#fellas (gender inclusive) come on!

[flannelepicurean]

I have done so many very good and useful and VERY grown-up things, I think I deserve to sit and think extensively and exclusively about what Vegeta's hair looks like when it's wet and swoodly like a mermaid's, for a prolonged period of time.

[terezipyropescrocs]

saw the barbie movie and am finally free to be a Hater on main without being accused of criticizing something without having watched it- anyway here is a non-exhaustive list of my Thoughts

this movie could have been nothing but fun dance numbers :(

i will say.........i like the costumes and barbieland set design. comparatively the way the real world is shot is so drab and visually uninteresting imo which. i don't feel is great given how much time we spend in it and that barbie ends up living there

the fact that barbies are supposedly affected by the people playing with them but they all act like..... That. just how shallow do they think kids imaginations are? why is there only one "weird" barbie???

admittedly i've never been to LA so maybe i'm completely off-base here but am i expected to believe that ken is automatically respected and admired (but not ogled! with no undertones of violence!) just for existing while my man is constantly dressed like he walked straight from a pride parade

on that note there was a lot of queer subtext/references but it was all very... wink wink nudge nudge in a way that honestly felt a little, idk, uncomfortable to me? but nothing overtly inclusive or even that subversive really

like with the construction workers scene i honestly can't tell if this was meant to be a trans positive moment or just a joke about them being dolls but if so it's like. you have these sexist catcallers but they support trans identities...? literally just as incoherent as everything else going on in this movie

why is barbie simply allowed to walk right into a school cafeteria

gloria and her daughter's relationship and the conflict between them was... very ill defined aside from the apparently all consuming and ever present suffocation of Womanhood™ like wtf is with sasha's line about hating women being the one thing everyone agrees on???? it's the kind of pseudo-pithy cynicism-laced quote that i would expect from a bitter 50s housewife or aging hollywood star, not a teenage girl who, idk, overuses buzzwords?

actually come to think of it pretty much all the female relationships in this movie are very surface-level and hinge almost exclusively on their shared gender identity and not much else!

the fact that all of the barbies were brainwashed to the point where they couldn't even remember their own achievements from ken mansplaining the patriarchy to them.......... and the fact that this is """explained""" with a fucked up and insensitive smallpox joke......... i am mad enough to spit tacks actually

pretty much the only thing i could think of during gloria's big feminist speech and subsequent appeals to the brainwashed barbies is that nothing she's saying actually applies to any of the dolls' experiences "You have to be their mommies but not remind them of their mommy." they don't have parents gloria

the use of push by matchbox twenty in the context of the movie sure is a Choice, seeing as the singer based it off a relationship where he was being emotionally abused by his girlfriend but had the lyrics widely misinterpreted as misogynistic.... anyway.

the way that all of the kens (and even allan) resort to violence and all of the barbies defeat them using manipulation and ~feminine wiles~.. thanks i hate it

i did like how the kens seemed to overcome their differences through singing and holding hands. also fellas is it toxic masculinity to want your girlfriend To see the man behind the tan / And fight for me?

confused by ken's "kenough" revelation from talking to barbie because he.... literally just sang all of that? I’m just Ken / And I’m enough / And I’m great at doing stuff / So, hey, check me out / Yeah, I’m just Ken is that all supposed to be just bravado? it's the same message but he needed barbie to articulate it to him for it to sink in. hm.

feel like barbie's motives for wanting to live in the real world could have been explored better because tbh... the pitch wasn't great!

like her arc is genuinely: experience insecurity for the first time ever because someone else was projecting it onto her > get over said insecurity (that till this point she had never struggled with) because that same person made a speech > gynecologist

not that gloria, the woc who all of barbie's issues represent and originated from gets any kind of satisfying resolution of her own other than pitching "everyday barbie"

the fact that barbie gaining an expanded range of emotions, many of which are negative, indicates that she is no longer a barbie and has to live in the real world to be fufilled- even though all of the insecurities barbie gained from entering a world that doesn't value her and not having a specific career, ken already HAD. men are automatically more human by default ig!!!

people saying that whole point of the ending is that barbieland is a mirror to the real world and the kens will only gain equality when women do as if it's not explicitly stated that the kens have LESS power and influence then women under the patriarchy... but that's fine because the barbies are nicer then men in the real world and kens have to earn their rights because we don't want to reward bad behavior and they need to prove their competence first /s

saw some other butches mention this but the fact that sasha dresses increasingly feminine to represent her character growth and overcoming internalized misogyny is an unfortunate trope

there was absolutely nothing that made me go "oh!!!" as a fan of the animated barbie movies + life in the dreamhouse, or someone who has the most basic understanding of barbie lore (they have one version of midge, skipper, and allan, but no chelsea, teresa, nikki, RAQUELLE, etc.?)

"stereotypical barbie" Her Name Is Barbara Millicent Roberts

[star-arcana]

Prince of Persia The Lost Crown Immortals Showcase Nr#6 ; Radjen: Master of the Shadows!

Hello, here we WILL end this series in double just before the Demo is getting released tomorrow!!! We have here I have an Immortal of dubious and darker origins than the rest; Radjen!!!

This enigmatic fella is from a different country and the origins of the Assassin known as Radjen are unknown, as is their gender, childhood and even their face.

WHAT is known is that she was caught during a mission in Persia, something a skillful master assassin like Radjen would have been more than able to avoid, had their partner not turned on them!

So, Radjen was caught and sentence to death, but Vahram, someone previously shown in the series was cunning and saw talent in the fearless master of the shadows, as not even death could make them faint.

Vahram then proposed to recruit Radjen and managed to convince the Queen Thomyris of this. So the fearless Radjen was pardoned and became an Immortal, with their skills of stealth and reconnaissance used for Persia.

However, Radjen's inclusion was met with little praise by the Persian nobility and even the citizens of Persepolis feared them, including even the soldiers that had released Radjen...Vahram had to defend these soldiers from Radjen, not the other way around. Radjen was feared so much, that the people had to accept them as Immortal and even if a bit ungrateful, this assassin was no longer distrusted by the people, but respected as Immortal, even if it took 1 week and some fear of them.

As for their former partner...they died in the Persian jungles, where some slithering, venomous wildlife (probably snakes) killed them, after inspecting a 3m deep pit full of dirt and said wildlife. Is it sus? Maybe or maybe not, but probably expected.

However, will Vahram's expectations of Radjen proven to be true, or will Radjen fail? Are the Immortals trustworthy fellows, or will they fail them as did their former partner?

Find out in 8 days from now, once Prince of Persia The Lost Crown releases. Next will come an Immortal, who might look familiar to some, that is if they played a game with a story where a royal member of a highly regarded rulers is often kidnapped... You see it any moment, see ya, very, very sooon!!!

[ariainstars]

Sorry, But I Don’t Support Minorities (Any More)

For a start: I will not use inclusive language in this text. (I usually don’t, only in this case I want to make sure it’s known from the start.)

Secondly, if you identify as trans or non-binary and / or are a huge Harry Potter fan, I am warning you: don’t read this.

If you do want to hear me out, be respectful in your comments or hold them back altogether. I won’t tolerate bullying merely because I am expressing my own opinion. Though the topic touches a sore spot in me, too, I will be as objective as I can.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am not and never was a fan of J.K. Rowling and her works. I found the Harry Potter hype strongly exaggerated, the books mildly unoriginal and biased, the films ok until they became so overloaded with derivation from other sources (dragons, elves, magic wands, brooms, unicorns, centaurs, phoenixes, basilisks, flying horses - stories like Star Trek or Star Wars at least have their own world-building) and later so dark that they were no fun anymore. In my opinion an average writer was lucky because she tapped into a trend and was at the right place and right time with her stories. I daresay years from now many fans will wonder why they liked these stories so much and realize that they just jumped on a train, having been too young and naïve to question it.

I don’t own any of Rowling’s books or DVDs or merchandise and I never have been part of the fandom. So, I come from a different corner when I say that I have my own attitude about the current shitstorm regarding J.K. Rowling now being coded as “transphobic”. This is due to personal reasons of my own.

  1. The Discussion Can Add Confusion

Rowling stated that in her youth she had problems with her own identity due to her father having wanted her to be a boy. I can understand that because I went through a long period in my late teens and early twens where I had difficulties identifying with the sex I was born with. At times I also felt physically attracted to females. In my case, it turned out to merely be a phase: I am an average cis woman. I can understand that for some people, such doubts may turn out to be more than a phase. But I know what Rowling refers to because I have been there. And I am grateful that there was no gender discussion when I was young because it would have confused me even more than I actually was, and I already had more than enough other problems. I was and I am a “common” woman, but there was a time in my life when I did not like it very much. That time was bad enough, combined as it was with other aspects in my life I had to come to terms with, which at times almost drove me to despair to the point where I contemplated suicide. So, I am glad that in my time being gay / straight / trans / cis / non-binary or other was not such an issue, at least not where I grew up. With my confusion and disorientation, well-meaning people might have taken the opportunity to encourage me to “embrace my lesbianism / trans identity”, when in truth I am neither. I was discouraged, from many sides, to liking myself, and that self-loathing took many forms. 

I am extremely cautious when it comes to gender identification because I know that finding one’s way in life under difficult circumstances can take years and years and end in a very different place from where it started, well beyond adolescence. In my case, for a long time I thought I was “not really female” because I love my independence and never wished for children: this is not due to some masculine trait inside of me but to my growing up with a disturbed mother who strongly invaded my life and mind and did everything that was in her power to trap me. I suspected that something was wrong with her since my early teens, but I found out the truth only about twenty years later. I had to accept her the way she is and put distance between us. 

Then there were my peers: where and when I grew up it was trendy to be (or appear) as tomboyish and easy-going as possible because this was seen as a sign of a “strong, modern, emancipated female”: fie on you if you wore your hair a little longer, liked clothes or only had to much as a flower-pattern on your notebook. Again: I simply had to get away. For many years I had been led to believe that my too “female” or “masculine” traits were a problem, when the actual problem was not mine. And if this happened to me, I daresay there may be many others in similar situations; which is something that who supports and encourages trans people usually does not consider. People who are confused about their sexuality without actually being trans need understanding as well.

  2. What About Us?

As a native Italian, I cringe when I only think e.g. of Lady and the Tramp’s silly “Bella notte” scene or films like Good Fellas or of The Godfather trilogy, cultural phenomena that did a lot to cement the general audience’s idea of how Italians are like. Not to our advantage. - No, “bella notte” is not correct Italian. No, we don’t play the mandolin, it’s an outmoded instrument that you are more likely to find in a museum. And no, spaghetti with meatballs are not Italian food!

Following the 2009 economic crises many countries in the European Community applied for financial “umbrellas”; Italy didn’t, it paid into those funds. Italy was the first Western country who went into lockdown as the Covid-19 crisis struck. The country functioned, though under huge restrictions and security measures. In both cases, other countries’ reactions in and outside Europe were like: “Typical - Italians are too lazy to work!” When it came to negotiating an economic pact to help Europe start again, the countries who had said this the loudest held their purse-strings tight - after having locked down too late and hidden the truth about the casualties in their own countries. Convenient.

Italians are generally often seen as silly and not trustworthy. And nobody talks about how demeaning and disrespectful, and on the long run damaging, it is to portray us in such a stereotyped way which at best is good for a laugh. The prejudices stick, and they have destroyed or turned into a living hell many existences.

There are huge now discussions about banning films like e.g. Gone With the Wind due to its “clichéd portrayal of Blacks”. Nobody talks about abolishing The Godfather or other films of that kind although they contribute to the stigma that Italians are either all in league with the mafia, or easy-going, silly folks who sing and drink wine all day and have no idea of what hard work means. Most Italians have too much personal pride to victimize themselves and bo-hoo “the rest of the world just won’t understand us”. They love their country but that does not make them not blind to its shortcomings. I hope they stay that way. In any case, I intend to.

  3. The Actual Problem: Bullying

I can sympathize with anyone who comes out as trans because I know what it’s like to be bullied. I was bullied myself for many years due to my Italian origin as well as my upbringing while I had to live among persons who were on a lower social level than I. I was e.g. accused of being stuck-up and “inhibited”. I know now that the female bullies were envious of my self-esteem and insinuating that I was missing “fun”; while the males were counting on another girl being at any guy’s disposal for free and were angry when I didn’t let them have their way with me. 

The actual problem with any kind of intolerance and discrimination is bullying. Whatever form it takes, bullying is or ought to be unacceptable. Bullies will be bullies, they do not care who they harass and why: if they e.g. can be convinced to leave trans people alone, they will vent their frustrations and build up their self-image by bullying people who are fat or black or whatever. Except trans people won’t be there to witness that (unless by coincidence they are both trans and fat / black etc.) 

We live in a world that gives a great deal of importance on competitiveness; as a result, even in families, schools and other institutions that ought to educate children and youngsters to be respectful towards themselves and others, bullying is often not seen as such, or simply downplayed as “assertiveness”. Bullies do not want to hear reasonable argumentation and learn to be sympathetic: they want to show off their power, provoke an emotional reaction from their victims to see how far they can go, and gloat when they can hurt them. They will not change their minds and they will never be trustworthy, no matter how many discussions about your particular situation you have with them. 

To bullies, the world is a jungle where only the strongest have the right to survive; any attempt to make them rethink their attitude will only make them laugh at their victims’ alleged stupidity (because that’s what a humane, respectful attitude is to them) even more. The only language they understand is violence. If you are bullied, protect and, if you can, defend yourself; never try to discuss. Minorities were silent and subdued for such a long time with good reason: because they knew that the more they held their heads up and did not hide what made them different, the more targets they offered for bullies. No one ought to go in hiding because he is queer or black or Jewish etc., but sometimes it’s unavoidable simply for self-protection. I am almost fifty years old and I have never witnessed a nasty person changing for the better. If anything, they became worse, because every time they got away, they felt more superior than before.

Particularly sly bullies will make their victims believe that they have changed, maybe even pulling off the role “I’m a victim myself”. Please, please, whether you belong to a group of minorities or not: don’t listen to them. Ever. Maybe they once were victims, but it turned them into arseholes, and now they are sunk too far in their own filth to care. Compassion is a good thing, but it should never go as far as to delude yourself, endure abuse and sympathize until you become an object for compassion yourself.

For instance, I like wearing dresses, cooking and sewing and looking after my household. Fifty years ago, that would have made me a pattern housewife; nowadays, feminists would either want to strangle me or at least have a good laugh at my expense. This just goes to show how short-sighted any kind of prejudice and bullying is. Any human being ought to follow its own nature with a healthy self-esteem, and esteem others as well. But with our today’s view of the world we are supposed to be not altruistic and respectful but “strong” so that “we will make our way in life” (i.e. feed capitalism in any way we can); and nothing can make you feel “strong” more easily than finding someone who is allegedly weaker and pick on him. We are expected to be “winners”, and the first thing winners need are “losers” to serve them as a foil. The pool from which to choose is large.

  4. Who Is Subject to Intolerance Can’t Be Intolerant… Really?

For many years of my life, I always found myself a supporter of someone who was ostracized for one reason or another.

A woman who had left her husband. (It was the early Eighties.) A gay man. A girl who had been harassed by being called ugly. A woman who had been abused sexually by a family member. A woman from East Germany (I live in the West and there are lots of prejudices.)

For the record: these persons were of different age, origin, upbringing, social status, intellectual level and character, and they did not know one another.

I knew and supported them for years, listening, loyal, supportive, interested in their problems and personal development. I never attacked or criticized them. And each and every one of them sooner or later accused me of “not understanding them” and “being prejudiced towards them”. In the case of the abused woman this was particularly unfair because I have been abused myself in my family, though psychically and not sexually. The divorced woman, my own mother, viciously accused me of lying and being in league with her ex-husband after I had been loyal only to her for entire decades.

It appears these people only were my “friends” as long as I told them what they wanted to hear. When I suffered, I was put off with “pull yourself together”. Like I had no problems, because the only people in the world having problems were them. Thank you very much. So, I was supposed to accept their growing insolence due to their being such poor victims, while from their point of view I deserved neither understanding nor respect.

Only recently, in the aftermath of the riots caused by the killing of George Floyd, I posted a comment on a video on youtube… guess what. I was immediately attacked by a black woman saying that my “stupid remark” just went to prove how a white person would never understand “things like these”. She had not even read my post carefully enough to understand what I actually wanted to say, she simply felt entitled to offend me.

I do not say that I dislike trans people or that they are bad, I’m sure there are as many good or bad people among them as anywhere. If someone says e.g. that though born with male organs they identify as female that is their very own affair. I must not like it or understand it. Tolerance means leaving other people alone to do as they please. Any person is “bad” only the moment they behave badly towards others; being different from the mainstream does not count.

But when I have to watch and read people nowadays defending trans or gays or blacks or some other minority, believing to be being open-minded or particularly noble and heroic by supporting them, all I can say is that I have been there and it did me no good. I won’t get caught up in another wave of “minority tolerance”: in my experience, it’s a waste of time. Many of those who now proudly burn their Harry Potter books and proclaim that they will no longer support the author, respectively that they “love Harry Potter but love trans people more” will make the experiences I made. Except they most probably won’t talk about that, because these experiences are so humiliating.

Minorities of any kind do not want to be supported, understood and defended by people who are not in their shoes: it hurts their personal pride. Which I can understand, although it’s a lame excuse for being mean to the very persons whom they expect help and support from. They will tend to envy the ones who do not have their problems due to being white / straight / cis etc., and consequently turn a blind eye to the fact that these can have huge problems of their own. Many of them expect their supporters not only to understand them but to support them enthusiastically at every turn, and if these don’t, (or if there is the slightest reason for them to assume that they don’t) these “victims” will feel entitled to be offended and become vicious aggressors, with a whole fan club behind them protecting their backs and convinced of promoting a honorable cause.

I am fed up with being tolerant. It seems you can hardly do anything anymore without offending someone: watching Disney movies or old classics, wearing a pink dress, calling a woman a woman instead of woman / trans / cis / non-binary etc. There is always someone who will point to these things saying why they’re not right.

I’m sorry but clichés, prejudices and stereotypes can’t be totally avoided: the human brain is not wired to know all facts about everything and everyone. What you can do is teach children and adolescents to be respectful towards everybody, even if they don’t like a particular person or group. Nobody has the right to force you to like everybody and to agree with every life style. But it seems the world has become full of people who seem to have nothing better to do but feel personally offended at the drop of a hat and make a fuss about how hurt their feelings are. Helping someone out who is in a difficult situation is not the same as catering to the keyed-up hysterics of some entitled brat. Seeing the difference between these two can be quite difficult because the latter often show their true face only after years and years, when they realize that for some reason or other, they can no longer squeeze you out for their personal benefit giving nothing back.

Who follows my account is aware that I did not like The Rise of Skywalker. Heaven knows I wrote enough about it. But I did not and will not harass the studios twittering, mailing, making youtube videos etc. ranting and raving about what rubbish it supposedly is for years, like the haters of The Last Jedi. Listening to them, one would think their whole reason for living had been destroyed on purpose. We most probably largely have to thank them for the Episode IX disaster, the flattest and most uninteresting Star Wars film ever made; not to mention the harassment the actress Kelly Marie Tran was subject to. Anyone has the right to dislike the development the authors chose for the saga, but for heaven’s sake: after all, it’s just a movie. If such a relatively insignificant thing can be hyped up like this, I don’t want to know what’s in store coming from people who feel offended for much more personal reasons, like race or gender.

Tolerance cannot be one-sided; it cannot mean that whatever one side wants does not have to be reasonable or useful, but they are entitled to scream and yell until the other side gives in. (If for no other reason than to satisfy them so they will finally shut it.)

  Conclusions (I did warn you…)

I. Hogwarts is not my world

Hogwarts is supposed to sound like a dream come true, but I never liked the idea of a “school” where pupils, who are still children and adolescents, are taught spells and engaged in games and tournaments where they have to risk life and limb. These facts are commonly overlooked, I guess, because “the heroes” usually don’t get hurt. The heroes overcome their traumata but do not get wiser from them, on the contrary: their suffering is supposed to make them seem nobler so that we will root for them more. Harry loses his parents before he could get to know them; his adoptive family mistreats him, but he doesn’t care about them; Cedric dies in his stead, but they were not close friends; Dumbledore dies when Harry was getting too old for a father figure; Snape dies, but Harry never liked him either. The list could go on. Harry always remains an innocent; he never gets to look into a metaphorical mirror where he has to see all of the bad that is inside of him, his darker sides are always projected and personified by someone else. (When he does look into a metaphorical mirror in the first book and movie, he finds out that the Philosopher’s stone is, magically, in his pocket. How convenient.)

I can’t invest emotionally in a fictional character who stands out before having earned or deserved it. Harry is like a Chosen One who skips the hero’s journey: from an abusive household, he is catapulted into a whole new world made of mystery and wonder, where he immediately is singled out, admired before he lifts a finger, unexplainably lucky, awed due to his heritage, envied by who is not as special as he. Harry remains untainted by own sins because other people do the dirty work for him; which seems ok because they are, for one reason or another, uncool - Dumbledore = old, Ron = weak / foolish, Hermione / Snape = unpleasant, his parents = dead, and so on. Yes, Harry sometimes makes mischief, but people usually cut him slack because of his past as an abused child, his parent’s tragic death, and his undefinable power that makes him resist the Evil One. The Dursleys, Snape and Draco don’t tolerate him, which is why they are coded as villains or at least very disagreeable characters. How do you recognize a villain in these stories? Simple, he’s being mean to Harry. Everybody else gives him special treatment because you don’t want to upset the person whom you expect to defeat the ultimate villain. I always found his character bland and uninteresting. We e.g. learned why Snape was so lonely and bitter, but not why Harry was so “good” although he had grown up unloved, in an abusive household, until he was eleven. 

For decades now Harry Potter fandoms and clubs gather all over the world proudly proclaiming that they are something really special and not like “them Muggles”. No wonder these stories are so popular with who feels misunderstood and downtrodden. Wouldn’t it be nice to be born with capacities ordinary people can’t even dream of? When maybe you’re just a common person, shocking thought. Nowadays, if you want to be someone outstanding, make it up in your mind and it automatically becomes true. And if you identify with the protagonist, you get to be a hero before you did anything special into the bargain. Harry is a victim of other person’s sins and / or blunders and his story is about unfolding the details of his victimhood and correcting them so he gets his happy ending. We are supposed to sympathize with this: well, I can’t. Victimhood and alleged inborn virtue are insufficient to make a protagonist “overcome his trials” and emerge triumphantly over his sidekicks or enemies, without any real loss on his side, while they get killed or, at best, ridiculed. And I will not pick up the part of that sidekick any more.

 II. Feminism Is Not My World

While I am an advocate for women’s independence, I do not identify as a feminist. I have an independent nature: that does not mean I am or should be ashamed of being a lady. This where we live is the era of the tomboys, of the feisty, cool, tough females. And often they don’t just go their own way but feel entitled to scorn women who do have their own job and live with a man who respects them, but also like the color pink, pretty clothes, flowers, romantic stories and everything else the new wave feminism likes to dismiss as “brainwashing”. Today you can hardly let your daughter watch a Disney movie without being accused of undermining her identity with false ideas about womanhood because, oh wonder, it seems a “real woman” must think and act like a badass guy.

Louder for the feminists in the back: you can actually look and behave in a way that is coded as “female” and be intelligent, independent and self-respecting. Women who went their own way have existed in every age and culture, often making great achievements and changing the world around them; they were intelligent, compassionate and took matters into their own hands. They did not proclaim that they unfairly were victims of men: they knew how to make men respect them. Being a woman is not a stereotype thrust upon you, it’s natural. If someone rejects qualities that are identified as “female”, it’s their very own affair. If I wanted to return the offense, I might as easily say that “feminists” and “empowered females” are just too smug to do the dishes.

 III. Trans, cis, binary etc. is not my world

For millennia, people had to accept the sex they were born with. Now you can have surgery and take hormones to get rid of a problem which you can’t solve on your own. Sorry, but I can’t get my head around it: to me the gender diversity discussion is unnatural. Good and right things are always the same, they cannot change with time and “scientifical / medical progress”. Tomboyish females and same-sex lovers are as old as the world, but it’s only a few decades since you can surgically have your sex changed if you feel uncomfortable with it, and even less time since you can claim the right to be both male and female or not to choose any sex at all. Excuse me, what’s behind it? Fear of missing out? I know, nowadays we are supposed to “change the stars”, but excuse me, it’s not possible. Rowling did not change the stars: as I wrote above, she got lucky.

I can say from own experience that for healthy growth a person needs limits. It is not “tolerant”, in my opinion, to say that one can be male or female or binary or none of that, all by choice. If I raise a child calling it a boy because he was born with male organs, or by Catholic standards because I am a Catholic myself, I believe no one has the right to say that I am intruding into its personality. I would be intolerant if said child would later come out to me e.g. as trans or atheist and I would dismiss its identification and opinion as a matter of principle, or disown it altogether. Rejecting rules and values is like pretending that it is wrong to be e.g. female, or straight, or that Catholic values are rubbish. None of that is true. It is true that a trans or gay or atheist or Buddhist etc. is not automatically an immoral or inferior person.

I can accept other people’s choices about their gender identification; that doesn’t mean I must like or support their mindset. It doesn’t automatically make me “transphobic”. If it is intrusive or intolerant to say that someone is male because he was born with male organs, what will come next? Will “normal” females no longer be entitled to protect their most intimate privacy because any guy can share our private space, like a public toilet or dress room, claiming he’s a woman (and he might well not be trans, but a lying voyeur?) Will we no longer give our children male or female names? Not teach them any values? No longer send them to kindergarten, to school, maybe not even feed or clothe them or furnish their nurseries according to our own judgement, because the poor babies can’t choose by themselves yet?

We all did not choose to be born in the first place.

If you want to protect your children from suffering, don’t have them: suffering is a part of life. Trans is not my world. I don’t want to destroy it or to behave rudely towards it; I simply do not want to have part in it. I want people to care for me, and to do so because I am me, not because I come out with this or another sexual orientation or make myself an advocate for people who belong to this or another minority.

All of the above is why I will not jump on the current “I defend minorities” respectively “I defend downtrodden victims” train. The good part is that I don’t have any Harry Potter book or merchandise I could burn anyway. 😊

Anyone who is uncomfortable with my point of view can unfollow me. Bullies will be blocked and reported without further ado. Greetings from a notorious Muggle.

[dkettchen]

BLACK MIRROR S5E1 “STRIKING VIPERS” E X P L A I N E D

-with the help of gender and game theory-

Y’all asked for it so here we go

Some things before we start: -If you were watching the episode looking for gay/trans shit, and got disappointed, I’m sorry but I can’t help you because that’s just not what the episode was about and that is ok. It explored some aspects of queer experience, and the limbo between queer and cis-straight experience, that isn’t usually addressed in such an honest and indepth way, which I think is just as important as trans or gay rep.  -I will focus my analysis on the core theme of what certain academics writing about androgyny call the “moment of transgression” so in this case the question of ‘what is Karl/Roxette’s deal & what does that mean for Danny/Lance’s feelings toward and interactions with them?’. -CW: transphobia, homophobia, toxic masculinity, (rpg) uncanny valley stuff, you get it, you know what subjects we’ll be talking about here. 

Now!

I’d like to start by pointing out the title “Striking Vipers” to get the phallus talk out of the way right off the bat x’D: It’s a very blatant penis metaphor, and Vipers specifically are venomous, so represent toxic masculinity. The image of them striking signals danger. The repetition of phallic symbols represents the threat of castration (see medusa turning them bois to stone & the heroic masculinity of the mirror shielded boi who managed to defeat her), which to phallocentric masculinity is the scawiest thing there is (losing the phallus = losing manhood = death?? I guess??). Striking Vipers means that toxic masculinity, by nature, is a threat to itself. (I could talk for hours about the exact warped logic of phallocentricity but Imma spare y’all cause I don’t think it’s relevant for this, I’d even go as far as saying this episode was anti-phallic (which I use here as a more inclusive word for “feminist”, as the episode’s core is about two guys, but still focused on them experiencing and embracing feminine power and freeing themselves from phallocentricity(/patriarchy)’s grasp, just like “what men want” was preoccupied with the toxic masculinity of its female protagonist)) That sets up the kind of horror the episode will be about, the male fear of castration, of loss of identity, of having to face the fact that traditional masculinity is toxic even to the people who conform to it. 10/10 title choice.

Next up: the core question of what label to put on Karl and Danny’s VR interactions (‘Fellas, is it gay to fuck ur best friend in a lady body in VR?’). Which leads to the first question which is: what gender is Karl when he’s playing as Roxette?  An essentialist might say: ‘Well he’s a man irl so he’s still a man even if he plays with a female avatar. Danny’s attraction to him is either him being trapped or just plain old gay.’ But I don’t think that’s the case. It’s not a trap scenario (have some videos on traps and how they’re not real actually: (x.), (x.)), because both people involved know the exact parameters of the situation. Danny knows this is Karl in Roxette’s body, there’s nothing hidden, no misunderstanding to be had here. I also don’t think it’s gay because if it was this would’ve happened irl or with two male avatars, but it only happened once one of them was in a female avatar, that was the change that made it happen. It’s not a fetishising phallic/trans women scenario either, because it’s the opposite, it’s a man’s mind in a woman’s body. There’s no doubt about Karl being a man irl, a queer man sure, but definetely a man. He’s just too into -womanhood while playing her for me to say he’s still male when he’s in that form, like Karl as Roxette isn’t a trans guy as a man’s mind in a female body usually would be (like f.e. Ranma 1/2), I also don’t think Karl as Roxette is an androgyne/non-binary/third term either, because again, he’s embracing her womanhood and the role that comes with it, to the extreme that is hetero PiV sex, too much. I’d argue what we see is the closest to the liberation and euphoria described by other queer men when doing drag, she’s just a more extreme version of drag, of crossplaying, making the fantasy real, wearing not only the clothes of a woman but the body too. Roxette as Karl’s avatar is an alter ego, who is female, so -on the risk of sounding like the biggest performativist since Judith Butler- Karl as Roxette presents as female, so, for all intents and purposes, is female in that moment, regardless of his irl persona maintaining his male gender outside of that. 

But that wasn’t what we wanted to know, was it. Because even if, in the moment that Karl plays Roxette, we can say that person is female, that doesn’t eliminate the fact that Karl, outside of that, isn’t and that he’s still the one playing her. It’s the notion of how the player/actor/performer and avatar/character/persona aren’t the same thing and can have different relationships with someone in real life vs in the game, and how that can be confusing to think about because there is no clear line between the two, something that is called “bleed” in ludology(/game studies, from lat. ludus: game or school; referring to the gladiator schools in like the colosseum), despite their relationships being fundamentally different (in this case friendship irl vs passionate love in game).  Take TAZ as an example: The McElroys are related, but in playing a trpg, the DM, usually Griffin, takes up the mantle of all NPCs in the game world, including love interests. Griffin played Julia, Kravitz, and Danny (different Danny lol), but he’s talking to his brother, except he isn’t, is he, cause it’s not Griffin talking and it’s not his brother responding, it’s two characters interacting. A similar uncanny valley can be found in actor/character bleed: Take Ludi and Pom (the actors for Lance and Roxette) in this one: like 80% of their screentime was spent making out or having fake sex. These actors aren’t dating (as far as I’m aware lol), this is their job, to fake love each other on screen, imagine having to do that with a coworker you feel nothing for. It’s the characters that feel something and you have to play that feeling (which is so meta at that point, they’re playing characters that are avatars being played by characters in the show). Also, talking of role-playing, can we appreciate the scene of Danny & Theo at the bar where they’re role-playing and she’s like that was hot and he’s like mental note bae’s into role-playing, because DAMN that foreshadowing of the erotic potential of roleplay as a concept.

But it’s not role-playing really either with Danny and Karl, is it? They’re playing in avatars other than themselves but they’re not fully a different person. They still very much feel the same just in a different form. Their emotions are real even though they might only apply to part of their experience, the in-game part. Yet they obviously take them seriously and personal and get influenced by them outside the game. Maybe the question is what is and is not role-playing? Where does the bleed start and end, and do we even need to know the answer to those questions? They answer those questions for themselves in the end by testing out their feelings irl to see if they track or not, fully ready for both possibilities (which 10/10 character development love it). They want clarity. It’s about the emotional limbo fantasy brings with it. It’s the same question “Are traps gay” is about. (Not the “Is it ok to feel attracted to androgynous ppl” one necessarily, but) “Does feeling attracted to the fantasy mean you feel attracted to the “real” thing underneath?” Are the feelings for the fantasy alone or also for the reality? Are they only applicable to the latter and does that change something about what you thought you knew about yourself? It’s a question about the fringe edges of limited/monosexuality and the very fabric of reality. 

Let’s return to Karl to look at his experience as Roxette. We’ve established that she is female, but what is Karl while playing her? In the spirit of queer drag as liberating, it’s almost like he’s taking a break from being Karl when playing as her. Drag, crossplay, or this extreme version of it, functions as a break from the toxicity and limitations of traditional gender roles (so in this case traditional masculinity). It is freeing, though what does it free? Some genderless spirit inhabiting each person? But then how do you explain the firm gender identity lots of people, including for all we know Karl, experience in everyday life? As a trans person I know that there is SOMETHING to gender on some level that can create gender dysphoria (social and/or physical) for people when put in a body they don’t identify with. As a drag performer, trpg enthousiast, and notorious crossplayer, I know that taking a break from that reality and being somebody else can be relieving, a break from your own problems. So what is that part of us that translates into fantasy? I feel like this goes into transhumanist territory which I don’t know enough about to even attempt to provide an answer. I think what it comes down to in terms of gender theory is, this is a situation at the height of where performativism is true and relevant. There is a relativity to the nature of reality and gender itself. Whatever base essence there is that causes gender dysphoria at a mismatch between outside and inside, doesn’t apply here. Both notions (of essential and performative gender) are real and have an impact on people but neither is always the case and neither is never the case. They’re not mutually exclusive. 

So, seeing as it seems impossible to pinpoint what gender Karl/Roxette qualifies as (other than all and/or none), let’s look at the nature of Danny/Lance and Karl/Roxette’s interactions and feelings toward those interactions and each other to try and contextualise what label(s) they might fit under.  The desire on Danny’s side when faced with Roxette’s form shows itself in a way he’d never feel toward Karl. That visual change, and the social changes it brings with it (in gender role), makes it so extreme, because it pairs the parts of his friend he appreciates and enjoys (personality and whatever deeper connection a close friendship brings with it), with a form that is attractive to him. That change translates to Karl too. In playing with this new form that has a different role and a different effect on someone he’s known for so long, he flows into that, melts into this new persona and lives it up! The way they interact in game isn’t gay. It is very much reflecting how straight attraction and female sexuality works. On one hand it’s based in undeniable difference (hetero = different), and on the other hand Karl/Roxette’s enjoyment thereof is based in being desirable, in having that power of seduction just by existing, that notion of feminine power and the freedom that comes with it. It’s not autogynephilia, that would imply he gets off on the idea of himself as a woman, which is not the case, he gets off on being desired as a woman, which is what female sexuality is about (source: ContraPoints’ Autogynephilia video (which I recommend, it’s very good))

Still whenever Karl tries to get Danny to keep having VR sex with him/Roxette, he talks about her in 3rd person, like a persona. In saying “it’s just like porn” he poses something that is very much a different activity (acting out the porn by -doin’ it-) as a homosocially (social as opposed to sexual/romantic) acceptable one (watching porn together which I’ve been told is a thing). He attempts to differentiate himself from his female persona and enjoyment there-of (by objectifying her, like a porn actress to be watched rather than identified with), himself and Danny from the queerness (in enjoying femininity and in Danny being down with basically fucking a drag-queen) and to retreat back into heteronormative traditional masculinity, away from the scawy unknown of exploring your sexuality. His internalised homo- and transphobia makes him suppose that Danny, as a supposed straight guy, will only respond to the safety of assured non-queerness, which, honestly, I don’t think is the case with him. Karl supposes his cancelling on him and not wanting to do it anymore is out of the fear for his sexual identity or whatever, but from what I can tell, while Danny also seems to be rather confused about what it all means, the reasons he cancels their nightly sessions, and rejects Karl/Roxette, are always about not wanting his marriage to fall apart. He quite clearly prefers hot VR sex to hanging out with his wife, and cancels out of duty to her rather than fear. Even the first time they kiss, Karl is the one to freak out first. Danny seems much calmer about the attraction part of the situation, to the point of in the end being the one to take initiative and make them try it out irl to put an end to the confusion.

The episode hits hard because it takes the way men play video games and brings it to its logical conclusion. Video games are mens safe-space, and they do play with that playful flirty banter. The show takes that and makes it real, including taking it to its extreme conclusion that is -doin’ it-. It infiltrates the male safe space by taking normalised behaviour, and taking it so far that it puts traditional masculinity and heteronormative attraction in question, the very thing the safe space was supposed to protect them from. That’s why it’s existentially horrifying for the main characters (and viewers that identify with them) and qualifies as a black mirror episode even without having a homo-/trans-/biphobic ending (like other media that put traditional masculinity in question usually do, not to mention all the horror based in queer-coding) 

Hope y’all enjoyed this journey into a bit of mind-bending game and gender theory! Pls don’t expect me to do this like ever again bc I need to go work on my actual essay rip x’D 

[official-queer]

sooo i figured it’d be helpful for me to make a complete post on my thoughts on pansexual as a label. i've answered a few asks about this and then figured i'd covered it enough, but i realize that i covered separate points in each post/ask. 

i'll try to make it as organized as possible, but y'all know i'm the king of run-on sentences and unnecessarily long statements and restatements. so yeah, this is gonna be a long one, fellas

"bi = two, pan = all"

in reality, the bi identity has always included attraction to all genders. i'm sure you'll've heard it time and time again, but the 1995 bisexual manifesto states very clearly that bi people are not duogamous in their attraction. insisting that bisexuality is only for attraction to cis men and cis women paints bisexuality as transphobic, as well.

the pan label became so popular with the rise of awareness of nonbinary identities because people started to find it important to state they were also attracted to nonbinary people. the whole pan- prefix was specifically picked because people were aware that "nonbinary" was merely a category for those who fell outside of the imposed male-female dichotomy, and under which several hundred genders could fall.

so... bisexual includes all these hundreds of genders, and pansexual specifies these hundreds of genders. seems redundant, but what's the issue?

"some people find the distinction important"

this is a sentiment i've heard brought up as an argument to just leave pan people alone. but i don't find it quite so valid an argument, irony not intended. *why* is the distinction so important? how come one can concede that bi people like all genders too, but you *must* let people know you are the type of "m-spec" who is definitely able to be attracted to all genders?

the idea one can id as pan but still agree that bi people can also feel the same way a pan person does is contradictory. you are attempting to label an experience as x and argue that it's a necessary label, when there was already a label for x and y. the very idea of a "distinction" is to point out how something is *different*. it's completely redundant.

so if bi and pan are the same, is there some other reason why someone would prefer pan over bi?

"attraction regardless of gender"/"hearts not parts"

i'm lumping these two together because, despite sounding like different points, they argue the same thing in the end. it's just that one is more subtle.

when the label of pansexual was in it's formative years, some sought to argue that pan *is* different from bi, because pansexuals do not consider gender when they are gauging attraction to someone. there are several problems with this.

this switches pan from a "who" label (correct usage of a sexuality label, denoting to whom you are attracted, referring to gender), to a "how" label (incorrect usage of a sexuality label, denoting in what circumstances one feels attraction, not accounting for gender). with the other definition of pan, the "who" was simple - anyone of any gender. with this definition, the "how" is now involved, that being without regarding gender.

within normal parameters of a sexuality label, as in, a "who" label, it is functionally the same as the previous definition. you are still attracted to any gender.

just as well, it can be used just as well for a bi person attracted to all genders. many bi people have stated this is exactly how they feel, and so you jump back to the distinction argument. but also, many gay and straight people have also expressed that gender plays no part in *how* they feel their attraction. their attraction may only include one or so gender(s), but beyond that, it's not something that factors in.

many trans and specifically nonbinary people have stated distaste at this definition as it is dismissive of gender. one gets the impression that their gender struggles, growth, identity, etc. is not important to the pan who uses this definition.

specifically in regards to "hearts not parts", a very popular quote around the early years of the pan label - this gives the very strong idea that pan people are claiming that only their sexuality involves being attracted to the important parts of someone; their mind, their soul, their identity beyond gender, etc.. this is just... yuck.

just as well, this further pushes the pretty prevalent idea among mogai/inclus that gay, bi, and straight people are driven solely by sexual desire. while the "hearts not parts" phrase is uniquely pansexual in nature, the sentiment is shared by inclus asexual and other people using "how" labels, such as demisexual and other "a-spec" people. this sentiment is considered pretty homophobic, because while the idea seems to be against gay, bi, *and* straight people, it is weaponized frequently in opposition to gay and bi folk, especially lesbians.

"it's just a preference"

preferences are for flavors of ice cream. i highly doubt one is basing their whole identity on the phonetic sounds of "pan" vs. "bi", or a "prettier flag", or what have you. typically, if one dives deeper into what exactly these "preferences" are, they almost all lead back to misconceptions about bi as a label.

differing community

it's no secret that pansexual people have, at an alarming rate, culminated for themselves a unique culture and community. it's also no secret that a lot of this reeks of the era it was born from - 2009-2012 internet culture - but my distaste is my own.

some argue that their preference for the pan label is simply due to this differing community. some... do not argue this, but it's apparent. what either party doesn't consider is this: stating preference for one community, in this situation, is stating a preference to not be included in the other community.

this is why i say that some pan people, while not consciously aware, adhere to this argument. i was one of these people. this is where you'll have to forgive my heavy reliance on personal anecdote, but i believe it applies.

when i id'd as pan, i realized later that a big portion of my preference for this label stemmed from this mystified idea of the bi community. in my head, subconsciously, i viewed bi people as mature but not too mature, sexy, club-going, drug-using, edgy. i thought i couldn't be one of those people because they were too *cool* (these ideas aren't cool in this regard - they're very common biphobic stereotypes). pansexuals, on the other hand, where nerdy, friendly, meme-loving, sex-positive but not promiscuous. so many of the "fandom moms" we all used to admired had pan in their tumblr description, twitter bio, blog header, etc.. i could relate to this! (emphasis on could... i'm a normal human being now)

you can see these internal biases become very apparent when you see pan people insisting that their preference is "valid", or when you try to get them to explain how they're different from bi people at all. this isn't a matter of "one community or another", or even "one community over another", but "one community over the boogeyman of our idea of their community". and it all becomes so silly when you see how self-imposed this is - all these traits are bi culture! you're bi! you are contributing all this to bi culture, and you only need to shed your internalized biphobia and realize this!

fetishization of trans identities

i touched on this in my first point, but i'll go more in depth here. essentially, the idea that there must be a separate identity for those willing to date nb people, and god forbid if you're even more ignorant, trans men and women, is inherently othering and, in many cases, fetishizing of trans identities.

in my experience, the pan person who recognizes that pan is the same as bi, but who claims they are pan due simply to preference, is actually in the minority. for every pan of this sort i've seen, i've seen 20 more who blatantly believe that they must id as pan, since they would date trans and nb people. i believe this is almost directly related to how many cis people id as pan, as well as a mix of trans+nb people who've been fed this narrative and now believe it to be true. those quirky fandom moms i mentioned? all cis, all iding as pan performatively. the label of pan is an act of defiance in their eyes, the ultimate symbol of trans+nb allyship. and it's so, soooo cringey. i'd rather they be honest and id as "chaser" and be done with it.

if you're one of those people, or someone who believes this distinction is valid, hear me when i say this: TRANS PEOPLE DO NOT WANT YOUR SPECIAL TREATMENT! binary trans men and women want to be included in your overall binary men and women categories. trans men are men, trans women are women. attraction to men includes trans men by default, attraction to women, the same. nb people adjacent to these binary genders (demi-man, genderfluid, trans masc, agender+masc presenting, etc.) like to be included in these categories of attraction on an individual basis! there are gay men who date masc nb people, and lesbians who identify lesbian attraction as attraction to non-men, and vice versa. how can you rectify iding with an identity solely to point out your attraction to these otherwise unincluded (by your standards) categories, all in the name of being for these peoples' desires, while also ignoring their pleas to just be included and normalized within *all* attractions? can you say that gay, straight, lesbian, and pan people can all be attracted to trans+nb people, but not bi people? that's silly! so, in your attempt to be more inclusive, you've actually insisted on further othering us.

i'll add more points if/when they're brought up, or if i remember anything else later. i just got back from work and am quite tired, so.. :,)

[accras]

“Are there no female storytellers, no artists of color, no gender-fluid creators who would kill to get to play in the sandbox George Lucas built? And would the stories themselves not benefit by being told through a different set of lenses? Why are the people getting to tell Star Wars stories not as wildly diverse as the Star Wars Universe itself?

It’s not as if recent movie history doesn’t make a compelling case for the broadening of horizons. The Fast and the Furious movies started as a 21 Jump Street for gearheads, but in the hands of filmmakers like Justin Lin, James Wan and F. Gary Gray, they have turned into global, billion-dollar powerhouses. The Harry Potter movies might have kept going after director Chris Columbus’ first two outings — The Sorcerer’s Stone and Chamber of Secrets — but no one can deny that Potter movies didn’t get interesting until Alfonso Cuaron unlocked the enterprise’s artistic potential with The Prisoner of Azkaban. Guillermo del Toro’s Oscar-nominated Creature From the Black Lagoon riff The Shape of Water should have been the monster movie that Universal used to kick off their Dark Universe, instead of the Tom Cruise misfire The Mummy, which effectively tanked that initiative.

Marvel is getting the best reviews (and the highest ticket presales) they have ever had for Black Panther, a story about a black hero, made with a predominately black cast, written, directed and produced by black artists — which comes on the heels of Thor: Ragnarok, which breathed new life into a moribund character thanks to Maori iconoclast Taika Waititi. And DC’s one true breakout has been Wonder Woman, whose director, Patty Jenkins, had to fight tooth and nail for the very elements that audiences responded to — because the fellas in charge just couldn’t see it.

And yet, Star Wars remains a boys’ club, despite having a woman in charge of the membership. Despite there being proven storytellers like Ava DuVernay, Shonda Rhimes, Mira Nair, Michelle MacLaren, Karyn Kusama, Dee Rees, Lexi Alexander, Kathryn Bigelow, Ana Lily Amirpour, the Wachowskis — all working at the height of their powers, all with genre experience or deep genre love. And that’s just the female bench...”

[trans-l-lawliet]

hey hey hey so after seeing your URL for the first time and having the Realization that L is Trans i of course tried to search for fic and content but I found Nothing and as far as I know there is a Severe Deficit in trans L content... so I come to you, most fittingly named blog, with one humble and desperate request: please hmu with that trans L shit bc I'm d y i n g

Hey there, Anon! You’re a good fella, and your message is a big mood of mine too because, sadly, there’s not much Trans!L content around… yet! After all, we gotta be the change we want to see in the world, right?

Aside from my general headcanons about him, I’m gonna give the world some more… I hope you like these!

He sends A Lot of research material about gender identity to the Wammy’s library, just in case any of the kids need it, because he knows first hand how much it sucks not to understand those feelings when you first face them

Also tons of information about sexualities. In fact, Wammy’s House sex ed is the most inclusive sex ed you can possibly conceive

While on the Big Detectives War, Deneuve, a big conservative and transphobic ass, found out he was trans and wanted to use it against him. That backfired spectacularly, because it only motivated L further get fucked Deneuve

The only Wammy’s kids who knew were A. and Matt

There are days he still feels quite dysphoric, usually after having nightmares about people finding out or him being stuck as a girl

On the days he feels good about being trans, he breaks havoc on the archives of governments that have transphobic legislation just because he can

If he is on a big city when Pride parades are scheduled, he attends wearing a flag as a cape (and disguised with a blonde wig, big sunglasses, and his whole face painted with the trans flag)

[seagrovehq]

do you guys treat female and male muses the same here? just because i know there's a lot of rps out there that won't talk to females, or trans, or poc, and i wanted to know how inclusive this rp is? hope it doesn't come off rude!

not rude at all, my friend ! i’m actually rather sad that this has to be asked, but i completely understand ! but we very much pride ourselves on our inclusiveness when it comes to such things, and guys, gals, and non-binary folks are all treated the same over here, i can promise you that ! both ren and myself are very against things like bans when it comes to gender, and we don’t separate our muses on the taken page by gender, just because we deem it rather irrelevant; we just want people to play whichever character they have muse for, no matter their gender ! i play a female muse currently, and ren has two gals and a fella, and we’ve both had nb muses, so we really can show no bias ourselves, as we’ve covered all spots on the spectrum, and we also have inclusiveness rules that we enforce as importantly as all our other rules. we won’t be having anybody be discriminated against or left out, especially not because of their character’s gender/ethnicity/size/age etc ! so please just bring us whoever you have muse for, as it truly won’t be a problem with us ! i know a lot of our members are currently asleep, what with timezones and all, but if anybody is around, or anybody sees this when they log on, some extra words of encouragement would be highly appreciated !

[citizenscreen]

He has been referred to as the “American dream personified.”

This week’s Follies showcases a few patriotic moments from Frank Capra movies as my 4th of July celebration on Once Upon a Screen.

“Innate Americanness is seen to be so central to Capra’s films that the subject of “America” is not indexed.” – Elizabeth Rawitsch, Frank Capra’s Eastern Horizons 

◊

Jefferson Smith, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939)

“Just get up off the ground, that’s all I ask. Get up there with that lady that’s up on top of this Capitol dome, that lady that stands for liberty. Take a look at this country through her eyes if you really want to see something. And you won’t just see scenery; you’ll see the whole parade of what Man’s carved out for himself, after centuries of fighting. Fighting for something better than just jungle law, fighting so’s he can stand on his own two feet, free and decent, like he was created, no matter what his race, color, or creed. That’s what you’d see. There’s no place out there for graft, or greed, or lies, or compromise with human liberties.”

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

◊

John Doe, Meet John Doe (1941)

“A free people can beat the world at anything, from war to tiddle-de-winks, if we all pull in the same direction.”

◊

Martin Vanderhoff, You Can’t Take it With You (1938)

“Americanism. Let ’em know something about Americans. John Paul Jones. Patrick Henry. Samuel Adams. Washington. Jefferson. Monroe. Lincoln. Grant. Lee. Edison. Mark Twain. When things got tough for those boys, they didn’t run around looking for -isms.”

Lionel Barrymore as Martin Vanderhoff

◊

Longfellow Deeds, Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936)

“It’s like I’m out in a big boat, and I see one fellow in a rowboat who’s tired of rowing and wants a free ride, and another fellow who’s drowning. Who would you expect me to rescue? Mr. Cedar – who’s just tired of rowing and wants a free ride? Or those men out there who are drowning? Any ten year old child will give you the answer to that.”

Average, small-town joe, Longfellow Deeds inherits $20,000,000 and decides o give it all away to poor people

◊

Jefferson Smith, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

“You see, boys forget what their country means by just reading The Land of the Free in history books. Then they get to be men they forget even more. Liberty’s too precious a thing to be buried in books, Miss Saunders. Men should hold it up in front of them every single day of their lives and say: I’m free to think and to speak. My ancestors couldn’t, I can, and my children will. Boys ought to grow up remembering that.”

◊

In Capra’s 1928 The Power of the Press you get the fourth estate as the balance between political morality and political corruption.

◊

Longfellow Deeds, Mr. Deeds Goes to Town

“From what I can see, no matter what system of government we have, there will always be leaders and always be followers. It’s like the road out in front of my house. It’s on a steep hill. Every day I watch the cars climbing up. Some go lickety-split up that hill on high, some have to shift into second, and some sputter and shake and slip back to the bottom again. Same cars, same gasoline, yet some make it and some don’t. And I say the fellas who can make the hill on high should stop once in a while and help those who can’t. That’s all I’m trying to do with this money. Help the fellas who can’t make the hill on high.”

◊

Martin Vanderhoff, You Can’t Take it With You (1938)

“Lincoln said, “With malice toward none, with charity to all.” Nowadays they say, “Think the way I do or I’ll bomb the daylights outta you.””

Life magazine did a spread on Capra on September 19, 1938. The director was at the top of his game and the focus was his latest picture, You Can’t Take it With You

◊

Narrator, Prelude to War (1942)

“For this is what we are fighting: Freedom’s oldest enemy, the passion of the few to rule the many. This isn’t just a war. This is the common man’s life and death struggle against those who would put him back into slavery. We lose it, and we lose everything. Our homes; the jobs we want to go back to; the books we read; the very food we eat. The hopes we have for our kids; the kids themselves. They won’t be ours anymore. That’s what’s at stake. It’s us or them! The chips are down. Two worlds stand against each other. One must die, one must live. One hundred seventy years of freedom decrees our answer.”

◊

Martin Vanderhoff, You Can’t Take it With You (1938)

“Maybe it’d stop you trying to be so desperate about making more money than you can ever use? You can’t take it with you, Mr. Kirby. So what good is it? As near as I can see, the only thing you can take with you is the love of your friends.”

◊

John Doe, Meet John Doe

“I know a lot of you are saying “What can I do? I’m just a little punk. I don’t count.” Well, you’re dead wrong! The little punks have always counted because in the long run the character of a country is the sum total of the character of its little punks.”

John Doe speaks for the people

◊

The Capraesque ‘We the people’

All of these characters and words represent a distinct Americanism as many have come to recognize it through the years. The hopes and dreams that every man, woman and child aspire to are (supposed to be) held close in the bosom of an inclusive country. That’s what my father believed, felt deeply and instilled in me.

The words from the movies I’ve included represent a warmth that should be the world order. What we need to add to the images is diversity as there is not one person of color represented. Still, the message is one I want to focus on today, spread today and hold onto for all our sake. Every single one of us – regardless of race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, lot in life or any other label used to divide us.

Happy birthday, America!

James Stewart and Frank Capra during the filming of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

Friday Foto Follies: Frank Capra’s Americanness He has been referred to as the "American dream personified." This week's Follies showcases a few patriotic moments from Frank Capra movies as my 4th of July celebration on Once Upon a Screen.

[genderassignment]

Fools, Fellas, Feminism and Oprah: An Interview with Stephanie Graham

Fella #3, Stephanie Graham

I got to meet Stephanie Graham at the BING Reading Room for the Chicago on My Mind afterparty, thanks to connector extraordinare, Sabina Ott. We swung it out and I felt great in her presence. Graham says “Oprah is a girlfriend and I want to be that to my subjects”, which feels 100% true spending even five minutes with her. It makes for some extraordinary artwork—from the loving, hilarious, and incredibly absorbing interviews in So This One Guy, to #NEWGLOBALMATRIARCHY, her project with Maya Mackrandilal slaying sexism for all.

Enjoy this irresistible interview!

First of all, I am crazy about your work from a lot of perspectives. I really enjoy the performance strategies, the inclusion of many voices—even when they are all your own. Let’s start with Fellas Project, a series of re-enactments and photographs staging relationship events. I would love to hear more about your choice to use yourself as all the characters! As well, I’d love to hear what you’ve uncovered in the process.

YAY! That makes me so happy to hear you enjoy the work! Thanks for interviewing me too! I'm really honored!! Shout out to Sabina Ott for connecting us! I'm very thankful!

So the FELLA Project was a personal project I wanted to create after I felt like I was just getting into these ridiculous situations with guys I was dating, and I was over it! I was over them, and I was over myself for putting myself in these situations with FOOLS. I mean complete FOOLS! I don't know if they are Fools or just the situations but anyway. Since these were my stories, I wanted to participate in them. I don't think it would have worked the other way.  Dudes would be like "ooh are you going to do a photo on me?" I'm like um…this is not a celebratory thing boo boo this is real life LOL.

Others have wanted me to photograph them as their past relationships, I thought that was interesting, but then it also felt gimmicky like I was running a Groupon and that's not the goal of the work.  FELLAS is a project of how I saw the situation.

FELLAS was also a project where I learned that I was being seen as a performance artist and I didn't like that because I always saw performance art as black leotards and being weird but now I see that its not ALWAYS black leotards and I'm getting better at accepting the medium for myself now.

Laura, So This One Guy Project

So This One Guy explores similar themes, but from the perspective of diverse, dating women. I love the inclusion of your laughter and feedback in the interviews, it has an intimacy. These have a conversational, but storytelling quality and reveal a lot about gender dynamics. How do you think your various strategies uncovered new narratives? What was your process of interviewee selection?

Thank you! I love hearing peoples’ experiences it's my favorite thing to listen to a great story. I'm also very nosy so I like to ask questions to find out how someone got to a certain point. I'm trying to be Oprah in my interview strategy, Oprah is a girlfriend I want to be that to my subjects. Also sometimes feminism stuff can be so structured, I can be mad feminist but homeboy still needs to pay the bill WTF! 

My process for finding interviewees was anyone who felt comfortable sharing a story where they can have a good sense of humor. I never know the stories the ladies are going to share, unless they have several stories and just need help picking one, and then I look at the following:

1. Is this funny;

2. Will the dude bother my subject after this story is out there;

3. Does this show the woman in a good light?

#3 is interesting for me, and something I think about. I remember interviewing a woman that was a jerk about her situation; she used the man she was speaking about for free meals and jewelry! It was intriguing because that's not my life I've never dated someone to take me out to get jewelry but I'm not trying to have comments making fun of my subjects or putting them down, and that was what would have happened to her. Maybe I will change that in the future because dating has all sorts of levels but for now. I just want the ladies to be chill, look fly and tell a story that we can all chuckle at and find it relatable.

I'm always experimenting with different ways to get the stories because this is a project that I want to keep going but I want it to be visually interesting for the viewer.

I have learned that internet dating is a no go! I have tried it I know many finds success but damn...lots of the stories comes from dudes found on a website or app.

#NEWGLOBALMATRIARCHY Maya Mackrandilal, Stephanie Graham Photo: Doug McGoldrick

I am beyond excited you will be sharing #NEWGLOBALMATRIARCHY at our Revolution at Point Zero Feminist Social Practice Symposium April 21! As someone who grew up around goddess-worshiping feminists, I particularly love the strategies of performance of myth and radical rethinking of culture and our collective future. How did this project evolve, and what are your plans for new interventions?

Thanks! I'm excited also the line up you have is awesome its going to be a beautiful day! I'm curious which goddesses you grew up worshiping that's amazing!

Maya and I met at the HATCH Projects Residency at the Chicago Artists Coalition. Maya had been working on this project called "Bedtime Stories of White Supremacy" where she plays the Goddess Lakshmi and tells stories of slaying white supremacy with another performance collective FemMelanin.  I loved it, and Maya approached me about working together once. I said to her hmmm what if Lakshmi had a friend... 

So here comes Oya. If you look at the way media displays female friendships there is some sort of hierarchy where there is always one friend that is higher than the other, I always give the example of Oprah and Gayle, both successful but we all know Oprah is the big dog right? With Oya and Lakshmi, both of these goddesses can end the world on their own neither is bigger than the other they are seen and treat each other as equals. 

So together Oya and Lakshmi has come into Chicago creating mini-protests and letting the world know that we are not here for the patriarchal bullshit!! They are ruining everything, so we are here to fix it all, per usual everything is better when a woman takes care of it.

I think #NEWGLOBALMATRIARCHY is fun and approachable which is good because I like to create things that have an easy access point because once you've decided to go to the party the next step is talking to the people and the viewer gets to decide how deep they want to get in the work. Some people like to just take a protest button and post themselves wearing it, others want to go deeper and share their own experiences of and radical dreams and I'm here for all of that. 

Maya and I recently contributed an essay to Jessica Caprnigro's "Feminist Advice From the City of Broad Shoulders." That was a fantastic opportunity and challenge for me because I've never contributed an essay before so now not only am I performance artist( got dammit!) I'm an essayist. Maya on the other hand writes all the time and is an excellent writer.

Maya is currently living and working in Los Angeles which is great for expansion, we are brainstorming what’s next.

I am crazy for this quote from #NEWGLOBALMATRIARCHY: “What does it mean to be a strong woman with friends in a culture that can only imagine female sexual competition for the ever-elusive ‘good man’?” How do you two construct new mythologies and futures for women?

Well, I would hope at its most basic form it shows “see women can get along and love each other and slay the world all at the same damn time, we recognize each others strengths see each other as equals and get the job done”!

I get tired of the nit pick that women can bring or hearing women maybe having issue with another woman co worker or someone in management and its like okay.. if everyone would stop and work together everyone would have a lot less anxiety and a lot more could get done. Oya and Lakshmi both understand each other in a sense that they are both equally the bomb. You don’t want to mess with either goddess on there own but once you found out they are best girlfriends…look out world!!!! The Patriarchy should be afraid….

Sort of reminds me of a friend of mine that was shocked to find out a girl he once dated was one of my friends. He was like “oh i didn’t know y’all were friends’ well now you know buddy so WATCH OUT!!

I’m really interested in hearing how you see your mythical and fantasy-based work like #NEWGLOBALMATRIARCHY in conversation with the womanist tradition of artists like Walker and Morrison, and current artists like Cauleen Smith, Wagechi Mutu, Krista Franklin, and other artists who use Afrosurreal or AfroFuturist strategies to construct representations of women.

Oh man these are some heavy hitters that you have named here. It would be an honor to be grouped with any of these women I’m fans of them all, I think I am still discovering where my voice would lie with these women but what I do know is that I like to make work that has an easy entry point because art can be hard to get into, I want to make that easier because I think art should be enjoyed and talked about with everyone so it takes all kinds and all access points, and I think if you imagining with me that you are a goddess and it makes you slay your day and stand up to racism and patriarchal foolishness dope, if hearing a woman talk about a date makes you think…you know what EFF MY SITUATION or whatever that's good with me. I think my work is playful and humorous but still deals with real shit so its digestible...hmmm gee could I be the Key and Peele of the art world oh shit I don’t know if i like that…I’m new to the game so I’m still working on that.

Golden Kids, exhibition still. Photo: David Crewe

Some artists who come to mind I think share some your ideas include Ryan Trecartin, Nikki S. Lee, and Howardina Pindell--who are some of your inspirations?

Wow, thanks for the afternoon of learning of these artists, the only one out of this bunch that I heard of was Nikki S. Lee.  I love Carrie Mae Weems, Mickalene Thomas, Renee Cox and of course Cindy Sherman, Gary Wineogrand, Kerry James Marshall but most of all I really really love Anthony Gioceloa. 

Where can we see your work in the upcoming months?

I'm really working on organizing and making my studio great because I want to start having people over for conversations about my work, so after your symposium and Open Engagement are concluded I'm participating in the Petty Biennial curated by La Keisha Leek and Sadie Woods.  I'm exploring a new idea for that show though and that idea is investigating and celebrating the culture around a leather coat company called Pelle Pelle! I’m really excited about the show and it opens May 19th.

[thetalesalchemist]

The media, feminism, and me. A post for International Women’s Day 2017

While I consider myself a supporter of feminism and an ally to its cause, I find that virtually none of my favorite creators, authors, artists, scientists, etc. are female or, more importantly, identify as women. I believe that I can be an ally despite that fact but I have to ask myself if I am truly a supporter for the cause of gender equality.

If I don’t support a woman singer her songs and her albums am I a feminist? If I don’t watch women led films or television can I be a feminist? If the anime I like has weak female leads used primarily for fan service or has an overwhelmingly male cast am I supporting the feminist cause?

I find that few of the games I play have female playable characters. Even fewer with female leads. I watch several hours of wrestling a week and rarely, if ever, pay attention to women wrestlers. I watch several all male promotions: ROH, NJPW, and NOAH and I could not care less that there are no women on the roster. I used to be a sports guy but have since fallen out of watching SportsCenter every morning years ago. Still none of the athletes that I care about are women. I don’t watch any sports for them. As if women’s sports are for women.

In every genre of entertainment and in any expressive medium, I seem to avoid anything that has women in a central role. So, perhaps, my claim that I am a feminist is just that, a claim.

The question I must ask myself is “Do I avoid female-centric art?” If I think that I don’t and that I only am predisposed to liking male-centric things or that male focused art is better, does it matter?

I find that rappers like Killer Mike, Jay Z, Slug, etc. are better than Trina, Remy Ma, and Nicki. I prefer singers like Julian Casablancas, Chris Cornell, R. Kelly to Beyonce, Alicia Keys, and Lily Allen (who is my fav woman singer), There is no female directer that I follow or whose style I recognize like Snyder, Tarantino, Abrams, Nolan. The Ava DuVernay’s and Katheryn Bigelow’s of the world are award winning visionaries but I couldn’t describe their style or bodies of work. I had to Google other women directors because I’m simply not familair with any who wasn’t an actor first. There’s no actress that I prefer to my favorite actors. Amy Adams is in a few of my favorite recent films but she wouldn’t crack my top 20 for on screen performers. I’ve seen the majority of several actresses’ entire bodies of work and it doesn’t seem to matter to me. I find it hard to fathom that I would see a movie because an actress was in it. For some actors, I would.

In this scenario I’d have to ask myself why is this? Is it because of the subject matter or their work? Or is it something like the quality or my perception of it? Do I believe that their works are inferior to their male colleagues? Perhaps, the roles women are given in Hollywood and the music industry are typecast. Or I just avoid these women’s work because I am sexist? Idk.

In games I think my issue with supporting women and female leads has definite room for improvement. I never create a woman as my avatar. I’m male, identify as a man, so I’ve never, when given an option, chose to play as a woman over in a man when you could create a character. In Dishonored 2 I did choose to play as Emily instead of Corvo but you don’t create either character. I don’t think I know any game creators, directors, art leads, writers, etc. other than Amy Hennig (the writer and director of the first few Uncharted games) and Jade Raymond (of Assassin’s Creed). I will play a game with a female protagonist but I’m not sure if I avoided a game because it had a woman.

Thinking critically of myself I don’t think I would play Final Fantasy XV, my favorite game of last year, if it had a cast of four women. I’m not sure the marketing would capture me in that case. I would hope that having a female lead cast would not have prevented me from playing FFXV. I like Nathan Drake more than Lara Croft. I can’t tell if that’s because of the writing, Nolan North’s performance, or sexism. In Resident Evil 6 there were four campaigns with only one with a woman as the lead. Some campaigns had women characters but the driving focus of the narrative was on the men in them. Ada’s campaign was my favorite but that may be due to the execution and style of the others. In Overwatch my mains are split 50/50 which is a credit to Blizzard for diversifying its cast and the roles they play to encourage its players to be a different hero. In gaming I can’t tell with certainty why I seemingly don’t play games with women playable characters. It could be the style of the game-indie title skew more towards equality (not yet equal though) of female leads than AAA games. Maybe the genre of game is part of it. I prefer action oriented games and those overwhelmingly have guys as the protagonist.

In anime, none of my favorites have a woman lead. In some cases, like Bleach, the girls are there as fan service or damsels in distress. While they all have characters and motivations, their purpose within the story isn’t as important as the fellas that move the story along. I especially love Shonen style battle anime and there will seemingly always be a focus on men as it’s target audience in Japan is young boys. My favorite anime series is Full Metal Alchemist, a series with male leads yet is written by Hiromu Arakawa, a woman (Arakawa’s name is Hiromi but she uses a male pen name).

When it comes to wrestling and (real) sports I, simply, prefer watching the men. When I was a teenager I would watch women’s tennis cus upskirts hehe now that I’m (less im)mature I know now how silly and wrong that was. When I was that age professional wrestling in the US overly sexualized women and that’s the reason why I would watch it then. I would outgrow that behavior too because promotions focused on aesthetics and the women that they hired were trash performers. It’s only recently with NXT generation of women wrestlers (and Natalya too) that I care about women’s wrestling in the US. I love the Japanese style of wrestling, puroresu, but I don’t watch Joshi (female) promotions. I will seek out Joshi matches but at the time, I haven’t yet done the research and the promotions aren’t as easily available as New Japan Pro Wrestling. Back to real sports, now that I, more or less, know what I like. I do not watch any competition between women when there is a male alternative. With MMA I kind of luck into watching women fight as they’re on the same card as the men. I watch only World Cup for women’s soccer. I don’t think I’ve seen a high level soccer game on television other than WC. When I attended UAB, I never watched women’s basketball but went to a few men’s, I only went to one women’s soccer game and I didn’t support any other women’s sport on campus at all. I don’t follow the WNBA at all. I can only name a few players and can’t name a champion team. In women’s NCAA I only know about UConn because they’ve been so dominant. But even without watching ESPN regularly, I can tell you who’s hot and what the teams are doing in the NBA and men’s NCAA.

TLDR:

The crux of my problem is that I don’t know how much fault I bear in having an aversion to women’s artistic pursuits. While I feel like I am a feminist and am all for equal rights and pay, I do not seem to care much or at all about the creative work that women produce. I think it has to do with the exposure of their work. There are very few works of art that have a female lead that are marketed towards me. But I recognize that I should seek these things out as well. I should support women’s work because that, presumably, would help get more women hired in the fields and mediums that I enjoy consuming. In sports I can see clearly that I’m biased toward male competition and I don’t know how to fix that issue. Watching women’s sports would help a bit, sure, but I’m not a huge sports guy and so I’ll generally watch only the “major” events. Those events are, of course, overwhelmingly male. For the arts, literature (which I didn’t touch), film, music, tv, anime, games, etc. I need to consume more works by women featuring women to send a messages to labels, publishers, channels, and studios that there is a demand for their products. The thing is I’ve done things like this before every summer I look for new artists and try to find their work and I regularly seek out new anime. So I think I need to try to find new news sources as well and, perhaps, that would help alleviate the problem I have of not being exposed to what’s popular, critically acclaimed, and highlights women. There’s a lot of work that I have to do to be more inclusive in my hobbies. I’ve tried to do so in the past and while I think I tried to do so sincerely there was little to no impact on diversifying the types of art and its creators that I consume. In order to call myself a feminist and mean it, I NEED to try more works by women. What do you recommend?

[theseaeaglelives]

Round 19

THE SEA EAGLE

MAKING RUGBY LEAGUE GREAT AGAIN!!!

Round 19

Manly Sea Eagles      11                   

 Defeated

 FWRC Melbourne Storm    10

There are few things in life more satisfying that knocking of the filthy rorters from Melbourne. One would be to beat them on their own patch at AAMI Park but to top that would be to beat them in the last 30 seconds of golden point, and that is precisely what Manly did in round 19.

Let’s face it, the Storm are to rugby league what Sun Yang is to swimming, that being previously found guilty, despised, filthy cheaters who should not be allowed to compete in their chosen sport. 

The Sea Eagle also notes with bewilderment a recent interview with former Storm fullback Billy Slater in which he recalled his so called “four” premierships. Obviously, Mr Slater also believes that Ben Johnson won gold in the 100m Seoul Olympics and that Lance Armstrong won seven Tour de France’s, and such a degree of delusion can only be explained by the fact that Mr Slater once played reserve grade for North Sydney and in the Sea Eagle’s opinion, is infected by the stench of the Bear.

Taking on the filthy rorters in Melbourne was always going to be a tight affair and with this in mind, despite advice to the contrary from all and sundry in the Fox Commentary box, Manly wisely opted to take the easy 2 points on offer (from a penalty) after 10 minutes and opened their account. Manly 2-0.

  Surprisingly for the remainder of the half Manly played with a degree of flair and employed an expansive brand of footy obviously aimed at taking advantage of their more mobile and skilful pack. Unfortunately, and not surprisingly the Storm defence held firm (let’s face it they are more than a step up from last week’s opponents – the Eels). Manly also had to do their share of defence and also proved up to the task, repelling the Storm attack with relative ease.

With only 3 minutes remaining in the half again despite advice to the contrary from all and sundry in the Fox Commentary box, Manly wisely opted to take the easy 2 points on offer (from a penalty). Manly 4-0. Seriously, some of these so-called Fox experts (including incumbent QLD Coach Kevin Walters, Brett Finch and Greg Alexander) need to take a good long look at themselves and should never ever go near a coaching box again. When playing against the Storm (as the second half was to prove) points are gold and no easy opportunity should ever be declined.

Not only did Manly get the two points from this penalty but after getting the ball back from the kick off (as is normally the case), they managed to fashion a try after some fine lead-up work from Brad Parker. The Sea Eagle has been singing the praises of young Parker for some time now as he continues to improve and justify the faith shown in him by Coach Hasler. Manly 10-0 at the break.

A 10-zip lead against most teams would provide some degree of comfort – but not the Storm who responded with two tries of their own. Thankfully only one was converted and with 15 minutes remaining scores were level.

It was also noted that the Storm turned down their own opportunity to take the easy two points from a penalty on more than one occasion, decisions they would ultimately come to regret.

Under the previous coaching regime, Manly would have hoisted the white flag, but not this year under Des Hasler. With their backs to the wall Manly held on to force the lottery that is golden point. Whilst there were plenty of defensive contributors, the Sea Eagle would like to single out Jake Trbojovec for special mention, after racking up an astonishing 67 tackles. Unfortunately, one of them was deemed to be lifting in nature, and young Jake could be consigned for a week-off.

The Sea Eagle has previously gone on record declaring what an abomination golden point is and this game did little to change that view. The only salvation in this instance was that Manly reigned supreme after what appeared to be an avalanche of field goal attempts. Finally, it was Cherry Baby who managed to ice one and with only seconds remaining in extra time Manly ran out 11-10 victors.

Full marks must also go to the free to air Broadcaster Channel 9 who continue to disregard Manly when allocating prime time games and, in this case, have starved viewers of what can only be described as one of the best games of the season.

  Final Comment – Mark Coyne

The Sea Eagle reported last week that whilst holidaying in Singapore, Mr Coyne unleashed the following expletive laden tirade at local police officials "you are a f---ing stupid idiot", a "f---ing dickhead" and a "cock", "f---ing cock" and "f---ing dog", he also threatened to "sue you through your f---ing arse" and adding "if some f---ing stupid c--- sues me, I don’t f---ing care. Especially you". And then finally "you are f---ing crazy", "you must be f---ing embarrassed" and "you must be so f---ing proud of yourself"

This week a similar tirade was directed by the NRL Commission towards Mr Coyne, who has now done the only honourable thing and officially resigned from the NRL Board.

  It was also reported in various media outlets that Mr Coyne was virtually irreplaceable on the NRL Commission. Notwithstanding, should he be required, The Sea Eagle stands ready to answer the call and fill this vacancy. In promoting his credentials for this role, the Sea Eagle would like to declare the following pertinent essential personal attributes;

The Sea Eagle knows who the Sharks are (and despises them nonetheless)

The Sea Eagle has never consumed his own urine or defecated in public, and now after Todd Carney’s efforts, fears the dreaded bubbler even if it is for a cool dink on a hot day.

The Sea Eagle knows the difference between the Newcastle Knights and the Barcelona Football Club.

The Sea Eagle understands it is wrong to have or simulate having sex with a dog or allowing said dog to lick food from the genital area.

The Sea Eagle understands it is wrong to have or simulate having shat in a shoe and then spread said shoe across a motel room in the presence of other players (or anyone else for that matter);

The Sea Eagle has a healthy disregard for all forms of rugby league officialdom, but in the main still loves the game;

The Sea Eagle will willingly criticise that which needs to be dealt with, and will state the bleeding obvious when it appears not to be obvious to those who should know better, but in the main still loves the game.

The Sea Eagle likes a drink, but knows when it is time to go home – and in that respect believes there is benefits in following the rule that nothing good happens after midnight;

And most importantly, the Sea Eagle has never played in the NRL and thus is immune to the inevitable brain explosions which plague former players.

  AFL is Celebrating the Soft

Look, in the current era of me too!, one has to be careful about going too hard when the females start interfering in men’s affairs, in particular men’s sport.

Nevertheless, this one is too much too bear, noting as we do that it is an opinion piece, and therefore not based on any form of objective evidence or investigation:

My son is excited for Auskick. So he's taking ballet first Jamila Rizvi Columnist SMH: July 24, 2019 — 12.00am

  My son turned four last month…

Whether via biology or brainwashing, AFL is in my son’s blood. He’s going to have a crack at the game, at least once, and I suspect he’ll enjoy it. However, I don’t want him to feel like some activities are more worthy of admiration than others. 

Nor do I want his parents’ expectations or society’s gender norms dictating what will make him happy and fulfilled…...d to shortlist….

Footy, like most traditionally male-dominated sports, is making big strides when it comes to gender inclusivity. …..

Yet, when a little boy wants to be a hairdresser, an early childhood teacher, an aged care worker, or a stay-at-home-dad, his dreams aren’t generally celebrated in the same way………

Despite my lofty intentions, I admit that I was nervous about ballet. …..

While I knew Rafi would relish the opportunity to dance, I wasn’t sure how he’d react to being the only boy in class. Foreseeing potential disaster, I assembled my buddies. Two of my girlfriends have sons the same age as Rafi and they promptly jumped on the ballet train as well. There is safety in numbers. It would be a masculine insurgence at under 6’s ballet.

Jamila Rizvi. Jamila Rizvi is a columnist and former Labor adviser.

Sea Eagle Comment: Thank god this is an article about AFL. When the Eagle was a kiddie, he felt it was cool when he was taught how to tackle low and effectively, how to sidestep, draw and pass, make a break etc. and when he was given the greatest gift you can give to any young boy- i.e. how to exploit the blind side.

He also felt it was cool when the u14’s coach would say, “boys, it does not matter how big they are, just hit em low and hard and they will drop like trees”. Or “boys, they can’ run without legs” – and to then see it actually was true when put into action.

Time have changed, and in the Sea Eagle’s view in this example on ballet being an adequate preparation for AFL Auskick, not for the better.

That said, if a young fella wants to do ballet, in the Sea Eagle’s view more power to him. A very difficult activity of which there can be no doubt.  Statistically the male to female ratio is also overwhelmingly in his favour, so that can’t be a bad thing if the young kid has aspirations on being a chick magnet. What is not clear is whether ballet and say rugby league, have any cross ferritization opportunities?

The Director of Controversy is looking at whether a 95kg 10-year-old Tongan could learn a thing or two by taking up ballet before embarking on a full-blown rugby league career. Also being investigated is how would say 4 or 5 said 95kg 10-year-old Tongans be received, if they chose to turn up to the local upper north shore ballet dance studio for a bit of fine tuning in the cultural stakes? 

THE SEA EAGLE

[jessicanevitt1-blog]

Women in the Media

Since social media and all forms of entertainment have become so prominent and accessible in our society, people have developed expectations for themselves based on our scripted idols. When putting women in the media at the point of focus from the sociological perspective, you begin to see media’s expectations for gender roles, body standards, wealth, class, life goals, etc. much more clearly. Young girls that watch television or keep up with celebrities often inevitably compare themselves to these women, often striving for unreachable perfection and materialistic life goals. Young girls and adolescents may see these women on television shows and think that they are permanently happy and successful due to how they are conveyed. Often, media may even demonstrate to us that it is not okay to be unhappy and that people are supposed to bounce back from any life situation in a small interval of time. Women are also sexualized in every form of media and this is demonstrated in both subtle and obvious ways.

According to WWC Reports, the status of women in the media in 2019 shows that although women are still breaking boundaries and coming up on men, there is still a significant stratification between the success and publicity of men and women, men still dominating every part of entertainment, news and digital media. CEOs of companies that create and control things like entertainment and news are dominantly men that often put other men in charge of smaller sectors of the company. For example, “Over 12 years, through 2018, men accounted for 93.4 percent, or, 654, of the 704 individual directors of the highest-grossing films. Women accounted for 6.6 percent, or, 46 of those 704, according to the University of Southern California’s Annenberg Inclusion Initiative,” (WMC, 2019). The issue is not that women are not desperately trying to make it to the top of these industries, but that surpassing these high standards that are already nearly entirely controlled by men is an incredibly difficult task. Women are naturally rejected in these situations of obtaining success because they are the underdogs of the industry and many refuse to take chances on them due to these current statistics. It’s seemingly a never-ending circle of anticipatory doubt; the doubts of these men in trusting women with their field of work, and the women doubting themselves from these very statistics.

The sexualization of women in the media are brought up in ways both subtle and completely obvious. Women are allowed to do everything a man can do in today’s society, which is an incredible leap from what the standards were 100 years ago. With this being said, women are in politics and are even running for office to be the next president of the United States. These women are powerful and intelligent, the same as the men running for the same job, however they are sexualized frequently in the media, distracting viewers from what really matters. During public debates, news channels and even their own male opponents have made comments on the looks, intelligence, sexuality and body types of women. A quote from President Trump on April 16, 2015, was “If Hillary Clinton can’t satisfy her husband, what makes her think she can satisfy America?” (The Week, 2018). On September 6, 2016, “Does she look presidential, fellas? Give me a break,” (The Week, 2018). Our very own president attacked his opponent on things that were entirely irrelevant to the race or her political downfalls because she was a woman. He attacked her on her looks and her personal affairs and still surpassed her in competition. The idolization of someone that can say such distasteful comments about his opponent is disturbing, though the majority of America has let it slide because the comments were about a woman.

In social media, many companies pay women to post on their personal accounts in order to advertise a product. These women are often supermodels. According to Buzzfeed, supermodels typically weigh between 90 and 120 LBS and are 5”8 to 5”11 IN (Buzzfeed, 2019). According to a BMI calculator, even the lowest height requirement together with the highest weight of these standards equals an underweight adult woman (NIH, 2019). Companies are subconsciously promoting unhealthy lifestyles for women; even those that don’t make clothes. This issue is something that is being constantly worked on, through the help of many companies that now promote healthy lifestyles and weight in women, but the media still puts unhealthy standards at the most frequent point of access, websites even as broad as Google Images listing skinny models first when looking up outfit types or ideas.

This issue is something that can be found everywhere, and it is something that should constantly be addressed. I pray that statistics between men and women will even out as time goes on.

[recentnews18-blog]

New Post has been published on https://shovelnews.com/its-2018-do-you-know-where-tvs-funniest-ladies-are/

It's 2018. Do You Know Where TV's Funniest Ladies Are?

Part I. The Set-Up

Michelle Wolf’s cancellation goes to show if you’re a talk show host with great jokes and perfect sketches, it’s best if you’re not a woman. —Bess Kalb

I’ve spent the entirety of this summer simultaneously energized and exhausted by the first question that occurred to me when I read about the seven titles in Comedy Central’s 2018-2019 development lineup: Where. The hell. Are the women?

Of the five pilots ordered, three are about dudes (Robbie, Kevin vs. Josh, Verified with David Spade), while two promise to root their comedy in a female experience (Mall Town USA, Awkwafina). 3:2 might sound like a decent ratio in the notoriously sexist comedy scene, but that number is misleading. Comedy Central also picked up two new series (Alternatino with Arturo Castro, This Week at the Comedy Cellar), neither of which stars or is created by funny women, and of the two lady-starring shows on the development slate, only one—Awkwafina—was actually created by a woman. The other one, the animated comedy about a teen girl whose second home is the mall (in this economy?!), was created by a dude. A dude with great comedy bona fides! But a dude.

The fact that the sole lady-centered comedy on the list belongs to Awkwafina—breakout star of Ocean’s 8 and Crazy Rich Asians and all-around swag queen—is great. Step aside, all you white women who’ve taken up the token funny-lady slot of yore: Let Awkwafina through! Even with all those caveats, though, the gender split in the network’s 2018-2019 order comes out to six dude shows to one lady show—a ratio that doesn’t even manage to hit Geena Davis’ low bar of 17%. (If you want to be picky about it, you could break it out to 5:1:1, as This Week at the Comedy Cellar isn’t going to be all men. But that would be to aggressively miss the point.)

“God,” Madeline Whitby, co-creator of AwesomenessTV’s all-female sketch show, Betch, says upon hearing these numbers. “Comedy really has been a boys club! And although we always talk about how it’s such an amazing time to be a woman in comedy, because people are listening—” (“Women are ON TOP right now,” her best friend, fellow Betch mastermind, and co-interviewee, Monica Sherer, breaks in) “—the reality is, it is still a boys club. It is still really fucking hard. We do have to be loud and unapologetic. Because although it appears like women are on top, there’s still such a long way to go, and that’s proof. WOW.”

“I’m actually really surprised to hear that they’re coming out with such a male-dominated slate,” Carrie Franklin, head of production at AwesomenessTV’s digital sibling, Awestruck, says when I tell her. “But at the same time, I don’t know who Comedy Central’s audience is anymore. I watched South Park and Amy Schumer, then I watched Another Period and Broad City, but I kind of only dip back in when it’s a show that I respond to. So I don’t know who their demo is—it must be mostly male, to come up with a slate like that? But it seems like the most successful shows, the ones that [have] really landed, at least over the past couple of years, have been female-driven ones, or the not white-guys ones.”

Character actor and writer Kate Flannery (of The Office, of course, but also recently of AwesomenessTV’s All Night) is not nearly so surprised. “I feel like it’s still one for you, for the women,” she sighs, “and one, two, three, four, FIFTEEN for you, fella! There’s still inequity, for sure. I think there’s a few women that get carte blanche, but the imbalance is still great.”

Flannery’s joke statistic is, if anything, generous. Because as much as it might feel like “Where the hell are the funny women?” is the creakiest possible question to be asking in 2018, the numbers show that as far as old-school television networks are concerned, the answer is hardly anywhere. Nowhere the people in charge of programming have the eggs to test their sponsors’ jangly nerves by reading the cultural room and opening the stage to more than one or two women at a time, at least.

Here’s the thing: I do not want to write about this. I don’t want to write about it. I don’t want to talk about it. I don’t want to think about it. Nor did any of the women I spoke with for this piece. What I want, what we all want, is to see a demographically proportionate share of funny women, in all their weird and specific variety, everywhere that comedy airs. It’s 2018. Women make up more than half the human population. Lucille Ball invented sitcom syndication; Jane Austen invented the romantic comedy. It ought to be a truth well and goddamn universally acknowledged by now that women are not just funny, but good for business.

“Even at the most trivial point,” Betch actor and writer Jessica Marie Garcia says, taking the point about gender inclusivity and digging in even deeper to more precisely reflect her Latinx experience, “[women], people of color—we buy things! We watch movies! If you want to make money, you understand that 1 in 4 Latinos buy a movie ticket in America. How are we not representing them and telling their stories?”

“The hurdle [still] is to get female experience equally valued with male experience,” Franklin says, touching on the same idea, especially as it pertains to her production company’s focus on the comedy of motherhood and parenting. “Because the audience has already proven that they’re there. That’s the endgame. It’s for me or for one of our talent to create a story around their [female] experience, and have that not have to change in order for a male executive to understand it.”

The Betch ladies, too, are fully aware of the hunger in the market they’re serving. “We didn’t realize that the Millennial and Gen-Z demos were underserved in the comedy space in general,” Sherer says, reflecting on the outsized response their web series has gotten on social media. “We weren’t thinking about it [when we started], we just wanted to make something fun, and with sketch we have the opportunity to go to the nth degree with the joke, to hit the nail on the head, then hit the nail on the head 47 more times. So we’re able to make [social] commentary through a comedic lens, we’re able to be honest about what it’s like to be a young woman—not just in entertainment, but in general—but we’re also able to promote being silly and stupid and ugly and crazy, and so many of our comments are like, US LOLLLLL. It’s been great to see the reaction, that we’re able to make something relatable that people understand through a comedic lens, but we do feel like [the demo] is currently underserved.”

Franklin and the Betch team may be aware of the television audience’s hunger for comedy through a female-lens, but old-fashioned TV has yet to get the memo. Because as embarrassing as that 6:1 ratio is for Comedy Central, the home for televised comedy, the numbers don’t really get better when you pull the analytical lens further out.

Which, I’m exhausted to say, I did.

Source: https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/08/its-2018-do-you-know-where-tvs-funniest-ladies-are.html