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. 
Black Women, Sexual Assault, and the Art of Resistance



This is an amazing article and the trailer for this documentary moved me deeply.  I won't say that I'm looking forward to seeing the documentary in its entirety, but I do plan to watch it.
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. 
It's not okay for you to dress as a member of the NWA.  It's also not okay for you to spell out what your costume is when someone asks what you're dressed as, especially since I KNOW you wouldn't have done it if there had been African American people in your immediate vicinity.  The DJ called you out on it, which was cool, but for the love of all that is good and holy, WTF were you thinking?  

That is all.

PS - According to the picture linked in the Wiki article above, you weren't even accurate to their image, which makes me think you just dressed "tough" as a gag and picked NWA as what you were dressed as to be as offensive as possible. 
[Error: unknown template qotd]I would erase the intrinsic idea that most human beings have that anyone "Other" is someone to be feared.  I know the place where it comes from is one that helped our ancestors to survive (because it told us that the thing that went "bump" in the night might be a bear coming to eat us or that a stranger might be a drain on resources already stretched thin by subsistence living), but I'd truly rather that our species never have made it to this point, instead of us being sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic and generally horrible to anyone who doesn't fit within our specific definition of "normal" (which is something that literally varies from person to person and no one really has set values for anyway).

Cut for length and mentions of harm. )

Bottom line:  I would erase all of the excuses and justifications that people use to rationalize hurting those who are different from them.   
Is what Michell Bachman actually says in the first fifteen seconds of this video.  Normally, I leave stuff like this on Facebook, but this one I want shared as far as I can share it.  She's an empty-headed, mega-mega-homophobic, racist (see video under the cut), disgusting excuse for a human being (who's married to same).  It's like the entire GOP is in a race to see which of them can be the worstRon Paul's a white supremacistRick Perry is just scary.  Mitt Romney's looking like the least evil and even he can't keep his temper under fire.  Note:  All of these links were from my personal wall on Facebook in the last TWO WEEKS. Read more... )

Mostly because it reminds me of the one Broadway show I went to, "Ragtime," with a lot of old people from the ninth circle of hell, uh, the area where my mom lives, who had NO idea what the play was actually about when they booked their tickets and were dead silent and/or asleep through most of it.  The discomfort on the bus ride home to Ohio was palpable.  I enjoyed it thoroughly.  I'm a bad, bad person.  Though their discomfort was more racially motivated than anti-BGLTQP, I found myself feeling happy that they'd been accidentally forced out of their narrow little box and even a tiny bit hopeful that perhaps something had made them think, even if it was just for the evening, before going back to that dour little corner of the red state in which I live. 

I don't normally watch the Colbert Report, but this was GOLD!

Wyatt Cenac finds an historic black town in Mississippi where birds are revered more than people.



This story will make you rage and throw things.  Seriously.
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.  

As usual, Larry Wilmore nails this. 
Yeah, yeah, I know, it's kind of funny that such a rabid atheist is saying the first part, but here's the thing:

"Muslim Terrorist" on Air Malta Plane Turns Out To Be Carribean Christian

When you say that one group is somehow scarier than another just because of the god they pray to (or what they look like or how they act), mistakes like this will happen, especially if you have the racist viewpoint that anyone who looks a certain way belongs to that faith. 

Cut for length and futher discussion. )

This isn't rocket science.  It's shit that all of us have been told at one point or another and yet we keep spreading that same fear of anyone who isn't heteronormative, white and Christian.  

People suck. 
Good movie.  (Mostly) lived up to the hype. 

A few notes (positive and negative):

HEAVY spoilers and a discussion of racism within. )
...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, :).
So I'm over at [livejournal.com profile] ontd_political, reading this post with live election results, and my brain breaks.

It's broken forever, poppets.  When a proposition in MO TO BAN  FUCKING PUPPY MILLS can't pass, my faith in the humanity of my fellow man in this country has taken a sharp dive straight into the Grand Canyon. 

Not to mention that my Governor, Ted Strickland, lost.  Meaning the my vote, DIDN'T FUCKING COUNT.  And don't give me some shit about how every vote counts.  If he lost by one vote or one million, he still fucking lost, making my state even more fucked up than it was before.

The only thing that gives me any shred of hope is that politicians fucking suck at doing anything. Oh, wait - that's DEMOCRATS.

Republicans are fucking aces at getting shit done.  Too bad it's mostly racist, homophobic, pro-rich, anti-environment pro-corporate shit.

Oh, and if you voted Republican and you make less than $250,000 a year?  Congratulations, you've voted against your own self-interest and in favor of the party that wants to turn back the clock to the 1950's (except, y'know, the part where the rich paid 90% taxes).

Fuck you, U.S.  Fuck you and the fail!boat you've decided to sail on.

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 01:22 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios