything.

Well, it’s not just four stories — this complain is about the stories appearing on Podcastle, Pseudopod (the horror podcast), and Escape Pod, which in a single month did contain several different stories that really did have female empowerment or anti-sexist themes (oh nooooo)! But choosing just a single month, when it’s obvious that choosing any other time period would lead to different results (see “14 out of 16″ statistic, above), is just cherry-picking.

No, wait, it’s that too many stories are too political, and too heavy. But stories like Goosegirl and Come Lady Death aren’t political at all. So the only way this complaint makes sense is if including any stories with sociopolitical themes at all, is defined as too many.

At this point, the football field is scratched up like a tic-tac-toe board by all the shifting goalposts. I can’t help but wonder if ABW isn’t right — if this isn’t really about the girl cooties.

Earlier on, I left this comment on Podcastle:

It’s commonplace for podcasts to be organized by male editors, with stories by male writers, about male protagonists, and read by male readers. It’s not uncommon for there to be several such episodes in a row.

There’s nothing wrong with male writers, editors, readers, or protagonists, of course.

What is problematic is the double-standard. That the large majority of published stories are by men, published by men, and about men is something we’re used to; it’s invisible, like water for seahorses. But even one or two podcasts that involve multiple female creators will be objected to.

I think that’s an accurate take on the situation.³ There is, or should be, nothing extraordinary about several stories in a row that involve female creators, female protagonists, or female protagonists whose story involves working to overcome a disadvantage of some sort (i.e., a “female empowerment” story). Even in a situation of total equality, random chance would frequently sort small numbers of such stories together.

In a reasonable world, there’d be nothing extraordinary about an election in which a white woman and an African American man happen to be major candidates. In a reasonable world, there’d be nothing notable about a podcast happening to have a few stories in a row involving women, or involving women overcoming obstacles, or whatever the complaint is. That these things are notable doesn’t say anything about black candidates, woman candidates, or about how Mandolin is editing Podcaste. They do, however, say something unfortunate about the less-than-reasonable world we live in.

1. Including quoting a comment I wrote. (back)
2. She wears glasses when she’s Rachel, and amazingly no one ever notices she’s also the famous superhero The Amazing Mandolin — not even Lois Lane, who is totally in love with Mandolin and never gives Rachel the time of day. (back)
3. Although I’d want to hedge “the large majority” to make it clear I’m talking about a particular submarket, not all stories ever written! (back)

Brendan Douglas Jones has begun posting book three of one of my favorite webcomics, Breakfast of the Gods. “The war for Cerealia starts now. Who will live? Who will die? Who will stay crunchy in milk? Read on to find out!”

For folks who haven’t already been reading Breakfast of the Gods, book one starts here. But don’t read it if you’d be offended by graphic violence, or by violation of trademark. Lots and lots and lots of yummy violation of trademark.

(Actually, I think Breakfast of the Gods might fall under “fair use.” If it doesn’t, the law should be changed until it does.)

(Not totally relevant, but I only read yesterday that the vocalist who sings “You’re A Mean One, Mr. Grinch” in the Chuck Jones animated version, was also the voice of Tony the Tiger. I mean, it’s obviously the same voice, now that I think about it, but I never noticed.)

(And listening to that led me to this utterly delicious pop cover of the song by Sixpence None The Richer.)

Via Ldragoon, an essay by Julia Serano, “Skirt Chasers: Why the Media Depicts the Trans Revolution in Lipstick and Heels.” The essay is long and all of it is excellent, which makes picking a few sample paragraphs while doing justice to the piece impossible. But I’m a blogger, and that’s what I do, so:

Media depictions of trans women, whether they take the form of fictional characters or actual people, usually fall under one of two main archetypes: the “deceptive” transsexual or the “pathetic” transsexual. While characters of both models have an interest in achieving an ultrafeminine appearance, they differ in their abilities to pull it off. Because the “deceivers” successfully pass as women, they generally act as unexpected plot twists, or play the role of sexual predators who fool innocent straight guys into falling for “men.” [..]

Even though “deceivers” successfully pass as women, and are often played by female actors (with the notable exception of Jaye Davidson as Dil), these characters are never intended to challenge our assumptions about gender itself. On the contrary, they are positioned as “fake” women, and their secret trans status is revealed in a dramatic “moment of truth”. At the moment of exposure, the “deceiver’s” appearance (her femaleness) is reduced to mere illusion, and her secret (her maleness) becomes the real identity. […]

In virtually all depictions of trans women, whether real or fictional, “deceptive” or “pathetic”, the underlying assumption is that the trans woman wants to achieve a stereotypically feminine appearance and gender role. The possibility that trans women are even capable of making a distinction between identifying as female and wanting to cultivate a hyperfeminine image is never raised. In fact, the media often dwells on the specifics of the feminization process, showing trans women in the act of “putting on” their feminine exteriors. It’s telling that TV, film, and news producers tend not to be satisfied with merely showing trans women wearing feminine clothes and makeup. Rather, it is their intent to capture trans women in the act of putting on lipstick, dresses, and high heels, thereby making it clear to the audience that the trans woman’s femaleness is an artificial mask or costume. […]

What always goes unseen are the great lengths to which producers will go to depict lurid and superficial scenes in which trans women get all dolled up in pretty clothes and cosmetics. Shawna Virago, a San Francisco trans activist, musician, and codirector of the TrannyFest film festival, has experienced several such incidents with local news producers. For instance, when Virago was organizing a forum to facilitate communication between police and the trans community, a newspaper reporter approached her and other transgender activists for an article. However, the paper was interested not in their politics but in their transitions: “They wanted each of us to include ‘before’ and ‘after’ pictures. This pissed me off, and I tried to explain to the writer that the before-and-after stuff had nothing to do with police abuse and other issues, like trans women and HIV, but he didn’t get it. So I was cut from the piece.” […]

When audiences watch scenes of trans women putting on skirts and makeup, they are not necessarily seeing a reflection of the values of those trans women; they are witnessing the TV, film, and news producers’ obsession with all objects commonly associated with female sexuality. In other words, the media’s and audience’s fascination with the feminization of trans women is a by-product of their sexualization of all women.

The entire essay includes a discussion of the invisibility of trans men in media depictions of transsexuals, and a critique of the essentialism and sexism of Janice Raymond style anti-trans views within feminism. It’s worth reading the whole thing.

The essay was later incorporated into Serano’s book Whipping Girl, which I haven’t read but now really want to.

Please use this thread to post whatever links or comments you wish; self-linking is encouraged.