gmonkey42: Spock looking like "WTF?" (douchebaggery)
Yet another Uhura bashing post by a woman-hating slash fan!

This one does something I haven't seen before: reading things into the characters' facial expressions that were never there! For example, here's Uhura at Kirk's academic misconduct hearing:

God, what a bitch!

Wait, what? She's sitting there with a neutral expression just like everyone else. But no! According to the author, that is a smug expression. And therefore Uhura is a huge hypocrite for liking Spock but not liking Kirk, because being aloof is the same as hitting on you even after you say you're not interested and grabbing your boobs.

Or something.



Also did you know that including a female character who plays an important role in the plot and has a boyfriend is INSULTING to women? Because having a female character in a sci-fi movie is just pandering to the chick flick crowd; if the writers respected their female audience, they'd know we only want to see male characters. That we can slash.

...or something.

This is in contrast to the great respect the author has for women when she says Uhura is only with Spock to further her career and is therefore basically a whore. See, I thought she talked to Spock about having been unfairly assigned to the Farragut because it was Spock who made the assignment and he was the only one who had the authority to change it. But no! She actually did it because...she's a whore? And she planned this whole thing when she first started dating Spock? I guess? The fact that she works harder than most cadets is also presented as evidence of her moral failings. As is the fact that the author misheard "aural sensitivity" as "oral sensitivity." I did too! Except I just thought "wow, writers, that's a bit much!" I never thought Uhura was deliberately making a double-entendre, it was just a little jokey wink by the writers. But no, it's more evidence that she's trapped Spock into this horrible relationship that's keeping him from his beloved Kirk who he doesn't yet know at this point, because all women are evil prostitutes and they should probably kill her off in the next movie because fuck female characters.

Yeah, I give up.

ETA: I just thought of this, what's especially laughable about this idea that Uhura is just using poor Spock: HE CAN READ HER MIND. If she's just pretending to care about him but is really only with him because of his status (which...how does that even work? What century does this take place in?) there's no way she'd be able to fool Spock. If she's using him, he knows and is apparently OK with it.

So what the fuck ever.
gmonkey42: cartoon Sephiroth (Judge Turpin)
OSTRACIZATION IS NOT A WORD! THE WORD IS OSTRACISM! STOP WRITING "OSTRACIZATION," IT MAKES YOU LOOK STUPID!



thank you for your time
gmonkey42: cartoon Sephiroth (Judge Turpin)
I don't know why I do this to myself: read comments on Pharyngula. PZ Meyers may be feminist-friendly but the comments section is definitely not a safe space. It would be nice if there were more overlap between the "atheist/skeptic" and "not a douchebag" categories.

What brought this on? This post here, about a Christian version of the Mystery Method. The video is pretty funny. The comments section on the Pharyngula post is not so entertaining. The majority of people seems to get it - especially everyone laying the well-deserved smackdown on OMS! - but the ones who don't are making my blood boil.

Two types that are especially sticking in my craw today:long post is long )
gmonkey42: cartoon Sephiroth (pcloadletter)
So there was this link on Shakesville: "Why I don't like Dan Savage's It Gets Better Project"

Here are excerpts from the article followed by my comments. Also: angry Sylar icon!

1. The video promotes metro-centric and anti-religious sentiment.
By aligning their bullying with the religiosity and “small-town mentality,” Dan and Terry tacitly reinforce the belief (especially rampant in queer communities) that the religious and the rural are more bigoted.

There IS more bigotry in religious and rural areas (per capita, anyway). It's ridiculous to take the facts Dan & Terry presented about their own lives and accuse them of being unfair to the religious and/or rural. A whole lot of gay people had bad experiences that they have reason to believe were made worse by the (rural, religious) environment they lived in. But apparently they should just shut up about that?

Read more... )


The article ends with a bunch of incomprehensible garbage about how we only want to help people who don't actually need our help and that by participating in this project we're exploiting gay teens and erasing their individuality? Somehow?

Also I think the author only watched Dan & Terry's video and conveniently ignored all the others that were made by people who aren't white, middle-class men.


Another important purpose that these videos serve, that the author ignored, is to show people (like everyone, not only gay youth) that being gay doesn't condemn you to a life of misery. That's what a lot of young gay people are being told and that's what a lot of homophobic adults believe. These videos are a powerful counter-message to that.



ETA: Ha! I was right about this: the author criticizes Dan for just putting out a video and not doing anything to actually change things and I was skeptical (see my comment below) that the author was practicing what they preach. And lo and behold here's this from a more recent post by the same author:
[allegedly a criticism she has received] 13. Ho, what have you even done to help poor, suicidal kids? You just sit around criticizing people! Come up with some tangible solutions!

[her response] I’ll tell you what. You take care of your work, and I’ll take care of mine.

Translation: I wrote this brilliant-ass blog entry, my work here is done. People like Dan who put their faces and voices out there can be held responsible for actually changing things; don't worry, I'll be sure and tell them if they're doing it wrong.

LMAO.
gmonkey42: Spock from Star Trek: the Animated Series (spock_wtf)
Sometimes I don't know why I bother having the kirk/spock comm on my f-list. People keep making posts (or linking to them in this case) bashing other ships, especially Spock/Uhura. Here's the latest one [ETA: the post has been f-locked and I can't access it any more - see below]. Here's my rebuttal to the arguments that came up in this post, just like in every other anti-S/U post:

Read more... )

So yeah. Ship Kirk/Spock all you want - I sure do - but I don't see the point of ragging on Uhura/Spock. They're acting like Harry/Hermione shippers. And I think we can all agree nobody wants to act like Harry/Hermione shippers.

ETA: Here's great post covering the race issues. Which are very important; I hesitate to talk about them myself because I feel like I'm not really qualified to talk about them in detail. But rawles is and she makes excellent points.

ETA: Ohh, the post on K/S linking to the essay in the OP's journal was deleted at the request of the OP who "did not intend to start a ship war." COULD'VE FOOLED ME! She didn't intend for anyone to disagree with her, you mean. Pff. And the OP has f-locked the post in her journal.
gmonkey42: cartoon Sephiroth (pcloadletter)
I never watched whole episodes of Attack of The Show but I've seen clips and I saw her on this Daily Show episode. Her delivery just sucks. Her only line that made me laugh was, somewhat ironically, "I don't know what those words mean." Also there have been accusations that her geek persona on G4 was fake; that she doesn't know much about tech and video games and she was just reading the cue cards, whereas the other hosts were actually interested in and knowledgeable about the subject matter. The problem we have with her is not so much that she uses her looks to get her foot in the door. It's that once she's inside, it becomes clear that she didn't have anything else going for her. Stuff like this demonstrates that hotness is not only necessary and sufficient, having other qualities - like humor or talent - is actually a disadvantage.

Something clicked for me today: women who are clever and funny are automatically read as less attractive. See: Tina Fey. I suspect if there had been two finalists for the Daily Show job and the other one was equally attractive but better at doing comedy, they would have preferred Olivia. For example, Erin Gibson, the new Sarah Haskins with her Current TV show Modern Lady, is both very funny and very attractive. Why don't we see more people like her getting wider exposure? And every single joke about Liz Lemon centers around the premise that she's unattractive. Why does that work? Partly because Tina Fey is such a gifted comedic performer that she makes it work. But I suspect it wouldn't work as well with an attractive male actor playing a character that's supposed to be that physically unappealing (unless they do styling to make him look a lot more unappealing than usual, which is also partly how they make it work on 30 Rock).

Read more... )
gmonkey42: cartoon Sephiroth (Default)
As seen on Pharyngula:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/the_powerlessness_of_pink.php#comments

Toys R Us ad featuring microscopes that come in two versions: "standard" and "girl." The fact that they think the only way girls will want science toys is by making them pink is not the stupid part. The stupid part is that THE PINK ONES ARE LESS POWERFUL. The black microscope goes up to 1200X, the red one 900X and the pink one 600X (the store also has other color options for the less-powerful ones, which is beside the point). I am very glad that when I was a kid, the microscope I had only came in blue, so I didn't get stuck with a shitty pink version that didn't really magnify things. (It came with a bunch of prepared slides and also blank slides so you could make your own, it was so awesome.) AND the black ones look more like the real instruments that grownups use whereas the pink ones are designed to look like toys for little children.

So all the commenters going off about how it's not wrong to like pink are deliberately and willfully missing the point and are assholes.
gmonkey42: cartoon Sephiroth (Judge Turpin)
I briefly put this as an edited-to-add in the first post but people already read and commented there so here's a new post.

PDF of the actual paper! WHAT? They ran an ANOVA on a discrete variable. FAIL. And they reported M-values, not p-values. What the crap is an M-value? At least the variance they found was pretty small, which justifies a small sample size but ANOVA is the wrong analysis to use when there are only seven possible values of the dependent variable! And how big can your variance get when there are only seven possible values?

The second part of the study is better, though it still has the problem of using discrete variables in an analysis that's intended for continuous variables.

Also it sounds like the students who participated in the study were involved with the psychology department somehow; they got course credit for it and psych students would be much more aware of this and more inclined to participate than students in other departments. So basically the conclusions can only be applied to undergrads who at least took a psych class, or possibly are psych majors. This is potentially a huge source of bias.

Anyway, their methods are a little screwey but I don't doubt that women who aren't inclined to be geeky would find geek stuff more off-putting than non-geeky men would, because of the widespread perception (spread by the MSM articles about this paper, for example) that geek stuff is only for boys. It's not just the MSM misinterpreting the paper, though: from the paper's discussion section on the first part of the study:

This study suggests that a student’s choice of classes or a major can be shaped by simply the appearance of classrooms, hallways, and offices—therefore, providing compelling evidence for the power of environments in signaling who belongs.
The authors of the study are claiming that it's the posters etc. themselves that are the problem. No, it's that these objects signal to people that it's more likely to be an anti-woman environment than the neutral one, due to stereotypes about geek culture - I mean, it's not as if a non-geeky workplace never discriminates against women. The underlying problem is the discrimination. It bothers me that this paper is going to be used as evidence that we can just put up some different posters and then when that doesn't result in equal representation, just blame it on our ladybrains or "opting out" or whatever other bullshit they come up with that allows the patriarchy to keep steamrolling along.

I think it's reasonable to expect some people will read the articles about this paper and institute a "no geek stuff" policy in schools and workplaces in an effort to make women feel more comfortable. That would be stupid. The only effects would be:

1. to make men resent women in the workplace more, because it would be seen as special treatment
2. to piss off the geeks
3. to really really piss off the geeks who are also female
4. to totally fail to address any of the real sexism that the geek stuff symbolizes to some women

What would be a much better solution is to educate everyone about how they might discriminate or create a hostile environment without realizing it, for example by commenting on people's appearance, giving a man credit for work a woman did, expecting women to clean up after everyone, and expecting women in technical jobs to take care of secretarial tasks. ALL of this has happened to me in molecular biology jobs in academia and industry. And it was not cool. And forbidding me from putting Star Trek crap on my desk wouldn't have changed any of it.
gmonkey42: cartoon Sephiroth (snapesmack)
Some asshole psychologist did this study claiming that Environment May Be Why Women Don't Like Computer Science.

I LOVE computer science. I would have majored in it or engineering if it weren't for the rampant sexism and my tendency to fly into an apoplectic rage when I encounter rampant sexism. The reason I didn't go into computer science was because I knew I would face nothing but negative stereotypes about women and outright discrimination and I can't tolerate being in that kind of environment. Women are not "shying away," we're being driven away, not by Star Trek posters, but by people who think women care more about decorations than we do about equal pay and access to good projects and promotions.

This article is a slap in the face to all female geeks. I would love to work in an environment with more geek stuff. I have a Despair, Inc. calendar and a copy of the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition on my desk. I contemplated bringing in my 6-foot cardboard Spock but there isn't really a good place to put it and I don't want it to get damaged by people tripping over it.

Also the experimental design seems to have a serious flaw in only using people who aren't into computer science. Why are they trying to draw conclusions about one set of women by examining a separate set of women? These are college students, the individuals in the study have already decided they don't want to be computer scientists. Maybe they're more likely to be negatively influenced by Star Trek posters than their peers who are in computer science? Is that so hard to believe?
gmonkey42: cartoon Sephiroth (scuba2)
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/85646400e1/hostage-a-love-story-with-zachary-quinto

I have watched the first 10 seconds of it (yes, I paused the video to type this) and he's already said the word "fuck" of variations thereof about eight times. That's a good sign :D

Here's the rest of the review SPOILERS )

January 2012

S M T W T F S
12 34567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 22nd, 2017 04:47 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios