mcity: (Default)
A Few Excerpts

Your father or male guardian does not have the luxury of knowing your suitors like you do.
Men's opinions on women < women's opinions on men. Got it. Someone who used to be a teenage boy is going to know a lot more about them than a teenage girl. The suitors specifically, probably not. In general, yes.

If things are going well between your guardian and your gentleman caller, your male guardian will dislike your new boyfriend. He'll play with guns if he has them.
Iceowl seems to have gotten their ideas about courtship entirely from sitcoms.

Under no circumstances are males to be trusted. They can be controlled for brief periods during which they are safe. But then they must be either released into the wild or neutered. Domestication is not possible. Under the proper conditions, any male will return to his natural illogical, biologically unrestrained state.
There is a recurring topic in feminist discussion; saying sexist things against women is Not Okay, even as a joke. Broadly, I agree. I would also extend that to men, and am, in fact, personally offended by being compared to an unfixed and untamed dog.

There is nothing more dangerous than an insecure male. All the world's worst wars have been started by insecure men who blame their failures on the weather or other people, and feel their minor successes are worthy of Nobel prizes.
I'm sure Boudica, Queen Elizabeth, and Maggie Thatcher would be surprised to know that. No, wait, you said the "world's worst wars". That's remarkably specific, especially considering that most of the people in and leading the military have overwhelmingly been men, meaning that even if the rate was the same for both genders, it would still give the edge to men. This is only slightly better than the canard "All wars are started by men."

All teenaged boys prefer the company of their male friends to female company. They need time to grow into a non-physical appreciation of women. Right now, the only reason they date women is to practice spawning and then to go back to their friends and brag.
First dogs, now toads. Lovely.

All men have a contemplative side.
Finally, something positive.

Your job is to stay away from it until you can handle what's inside there. Take ten or fifteen years before venturing there. It's full of landmines and useless whining.
Okay, I've got a sneaking suspicion this list was actually written to recruit new lesbians.

Because men deny this contemplative side of themselves as their "feminine side" many are troubled by this aspect of themselves
I like how the closest thing to a positive side in men is the part that's associated with women.

Teenaged boys have a difficult time figuring out how to negotiate their first relationships.
True, but so do gi-

They don't understand the meaning of the term. There is only "doing" or not "doing". Everything in the middle is detritus to them.
...Screw you.

As is true for you, for young males there is a "point of no return" at which for the prospect of sex the male will abandon all common sense and commence the process whether you are ready or not.
Note how no comment is made on the incidence of this state among young men (and exclusively young men). Perhaps it's during the full moon.

However, in both cases, it is nearly unstoppable--and I say "nearly" because the only possibility of getting out clean lies in your ability to generate substantive and believable ridicule. You must be totally disappointed in him. Presuming you're not dating a rapist ( in which case both you and soon your male guardian will be in a whole lot of awful grief. For you bear the physical and mental scars, and he will spend the rest of his life in jail for premeditated murder)
Not only are young men animals who only want to have sex with girls, but their dads turn into murdering monsters the second their daughters are raped.

letting your male friend know the prospect of sex with him is a major yawn is probably the best deterrent.
Because there's no chance a young man will politely respect a young woman's desire not to have sex, and her only hope is being passive-aggressive. I mean, it's not like young women would actually want to have sex with boys, right?

(I'm being sarcastic, but at no point does the essay mention women having any desire for sex. It mentions them having it, sure, but men are the initiators, and women are unlikely to actually enjoy it because men can't understand female sexual pleasure.)

Make no mistake. Your male guardian will cause grievous physical injury (or death) to anyone who harms you. Every day he prides himself on imagining he will do that. Do not pull that trigger unless you are serious. You have seen the movies. Be careful. Some things cannot be undone.

Seeing as movies are well known for their accuracy in depicting healthy human relationships.

Young men do not understand female sexual response. To put a finer point on it: they have zero concept.
Um.

Male sexual response, despite what stand-up routines and sitcoms claim, is often a lot more complicated than "10 stimulate penis 20 goto 10". I know that, and I'm waiting until marriage. The list makes no reference to what men like; merely penetrating the goddess called women is assumed to be enough. No man, ever, likes foreplay, or small boobs, or Albanian Pudding Wrestling, and sex is a burden to be borne by the heterosexual woman, since it is entirely impossible that an inexperienced lover can become a better one by listening to his female partner, so she shouldn't even try.

Your mother has probably told you by now, men talk about themselves obsessively
"A wise and sensible woman has probably told you a generalization."

Three, they're afraid you'll start talking about something that interests you...
Because young men are only attracted to young women for their bodies, and under no circumstances would be interested in someone they actually shared interests with.

The best way to get a guy to stop talking about himself is to go to the movies, feed him, or tire him out. Then, when he's not talking, he'll be dead silent and you'll be tempted to ask what's on his mind. Don't. Wait twenty years. He'll start having a genuine interest in what you're thinking. Until then, watch a lot of DVDs.
So, let's review. Men are animals, sex isn't fun because young men don't know what women want, and men don't learn how to take non-physical interest in women until their mid-thirties, at least.

Young men are frequently ill equipped to handle the emotions that arise from having sex.
And so are young women. In fact, studies indicate people's brains don't fully develop until their late teens, lacking critical decision-making structures.

One, most people have more sense than to sleep around like sluts if only because of the horrible deadly STDs out there not to mention the fact that confident people don't need sex for affirmation (remember the caution about insecure partners!),
"Liking having sex means you're insecure, like a man."

and two, nothing other than bullets or drugs has the ability to wreck your life more than a rotten sexual relationship.
That's not exactly true. Any romantic relationship, sexual or otherwise, can have negative effects on people's health, especially after breakups.

I especially like how it says men aren't interesting, then denigrates men for not being interested in women. Double standards much?

Here's a post about the double standards in gender-based t-shirts.
mcity: (Default)
I just found a post about "Think Like a Man" and how it's successful, and how Hollywood needs more movies starring black people.

http://twitchfilm.com/news/2012/04/what-hollywood-needs-to-learn-from-think-like-a-man.php

Speaking as a black guy; why?

Read more... )
mcity: (Default)
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/6501955/6/Project_Gethinator
"These are no longer Protheans," EDI replied. "There are signs of extensive genetic rewrite: Reduced heterochromatin structure, deletion of superfluous 'junk' genes, and the phrase 'U GOT REAPED LOL' encoded into their genome."

No.

Just...no.

For the record, Mass Effect: Interregnum, covering what Garrus did while Shep was dead in ME2, does shout outs so much better. I generally prefer to put mine in where the story happens to have room for them, like when Alex needed an alias in inPrototype and I chose "Sly Cooper". Broadly speaking, if you can't remove or replace  the reference without the story ceasing to make sense, it's too vital. If you need to know what the shout-out is in order to make sense of what its doing in the story, it's too vital.

In ME:I, there's a scene where Garrus and co get their hands on weapons reminiscent of those from Team Fortress 2, even discussing how much it costs to fire the weapon. This helps to underline the amount of money their employer has. Thing is, it's not a one-off. Garrus keeps thinking of how expensive the mini is during the following action sequence. It's integrated into the story, and can be understood even if one doesn't catch the reference. It's not just some joke shoved in without consideration for whether it fits the tone or not.

Project Gethinator is a light-hearted story, but it at least supposedly has a serious core. Think some of the latter Discworld books. Once you stop portraying the Reapers as an ancient and incomprehensibly powerful force--think space robot Cthulhu--and reduce them to the level of a script kiddie from 4Chan, you might as well be writing a crackfic.

Imagine, say, Inception, or the Dark Knight. Now imagine the dudes from the Hangover suddenly show up. It's not going to work very well.
mcity: (Default)
http://www.fimfiction.net

Pick a story. Any story. Now use your spacebar or Page Down to scroll. Notice anything?

Yes, that's right, that stupid bar always covers the first few lines. So you have to constantly scroll up to keep reading those few lines. There's a reason FF.net keeps those options parked at the top of the page, where they can't interfere.

And that's not the only usability flaw. The header takes up over half the vertical space of the screen, and there's no way to turn it off or minimize it that I've found. So if you're, say, in the options section, clicking a link to a new subsection means scrolling down every single time. It doesn't use AJAX to switch between sections without having to load a new page, but it does use Javascript to make what should be an unobtrusive page element obtrusive.

Sheesh.
-J

Dear X,

Feb. 14th, 2012 01:05 am
mcity: (Default)
No, it is not always, or even usually a good idea to err on the side of the alleged victim in cases of abuse or rape accusations. Yes, women are most likely to be raped. But the dark corollary to that which no one likes to talk about is is that men are most likely to get falsely accused of rape. The Duke Lacrosse incident was in March 2006, charges were filed in April, and it was December before they were partially dropped. The remaining charges weren't dropped until April 2007. Innocent men spent a year with the sword of Damocles hanging over their head, because of a lying or perhaps mentally unstable woman and an incompetent DA.

This comes up in feminist discourse, except the hue and cry is that it makes it harder for the genuine accusers of rape. While this is true, there is little concern for the innocent people falsely accused of a crime. Ironically, they take something that should, in fact, be about the menz and tried to make it about the womenz.

If anything, err on the side of caution. "Innocent until proven guilty" gets thrown out the window far too much when dealing with sex crimes; where "too much" is equal to or grater than "at all". Even SVU has episodes where everyone is convinced He Did It, then it turned out He Didn't Dood It. In one case, the poor guy got killed in prison because the "victim" and her family were actually trying to scam the place where the alleged rape happened for a settlement.

And the fact that you are self aware enough to note the irony of you having distaste for Chris Brown, but not Michael Fassbender, means there's some hope for you yet.

asdfgh
-Jonathan
mcity: (Default)
Previously: Dear Albanian Pudding Wrestling story writer,

Turns out it ends with the monsters invading the rest of the galaxy.

After one of them made a point about them simply wanting to be left alone.

I need a "Scumbag Space Werewolves" macro.

And the how is entirely stupid, too. There was a SPAH among the crew of Intrepid Marines sent to investigate. He carries one of his partners, now a monster, back to the mother ship in an escape pod. For some reason, the security/HAZMAT measures consist of pointing guns at the agent, even after he marches off the pod and admits he's infected. He admits this, BTW, after he hands off a biological sample directly to the Evil General, who is not wearing a hazmat suit. The General wants to destroy the space station not because of the threat it poses to all sentient life, but because he wants to cover up the fact that the blight on the galaxy was caused by a civilian mistake.

I would not have let the spy back onto my ship like that. I would've had robots talk to him and take the sample. I would've had a big red button I could hit to eject the pod and expose the bay to vacuum. I would've had turrets and laser beams. If I did have men, they would be wearing max level Hazmat suits. I would have a big green button that quadruples the artificial gravity. I would've had a yellow button that, last resort, detaches the entire bay. But this story would have us believe that a four-star general was a complete idiot, taking not even the most rudimentary security precautions besides "POINT GUNS AT IT".

Yeah, no.

At least a sop was thrown to the whole All-Male Crew thing; apparently women serve in separate units, and the military is almost all male. Even Gears of Manly Hypertrophy has female characters serving as frontline troops. Congratulations, terrible story, you've set gender relations in science fiction back a few dozen years.
mcity: (Default)
A guy smashes some windows in a restaurant with what's basically a long crowbar. Police show up, one with a dog, and ask him to stop. He ignores them. One pepper-sprays him, and he shrugs it off, likely from drugs. As the nearer officer tries to back away and draw his weapon, the suspect advances, and is shot dead by the other officer, holding the dog, who has had his gun drawn and pointed at the suspect the entire time.



I was having a somewhat intense discussion with someone who thinks the shooting was unjustified.

Among their ridiculous claims;

-Suspect was just "intimidating" the police.
-The dog could've stopped him.
-He had the crowbar behind his head, and could not have swung. (I pointed out, several times, that it takes a fraction of a second to swing a crowbar from that poisition, once in range.)
-The nearer cop could've dodged. (Note how the cop is actively trying to get away from the perp.)
-The officers could've stopped and disarmed the suspect in hand-to-hand. (Yes, at substantial risk to themselves.)
-UK cops never kill anyone. (Such a shooting was what kicked off the London Riots last year.)
-Using "Bobbies" to refer to cops is patronizing.

Most prominently, they keep insisting there are "other options" when it's been shown there were no other options that did not present a risk to the nearer officer. Release the dog? Suspect has time to swing. Farther cop tackles the perp? Suspect has time to swing. "Martial arts"? Unnecessary risk to the officers. Pepper spray? Tried, didn't work. Taser? Couldn't be drawn in time to be effective, even if the suspect couldn't resist it with the drugs he was probably on.

The funny thing is that they are constantly saying UK cops would've been able to resolve the situation without guns. They receiving different training and equipment and face different challenges. No matter how many times I pointed this out, they kept insisting that they could've done it, along with a few dozen other Straw Men. As evidence, they cited a case where a guy assaulted three cops and struck them with a crowbar, leading to the hospitalization of two. Yep, the UK cops are doing so much better.

The biggest fly in their ointment, of course, is that UK cops don't usually carry guns in the first place.
mcity: (Default)
Really? Really? They're "ripping off" a franchise that has had two very successful adaptations in recent memory? One that's in the public domain? One just about every single fictional detective since owes something to?

Think about it; how many successful "brilliant investigator who irritates people" series' have there been in the past 15 years? House, Psych, the Psych spinoff The Mentalist, Monk, Bones, upcoming Bones spinoff The Finder, CSI, CSI spinoff CSI: Sunglasses, etc. I'm more concerned about it getting lost in the noise, like that joke about someone going to see Hamlet and describing it as a bunch of famous quotes strung together. Unless it has something really special, something to distinguish it from that other show in New York where the two leads have gobs of sexual tension, It'll be a needle in a pinstack.
mcity: (Default)
http://mcity.livejournal.com/322620.html

Today! I somehow managed to hide an entire window that I couldn't get back, and which doesn't come up when I restart the program.

Apparently, it's Alt+~, as I accidentally discovered about five seconds ago, except this time I froze, just to see what key I had pressed. Thanks for another undocumented feature someone can activate entirely by accident without warning them, Google! Good Jerb!
mcity: (Default)


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

"Honor Harrington 1: On Basilisk Station" US Cover

with



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


"Honor Harrington 1: On Basilisk Station" French Cover

For that matter, compare even the original US cover and its French Counterpart for the gaudy jewels Baen US seems to favor. Did they decide that they needed something they could slap foil over to attract the neckbeards? Do they think American science-fiction fans have the same appetites as magpies? And why do the French covers consistently look just plain cooler than the western counterparts? I want a book I won't be ashamed to read in public, Baen.

Don't you read these books in ebook format?


Well, yes, but I've bought hard copies of some of them!

...Actually, the first Vorksagian omnibuses I have aren't half bad. The regular ones are often terrible, I'm told. Baen has standard to live down to, after all.
mcity: (Default)
They asked her how she intends to keep her vow not to have sex again until she's married.

She plans to NOT HAVE SEX. It's not that difficult. Billions of people, in-depth, privately-financed studies indicate, are not having sex this very second.
mcity: (Default)
A young man with a dead dad falls in love with a young woman named Elizabeth in the Caribbean. He takes up with a cynical, older pirate to save the life of his lady love, and there's magic and ghosties. Someone named Jack S. is involved, as a is a lot of backstabbing.

When the Pirates of the Caribbean writers said that they were inspired by this book, they mean they grabbed great greasy handfuls in their greedy fists, yanked it away, and deposited on their plate. The reason the fourth movie is subtitled "On Stranger Times" is because Disney finally decided to pay the guy whose excellent book they've been ripping off for, lesee, eight years.

The book is excellent, by the way. Moral ambiguity, complex characters, conflicting motivations, extreme attention to detail, very atmospheric. I highly recommend it. Heck, it's probably better use of your money than seeing the movie.
mcity: (Default)
This is Rebecca Black.



In mid-February, her parents paid to have a company, Apex Entertainment, record a song and music video. It was silly, and middling, and made heavy use of Autotune. Then it got posted on Youtube. Then it went viral, and is currently in the top-20 of all songs on iTunes.

If you view the comments on the Gawker post, you may notice me wading at top speed into a sea of idiots.

"a tourist in the waking world, never quite awake" )
mcity: (Default)


And chainsawsuit's "parody".

Nice job, Straub. You only managed to completely miss the point of the strip. The original specifies a particular IRC channel, at a particular time. Given that Black Hat often represents Randall's wish-fulfilment dark side, strawmanning it out to "girls on the Internet at some unspecified point in time" is kinda cheap. You have to completely misrepresent the comic to make a Take That. And the type of guys who make "make me a sandwich" jokes on Youtube videos? If they had the self-awareness to argue like that, they likely wouldn't be making the joke in the first place. Don't you talk about "white-knighting". There are perfectly valid reasons to call someone on the internet out on being a dick, and the primary one is the fact that they're being a dick.

Sincerely,
Jonn
mcity: (SPN bobby Crowley)
I said that the primary stereotype of white people is that they're all racist.

Someone responded, asking me to pick up a history book. By their logic, the fact that some white people came up with racist terms meant that all of them were racist.

Them: Who do you think came up with most of the stereotypes in Western culture in the first place?
Me: Racists. It doesn't matter who came up with a stereotype, what matters is who believes it.
Them: You're naive and obtuse.

I also asked them what they thought my race was. For some reason, I had to ask three times before they declared that it was irrelevant, which was the answer I was looking for.

They didn't see the irony of assuming an entire race is racist. Then again, they were the sort of MY JURNAL IZ NOT A SAFE SPACE Knight Templar that does more harm than good. Yes, they had the collection of confrontational icons. Yes, their profile declared that they were "anti-" about a half-dozen things. Yes, their first and last words to me were insults. No, I was actually nice to them.

I only go into full-blown snark mode when I'm venting here or sporking something, or when I know the person I'm arguing with is an idiot who's not going to have their mind changed with facts and logic. Otherwise, it's my Mr. Rogers impression. The problem with snarking is that it makes you feel good, but your opponents start associating your cause with crazy abrasive people. The best you're going to get is cowed, not convinced. It's better to try and get people to learn, since the human mind really likes learning new stuff. My opponent seemed to disagree, however. Judging from their journal, profile, icons, and general attitude, she (statistically) seemed less concerned with changing people's minds than with proving them wrong.

I also suspect they were a furry.
mcity: (Beyond Good and Evil 2)
I was reading a fanfic that was a post-apocalyptic version of a long-running cartoon franchise. The males of the team were dead, and before the females took on a town full of vampires, they took off their clothes and washed with holy water. Then they had sex, washed again, and got to work.

In other words, they took of their clothes for no real reason, then had sex for no real reason, then fought bloodsuckers. And then the non-POV girl dies(TVTropes, NSFW).

If you really wanted to be Darker and Edgier, you would've made the POV character have unprofessed feelings for the other girl, including peeking while they had their bath, and catching the other one staring a few times before that. Then when N-POV dies, she confesses her feeling with her last breath, and then POV, (for what would have been the second time in the story, I think) cries. Or N-POV has been keeping a journal with her feelings in it, and POV takes the key off her corpse. Y'know, make it tragic. Whedon it up a little.

I know the idea of the dry, stripped-down narrative tone is to show that POV is repressing her emotions, but there's maybe one paragraph of foreshadowing before the sex scene, and it borders on a Big Lipped Femslash Moment(TVTropes).

It reminds me of that fanfic I mentioned earlier when the one character's primary character trait was that she was a lesbian. That one was a good premise with decent writing sunk by intrusive Fan Mypoia, whereas this one had a good premise, good writing, and one out-of-place moment.
mcity: (Default)
I hate you.

Your stupid system emails me and tells me to book a biometrics appointment. I was under the impression that I already had, only to find that the biometrics appointment is separate from the Visa appointment I made($313.00), and requires a separate payment of $100.00. Since it's my future on the line, I rush to pay it, only to find that the website isn't displaying or letting me select an appointment for tomorrow.

Or ever.

It is like you are actively trying to discourage and confuse people seeking a visa.

Sincerely,
Jonathan

PS: The next slot, as far as I knew, was tomorrow. My intl. advisor at the school is in Britain. I couldn't get in touch with them in time even if I wanted to. I'm still going to head down there, just to see.
mcity: (Default)
Selfridge mistaking your authour mouthpiece lead character for a protesting Na'viphile hippie over the 'dozer's camera would work better if canon hadn't established that every human on the planet was bought there by RDA. She shoots out the camera to keep herself from being run over, and Selfridge is then told about the recent Samson crash, but still assumes she was "consorting" with her Na'vi friend.

I'd have to make a list to tell you how wrong that whole scene is. In fact, the entire fic seems to be a regurgitation of every single bit of unconsidered criticism leveled against the film. Take, for example, Jade pointing out that the queues used to bond with animals are the same ones used for Na'vi mating, causing her new friend to blush. If I can make my dog and my girlfriend dinner in the same kitchen, that doesn't mean I want to ask the dog out. in fact, the movie made pretty much the same joke, and better. Also, there's this.

cut for capslock profanity )

Subtle. Also, there's the bit on the TVTropes page-because I'm certainly not reading any farther-about how the Unobtanium can be used to improve life on Earth. Except for the part where that's not exactly true. It's mostly used in electronics and to lower the cost of interstellar transport. They would've used it to make the trains run on time. In fact, the Pandorapedia specifically points out the primary use would be to send the ship back to mine more Unobtanium. The real find is the neural network, which whassisname and Quaritch ignored, and has far more environmental potential than the Uo. It's also irrelevant to argue what they might have done in light of what they did do. That's like talking about me as a New York Times bestselling authour despite me really being an angsty art major.

Actually, I think that puts me halfway there already.

-Argh what
Jonn
mcity: (LOGIC)
There's a webcomic based around some Moderately Specific pornography. I read the Clean version of the comic, but occasionally dip over into the Adult version, since the Clean version often omits certain events from the plot entirely. The Adult readers get both their version and the Clean one. Anyway, the main character was nearly raped.

The man character's a guy.

He is stunned, abducted, tied to a bed, gagged, and bought to an erection (which the comic makes very clear is against his will) by a very, very messed up girl who has feelings for him. She can't bring herself to do it, so when the lead's girlfriend and his (female) friend burst in, the not-rapist jumps out the window to escape. The friend tries to say it's probably not what it looks like, when the girlfriend slaps him and declares they're through.

We then find out that the not-rapist has been abused-in pretty much every way possible-by her father, which has been hinted at through the comic.

According to TVTropes, the fans hate the girlfriend now.

Basically, she saw the not-rapist straddling the lead, understandably jumped to a conclusion, and acted based on that conclusion. Please note that as of the breakup panel, the lead still had the gag in his mouth. Please note that the TVTropes page lists the last part as the comic playing the ol' "Men can't be Raped" trope straight. If a character believes a false trope is true, that's not the comic playing it straight; it means the character is simply wrong. And frankly, it's not an unreasonable mistake. It seems vaguely misogynistic for the fans to hate the girlfriend.

And then I remembered that the comic in question is done by a guy with a carryover readership from his other pornographic works, which did objectify women, and...yeah. Suddenly the fans' reaction makes a lot more sense.

October 2012

S M T W T F S
  12 3456
78910111213
14151617181920
21 2223242526 27
28293031   

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 28th, 2017 03:44 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios