tempestsarekind: (austen snark is the best snark)
I keep being tempted to come up with new headlines for this article, like, "Let's all celebrate a man's mediocrity!" or "Being male means never having to live up to your potential in order to still have people devote time and energy to you."

It's time to bring Branwell, the dark Brontë, into the light
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jun/26/its-time-to-bring-branwell-the-dark-bronte-into-the-light

I think this was the paragraph that really made my eyelid twitch:

Branwell’s imaginative terrain was vast and impressive. He had the ability to rework a variety of histories and literary genres, immersing himself in an imaginative world that showcases a sophisticated interpretation of the world around him. Yet, despite this engagement, his writings are often derivative and undisciplined, often degenerating into a rambling stream of consciousness. If nothing else, however, these early years saw Branwell as an instrumental figure that inspired his sisters to harness their own imaginations and opinions. Branwell’s contribution was influencing his sisters to become the perceptive, avant-garde writers we know. (my emphasis)


Ugh. So…he wasn't actually good at writing, is what you're telling me, but we should talk about him more anyway?

The thing is, I don't even really have any opinions about Branwell, ordinarily. It's just that every time I hear about him, it's usually someone trying to make him central to the successes of his sisters, or focusing on him and his antics rather than on the creativity and artistic discipline of, you know, the Brontes who actually had flourishing literary careers. (The recent TV costume drama about the Brontes, To Walk Invisible, was regrettably guilty of this, passing over the composition of whole novels in an eyeblink while spending whole scenes on Branwell's conning their father out of money to spend on liquor.) I'm not saying that we should never talk or think about Branwell; rather, I feel like he gets talked about all the time - and maybe out of proportion to his actual accomplishments. It's that same insidious desire we seem to be afflicted with, culturally: we rack our brains to figure out ways to make a man responsible for a woman's literary successes - whether it's spending ages trying to work out who the "Master" of Emily Dickinson's poems might be, or making whole movies devoted to the idea that Jane Austen only became a novelist because Tom Lefroy recommended Tom Jones to her and broke her heart, to this. Why is it so hard to give these women their due? It's just dressing up the Victorian idea that Currer, Ellis, and Acton Bell could never really have been women in slightly more modern clothing: a man had to have had his hand in the thing, somewhere.
tempestsarekind: (excuse me what)
'I Don't Know Whether to Kiss You or Spank You': A Half Century of Fear of an Unspanked Woman
http://pictorial.jezebel.com/i-dont-know-whether-to-kiss-you-or-spank-you-a-half-ce-1769140132

Cooper gets the idea [of spanking Claudette Colbert's character] after picking up a copy of The Taming of the Shrew, but it gets him nowhere, and in the next scene he throws the book in the fireplace.

Many of the spanking films seem to have Shakespeare’s play in mind, most obviously 1955’s quasi-adaptation Kiss Me, Kate. In alluding to the play, they suggest there’s something timeless about this kind of violence. Men have always had to spank their women when they’ve gotten out of line. Yet one thing you can say for Shakespeare’s play is that Kate isn’t physically abused. Indeed, a fetish site has looked through the stage history of the play and been unable to find any spankings until after World War II.

Repeatedly, in movies, newspapers, and Mrs. J.B.M.’s letter, the phrase “old-fashioned spanking” is used to align the act with a long tradition. A spanker is guilty, one story notes, of having “backslid into the past.” Another spanker “exercised a once universal but now frowned upon right.” Yet it’s a struggle to find examples of this form of marital discipline occurring very long ago. The spanking forums, which revel in finding precedents for their kink, come up really short on any before the last century. Of course, the more violent practice of wife beating, and the law of coverture that authorized it, has a long, ugly history—but wife spanking was new. It makes no appearance in histories of domestic violence. It was a particularly modern response to modern anxieties.


(link via a commenter at The Toast.)
tempestsarekind: (austen snark is the best snark)
Apparently I really like The Toast except when they write about Jane Austen, because I feel like every piece I have read about Austen on the site has subtly irked me in some way. I read this piece a while ago (about the Jane Austen Centre in Bath), but this quotation has been going around Tumblr lately:

To see Jane Austen’s writing desk, you have to go to the British Library in London. It’s in a glass case in their Treasures of the British Library display, across from one of Shakespeare’s folios and a few cases away from some Beatles sheet music. It is a very small desk, and foldable, designed to be easily stowed away, which it must have been often; Austen wrote in her parlor and would hide her writing whenever callers stopped by. At the British Library it is open, with very small spectacles pinned to one corner and the tiny notebook that held the first draft of Persuasion lying on top of it, splayed flat so you can see Austen’s fine, precise handwriting. Under the shadow of that desk, the disciplined confinement of her novels acquires visceral force. This much space was she permitted, and no more.

In the display case next to Austen’s desk is Dickens’s first draft of Nicholas Nickelby, in a notebook that dwarfs Austen’s entire desk, with generous margins and looping, scrawly handwriting. It is impossible for me to imagine what Austen might have done with that kind of freedom, that kind of certainty of her own right to take up space.


http://the-toast.net/2016/01/07/the-real-mr-darcy-a-literary-pilgrimage/


And, like, I get it: women's oppression, whatever happened to Judith Shakespeare*, you have the right to take up space. It's a nice contrast, Dickens' rangy, striding freedom against Austen's miniature precision and reserve. Except Austen chose to write in the parlor and hide her writing when company came over, instead of staying in her room. This idea that Austen could have just done more, just have been bigger and so much better - if she'd had the wild freedom of a Bronte, if she'd written about the Napoleonic Wars, if she'd had a bigger desk and the mazy streets of London to roam, if we added zombies - is one of those unexamined, insulting sentiments that sets my teeth on edge and makes me want to run through the streets yelling things like "Emma is a nationalist project!" and "I will fight you over Fanny Price!" Austen described her style as working on a bit of ivory, and when people told her she ought to write Bigger Things (like the time the Prince Regent's librarian suggested that she ought to write a "historical romance" about the house of Saxe-Coburg), she said, "Thanks, but no thanks,"** because - here's the shocking thing that people don't seem to Get about Austen - she knew what she wanted to do. She didn't accidentally fall into her style of writing and subject matter because it was the best she could do given her limited freedoms, or because it was the best life had to offer her after being disappointed in love, or because she was just a mimic who wrote down conversations as they happened and couldn't think beyond her social world. (I know I always say this, but read Claire Tomalin on Jane Austen's social world. If she had wanted to write some grand Gothic romance, she had several neighbors she could have chosen for inspiration, to say nothing of her cousin who married a French aristocrat who got guillotined during the French Revolution.) Austen chose to write what she wanted to write, and it makes me so mad when people don't give her that credit - whether they dismiss her for feminist reasons or not.


*Woolf's Judith Shakespeare, not the historical one.
**Or, as she put it, "No, I must keep to my own style and go in my own way." I don't know why this idea is so hard for people to understand.
tempestsarekind: (austen snark is the best snark)
Came to this via Linda Holmes on Twitter, as she's the one who used the phrase "splatter murder" quoted in the piece:
http://www.ew.com/article/2015/08/04/wicked-city-violence

Everything about this article makes me tired. "Oh, our show has graphic violence but it's necessary, because that's the story we're telling." (Well…can we stop telling that story? Seriously, could we maybe just stop with the stories about murderers we're supposed to 'root for' for a while? If Shakespeare couldn't make me like it, you are certainly not going to.*) "Oh, this isn't misogynist violence, because we're women, and there will totally be male victims. I mean, if trends hold, the male victims won't be sexualized while they're murdered, unlike the female victim who is literally murdered while performing oral sex, and we clearly thought that killing a woman first was the way to get everyone's attention and show we mean business, but nope, no misogyny here!" Ugh.

And why does murder always have to be the hook, anyway? Why couldn't this show be about the rock-and-roll culture of the '80s without being about "Bonnie and Clyde-esque serial killers"? That might actually have been something new and different to watch. But no, because a show without murder just isn't worth doing, apparently. I feel like we have reached a point where murder is just the quickest way to make the case that your show is really about something, that it's serious and important and dark and gritty, and everything that's supposed to make for highbrow entertainment these days. Either that, or it's an easy plot device for neatly compartmentalized, episodic shows, the victim's corpse just something for detectives to exchange banter over, to fill out forty-five minutes without requiring the audience to have to care about something from week to week.

*This comment was about Richard III (longtime readers know that I am just spectacularly uninterested in villains), but in context here it also reminds me of the little debate about Macbeth tucked into season 2 of Slings & Arrows - where Geoffrey says that the play teaches us about evil, and Nahum counters that no, it only shows us evil (and, he implies, what's the point of showing that, when we all know it exists?). I think Macbeth does more than that - though only if you direct it properly; it can totally turn into "splatter murder" if you're not careful - but I always think of that debate, because it's such an important question to ask. Are you actually saying something about murder and evil? Or are you just showing it?
tempestsarekind: (regency house party [s&s])
So, before I get started, here's a review of Belle that I don't like or agree with much:
"In 'Belle,' a complex life tangled in class and commerce"
http://www.npr.org/2014/05/02/308733902/in-belle-a-complex-life-tangled-in-class-and-commerce

If you like Jane Austen film adaptations and/or period drama more generally, I think you should go out and see Belle if it's playing near you. And obviously I can't tell anyone what to do, but if this is the kind of thing that interests you, then I think it's worth going out to see it in the theater if that is within your means - voting with your wallet and all that - rather than waiting to catch it on DVD or Netflix. Personally, having done it yesterday*, I think it was very much worth the money, and also, Gugu Mbatha-Raw has the kind of vividly expressive face that is just made for closeups. I thought the whole thing was moving and immersive, with a script that was spare but still containing a real sense of eighteenth-century cadence, and Gugu did a fabulous job.

*I got home yesterday at about ten minutes to six, took my shoes off, ate a spoonful of peanut butter and two dried apricots while I tried to figure out what I was going to make for dinner - and then abruptly remembered that Belle was opening at my local cinema that day. It turned out that there was a 7:05 screening, so I ran back out to catch it. Happily, the theater was mostly full by the time the movie started.

As I sat there waiting for the movie to start, I amused myself by trying to imagine the kinds of ways that people might discount this movie. It was going to be "too much like other period pieces," I imagined, too much like Jane Austen, not big or significant enough to be a worthy film. And sure enough, check out the end of this review:
While the basic outline of Belle's story is real, the filmmakers have invented freely within that outline, and most of what they've invented has the themes and tone of vintage Jane Austen — dowries, deceptions, suitors only some of whom are suitable. This has the effect of making the film feel elegant but a little weightless despite the weighty matters at its center.

Still, it's smartly acted, handsome and well-crafted in a way that'll make it irresistible to the Merchant-Ivory/Masterpiece Theater set — think pride, with a whole lot of prejudice.


Got it in one, guys. (This is literally the first review of the film that I pulled up.) Because you can't tell a story about slavery without showing whips and chains and suffering black bodies; because a film set in drawing rooms can't ever matter as much as one out on the open seas; because apparently the fact that women of color rarely if ever get to be the heroine of Austen-style period dramas has totally escaped this reviewer's notice. (This was in fact the director's point, but whatever.) Because everyone knows there's only one way to talk about race in the movies, and race is always the only thing that could matter to characters of color: how could Dido (the way "Belle" is referred to in the film) be concerned with…finding a husband? That paltry subject? How could she want to find the personal happiness that everyone else might want when there is slavery on the line???

[Here is an interview with the director, Amma Asante, that is *not* tone-deaf and infuriating:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/express/wp/2014/05/09/amma-asante-tells-the-story-of-a-biracial-woman-finding-her-place-in-the-world-in-belle/
“I wanted to ask the question, ‘Who defines us — society or ourselves?’ ” Asante says. “If society simply sees her as the child of a slave but she feels like the child of an aristocrat, what is the most important predictor of her success?”
]

I also probably shouldn't be as annoyed as I am about the fact that this review calls Dido a "slave girl" raised in an aristocratic family when the movie tells us in, like, minute two that Dido was born on British soil - and hence not a slave, ever - but I AM, anyway. It's like the desire to fit this movie into the particular expected boxes turned the reviewer selectively deaf. This movie is *so* much about class and status as well, not just about race - it's almost like intersectionality is an actual thing, you guys! One of the major points of the movie - I don't think this was true in actual fact - is that Dido is able to inherit 2000 pounds a year from her father after his death, because he acknowledged her while he was alive, whereas her white cousin was penniless - and that meant that in that ruthless marriage market of the eighteenth century, there were people who would see Dido as the catch, even if they felt they had to "overlook" her color; this is a plot point as well. Dido's great-uncle/adopted father (Lord Mansfield, played by that period-drama stalwart Tom Wilkinson) is terribly angry when his new law student tells Dido about the slavery-ship case that he's struggling with, because as far as he is concerned, slavery should never have to matter to her: she is a Murray, and you are the son of a vicar, how dare you even speak to her! (This is, of course, naive and infantilizing; but the point is that for Lord Mansfield, Dido's color is really not the salient fact in some ways, though of course not all. And the Black servant Mabel highlights this point: she's a servant (not a slave; Dido asks pointed questions about this when they go to the house in London), not because of her color, but because in the 18th-century English aristocratic mind, some people are servants and some people are lords - they have plenty of white servants as well. But it's like there's so little frame of reference for this reviewer to imagine a Black character in a pre-1900 period film who is *not* a slave that this just passed him by.

And I do think that this attitude has ramifications beyond this one film - because there are certain kinds of Black experiences that are considered "authentic," and some that are not, regardless of whether there are actual people who live them (someone on TV - et tu, PBS! - called The Cosby Show less "authentic" than Good Times in a documentary just the other day); because people still think there were basically no Black people in the UK before the 1950s (guess who's still mad at Downton Abbey for importing a Black character from the US instead of challenging that view and finding a character from right there at home? Go on, guess). Et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum. (To say nothing of the continued stupidity of claiming that the concerns that governed women's lives in the past are weightless. How dare you.)

Anyway, you should go see Belle, because Gugu Mbatha-Raw is a delight, and it's got lovely costumes, and it's romantic (because yes, figuring out whom you are going to spend the rest of your life with is a pretty big deal when you can't get a divorce and can't own your own money because you're a gentlewoman and so can't have a job; and even if that weren't the case, people have relationships and therefore stories about those relationships are important), and I cried a bunch of times, and maybe if enough people go see this movie, maybe someday I will get my Benjamin Banneker biopic, or - no disrespect to 12 Years a Slave or the real lives that inspired it - at least some other pre-1900 period drama that isn't about a slave, because I still think it's totally fishy that Hollywood overlooks the many people of color, even in slave-holding societies, who lived in the past and weren't slaves.
tempestsarekind: (amy and roranicus)
Having Tam Lin feelings about Amy and Rory again, send help

I just - she loves him so fiercely and stubbornly that she remembers him back into the universe, and then is prepared to love him until he's human again (hold me fast and fear me not); she tears apart time for him; she's ready to do battle for him against creatures that want to take him out of time and away from her, with nothing more than her will... oh, Amy Pond, darling girl, no one told me you were going to choose to casually live inside one of my favorite narratives; I was not prepared for you.

This is one of the reasons it bothers me when people argue that Amy choosing Rory is automatically misogynist, that Amy is a passive character - as though "love" isn't also a verb, an action; as if it isn't terribly hard and brave; as if learning the kind of trust and faith that love requires isn't a major part of Amy's arc. As though telling stories that center around love is always sexist, no matter how they're actually executed, because love is weak and all girls in stories should fight with weapons and with fists; anything "less" is less than feminist.

In other media thoughts...I was looking at the book The Art of Brave a few weeks ago, and one of the people who wound up working on the movie said he was initially hesitant, because it was a princess movie (ugh, girls), and that mother-daughter relationship territory had been covered so often... Except, no? Ariel, Belle, Jasmine, Pocahontas, Mulan, Jane from Tarzan: all father-daughter stories. (Mulan was the first Disney girl in ages to even *have* a mother; but all the big emotional scenes are between her and her father.) There are plenty of princesses who have wicked stepmothers, but that's really not the same thing. I guess there's a little bit of mother-daughter stuff in The Incredibles? Maybe? Non-animation, there's Gilmore Girls, and...Freaky Friday? Maybe I just watch the wrong stuff, but I'm drawing a blank on stories where the mother-daughter relationship is really central. (There are family shows like Joan of Arcadia and Parenthood with various important familial relationships, mother-daughter being one; that's good, but also not the same.) There was that Ya-Ya Sisterhood movie, I guess, but the mother-daughter relationship seemed (in the bits of it I saw on tv) like the frame narrative rather than the central story. And Anna Quindlen's One True Thing (the movie was kind of terrible, but I loved the book for quite a while. I wonder how I'd feel if I went back to read it now). I'm sure there are tons of books where mother-daughter relationships are key, but my point is that I don't think this is actually a narrative that's being done all the time in prominently visible media, like, oh, you can't swing a cat without hitting a mother-daughter story, let's not do another one of those.

And then I tried to come up with mother-son stories, and came up really empty there too. Tarzan, I guess, and The Iron Giant, and maybe Treasure Planet, not that I ever saw that one. I don't actually watch Teen Wolf, but gifsets on the internet suggest that the main wolf character has a good relationship with his mom? (Honestly, this is the first thing I've heard about the show that made me want to watch it. The life of a girl who loves supernatural creatures but has no interest in vampires, werewolves, and zombies, it is a hard life.) I saw a book at the library once about how our culture often sidelines and even stigmatizes close mother-son relationships (the term "momma's boy" is *not* a compliment), just at the moment when boys are going through all kinds of hormonal, emotional drama and need more support, not to be told that they're men and need to "cut the apron strings" or whatever - I spent a good while flipping through the book, although I have no memory of what it was called - and that came to mind while I was utterly failing to compile any sort of list.
tempestsarekind: (gilmore couch potatoes)
http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2013/06/14/191568762/at-the-movies-the-women-are-gone

"You can apparently make an endless collection of high-priced action flops and everybody says 'win some, lose some' and nobody decides that They Are Poison, but it feels like every 'surprise success' about women is an anomaly and every failure is an abject lesson about how we really ought to just leave it all to The Rock."

And of course, this could just as easily apply - only even more so, perhaps - to protagonists of color as well.
tempestsarekind: (Default)
You know, it occurs to me that if I never see another movie that makes a parallel between a nature program and a character's sex life, it will in fact be too soon.

Also, I learned today that I have very little patience for statements like, 'oh, I just don't think he's at an age to read books with a girl main character,' even when I love the person making the comment. If you never even offer boys books with heroines, you are in fact teaching them by omission not to read them!


Posted via m.livejournal.com.

tempestsarekind: (wtf?)
Is this the worst article, or THE WORST article?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/9446816/If-Maeve-Binchy-had-been-a-mother-....html

This is male privilege: not having people speculate about whether, no matter the height of your intellectual and literary achievements, you wouldn't *really* have been a better writer (and human) if you'd had children - if your work would have been less limited, your experience of life deeper and richer. Because everyone knows that a woman can't be fulfilled as a human without having children. And they can't write *real* books without this experience:

" Binchy, whose first novel was about a 20-year friendship between two women, didn’t need the experience of motherhood to write about love and friendship in a way that charmed millions. But she might have dug deeper, charming less but enlightening more, had she done so."

Take note, ladies. Without the experience of childbirth and child-rearing, all you can do as a writer is *charm*. And if you *want* to write charming books, well. You just don't know any better yet, because you're not a real, self-possessed writer and person, who takes stock of what she wants her literary subject to be. You see, you're still unfinished, not quite a grown-up. You'll never be a grown-up, not until you start "putting yourself last" and take care of your kids.
tempestsarekind: (eleven and amy)
I keep wanting to make some kind of (totally uninformed) post about agency, and how it's this word that gets brought in so often to dismiss or reject, to shut down discussions--and this is both an academic move and a fandom one, I think: one of the worst things you can say about a character, Shakespearean or sci-fi, is that she doesn't have agency. Because in that situation, of course, you would behave totally differently, you wouldn't let that happen to you, you wouldn't believe such ridiculous, silly things. (My students--not this batch in particular, just "students" en masse--do this relatively often, with characters like Desdemona or any woman in a Victorian novel who seems to fall in line with Victorian ideas.) You would be modern and autonomous, and every story would be completely and totally about you.

This nonexistent post, for which this spurt of words is merely a placeholder for the thing my brain can't form, is partly, in a lurking sort of way, about Amy Pond (particularly in "Amy's Choice"), and the weird assertion that Amy doesn't have agency, which doesn't make any sense to me, because I see her doing things all over the place. It seems--perhaps?--to stem from a feeling that Amy's decisions aren't wholly motivated by her own decisions in some way...but whose are? The idea seems to be that if one winds up in a situation one didn't choose to be in, or if outside forces are capable of acting on one, then one's agency completely evaporates. But don't we all experience that? Aren't all of our decisions only partially motivated by ourselves? Yes, the Dream Lord sets the terms of the game, and the board turns out to be the Doctor's subconscious--but Amy still has moves to make within that framework, and those moves matter; she still chooses to act in particular ways.

This could also, this post that doesn't exist, be a post about comedy, because similar ideas seem to underpin a lot of that discussion as well: I've started saying that my dissertation is about "uncovering a form of comic agency" largely in reaction to the discovery that lots of critics seem to think that such a thing isn't even possible--that being a character in a Shakespearean comedy is to give up all claim toward being an actor, and to become nothing but acted upon, as though there isn't a complex interplay going on at all times between the demands of society on these characters and what they demand for themselves.

Some time ago, when I got the first glimmering of an idea that I might want to write about children in connection with A Midsummer Night's Dream, I read a book that reduced young Lucius in Titus Andronicus to the status of his copy of Ovid, both "incompletely deliberating agents" for whom there was no real possibility of meaning anything on their own terms. (Throughout this book, children are depicted as being able to 'parrot' stories in which adult readers can hear deeper meanings, but not as having any control over those deeper meanings...which is a thing that often happens with the allusions that comic characters make, too.) I wrote then: "I often feel as though writers set out to define agency as narrowly as possible--here, the only real agency possible is to be the originator of an action, not a contributor; anything else makes you a mere relay--in order to claim agency for as few characters as possible--and I have a suspicion that most of them would be men, striding and autonomous, their dependence on others denied or occluded." I don't know how much I agree with that last bit, now--my notes are frequently more snarky than they ought to be--but I do think that a lot of definitions of agency that get used seem to depend on the denial of interdependence and interconnectedness; they set up an ideal of complete independence that is largely impossible to reach, and deny the very real actions that the many take in their lives, in favor of valorizing the few.
tempestsarekind: (rory and amy)
I haven't posted about this before because a) I found the mini-episode to be a bit forgettable in most respects, and anyway it's only seven or eight minutes; and b) hello, gender issues ahoy. I'm disquieted, certainly, but at the same time I can't quite get a grasp on the mini-episode and say "This is its point of view."

Because I'm still of two minds about it, here's a blog post:
http://www.tor.com/blogs/2011/03/moffats-women-amy-and-her-skirt

And this comment in particular (by the writer of the piece) basically sums up the second of those two minds:
http://www.tor.com/blogs/2011/03/moffats-women-amy-and-her-skirt#174076

spoilers, I guess? In a vague sort of way? )
tempestsarekind: (rory and amy)
I haven't posted about this before because a) I found the mini-episode to be a bit forgettable in most respects, and anyway it's only seven or eight minutes; and b) hello, gender issues ahoy. I'm disquieted, certainly, but at the same time I can't quite get a grasp on the mini-episode and say "This is its point of view."

Because I'm still of two minds about it, here's a blog post:
http://www.tor.com/blogs/2011/03/moffats-women-amy-and-her-skirt

And this comment in particular (by the writer of the piece) basically sums up the second of those two minds:
http://www.tor.com/blogs/2011/03/moffats-women-amy-and-her-skirt#174076

spoilers, I guess? In a vague sort of way? )
tempestsarekind: (treasonous boombox)
(I'm using this icon because I sort of feel like Lloyd Dobler--or at least that kind of romantic character--is a ghost haunting this film, in ways I can't articulate at the moment.)

I think it's this, my problem with the film: Tom probably sees himself as a nice guy, but I can't help seeing him as a Nice Guy--the sort who thinks he's somehow entitled to female attention and interest because of his slightly nerdy, Smith-listening, "sensitive" ways (in other words, not like Those Jerks Out There). And I can't tell where the film actually falls in terms of how we're supposed to be perceiving this character. cut for spoilers and language )
tempestsarekind: (treasonous boombox)
(I'm using this icon because I sort of feel like Lloyd Dobler--or at least that kind of romantic character--is a ghost haunting this film, in ways I can't articulate at the moment.)

I think it's this, my problem with the film: Tom probably sees himself as a nice guy, but I can't help seeing him as a Nice Guy--the sort who thinks he's somehow entitled to female attention and interest because of his slightly nerdy, Smith-listening, "sensitive" ways (in other words, not like Those Jerks Out There). And I can't tell where the film actually falls in terms of how we're supposed to be perceiving this character. cut for spoilers and language )
tempestsarekind: (Default)
Watching 500 Days of Summer, later than everyone else on the planet: it's an oddly disjunctive experience. On the one hand: cute hipsters! On the other, it's giving me a sick sort of feeling in my stomach: ironic, knowing misogyny still feels like misogyny, you know?

Posted via m.livejournal.com.

tempestsarekind: (Default)
Watching 500 Days of Summer, later than everyone else on the planet: it's an oddly disjunctive experience. On the one hand: cute hipsters! On the other, it's giving me a sick sort of feeling in my stomach: ironic, knowing misogyny still feels like misogyny, you know?

Posted via m.livejournal.com.

tempestsarekind: (not supposed to be a heroine [NA])
I find it impossible to take seriously this article on Austen's modern appeal when the author has already used the words 'hysteria,' 'extravagance,' 'emotional,' and 'irrational.' (Apparently 'even levelheaded professionals get emotional and extravagant when writing about Austen.' OH NOES.)



Post from mobile portal m.livejournal.com
tempestsarekind: (not supposed to be a heroine [NA])
I find it impossible to take seriously this article on Austen's modern appeal when the author has already used the words 'hysteria,' 'extravagance,' 'emotional,' and 'irrational.' (Apparently 'even levelheaded professionals get emotional and extravagant when writing about Austen.' OH NOES.)



Post from mobile portal m.livejournal.com
tempestsarekind: (excuse me what)
Look, world. I can't be angry all the time. Do you think you could maybe suck a little less? I'm not even talking major, mind-bending ways here. Just--maybe not saying that a woman agreed to be exposed and filmed because she was having a good time at a party? Do you think that we could have a break, and you could not just reproduce pages out of the Rape Is Totally Okay If We Decide You're a Slut playbook?

"Mo. woman loses lawsuit over 'Girls Gone Wild’ video"
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_30865bcc-95eb-11df-9734-00127992bc8b.html

Link originally from Tiger Beatdown:
http://tigerbeatdown.com/2010/07/27/all-your-boobs-belong-to-us-some-thoughts-about-consent-while-female/

I mean, ffs. The jury foreman actually says "She knew what she was doing." How is that even possible???
tempestsarekind: (excuse me what)
Look, world. I can't be angry all the time. Do you think you could maybe suck a little less? I'm not even talking major, mind-bending ways here. Just--maybe not saying that a woman agreed to be exposed and filmed because she was having a good time at a party? Do you think that we could have a break, and you could not just reproduce pages out of the Rape Is Totally Okay If We Decide You're a Slut playbook?

"Mo. woman loses lawsuit over 'Girls Gone Wild’ video"
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_30865bcc-95eb-11df-9734-00127992bc8b.html

Link originally from Tiger Beatdown:
http://tigerbeatdown.com/2010/07/27/all-your-boobs-belong-to-us-some-thoughts-about-consent-while-female/

I mean, ffs. The jury foreman actually says "She knew what she was doing." How is that even possible???

Profile

tempestsarekind: (Default)
tempestsarekind

July 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
91011 12 13 1415
16171819 202122
23 242526272829
3031     

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 27th, 2017 04:47 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios