I was going to cut this, but couldn't decide where, so scroll if you don't want a rant with mentions of misogyny, homophobia, and racism.

You'll notice that I used AND instead of VERSUS in my subject line because unlike what seems like most of the rest of the Sherlock Holmes-loving world, I like them both.

Shocking, I know.  Blasphemy!  I, a woman of thirty-six years and reasonable intelligence, can actually like two shows about the same character who have completely different approaches AT THE SAME TIME!

My sarcasm, it is showing.  Mostly because I'm more than a little irritated that someone actually blocked me on Facebook over this shit (a while ago, actually, this rant has been building for that time - I figured I should get it out before it boiled over).  For that, I think they are an asshat.  They were also an LJ friend and guess what?  I blocked them from this journal.  Because I can be online petty too.

For the record, it took me a few episodes to get into the groove of "Elementary."  I wasn't sure about having Joan instead of John (for probably a lot of the same misogynistic reasons as those who absolutely refuse to watch it, even if I didn't want to admit it) and was even less sure about Jonny Lee Miller's ability to play Sherlock.  Guess what?  He pulls it off.  He is not Benedict Cumberbatch, but he's not TRYING to be.  Miller is is own version of the character.

I started to compare them, but there is no comparison - they might as well be playing completely different roles.  Well, what do you know?  They ARE playing two different roles, neither one doing a "better" job at it than the other.  They each capture Sherlock Holmes in the modern world, they simply approach it very differently.  And I like them both.

Did you hear that?  I.  Like.  Them.  BOTH!

It bears repeating, because I don't feel like I should be forced to choose here.  There is no "side," no "right" or "wrong."  They're both good in their own way.  They each have strengths and weaknesses, neither of which do I wish to discuss at length, mostly because I've seen "Elementary" more recently and so right now I like it more.  When "Sherlock" comes back, I'll probably like it more for while I have it.  It's a matter of changing gears, not fucking RELIGIONS.

Also for the record, I don't give a flying fuck about CBS "not being true to the character" by moving him to New York and giving him an amazing woman partner.  Nor do I give a flying fuck about those who say that CBS "just wanted to cash in on the popularity of BBC's "Sherlock."  Um, yeah - that's what TV networks do.  And sorry boys and girls (I would say men and woman, but the people in this "debate" have shown themselves to be little more than silly children), but neither concept is anymore "true" to Conan Doyle's work than Robert Downey Jr.'s version is.

Fact: John and Sherlock may be your slash OTP, but in the original, Victorian-era canon, they were friends and Watson was married.  To a woman. 

Fact: in the BBC's "Sherlock," both John AND Sherlock have shown attraction to women.  That's not to say that they can't also love each other romantically (hello, bisexual poly woman here), but they are not shown as sexual towards each other.  If anything, Sherlock is shown as being more asexual, with the exception of Irene Adler.  There have been a lot of jokes about John and Watson getting or being together in "Sherlock" canon, but as others have pointed out far more eloquently than I, "bromances" and "winks to the camera" do not equal gay inclusion. 

So sorry slashers, it's not homophobia to turn Watson into a woman for a new TV show.  For "Sherlock" fan fiction, I can see the argument because writers are changing the canon gender of a character because they don't like the idea of two cis-men together. 

For an entirely new show, no, though I do see where you're arguing from.  Your argument is flawed, but I see it.

Fact: the backlash of misogyny and racism against Lucy Liu since "Elementary" came out has been disgusting in the extreme, especially since she is made of total awesome in the role.  Martin Freeman can kiss her beautiful ass, as well.  Don't fucking tell me he was joking.  It was unfunny, m'kay?

To be honest, all of this bullshit (along with the mods of horror at the most popular "Sherlock" LJ site) have kind of turned me off "Sherlock."  I'm not saying I won't watch it (though it's now rather in the category of "liking a problematic thing"), but I'm avoiding the fandom even more ardently since I got blocked on Facebook for telling someone I felt they were missing out* to summarily dismiss "Elementary," because they were "completely opposed to Watson being a woman."

Why?  There is no answer to that question that I've seen so far that isn't rooted in misogyny.  Somewhere.  Yes, Watson was canonically male.  But canonically, both Holmes and Watson lived over 100 years ago, so canon is pretty much out the window the moment writers take a modern take on it.

Vaginas are icky, I guess.  And heaven forbid a vagina come anywhere near beloved characters that have been redone and remade so many times I think that only "The Three Musketeers" have them beat for variety of productions.

Finally, to be perfectly clear, I'm not saying that anyone has to watch or like either show.  However, I am saying that it's possible to enjoy both without it being some epic battle over who is more awesome.  And I also think it's wrong to judge something without having watched a single fucking episode.  Now, there are those who say that one can judge something by its previews ("Battleship," anyone?), but when most of the negative press has more to do with casting decisions than actual acting critiques, I start to smell a misogynistic, racist rat.

*The person argued that I wasn't respecting their judgment by saying they were missing out.  They're right.  I wasn't.  And I'm not apologizing for it, especially since they blocked me on Facebook over it because they didn't like my telling them (fairly nicely, I thought) that they were full of shit. 
So about 18 months ago, I defended someone who was using a "Grammar Nazi" icon.  It was a shitty thing to do, I was rightly called out for it and since then I've become more aware of the word and have started calling people out when I see them using it to mean anything other than "people who support or supported Hitler". 

So now, 18 months later, someone's passing around a spelling meme on Facebook and captioned it, "For all you Grammar Nazis Out There".  I said something to the originator of the meme.  Was argued with.  Twice.  And so posted the following as my status:

Things that are Nazis: People who support or supported Hitler and his ideology.
Things that are not Nazis: Everyone else.
Please do not confuse one with the other. Thank you.
The following conversation ensued:

Cut for length and epic stupidity. )ETA: Random Commenter #2 )Cut for length and epic stupidity. )


ETA 2: The Jackass' response and more conversation. )
ETA 3: Yet another response from the jackass and my response. )ETA 4: Deep. Hurting. Yep, he responded again and derailed the conversation so far off the original point that I have no clue how to get it back on track. I tried, though. )
ETA 5: Jackass: I understand that you're offended by me using the term "IT Nazi". Well, I am not going to change it. )



*************************************************

Here's the thing, 18 months ago, I was that jackass.

Cut for length.  )
Warning: Possible triggers for slurs in both the comments and the post.  Also, general asshattery. 
This is the only trigger warning you're getting, because I absolutely REFUSE to cut this.  Scroll fast if you need to.  

Today is the two-year anniversary of his murder and I had no plans to blog about it beyond re-posting this tribute on Facebook.

All of that changed when I went to Hometown Buffet today and saw what shall furthermore be referred to as an "Abortion Bus."  It could have been a converted camper (it had one of those 'over-the-cab' camper-like attachments, but it was painted blood red and so covered in anti-abortion propaganda and PICTURES OF DEAD FETUSES that it was hard to tell for sure).

I went in and complained to the manager of the restaurant, that since it was on private property they shouldn't allow it there.  The manager tried to say it was a "First Amendment" thing and that he didn't want to get involved.  I only wish I hadn't already paid for our food, but we made the decision there and then - we'll never eat there if we see that bus in their parking lot.  I also wrote to Old Country Buffet, telling them exactly how I feel about their managers dismissal of allowing such horrific images to be displayed RIGHT IN FRONT OF A RESTAURANT where people are trying to eat.  I'm also seriously considering NEVER stepping foot in there again, given that their attitude and considering we've been eating there VERY often lately and have probably eaten there an average of once per month for the last fifteen years, that's pretty significant.

It's very, VERY lucky that I didn't know to whom the bus belonged, that I had no clue who they were in the restaurant, because I likely would have confronted them for being pro-slavery assholes.  And yes, I just said fucking SLAVERY.  Forcing a woman to have a baby she doesn't want sounds a lot like turning her into a broodmare and to me, that goes beyond a basic violation of human rights and says 'slavery' to me. 

I have to say, seeing that made me more Pro-Choice than ever, made me even flippantly remark that I'd like to go out and get an abortion just for spite.  Keep in mind, I WANT to have a baby, but with asshats like this trying to FORCE me into it, it makes me less than thrilled about the prospect of ever being pregnant, especially being high-risk and older, which leads to a greater chance that I would need the services of someone like Dr. Tiller.  

If you're reading this and are anti-choice in any way, shape, or form, go fuck yourself.  You can be pro-woman, in the sense that you are in favor of helping pregnant women have more options than just abortion, but if you are in ANY WAY in favor of overturning Roe Vs Wade or restricting a woman's freedom to choose what she may do with HER BODY, stay the fuck away from me and my spaces.   

You are not welcome here. 
God Vs. $20 

When I first saw the post about this in [livejournal.com profile] antitheism, I couldn't bring myself to watch the video past the first minute, but then  [livejournal.com profile] rpeate made this comment and I had to watch it to see if I could find evidence to call bullshit on this sentence in particular:

No, if they had scribbled out the word "God", Mike would likely have said, "Their faith is secure," and not posted the video.

I figured that since I was going to have to watch it, I'd also transcribe it.  This was partly so that I could have ammunition to pick it apart and partly so that I could distance myself from what I was seeing.  Even so, there were times when I literally broke down crying while watching this. 

However, my tears were rewarded as sure enough, as I was transcribing, I found the proof that [livejournal.com profile] rpeate claim that Mike wouldn't have posted the video was complete and utter bullshit.

Towards the end, Mike says, "And don’t let it be said that I’m unreasonable.  We finally came to an agreement, but in hindsight it just looks ridiculous and childish.  I mean, they’re still selling out. They’re still taking the thirty pieces of silver."

So yeah, I'm calling bullshit over there. 

For those who are interested, here's the transcript. Never having done one before, I hope you find it legible.  )
ETA: I went back through the video and cleaned up a few parts.  It's still not word-for-word, but it's a lot closer than it was.  I also added a couple of additional sporks.

ETA 2: Mike came over to the original post in [livejournal.com profile] antitheism to play.  Here's his comment thread.

ETA 3: This got linked on unfunnybusiness on journalfen for anyone who wants to see more discussion.
Inspired by more than one comment on the post that this post links to, I'm finally going to weigh in on the whole anti-PC, thought-police, this-word-has-another-meaning-and-no-one-can-own-a-word, I-don't have-to-change-simply-because-you're-offended school of thought.

I'm going to begin by saying that I'm guilty of using pretty much every word that is at issue at one point or another, some as recently as last year, so I'm not saying that I'm not in a glass house here. 

However.

For those who are against changing their language to remove certain words from their vocabularies because another person is offended by it, I ask the following question:

Who does it hurt? 

Seriously, who does it hurt to make the effort not to use words that others have found offensive?  I know that it's an effort to do so, so I guess someone could argue that it's hurting them by virtue of the fact that changing one's vocabulary and deleting certain words is hella difficult...  Well, I have to say that it's more difficult in the offline world, but online?  It's as easy as being careful of what one types.  I realize that for some, who type as quickly as they think, that could be a challenge, but seriously?  Who does it hurt?  Why is it such a big deal to just not be an asshat when someone asks you to do so?

Cut for possible triggers and an incomplete list of incredibly offensive slurs that everyone should know not to use. Ever.  )And because I've been educating myself a bunch lately, here are a bunch of links that all say all of this a lot better than I just did.

101 Primer

[livejournal.com profile] sparkindarkness' entire journal.

Read all of that and then come back to discuss, if you wish, :).

ETA: Proof that not being an asshat is an ongoing battle: Weak is ableist.  Thank you to [livejournal.com profile] 51stcenturyfox  for letting me know, :).

ETA 2: My comment thread on the post that started all of this is here

ETA 3: Drama communities are probably not the best place to start, lol, but if it were not for them I never would have found most of this stuff out, which is why I mentioned them.  The best place to start is with the 101 Primer and go from there, :).

This post has now been edited because my essential message was being lost and I was doing more harm than good by defending my position on one phrase.  Most of the comments regarding that phrase have now been screened.  I'm not a PoC, so my feelings on that phrase don't matter whatsoever and continuing to argue about it only detracts from the essential point of what I was trying to say. 

I apologize for the drama.

For the record I am US-born, white, queer though I easily pass for both female and straight, and able-bodied.  I have no personal experience with physical, racial or ethnic discrimination and I apologize for speaking for those groups as if I were personally invested in those particular slurs not being used.

The areas in which I have personal experience and/or a personal investment include: feminism/sexim, sex work, body image/food, sexual freedom, BGLTQP rights/homophobia, bullying, child abuse, the US foster care system, the US health care system, PTSD, anxiety, depression and mental health.  
I didn't think it was possible for me to respect Sarah Palin less.  I was wrong

Palin defends use of "blood libel" phrase.

“Blood libel obviously means being falsely accused of having blood on your hands and in this case,” Ms. Palin said, “that’s exactly what was going on.”

Are you fucking kidding me?  Seriously?  On SNL last Saturday, Seth Myers said that he'd be incredibly offended if he thought Mrs. Palin actually knew what it meant.  Well, now it's time to be offended. 

Stupid, anti-Semitic, douchebag, asshat, jackass, asshole, look-in-her-eyes-and-see-the-back-of-her-skull, half-Governor, thank FSM she's not Vice President so she's nowhere near The Button, nasty, hope she loses her figurative voice forever, lousy excuse for a human being.  

If I left any out, please let me know.  

Oh, and in case you're wondering, I'm not letting this one go. 

Ever.

And here's Jon Stewart to play us out...


Sarah Palin's first appearance after the Tuscon tragedy?  A gun show.

All I can think is Charlton Heston after Columbine.  

Honestly, I was trying not to post here about her again for a while.  I've linked a couple of things on Facebook, but I was really trying not to devote a whole post on LJ to her again for a little bit longer. 

You stay classy, Mrs. Palin. 

Asshat.
Sarah Palin is a moron who doesn't study history and never considers her words before speaking.  She needs to sit the fuck down, shut the fuck up and go the fuck back to Alaska where she can cause as little damage as possible.  She makes me embarrassed to be a human being and I hope this puts the final nail in her political coffin.  Oh, anyone who even thinks of telling me that I'm somehow anti-feminist because I'm telling a woman to 'sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up', fuck you too.  I'm not telling her to STFU because she's female - I'm telling her to STFU because she's a dangerously stupid tool of the GOP who never needs to be heard from again.

You know, after what Jon Stewart said on Monday, I was ready to leave Mrs. Palin alone.  Now, not so much, sigh.

In her most recent video, she decided that 'blood libel' would be an appropriate way to describe the media's vilification of her after the AZ shootings.  Jewish leaders are understandably upset, which has caused Mrs. Palin to apologize and take down the video. 

Too little, too late.

She used a term without understanding what it meant and is apologizing after the fact.  Fuck her.  Fuck her apology.  Fuck her for not knowing the history.  Fuck her for now trying to find a "less offensive alternative."

To be 100% fair, I'd never heard the term 'blood libel' before Mrs. Palin used it today.  However, regardless of whether she knew the historical implications or not, using a term with the word 'blood' in it after a tragedy like this is the definition of missing the fucking point. 

She should have apologized for putting up the fucking crosshairs, but no, she had to turn people rightly criticizing her for that into 'blood libel'.  She couldn't just say, 'Sorry, that sort of imagery was inappropriate.  I shouldn't have called them bulleyes, nor should I have kept saying, 'Don't retreat, reload'."  No, that would have been an admission of guilt and one thing no one in the GOP can ever do is admit they're wrong.  

Fuck Sarah Palin.  Fuck her and the failboat she sailed in on. 

A friend of mine who is a breastfeeding mom tagged me in this note today because "The Leaky Boob's" Facebook page was deleted for 'violation of terms of service' whatever the heck that means, :(. 

Please show your support for the rights of breastfeeding women everywhere and "like" Bring Back The Leaky Boob on Facebook.

For the record, anyone who tries to stop a woman from breastfeeding is an asshat and anyone who thinks that pictures of a woman breastfeeding are somehow 'adult' is a sick, sad individual, :(.

WTF, BBC?

Dec. 30th, 2010 09:07 pm
If you haven't heard, the BBC decided to interview a Christian who supports the execution of gays to comment on Sir Elton John's baby with his civil Partner David Furnish.

They are now defending this action, saying that it was required to 'balance' the coverage.

[livejournal.com profile] mercury_phoenix has sent a letter to the BBC in protest and [livejournal.com profile] sparkindarkness  has summed up the WTF far better than I ever could, so all I'm going to say is that having this asshat comment on a gay couple having a baby is offensive, disgusting, homophobic and generally makes me want to stop the planet so that I can get off.  

This is not a question of 'balance', BBC, this is a question of human rights, freedoms, and dignity, three topics that you obviously are as versed in as I am in Sanskrit. 

There has been a lot of fail going on in the header sections of some stories in a specific fandom.  However, while the fail seems to be more widespread in that fandom, this is a multi-fandom issue.  Not to mention that these are the contents of PM's and as such, I feel are due a certain level of anonymity, which is why I've removed all identifying names from them before posting them.  (They're backdated to make things easier on me.)

I give up.

I give up on the idea of changing people's minds on a widespread level. 

My initial idea was to change the 'warning' field to 'contains' so that there would be no value judgment placed upon any of the contents.  That was immediately shot down on another thread as 'devaluing the warnings'.  And the more I thought about it, the more that having anything consensual on the same line as non-consensual activities is a bad thing all around.  Even so, it still seems better to have a content advisory rather than a warning.

Cut for length, repetition, triggers and rambling. )



In a perfect world, people wouldn't care about a header being 'too large', they'd just put warnings and triggers on a separate line from other content and they'd ONLY "warn" for non-consensual triggers.  

I'm also going to go through and find that story that warned for 'boy kissing' and PM the author.  We'll see what happens.

So, any ideas as to how we can get fandom to be better about this?   Crap, I know I said I give up, but I really don't want to.  I'm feeling bitter, disillusioned and disgusted right now, but I think there must be some solution that I'm just not seeing that could stop people from being so utterly stupid and disrespectful towards other people.

ETA: I sent a 'heads up message to the mod that I corresponded with, letting them know that I was posting the correspondence publicly and telling them that they should be ashamed of themselves for continuing to allow people to warn for slash in their community.

This is what I just got back:

The message was:
This is [name redacted - a different mod than responded before] responding on this occasion. The bisexual mod, seeing as that appears to be so important to you.
In which I get called a raging militant and threatened with being banned for pointing out reality.  )



*********
Never been called a raging militant before.  I find I rather like it.  And if it's being a raging militant to point out complete and utter fail, I can live with that.  As for the community - if I get banned, I get banned.  Given that it would be for my behavior outside of the community, rather than anything I actually did in the community itself, I'd say that that would speak for itself.  :)  In fact, I feel that it only proves my point further.  Not to mention that I don't write for that fandom and even if I did, I'd post my stuff elsewhere. 

ETA 2: The "Happy Holidays" was the way they closed their message.  After all of that vitriol, they put that at the end.  Wasn't that sweet of them?
 

...I bring you a dose of reality via The Daily Show.   

Saying slavery was the cause of the South's secession during the Civil War isn't politically correct -- it's correct correct.



Growing up, I heard constantly that slavery wasn't the cause of the Civil War, that it was about money and strengthening the Union, but if you read the history, you discover that that argument is in fact made of bullshit.  Slaves WERE money, dumbasses and the South's right to keep and own them was about THEIR freedom and liberty to do so.  If you go on and on about the Confederates fighting for State's Rights and individual freedoms, I'm going to think you're a stupid asshat who is disregarding the fact that they weren't fighting for the rights of EVERYONE, only rich white male landowners. 

On a side note, as I've said before (though I can't find where), if you display this flag, I'm going to think that you're a racist.  You might think that you're a 'rebel' for doing so, but the fact is that displaying it can hurt people who don't know (or care to know) exactly what message you're trying to send.  The swastika used to be a sacred religious symbol, but unfortunately that meaning was perverted.  Now, when we see them displayed, we think of Nazi organizations.  Those who display the 'stars 'n bars' have the privilege to be able to say that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery (or that slavery was just a footnote). 

Bottom line: you have a First Amendment right to display this flag (or to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the secession of the South) if you want to, but I have the same right to say that it makes me think that you're a racist for doing so.

ETA: Thanks, [livejournal.com profile] pitry  - the swastika is STILL a religious symbol and is in constant use in Hinduism and can be found everywhere in India (and in Hindu-oriented places such as temples, restaurants etc outside India).
As everyone who reads this should know, I'm pansexual.  I am attracted to personalities, not physical appearance.  I can appreciate someone whom society tells me is beautiful, but their gender enters into it only as an afterthought.  In addition to this, I don't believe in monogamy.  While I'm very committed to those whom I love, I don't allow jealousy or possessiveness.  Period.  I'm not an object - I'm a human being.  And so are those whom I love and/or have sex with.

There are those who feel that my identity as a human being is immoral, that a person should only love one person of the opposite gender (or only one person, as I am discriminated against by some gay, lesbian and bisexual persons as well for not being monogamous).  People look down on me for being free with my sexuality. 

They tell me that I'm immoral, but they never adequately explain how or why.  Why is it immoral for me to love more than one person?  Hell, so long as everyone practices safe sex (in the interests of public health), why is it immoral for me to fuck every person I feel sexually attracted to?  

Who am I hurting?  So long as I am not an unsafe sex-practicing carrier of disease and make no promises that I can't or won't keep, how does my identity as a human being hurt anyone else?  I'm honest, up-front and completely open with who I am.  

Who am I hurting?  No one.  But there are those who feel that my sex life is their business and that they have a right to control me in the name of a morality to which I don't subscribe.

To me, something is moral if it causes no direct harm to anyone else.  It is moral if everyone is adult and it is consensual.  It is moral if it is honest. 

My identity is moral.  Period. 
Under the cut is an incredibly long exploration of possible reasons why our society sees certain identities as immoral, as well as the possible causes of GLBTQP identities. (WARNING: This will likely be offensive to some of you, but I do have a method to my madness. I hope. If I fail, please let me know how, because I tried really hard not to fail with this post.) There is also an examination of the differences between civilized and uncivilized human beings.  )
So when you tell me that I'm less than human because your 'morality' tells you so, I reject your morality.  I reject your primitive version of civilization.  I reject your identity as an asshat, because again, unless you are a born asshat (i.e., a psychopath), you can choose to be a decent, civilized human being instead.  

I didn't choose my sexual identity, but I did choose my identity as a decent, civilized and ultimately (despite my many, many failings) moral human being.  


ETA: I'm rather glad that I thought of something cool to post about for my 600th entry, :).
A friend linked me to Birth Or Not, which is a site where a couple is taking a vote as to whether or not they should abort their pregnancy.  It is their third pregnancy; the last two ended in miscarriage. 

My friend sent this to me so that I could rant about it and I have to say, my first instinct was, "DO NOT WANT", for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it's none of my business.  It's not.  It is 100% not my business.

However.
Pete and Alisha made it my business when they put up a website asking me to vote on whether or not they should reproduce. )

The rights of the born outweigh the rights of the unborn and my rights and feelings end where your body begins.  Just as your rights and your feelings end where my body begins.

Period.   

ETA 2/7/11: From the site - Voting has been closed. You're votes were herd. We are keeping the baby.

Hopefully, they'll teach him or her how to proofread.

Profile

teleen_fiction

April 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
910 1112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 24th, 2017 01:21 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios