A one-person debate

Two reasons why I like this video:

1) It's funny

2) It's true

Two reasons why I don't like this video:

1) Where's the companion piece about equally stupid shit guys say?

2) Yet another thing created by guys that sets girls up to hate each other in order to look better to dudes -- "I'm a girl, I've never said most of those things because I'm not a vapid bitch like most girls"

My least favorite comments from today's NYT article about US sexual assault survey

Here's the article if you haven't seen it already. Now... onto making fun of people's dumb opinions! (Underlined emphasis is mine.) Oh, and this is just from the first page of comments...

Colin:
"What is a crime unlike any other crime, and worst than any other crime, is a false accusation of rape and the subsequent wrongful conviction of an innocent man."

Really? The WORST crime of all?

-------------------------------------------

Mos:
"It is terrifying how blindly PC America is when it comes to rape and sexual assault. The idea that 20% of women have been raped or have suffered through an attempted rape is ludicrous simply based on numbers.

Just flip that around and say that 20% of the male population are rapists, and yet somehow manage to steer free of any other crime, and presumably do not rape multiple women, and it doesn't even pass the most basic logical questions."

Bro, don't talk about logic and all that shit when you can't do math. Also, most rapists DO rape mulitple women. So again, don't base your argument on what you incorrectly "presume" and then talk like you have the logical upper hand.

------------------------------------------- 

Katherine said:
"I'd wager that there are legions of women who have experienced the grey-area violation that I think of as relentless pursuit. It goes approximately like this:

[extended conversation between a woman and a man, where the woman refuses the man's advances multiple times before finally saying "okay, if I do this one time will you leave me alone?"]

This is not consensual, but some would argue that it's not strictly rape either. It's more like a dog chasing a deer until the deer is so exhausted that it can't run anymore. It's a crappy substitute for courting, but the fine art of gentlemanly conduct isn't well known these days.

It would be helpful it teenage boys were taught that no-means-no-so-quit-asking. Instead they are taught not to take no for an answer. And girls are taught to be accomodating, helpful, and not cause a scene, but maybe they need to learn some self-defense moves that say no in a more physical way if words are insufficient."

MH responded:
"Women who are elusive are more attractive/valued to men. Men who are persistent are more likely to succeed and win over the valued female. This is of course natural selection at its best.

A man trying to win over a woman, either by asking once or 10 times is not a crime, it is life."

What a great life for men, and a shitty life for women! Does that not bother you at all? Do you even pretend to yourself that you're a decent person if you're okay with that?

MT also responded:
"I'm sorry, but in your example, any sexual activity that results from these exchanges is, indeed, consensual. Your own wording makes this plain as day: "if I say okay".

Here's the point: If you in fact say "okay", or imply it through your actions, then you have indeed consented! You cannot later claim that you did not consent. You were not under duress. You were not duped. Regret after the fact, or claiming that you were nagged, does not retroactively negate your consent.

From an individual perspective, no one likes or wants to be nagged, whether a male or a female attempts it. If you are already being nagged (for sex, money, favors, or anything else), the best response is to walk away."

Duress... I do not think that word means what you think it means. And walking away... have you ever tried to do that to someone who is harassing you or physically intimidating you? Try it sometime, and see how it goes.

-------------------------------------------

Paul B.:
"I seriously doubt this number. Nothing to stop women from exagerrating in a survey, or being vindicative, And what do they call rape, a little pressure n the bedroom? Lets count the men who are assaulted verbally by women in their life time, would be 90%, And many men are physically assaulted by women, but dont even count it"

No emphasis needed here -- your entire comment reeks of horrible. People like you are the absolute worst; at least you appear to be forthcoming enough about your hatred of women that none of us are likely to be around you long enough to experience the adverse effects of your proximity.

Sometimes raves are creepy

First things first -- the word "rave." I don't like it. Using it today makes people sound like they're equating the massives today with the underground shit from back in the day. And I am not even coming at this from the "it was so much better back then!" angle per se, because I wasn't around back then. I just think that the kind of event a "rave" referred to is not the same as what we're doing today in the EDM scene. I use the word "rave" sometimes because it's a lot less clunky than, say, "DJ show" or "Electronic music event" or "EDM massive" or whatever other overly-descriptive substitutes have been offered. So there's that. "Rave" it is. (Sometimes.)

When I first started going to these things, whatever they were, I went with Casper. We were kind of the only people who liked this stuff, and we liked doing it together. It wasn't until much later that I started going with other (female) friends and couldn't help but notice a slight difference in the way that my presence was received when I went without Casper. It was different, and it was a little creepy.

At first, for awhile, as someone who hadn't ever done the whole ecstasy thing and really couldn't put myself in the shoes of someone who was on it, I just accepted all of the touchy-feelyness as "what just happens." It's PLUR, man! It's love! It's love through music! We're connected through beats and synths!

But then I realized more and more that it wasn't like guys were walking up to other guys and just touching them. No, guys were only walking (dancing?) up to girls and touching them.

I can't speak for anyone else, but as a girl, this is what makes it hard to have hobbies. Seriously. My enjoyment of music has to stop at me listening to it at home, because when I go out and my boyfriend isn't around, I have to accept being arbitrarily fondled. And that's something I don't really want to accept.

Some people will say, "Hello, do you see what girls WEAR at raves?" I direct those people to all of my prior photos of what I've worn to raves. I've gotten groped wearing jeans, a tank top, and chucks. So have a lot of other people. Women who wear burkas get groped. I got groped when I was thirteen years old, wearing braces, a t-shirt, and jean shorts, the first time I ever went to a "discotech" in Italy, while I was on a school trip, with my teacher chaperones standing not but 10 feet away. So no, I don't accept any variant of the "she was inviting it" as a good argument, reason, or explanation why this shit happens.

Groping happens. It blows. So why am I talking about raves again? Well, I guess it has to do with what I mentioned above -- the PLUR effect. The idea that if you still want your personal space, you're missing out on the "experience" of lovingly touching and being touched by other people. Sorry, it's not for me. Sometimes I just want to listen to music because I like the music, not because I want to buy into whatever bizarre counter-culture springs up around it.

Public service announcement

Do NOT get a kidney infection.

Okay?

Just don't. They're horrible, painful, life-sucking experiences. There is no comfortable way to exist. You can't sit, you can't lay, you can't stand, you can't walk, you can't pee, and you can't curl up into a ball and cry.

You'll get a fever so high you'll believe you're in Greenland (because you're that delusional and shivering that much.)

So just don't do it. Drink plenty of water and kick your urinary tract to the curb if it starts acting a fool.

You'll thank me for this message!

Smartphones and dumbusers

One of the more confounding aspects of my geekery (to myself) was the disconnect between technology I embraced and technology I scoffed at, with no obvious set of rules or standards that distinguished the two categories.

Despite teaching myself HTML around 11 years old (Web 1.0 HTML, but still, I had my own website that I have to think, for the era, was pretty nice -- not a disgusting Geocities mess of animated backgrounds, flashing, text, and Comic Sans; yes, I've always been a little elitist!) and building my own PCs and following tech news closely and engaging in any manner of other proto-geek pursuits, I was never much of a gadget person. Paying for a cell phone -- not just paying more  for a phone, but paying for one at all, when a perfectly adequate one could be had for free -- seemed silly. I didn't like answering the cell phone I had, and when texting eventually came about, I found it absolutely exasperating. (It's still not my preferred form of communication, but I understand the convenience.)

Behold: my first cell phone.

At some point, I transitioned into a "phone person." It's still not clear to me at what point in my head I decided I'd had enough with my dumbphones, but I went and bought myself the first generation Moto Droid on eBay a year or so after it came out. It was all downhill from there.

Progress.

I still often finding myself staring at my (newer model) phone as it sits in my hand, because I've already done all of the routine checking on it I tend to do every couple of hours, and I ask it (silently): now what am I supposed to do with you? Aren't you supposed to be great? Aren't you supposed to entertain me for HOURS? Of course, I'm supposed to be the one to put the apps on it that entertain me for hours. I'm supposed to be the one that wants to stream video. And yet. I can go on for ages about how useful this thing is. I can get technical about the ways I've modified it and overclocked it for performance and underclocked it for battery life. But. I still get this nagging sensation that I'm not really using it.

Periodically I come across apps that are so handy and useful that I don't know how it's possible I never knew about them before. I feel, both as a person who likes convenience and as a person who is now supposed to be a (pretty knowledgeable) smartphone user, I should have known about this! Why didn't I? Is it still the remnants of me, the person who didn't want to deal with having a cell phone, much less one that was more complicated than something I could use to call my parents when I needed them to pick me up? Or is it just the natural process of moving through a world that is, technologically-speaking, advancing more rapidly than the average person can follow?

Part of what's interesting, as an observer, is the way that high-tech has gone mainstream. For so long, tech-culture was this esoteric thing that interested people followed, but didn't necessarily participate in because it was accepted that to really be a savvy, top-of-the-game user you needed to have money (to keep up with the high turnover rate) and/or connections. Apple can be credited with always being at the forefront of taking the most current technology and making it accessible. They did it with the Lisa and the Macintosh (even though they didn't invent the GUI), and they did it with the iPod (even though they didn't invent mp3s or music players), and they did it with the iPhone (even though they didn't invent ... ok, this is a can of worms I don't want to open.) The smartphone "revolution" has been particularly fascinating because, for all practical purposes, it means that people carry their computers with them wherever they go. This is a conversation we've all had before, but for me, what it boils down to is that now that technology is pop-culture, not being current goes beyond aspiring techies simply not having the means (or the time) to keep up; now it seems that to evolve at the rate of our whole culture, you need to be gadget-friendly. You don't need to have the top-of-the-line, but being connected in our system does require buying into the smartphone effect.

MOAR GIFs

If I can be bothered to update this thing regularly at all, it will be to participate in a new special feature entitled "GIFs from shit I liked last week"

 

I even made these myself! They're a little slow, but I'm learning.

-_-

To those of you with slow internet connections: I'M SORRY

There has been a whole lot of text in between this post and the bottom of the page. I like colors and things, so here are some GIFs.

 

How much of the 60's do we want back in our lives?

This post was inspired by a comment I left on a thread over at Pajiba. I was so pleased with myself I decided to re-post a more filled-out version over here, apropos of this being my blog and a more appropriate forum for going out on tangents.

With regards to Pan Am and The Playboy Club, I'm fairly certain that the initial feeling of many people, after learning that these shows were to premier this fall, was that they were trying to capitalize on the Mad Men phenomenon. People without extended cable may have never seen Mad Men, but they've surely heard of it winning tons of Emmys and influencing fashion by re-introducing several flourishes reminiscent of the 1960's. My immediate concern was that these shows would capture all of the visual flair of Mad Men without any of the depth or critique of the era. The review of the two shows, appropriately written as one comparative piece, more or less confirms my suspicions but allows Pan Am the distinction of being the better show.

Without having watched the pilots, what strikes me about the descriptions of both shows is how much they give away about their protagonists in the first episode. One thing that I love about Mad Men is how each episode helps to review a new detail about the character, but it's a very small detail. You have to look at the show cumulatively to even come close to understanding him or her. These shows have taken the much more flashy approach of "she's married, but they're both gay!" and "she's a stewardess, but she's actually a spy!" which, though immediately interesting, is ultimately superficial and causes writers to work backwards and fill in details behind the already big reveal.

Ultimately, the popularity of either The Playboy Club or Pan Am could be an interesting case study in what works on American network television. Though anyone who actually brought their brain with them to a remedial high school course analyzing media and/or literature could see that Mad Men is a better show, it wouldn't be in the least surprising if the instant-gratification aspect of the new network shows garners them more immediate success.

That success could, as a feminist and as someone interested in social commentaries, be frustrating or even devastating. It is too early to tell if either The Playboy Club or Pan Am is going to sacrifice the dignity of its female characters and racial/ethnic minority characters by glamorizing an era which was, as we generally understand now, pretty unapologetically shitty to those classes of people. What Mad Men does right is that it allows us the visual pleasure of looking back in time, but it certainly doesn't valorize the social and cultural mores of the time. It's pretty frank in its portrayal of how women and people of color were openly treated as second-class citizens (compared to today, in which explicit racism and sometimes sexism are unacceptable, but insidious forms of both still shape our culture.) I'm unsure that the network shows will be able to be as constructively critical. That they are network is damning enough, as much of network television tends to be superficial and banking on cheap thrills. The fact that both shows are ostensibly set in particularly oppressive fields for women at the time doesn't help matters, even if marketing wants us to believe that the female protagonists are "empowered" despite their subjugated positions in the workforce. Protip: sexualizing your character is not the same as making her "sexual." The former objectifies her; the latter gives her personal agency and generally respects her as a human being. There is time yet to see if these shows can get it right, but in the meantime I won't be holding my breath.

Cement blocks for feet

I think my body and mind might be at war with each other, and within themselves. I've been getting in better shape, slowly, but every day is still a struggle to get in the gym and to stay in the gym for long enough to get a decent workout.

This is my body: Flabby, out of shape, too big for most of my pants. That is, in a nutshell, both my motivation to work out and a source of my difficulty in working out. I just can't do what I used to.

This is my mind: I know that fitness is important. I know that the health benefits of exercise are innumerable. But I hate working out. If I could afford to go back to dance class, I would. Even though I would suck, because (technical) dance isn't just something you can drop and pick back up again, and even though it would be endlessly frustrating to be so crappy at something I used to be pretty decent at, I'd enjoy it. I wouldn't have a problem working at it. But for now, I've got this whole self-demotivation complex and even thinking about going to the gym is endlessly torturous.

Also? I have this recurring dream. It's that I'm playing soccer, but I'm slower than everyone else. I get the ball, everything seems great, and then all the sudden the ball is too fast for me and I can't keep up. The defense takes it away from me, every time, and I let down my team again. Is this trying to tell me something? I mean, I'm no professional dream analyist, but the most literal interpretation I can think of is that my body is incapable of doing what I want.

Doublethink

There is a pretty consistent rhetoric that is inexorably present in mass media coverage of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment cases, which is that the "incident" itself is but a moment in time, therefore short-lived and easily brushed aside; meanwhile, the accusation itself of committing such an atrocity follows the unfortunate soul throughout the rest of his/her life, branding them for all of society to scorn and dismiss them at will.

This argument makes no sense.

In order for the latter to be true, that is, that being accused of such a crime carries with it the implication that the person may have done something unforgivable, the former must not be true. In other words, if being raped, or sexually assaulted, or sexually harassed is not a big deal, then being accused of rape, or sexual assault, or sexual harassment should also be not a big deal, because the crime itself is not a big deal.

This is rape culture.

This is the type of cognitive dissonance that we absorb and dispense when we treat victims of these crimes as if they are the true criminals for having the gall to accuse someone of harming them.