Tuesday, July 29, 2008

And now for something completely different

I promise there is actually a bit of feminist thought behind this post. I just might not get to it.

I was Stumbling, again, (see this post for a brief explanation of Stumble) and was brought here.

Fiction writing is something I used to do a lot of in elementary and middle school. I was never able to finish anything, so I stopped. The problem was that I never had any real plots, so it was hard to go anywhere after a while. I like writing more for the act of putting words together (I do love me some tasty words) than for any actual story-telling capability. Of course I do wish I could write a story. Someday.

At any rate, the first paragraph of this writing advice page reads:

Speech tags can be as simple as said or as complicated as three paragraphs of hand motions. Said is best used, in my humble opinion, when the dialogue is important and you want the reader's full attention. Hand motions and facial expressions are good for emphasizing how characters respond to the dialogue or even just for exhibiting mannerisms that help establish their character. This list includes speech tags that I've found in various works and the only reason for maintaining this list is so I can occasionally browse through it when I'm searching for just the right way to describe something and I think said isn't quite the right word.


The emphasis is mine. Read it again. Okay, maybe I'm wrong, and I know that there is not really any such thing as a writing "rule," but isn't the general idea that if it's not important, don't write it?

I guess maybe if you're trying to build suspense, go for it. And of course you want your dialogue to be realistic, but I could have sworn that one of the most basic tenants of fiction writing is that if something you just wrote does not a)advance the plot, b)develop character, or c)set up something for later, then you should cut it?

This is much on my mind right now because I am reading the Wheel of Time series, by Robert Jordan.

*cringe*

I know. I'd seen them on the shelves at bookstores for years, but never bothered to find out what they were - there were so many of them, and my own first principle when planning a new purchase is that the more prolific the author (and the more often those books show up in commercial bookstores), the crappier the book would be. Plus, I'm a snob. I don't want the books I read to have huge followings. (I satisfied my snobbery during the Harry Potter phenomenon by being an avid fanfiction reader. Uber-nerdiness for the win!)

So anyway. I started reading them because Beloved adores them. He wants to own each one of them in hardcover. It is my task, while he is deployed, to locate and purchase said copies. Obviously, I could hardly buy a book and not read it.

I'm currently on book five (out of, like eleven or so), and I'm ready to tear out my hair.

Robert Jordan's writing is the epitome of excess, non-essential information. ARGH!!! Seriously, I say, "Argh," to my roommate about these books at least once a day. There are whole chapters that could be compressed to a few paragraphs, or even excised completely. Some folks, I suppose, might write this excess off as characterization. That would be fine, if there were any character development going on. Most of it is, instead, everyone being singularly stubborn and distinctly not changing.

Not to mention, that if I have to see exact replicas of motions/thoughts/phrases another time, I am going to have a fucking COW. If these repeats were over the course of separate books, fine. He wrote them slowly and I'm reading them much faster than that. But they're not. They are within chapters of each other. Every single woman in the story "smoothes her skirts" and "crosses her arms under her breasts." Without exception. All the fucking time. The girl who wore pants in the first book is forced to disguise herself by wearing a dress the next time we see her, and has been in them ever since. And she does the same shit. The nominal "main" character can't seem to avoid the thought that he "can't kill a woman" every time we are taken back to him. You would think that occasionally, when we're taken to his location, he wouldn't be thinking about this, right? But no. Every time. Even in the chapter where he'd just got done having sex.

Oh. Wait. Side note. This main character? It is prophecied, fucking prophecied that three women must "share" him. The best part? A blonde, a brunette, and a fucking redhead. I can't make this shit up. ARGH.

Back to what I was talking about. The repetition. Every. Single. Character. At some point, boggles over how men/women are utterly incomprehensible. Without any exception I can think of.

Seriously. If you are an author, and you have a sociological bone to pick, do it in your academic writing. Do not interrupt my fantasy story to try to convince me that men and women are different species who will never understand each other yet through the magic intervention of random couplings somehow come to love each other. People do not do this.

The pants-wearing gal? (I call her that loosely, since she only wore pants the one time.) Yeah, well she has visions about people. Her vision about the main character? That she would fall desperately in love with him. Since that vision she had the first time she met him, she has seen him another once or twice. And now, just like that, she's near to obsessed.

MAKE CHARACTERIZATIONS THAT MAKE SENSE, PLEASE.

Wow. This turned into a very long rant.

Let me explain.

No, there is too much. Let me sum up. ;)

Robert Jordan has written a very long series (which he was unable to complete before his death). Give me a red pen and the rights to it, and I could make it half the length and a million times more enjoyable to read.

Moral of the story: Do not write dialogue (or internal monologue) that does not move the plot, develop a character, or set up an important change.

ARGH.

Poor tags

I have this glorious Firefox addon that I call The Stumble Button. If you don't know what it is, do a Google search for "stumbleupon" and check it out. A quick description is that it lets you channel-surf the Internet. You get to choose topics you want to Stumble to, and there is a thumbs-up/thumbs-down rating system by which Stumble supposedly gets to know you better.

Well, all the sites that Stumble knows about are user-submitted with categories and tags chosen by the submitting user. Sometimes these tags are wrong.

I got sent to this site, which is currently tagged as "Feminism."


Encouraging, inspiring, and challenging young ladies to rediscover the treasure of dressing femininely modest. So we may set an example in a world where true beauty has been lost that we may bring glory to God in our apparel.


As you can see from their header image, and even a cursory exploration of the site, this is anything BUT "Feminism." I shall be submitting a "Wrong Topic" report.

I'm the last person who wants to see women running around with cleavage and stuff hanging out, but only because I'm afraid that they aren't doing it for themselves. More often than not, they aren't. :(

Argh.

P.S. I have the hardest time with the truly heinous stuff tagged "Humor." Yeah, obviously someone thought it was funny, but it sure as hell isn't.

Saturday, July 26, 2008

Is research finally going to back us up...

...instead of ignoring us completely?

While the BYU study does not draw conclusions about any judgments that the toddlers may have associated with gender atypical behavior, it demonstrates that activities and behaviors of others are an important factor for children's "attention, perception, learning, and memory about gender stereotypes" from as early as 24 months.


I just spent way longer than necessary trying to come up with a witty one-liner to comment on this. I gave up. I am so dumbfounded. Have the feminists not been trying to tell everyone this for years? Like, seriously.

ARGH!

Thursday, July 24, 2008

Monday, July 21, 2008

Katy Perry - I Kissed A Girl... So I could turn guys on.

I've been holding on to this post for a couple of weeks now. Every time I re-read it, I feel like it is lacking. I feel like my privilege is showing and/or that my analysis is under-developed and immature. But I can't decide what I would change to fix that without losing some of what I want to say. So I'm going to post it anyway, with this disclaimer, and my shorter, less potentially offensive (I hope), though less in-depth explanation/analysis.

The problem I'm having, at heart, is that I don't want to use the phrase "Patriarchy-Whore" to refer to anyone but myself. I feel like it has great potential to be an offensive and/or privileged term. So, it's okay if I use it on myself, I guess, unless it turns out I wasn't as cautious about the whole sex work thing as I thought I was, but I'd rather not use it on other people. With that said, what I'm really trying to say with this post is the character in this song is a Patriarchy-Whore. That makes me a bit sad, and a bit angry. And I am frustrated that, as I say later, I think this song could have had potential, in terms of opening a mainstream discussion of sexual openness and curiousity, were it not for the whole Patriarchy-Whore aspect of it.

As always, constructive criticism is welcome. Especially for this, because I really feel that I did not treat it as delicately as it deserved. Just please, please, don't yell at me for the privilege or poor analysis. I already know they're there. I'm trying my best to be open to better ideas and clarifications.



Okay. I'm pretty annoyed. Katy Perry's song, I Kissed a Girl, is extremely frustrating. Embedding is disabled for it, so I've just given the link to the music video, in case you want to hear the song. I liked the song immediately - the music of it works for me. As soon as I started listening to the lyrics with any depth, though... Not so much.

This was never the way I planned
Not my intention
I got so brave, drink in hand
Lost my discretion
It's not what, I'm used to
Just wanna try you on
I'm curious for you
Caught my attention

[Chorus]
I kissed a girl and I liked it
The taste of her cherry chap stick
I kissed a girl just to try it
I hope my boyfriend don't mind it
It felt so wrong
It felt so right
Don't mean I'm in love tonight
I kissed a girl and I liked it
I liked it

No, I don't even know your name
It doesn't matter
You're my experimental game
Just human nature
It's not what, good girls do
Not how they should behave
My head gets so confused
Hard to obey

[Chorus]

Us girls we are so magical
Soft skin, red lips, so kissable
Hard to resist so touchable
Too good to deny it
Ain't no big deal, it's innocent

[Chorus]


Could she cater to male fantasy and the patriarchy any more? Honestly.

I should note that I realize many artists sing songs as characters. While I will refer to Ms. Perry as though this song were about her, I know she could be playing a role. My opinions stand regardless.

First off, many of the reviews I read of this song applauded Ms. Perry for being confident in her sexuality. I, for one, think that this song demonstrates the very opposite. If she were confident in her sexuality, I doubt she'd consider it so necessary to deny any hint of non-straightness. I want to show this with a quote, but it's throughout the song. She is perpetually reluctant to admit she could possibly have enjoyed the experience - she hedges her statements about liking it by claiming she was drunk, that it was innocent, that it was just a game, an experiment. These are the words of someone who is afraid of the world outside heteronormativity.

Second, the line "I hope my boyfriend don't mind it" is, at best, problematic. Now, I understand that if she is in a relationship that has been established as monogamous, then kissing someone else constitutes cheating, and a break of that trust. This is wrong. However, this song has to be viewed in a larger context - namely that of the male fantasy to which it so blatantly caters. She delivers this line with inflection implying that he will most certainly not mind it, because how could he? She's kissing a girl! HAWT LESBIANZ! Who will still have sex with a dude, of course.

What I'm trying to get at, here, is that this song, in theory, had the potential to be an honest exploration of sexual feelings that demonstrate the spectrum of sexuality. Instead, it is the tale of a woman who has succumbed to the patriarchy and only wants to gain male attention and affection by demonstrating how very patriarchally-approved hawt she can be.

The song disappoints in all respects. Except for the rhythm that makes me bounce on the way to work - damn it!

Also, as a side note, since I did not discover this before sitting down to write this post, the video is AWFUL. She doesn't do anything. She is the most passive singer I've ever seen. She is there to be oggled by the male viewer, along with her pillow-fighting girlfriends. This song can hardly be the controversy that so many want to make it out to be (apparently homophobes are threatened by it), when the music video doesn't even contain any actual kissing. I'm fine with this, since it would not be a genuine woman-to-woman kiss, and instead simple posturing for the male audience. But still. Women kissing on TV is not unheard of these days. You'd think, given the song, the video producers would have been all over that stuff. Double-yoo tee eff, mate.

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Amusing for reals!

So, I wrote this post about the bulletin boards on the bathrooms here.

Well.

We switched them!! Woot woot!

Pictures, as evidence.



Sunday, July 13, 2008

Shaving

First, read this.

Have you?

Good.

Yeah, well I've asked myself the same question a million times. The part that sucks is that I know the answer and I'm still not brave enough to stop. :(

The League of Feminist Voters

Please see this Shakesville post's comments thread for the background on this.

I'm setting up this post as a thread for continued discussion on the topic. I'll update the body of the post with anything solid that is agreed upon.

I will make this happen.

Friday, July 11, 2008

Highly Amusing

Wanna hear something funny? No really, you'll laugh!

Okay, so the bathroom doors here have bulletin boards on them. The bulletin board on the boys' bathroom has tips for how to succeed in college, taking notes - typical bulletin board stuff.

The girls' bathroom has a bumper sticker that says, "There is NO excuse for violence against women," a sticker that says "Consent is Sexy," a card that says, "Activism is Sexy" and lists various campus activist groups, and a card that advertises the Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Center.

Isn't that funny? Like they think we're actually the ones responsible for our own harassment and oppression! Haha!

What is that you say? Oh... They...they really do think that?

Well fuck.

If I could figure out how, I would seriously SWITCH the goddamn bulletin boards in a heartbeat.

Isn't is also nice how they have to "sexy"-fy everything? How about, "Consent is Basic Human Decency" or "Activism is the Only Thing That's Gonna Save Your Skin"? That sounds a bit more accurate, to me.

So. The lessons learned. Women, you're responsible for ending sexual violence and harassment. Men, you need to learn how to succeed in college.

I hate life today.

Wednesday, July 09, 2008

The American Pastime

Chrissy and I went to a baseball game last night. My stomach is not pleased with me for getting those chili cheese fries. :)

At one point, she turned to me and giggled, saying, "I think it's great that we're doing something that's sterotypically what two guy best friends would do."

And I agreed.

And I still don't understand sports. :)

Monday, July 07, 2008

How they find us.

Where the Wild Things Are

So that's where the trolls come from.

Thursday, July 03, 2008

More non-feminism

It pisses me off when people ask where Beloved is and, after I tell them, they sort of suck in their breath through their teeth and say, "Oh, I heard that's a hotspot."

a) Like I don't have a fucking news feed about the area.
b) Like that makes me feel any fucking better.

Knock it off, people.

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

More Science

I know this has nothing to do with Feminism. So sue me. :)

I hate the phrase, "by convention." What they really mean is, "Some dude way back when needed to pick a totally arbitrary description. You have to memorize this shit because he said so. Even when, as in the case of the 'conventional' current, we now know the assignment should be the opposite by all common sense."

So I guess it's a useful phrase. Shortens it up a hell of a lot. But really. "By convention." Psh. I'd feel better about it if they just admitted, "by arbitrary assignment." Gah.

Also. You may or may not know that the antiparticle of the electron is called the positron. You may or may not also know that the antiparticle of the proton is called an antiproton. Now come on, people. The antiproton should totally have been the negaton! Doesn't that sound much cooler?

Alright, that's enough science for one day, eh? :)