Tags: dear god that's bad

The name of an ancient fate

Fuck this shit, I'm using an icon of Actual Mireille and Actual Kirika.

So, a while back news broke that Sam Raimi, he of among other things The Evil Dead and Xena: Warrior Princess fame, had bought the rights to Noir for purposes of hot live-action-adaptation action. Naturally, since I fucking love The Evil Dead and know that Xena is supposed to be really gay, I was...trepid, certainly, but cautiously excited about this concept. It was either going to be brain-breakingly horrible or fucking awesome, and I trusted the man who made Bruce Campbell a star.




So. Altena is gone. Chloe is gone (or warped into an unrecognisable straight caricature of herself called Alice, it's not really clear where in the development process that came in). Mireille is (1) straight, (2) ten years older than Kirika, (3) MARRIED, and (4) apparently involved with at least a few men who aren't the bullshit generic male lead she's married to. Also she has Altena's backstory for some reason even though there's no Altena. Kirika is also straight. Milosh, remember him? That weary old Foreign Legion vet who just wanted to forget and paint pictures and who befriended Kirika because he liked her watercolours? Well here he is her age and her boyfriend, to whom she loses her virginity and who she then kills in a jealous rage (Kirika is a lot more of a nutcase than she is in the real version). The whole thing is set in the sixties, God only knows why exactly. The Soldats have been completely changed; they replaced the white terrorists with their own weird cult in the Pyrenees with brown terrorists from the Middle East (CLASSY). The script excerpts in general (you have to pay for them in that link, but they were posted on 4chan) are absolutely awful, like a cross between All-Star Batman and Robin-era Frank Miller and one of the more unwatchable Roger Moore 007 flicks.

As somebody on /u/ said:

'The core concept of Noir is how two women who are essentially completely alone and only barely connected to society manage to find some glimmer of light in their otherwise utterly dark lives....I may even go so far as to suggest that shit like this is going to destroy what made Noir Noir.'

I am not a happy camper about this fuckery.
Tea is good.

This is from yesterday's Congressional Record.

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, after a year of having
their requests for job creation policies fall on deaf ears, the
American people have not only spoken; they've been finally heard.
When it came to job creation, the American people made it perfectly
clear they are no longer willing to play the waiting game. For 15
straight months over 14 million citizens have been without jobs.
Despite these dismal numbers, liberal leaders in Congress continue to
push for more strangling regulations and more government spending.
I believe this is a new day, with a new way forward, including
extending tax cuts and passing tax relief for all Americans, while
providing the incentives to business to create jobs.
It is now time to get the economy rolling, get people back to work,
and get rid of Washington's runaway spending.

In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget
September 11th in the global war on terrorism.

...The Republican Party, everyone.
You really can't make this stuff up..

(emphasis mine)
Romana: Oh for God's sake

Oh for Christ's sake.

The Rustbucket on the new Torchwood project.

"I've always had loose standards and practices," Davies said.

I appreciate his honesty.

"If the story demands intimacy or savagery, we will go there absolutely ...

I would expect nothing less.

[but] there's nothing better than a great big global thriller that stops for a sex scene -- it's probably hard to make that happen in a thriller."


...SHUT. UP. You are not some visionary genius for putting sex scenes in a thriller, you mediocre dunce. You're doing the same thing that every hack 'hardcore' writer has been doing since Mickey Spillane, with the same results: tepid global thrillers with worse-than-tepid sex scenes. Stop trying before the forces of narrative causality or Divine Providence act directly on your reputation even more than they already have and force you to.

Not a mistake

This discussion happened.

Douchebag who fancies himself my friend: Nathan, can I ask you something?
Me: Sure.
DWFHMF: You're one of those people who believes that sex outside of marriage is wrong, right?
Me: No, I believe that sex without love is wrong. Not everybody who's in love and serious about it is married and that's fine. As long as they're not married to somebody else I can't think of a problem there.
DWFHMF: Well, see, the problem is, can you kinda agree that the girl's the gatekeeper?
Me: ...What? No, I'm not sure what you mean by that.
DWFHMF: Well, that it's the girl's responsibility, mainly, to turn down sex if it would be wrong to have sex.
Me: What? No. It's everybody's responsibility, if not even moreso a man's since he's unfortunately the one with more power in society.
DWFHMF: What's that have to do with anything?
Me: The abuse of greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power. Men abuse greatness an awful lot and that's hardly women's fault.
DWFHMF: But you can't help it if a girl's acting all hot and bothered and...and...well, who would be above taking what's freely offered?
Me: That's exceptionally twisted logic.
Me: It's somewhere between rapist logic and saying that men don't have free will. Everybody involved should conduct themselves with dignity and love. Saying that it's solely or primarily women's responsibility is just horrible.
DWFHMF: What do dignity and love have to do with it if you want to get your rocks off and a girl's there...just...well, you know...
Me: [bemused] You're...not...a good person, you know that?

[I walk away]

I...I think I've gazed at the angel of the abyss or something now.
Azula smirk


So I'm taking a break from All Hallows' Eve for the day and reading Naomi (one of the many Tanizaki novels about female-dominated relationships in pre-War Japanese society) instead.


In the street.

Because I was reading a (sort of) romantic novel where the woman is in charge.

As a person who is sort of a man and DOES have 'husband and father' as a life goal up there with 'holder of a PhD in my chosen field', all I can say is

Not a mistake

Adventures in Internalised Misogyny

Over on TVTropes there is a page 'Real Women Never Wear Dresses'. This trope is the perception (not, thank God, presented as fact) that traditionally 'feminine' presentation or performativity makes a female character a less worthwhile part of a narrative or a worse 'role model' for a female audience. It annoys me that this attitude exists, and it annoys me even more that it's often in effect in real life. I am of the opinion that a lot (not all, but a lot) of this attitude comes from the fact that it's no longer socially acceptable to express explicit contempt for biological femaleness and so many people have an internalised contempt for the traditional signifiers instead.

I happen to know an individual who exemplifies this attitude. She is one of those people who I continue to be acquainted with because I do not want to get involved in the drama that would be attendant with expressing my opinion of her explicitly. She dislikes (or at least claims to dislike) her mother for being married, and way back in middle school beat up a girl for wearing a skirt at least once. I honestly would really rather just not talk to her ever, but for reasons that I don't care to get into that's not an option.

One of the things about this young lady is that she recently expressed, and I'm quoting this, 'nothing but contempt' for the idea that women in fiction who present in 'feminine' ways (wearing dresses, doing domestic chores, rearing children--even if they do plenty of other things as well) can ever be role models of any kind.  This originated from a discussion of the book series that I'm writing, which features as the badass fantasy hero who saves the world...a woman who refuses to kill anybody for any reason, whose powers are mostly related to coordinating transportation for the other characters, who is explicitly stated to wear skirts and dresses most days, and whose training is in Christian pastoral work with a focus in emotional care and support. At one point another character expresses surprise that she's 'equal parts Nana Komatsu and Harriet Vane'. In another urban fantasy series she'd probably be either The Chick or the woman who was held up as a negative counterexample against a more 'action-y' female lead. I wrote her this way deliberately, because I'm writing this series to a large extent to make these points about the way women are presented in SFF.

Anyway, when this acquaintance called this character, who I'm very proud of creating if you couldn't guess, an 'idiot bitch', you best believe I raged.

So, with the message 'Look, [Name], it's a group of really good female role models!', I sent her this:

This is the opening theme of the anime Sora no Woto, which is a very fine show if unfortunately undercut by the way it was paced and structured. Aside from the fact that the director is very clearly recapitulating his Klimt fascination from his work on Elfen Lied, the most notable things about this opening are the GORGEOUS Kajiura Yuki music and the fact that we're presented with a post-apocalyptic tank platoon in pretty flowing dresses and skirts.

To cut a long story short: SHE MAD.

I think I'm going to just start ignoring her responses now, but if any further interesting developments occur I'll let you know.
Romana: Oh for God's sake

Oh for Christ's sake.

4chan, on two characters from Sora no Woto/Bruit des Cieux/Himmelsklänge/whatever language they're translating Sound of the Skies into now:

Stupid artists, pretending there's yuri where there isn't. I wish they wouldn't get put on official OSTs to fool stupid western fans who confuse girls who kiss each other and live together with lesbians. There is nothing lesbian about that, not yuri.

Uh, guys...? ...I don't think semantic drift can account for this.

I'll quote another anon:

I love Sora no Woto, how it trolls you little crybabies. Your tears are delicious, does some lesbianism really hurt your tiny male ego that much?
Romana: Oh for God's sake

Overheard in the manga section of some Barnes and Noble

'Screw this series [Skip Beat]. Carrie Bradshaw [from Sex and the fucking City] is a much better female character than this crazy demon-handling bitch chick.'



Romana: Oh for God's sake

Why I hate people sometimes

This is a gay guy arguing that gay marriage is homophobic. No. SERIOUSLY. (My comments are in italics).

The way I see it, rings and ceremonies are for females, so they can show off to their female friends, and so their female mothers can show off to their female friends and relatives [don't you just love it when LGBT people reinforce gender stereotypes?]. You know what I want? A TAX BREAK. That’s what would make me misty-eyed. I don’t need anyone to morally “recognize” or “celebrate” my partnership [good for you. That's you].

Indeed, it seems to me that liberals shouldn’t be so fast to agitate for gay marriage — after all, it often (but not always) comes with tax benefits, aka, tax BREAKS, the evil boogeyman of the economically ignorant liberal mainstream [it doesn't work how you think it works, sir. We only oppose tax breaks for a small group of top earners]. Considering how much more in taxes homosexuals pay due to their generally higher incomes when compared with heterosexuals, gay marriage might actually endanger the ability of the groups who hate our guts to get food stamps. Oh, what a dilemma! Warm-fuzzy feeling from same-sex marriage or warm-fuzzy feeling from lazy bums [this refers to black people and Hispanics] getting free shit?

Actually, all relationship-based tax breaks should be abolished. Then we can end school taxes. If you have kids, YOU pay to educate them. If you can’t afford it, don’t have kids. If you were too irresponsible to use birth control or too religious to have an abortion, you deserve to be poor [what if people, you know, actually want children and actually want them to have a good life?]. Really, if you’re that irresponsible, your kids are unlikely to turn out very much better with a crappy public education. Either way, it is none of my business or responsibility to educate something that gushed forth from someone else’s innards [yes it is. Public schooling is a human right of the child and the family, whatever that family may be. We are living in a society]. But I digress.

In closing, nobody needs state-recognized marriage for any reason at all. All the arrangements of marriage can be duplicated with contracts, and you do not have to choose the one-size-fits-all bundle that marriage forces upon couples. Even if gay couples do want that bundle, civil unions with the exact same provisions as legal marriage should be good enough for those not so desperate for society’s moral approval [wow, somebody PLEASE explain to this guy that language impacts society. Please?].

I do not need the state to recognize my love, thanks Keith [Olbermann, a left-wing US politics and sports commentator]. Now I’d like at least all heterosexuals, if not their loudmouth gay friends, to shut the hell up on the matter. It does not impress me that you have compassion for gay people; I simply do not think you are a mouthbreathing dingbat for finding anything at all wrong with homosexual behavior [what does this sentence even mean?]. That’s the expected default, get it? Now stop trying to force your oppressive, frilly, and boring traditional institutions meant to ensure monogamy on my hot, promiscuous, anonymous gay sex. [I'm happy for you, sir. Compassionate human society and law will be over here if you want us.]

ETA: The second-to-last paragraph actually does have a cogent social and political point, even if it's one that I don't really agree with. There are arguments to be made against the slapdash legal conflation of religious union and civil union. Doesn't change how twisted a lot of the rest of this is, though.

Romana: Oh for God's sake

This makes me feel a hell of a lot better about being a Takano fanboy, by way of comparison.

So I went to see Sex and the City 2 (a friend dragged me to see it because she knew that my reaction would be priceless) and walked out of the theatre a more ardent socialist and fair-tradist than I have ever been before. Anything to redistribute wealth away from these fucking yutzes.

The way I see it, there are exactly seven things that went wrong with this franchise:
  1. Somebody gave Candace Bushnell a TV series.
  2. They cast and crewed the series in the way that they did.
  3. They stretched out the series for six years.
  4. They made a film out of the series.
  5. They decided to make a sequel to the film.
  6. They set said sequel in Abu Dhabi.
  7. They advertised it with godawful puns on the verb 'to carry'.
See? Only seven things! Doesn't it seem like such a simple curse laid on the line like that?

This movie is bloated, glitzy, morally bankrupt, trades off of damaging gay stereotypes, is profoundly racist, profoundly anti-Muslim, plays Orientalism more seriously than any film since The Thief of Bagdad, manages to be genuinely racist against the Irish of all people for the first time in [my] recent memory, includes the line 'Lawrence of my labia', has too much sex in too little city, portrays being married as not only not worth it (understandable if disagreeable to me) but as some sort of Dickian nightmare (none of them are being abused or neglected in any way, by the way), and carries over an already-bad franchise into 'actively makes global income and human-rights inequalities worse by existing' territory.

This film may do wonders for US-Islamic relations: in several scenes I found myself actually rooting for the clerics.

Also, the fact that one of the characters is a mother who wears haute couture while baking cupcakes with her toddlers and throws a fit when they get it messy is the best argument for giving plenary powers to DSS that I have ever seen, intentional or not.