mcity: (Default)
Fic thanks its beta readers.
Latest chapter has about a dozen grammar errors that would've been noticed by any reasonably-alert seventh-grader, including basic tense usage.
mcity: (Default)
Public: Why don't you make a movie with a female lead character?
Pixar: What about Monsters Inc?
Public: She couldn't even really talk.
Dory: Finding Nemo?
Public: Dory shared the spotlight with Nemo and his dad.
Pixar: So being a co-protagonist doesn't count?
Public: Nope.
Pixar: But most of our movies have multiple leads.
Public: So?
Pixar: Fine. This is Merida, starring in Brave. She's a feisty, independent ginger Scottish princess.
Public: Ugh, why'd you make a bog-standard Disney princess?
Pixar: Excuse me?
Public: We wanted something original!
Pixar: Uh...
Public: And why are you making such a big deal about her being a girl?
mcity: (Default)

An interesting video about the difference between objectification of men and women, double standards thereof, and the social pressures behind them. Here are the articles she refers to and links in the description.

Am I Sexist? - Common Sense Atheism

Why Shameless Objectification Can Be A Good Thing - Jezebel

Why men can't - and shouldn't - stop staring at women - Ian Brown for The Globe and Mail
mcity: (Default)
Harry Dresden of the Dresden Files is more protective of women, which he acknowledges as chauvinism, because of his mommy issues and being raised for ten years by a psychopath who manipulated his sexuality to his own ends. This is all Jim Butcher's fault.

Dresden exclusively prefers committed relationships, completely shuts down his attractive teenaged (and legal) apprentice who offers to sleep with him before he is willing to take her on, and his main female love interest would like only sex. Not a peep.

This is almost exactly the same as how people talk about Supernatural as if the main character's messed-upedness is not mentioned at literally every opportunity, by everyone.
mcity: (Default)
Alex: I am a popular science fiction author. Here is an article talking about how Straight White Men have an advantage over everyone else.
Bob: I am a SWM, and I have a chronic illness. Nonetheless, I am expected to take up more responsibility simply because I am a SWM. I have also been discriminated against and turned down for jobs explicitly because I am a SWM. People have told me this to my face. There are also several programs for social and financial assistance for minorities, and effectively none for white men. Discrimination does exist, but it happens to everyone and it needs to be looked at on an individual basis.
Cameron: Where are these mythical minorities who are discriminating against white people? Your experiences don't invalidate those of minorities discriminated against by white people.
Me: Reginald Denny got stomped into a mudhole because he was a white guy in the wrong neighbourhood. Here's the Wikipedia link.
Cameron: (never responds)
Bob: I never said minorities people were not discriminated against. I'm saying that white people are discriminated against too.
Cameron: Racism against white people? Ask any minority, they'll tell you differently.
Me: I'm a minority, a Black immigrant, and I agree with him.
Cameron: Well, uh, white people have created the system that oppresses minorities-
Me: All of them? Blaming all white people for stuff some of them did would be like blaming every black person for the Denny incident.
Cameron: Honest question: Is racism, sexism, classism, homophobia and whatever, do they still exist?
Me: People discriminate against whites. Men have a higher suicide rate and much lower chance of getting a female rapist or domestic abuser prosecuted or even charged. People think rich people are evil and out of touch. Bisexuals are discriminated against by gays. Yes, they exist, and they aren't just from majorities against minorities. In fact, when I look at your posts in this thread, you have literally never even mentioned the possibility that white people might have disadvantages because they are white.

There were also people calling Bob a troll. Did you know that if someone says something that makes you angry, they're a troll?
mcity: (Default)

Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes announced in March 2007.

BBC's Sherlock announced in August 2008.

Elementary announced in late 2011, and is promptly decried as a ripoff by fans of the BBC's Sherlock.

mcity: (Default)
Someone says it breaks the rules.
Someone responds to them and says it doesn't.
I respond to them and say it does.
I get two posts worth of nonsense about how copyright infringement only occurs when it reduces value, and how every rule has a loophole, and how the demotivator is "harmless", and how my avatar is creepy.
Instead of responding, I, on a hunch simply check their gallery.
Five pieces were violations, all of which I reported.
"Michelle", thou didst protest too much.
mcity: (Default)

She actually had the audacity to watermark screencaps and official art. Unreal. Except for the part where it's real.
mcity: (Default)

There are two more on the next page.

I think this means I'm a BNF now. BRB, gotta go hit up fans for an iPod.

(Seriously, where are these people coming from?)
mcity: (Default)
The SA Goons mock him openly. In the style of Rucks

Saw him day after day, starin' at that infernal machine. Starin' at that li'l views number next to his li'l internet show. Wonderin' why no one was watchin'. Hurt me inside, seeing the Kid so confounded by that drat number. Told him it didn't matter. Told him there were a million other things he could be doin'. But the Kid never was one to be orderin' his priorities properly. Never looked at me. Never looked at the girl, drat near broke her heart. Just the views number, 's all he saw. But it never rose. Kid pressed F5 once, twice, again and again. It never rose.
mcity: (Default)
Piece of publicity art shows Black Widow in a pose that shows off her butt.
Lots of discussion about the apparent sexism ensues.

Tumblr has hundreds if not thousands of posts drooling over Jeremy Renner's butt.
No one says a thing.
mcity: (Default)
You don't need to give them big words, for starters.

I read what's probably an unhealthy amount of fanfic. One of the trends I've noted is the whole smart people=big words thing, even when the character in question does not talk that way in canon. Notably, Twilight Sparkle from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic.

As far as I can recall, almost every time Twilight appears, even if only for a few seconds, she

1. Learns something.
2. Teaches something.
3. Organizes something.
4. Tries to understand something.
5. Some combination of the above.

The show is remarkably consistent with this. Take "A Friend in Deed", where Twi shows up for about five minutes. She spends all of them reading a book or advising Pinkie Pie. That's 1, 2, and 4. These traits became even more important in Season 2, where Twilight became one of the main cast instead of the main character of the series. And since they couldn't resort to the old glasses+sweatervest=smart symbolism, they were forced to pay special attention to how they wrote Twi, especially since they couldn't have her busting out the big words on a show aimed mostly at kids. I can't really remember how Twilight was characterized in it, but Lilpip of "Fallout: Equestria" similarly shows herself to be a clever and resourceful protagonist by being clever and resourceful.

You know that gag where the smart person says something in technical language, and then the regular folks get others to explain it? MLP's used that gag exactly once in two entire seasons. But fanfic has her using big words all the time.

There is a reason the pollysyllabic genius is rarely the/a primary protagonist. Even Holmes has Watson. One notable exception is Cryptonomicon, which has two really smart guys, WW2 Cryptographer Lawrence Waterhouse and modern day computer guy Randy. Waterhouse is, as his dialogue, actions, and thought processes show, really smart. And more than a little eccentric. He doesn't talk quite the same way as everyone, but is still accessible. Even his contemporary, Marine Cpl. Bobby Shaftoe, is fairly smart himself. Randy is a 90s guy, and he talks just like everyone else unless it gets technical, and so, more or less, do his colleagues. Here's a sample of all three!
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.

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)
"Want to see anything besides my front page? Well, screw you, use the archive link!"
mcity: (Default)
These daily "random" picture collections seems to have an awful lot of hot women partially exposing intimate parts of their anatomy included in them, some directed specifically at your website. Much more than the statistical mean, in fact. I suspect you deliberately included them to increase your popularity!

On to you,
mcity: (Default)
[Thread] (Language warning, even with the filter.)

Bouncer says that he put a drunk woman in a chokehold after she bit him, which was after they gave her several chances to go away.

People criticize him for using unnecessary force, and say he got his job just because he likes to get in fights with people, and that he should be able to control a tiny woman since he's such a big guy.

He says his co-worker was wearing gloves when he tried to dump a champagne bucket of ice water on a drunk female patron, and this led to the bucket slipping out of his hands and hitting the woman.

People say that the bouncer likes to throw buckets at women.

He says he has his job because he likes to meet and sleep with women women, and he usually deals with dozens of  of women a night.

People criticize him for using his position to dominate women and repeatedly call him a rapist because he sleeps with drunk women, which he never said he does.

He says that a big fight started up while he was patting people down for a big event, which resulted in him getting stabbed.

One guy says he beat up the kid who was only acting in "self-defense" when he stabbed the bouncer.

Not even the other critics want to back him up.
mcity: (Default)
Remember when I ranted about someone going "Thank you, Mr. Exposition" in a fanfic? Apparently, it's a thing. (TVTropes) Specifically, a reference to a Slappy Squirrel bit from Animaniacs. Thing is, on Animaniacs, everyone is aware they're in a cartoon. You can't just break the fourth wall or lampshade things whenever you want, and constantly doing so lets the audience know that you are unwilling or unable to improve the flaws (TVTropes). There's nothing wrong with exposition, only when it's poorly done. It is necessary for someone to tell someone else something in just about every story. If you don't think you can write it in a compelling manner, consider the following;
  • Who is explaining?
  • How are they doing it? How do they phrase and summarize things?
  • Who are they explaining it to?
  • What reactions does their audience have, verbal and otherwise?
  • Can this information be summarized, in whole or in part, by the narration, or is there vital, specific information in there?
I had some of this in mind when I wrote inPrototype 1-03., and managed to summarize the situation pretty efficiently in just one paragraph (after the break), while still leaving room for Zeke to clarify any specific points I didn't cover. Wasn't on purpose, but it worked anyway. It's still very weird to occasionally learn that I'm slightly more clever than I normally think I am.
mcity: (Default)
"-but actually gave you one?"

Funny thing; I found two strange black socks when I got my clothes out of the dryer, even though I checked it beforehand.

mcity: (Default)
This is creepy. It's like having a secretary I don't recall hiring.

October 2012

  12 3456
21 2223242526 27


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 21st, 2017 03:55 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios