shut up and let me see your jazz hands

So first we have Disney deciding that The Princess and the Frog didn't do well enough because it was about icky girls and that alienated boys. Therefore they have changed the title of the upcoming Rapunzel movie from Rapunzel to Tangled, and made it all about the guy who comes to rescue her. Because there are so many kids' movies out there about girls and absolutely none about boys! And the solution for making something appealing to a wider audience couldn't possibly be having female main characters who aren't "princesses". Any of the Pixar movies could have been about a girl without changing anything in the plot, yet apparently no one can imagine a girl having an adventure or doing anything but wangsting about Prince Charming. (Not that Princess and the Frog necessarily follows that mold; I haven't seen it. But just in general.)

Then today I saw that according to SyFy's Merlin website, "not even the most charitable person could call [Gwen] beautiful". Also she apparently has "wonky teeth, uncooperative hair and glasses" (did they c&p from the Ugly Betty website or something!?) and her entire purpose in the show is to angst about her looks and how no one could possibly love her. Now, I don't watch Merlin, but I am pretty sure that's not her main plotline, or even a subplot (at least from what others have said about it). The only way I can figure they came up with this bio is that someone saw a black girl and having never seen the show, this is the only sort of story they could imagine for her. (Black girls can't possibly be beautiful, right? And gosh, she doesn't have straightened hair! Well, then, it must be unruly and a source of angst!)

I followed a link to Accidental Dong tonight, a blog with has pictures of unintentionally penis-shaped things. And it was pretty funny and I was thinking of reposting the link.

Until I came to this entry with a photo of Caster Semenya, where apparently the "joke" is that she didn't know she was intersex, so she must have an "accidental dong". There's even someone in comments who refers to her as "she" in quotation marks.

What the fuck, people? I feel sick.

In a shocking turn of events, a white boy is cast to play a Chinese-American superhero.

Tommy Zhou is a martial artist and inventor who was was raised by his Shanghainese grandfather in Honolulu Chinatown. And there's massive amounts of Chinese culture and imagery all over the comic, and ingrained into the plot itself.

So we have a lead character who was designed from the ground-up to be an Asian-American superhero. And the the perfect person to play him is a Caucasian Disney Channel star.

While there can be no excuses of "it's a fantasy world" or "but all anime characters look white anyway" this time, there are already defenders saying "he's not white, he's Italian" and "it's just a movie".

So. Much. Hate.

This is an interesting article about a thirteen-year-old boy who used a walkman for a week instead of his iPod. He didn't realise at first that tapes had a second side! D: But while it's tempting to laugh at him for being stupid...why would he automatically know that? If he has been exposed to tapes at all, it's probably been VHS tapes...which have only one side. But really, at thirteen, he has probably only been exposed to DVDs, CDs, and intangible media.

*

This is a good post about sizeism, springing from discussion of a fic written for spn_j2_bigbang. I saw the story when it was first posted and the summary was enough to make me want to stay far, far away. It was about Jensen being really fat and being sent to a fat camp sort of place, where he meets Jared, a trainer, and loses weight and falls in love. Oh yeah, and he's a thirty-year-old virgin. And he's in really bad health. And the reason he's fat is because he stuffs his face all day and is lazy and never exercises.

Yeah...that sounds awesome. But of course it was a huge hit.

The idea that fat people would be thin if only they exercised and didn't eat so much is so pervasive, but it's just not true. Skinny people are not necessarily skinny because they don't eat much, or because they eat healthy food, or because they exercise all the time. Sure, some do those things. So do fat people.

I have been fat almost all my life. I have also been very active most of my life. When I was a kid, I rode my bike everywhere. When I was in high school I played sports (and still rode my bike all the time). When I was in college I walked a lot and rode my bike (UCLA is built on a mountain; going to school there will guarantee you a lot of exercise). Through it all, I was in great shape, but was still fat, and not just a little fat, but "obese". The only time I have not got a lot of exercise is the ten years or so that Bruce and I had a car. You know what happened then? I got out of shape. Being out of shape is not the same as being fat. Being in shape is not the same as being thin.

Now that we don't have a car anymore and are walking a lot again (we are now walking an average of three miles a day, and the better shape we get in, the longer our walks are getting), guess what? I am in so much better shape. I have also this past year or so made it a goal to eat healthier, and have been keeping to it really well. I have never eaten a lot. When we have family meals, I am always the one who eats the least, less than both fat and thin relatives. I only eat when I'm hungry, not for "comfort eating" or because I'm bored. I drink water almost exclusively.

Despite all this, while Bruce has lost about thirty pounds, I've lost maybe five or six. I exercise a lot and eat well, but am still over a hundred pounds overweight.

Of course I would love to be thin. I would love to just weigh less than I do now, even if I never got actually thin or "normal" weight. But I am not going to go on a diet, because diets are the worst thing for you.

And I resent the idea that I should starve myself because if I only ate less I wouldn't be fat! Eating healthy food isn't enough. Eating only enough to fill my stomach and stop it from hurting isn't enough. I'm really not fit to even eat at all. That's the message that it sends when people say all you have to do to lose weight is eat less.

*

But enough ranting. Now for some of those interview meme questions.

From helens78:

( click! )

From mikotokun:

( click! )

And from bell:

( click! )

1. We have not heard from Patricia Wrede, author of the faily book in question, herself, only from her defenders (mainly Lois McMaster Bujold). I have wondered idly what her reaction would be like. I know nothing of the woman, having never even heard of her until this, but if this quote from her when she was writing the book is anything to go by, I'm thinking she probably won't react well.

I responded on the thread itself, but I'll post my comment here as well:

Good to know that Native Americans are nothing more than a "problem" to be "eliminated", that the task of, as Alo said, writing them as people was beyond her, that she felt she had no choice (her hands were tied, folks!) but to write them as one tired stereotype or another. Apparently she found the stereotyped roles allowed "Aphrikans" to be more palatable.

And the "right feel"? What was the "right feel"? That white settlers were awesome and singlehandedly turned this (empty) country into a prosperous nation? Was there not a single thought going through this woman's head other than "squee! megafauna!!!1111!!!"?

I just...seriously? I keep going back to the words "eliminating the problem". Eliminating the problem. How could someone say those words without any self-awareness? (And I am still giving her the benefit of the doubt that it's just massive cluelessness.) This is text communication. You can choose your words more carefully than you might in the middle of an oral conversation. You have time to think about what you're saying. And you still choose to use words that call to mind the act of actual genocide while contemplating your planned textual genocide?

Really?

2. So I have been watching as Bujold continues to dig herself deeper and deeper. Others have discussed the fail inherent in insisting that those who claim to be Native American are suspect, that only those with money to give to charity are truly concerned with social justice, that it is somehow surprising that Native Americans know how to use the internet, that there are more than enough Native Americans alive today, so what happened in the past doesn't matter, etc. etc. so I will just focus on this:

Note that while the assessment is still negative, it is more nuanced -- and, in this case through a donation of time and attention, an opinion that has earned its right to be regarded.

Once again, it's put forth that it's invalid to have an opinion about something unless you have seen or read it yourself. Now, yes, there are times when people do get hysterical over things via second-hand misinformation, but just because some people believe crazy rumors about Harry Potter books that could be easily disproved by actually reading them doesn't mean that no one should ever form an opinion based on a review of something they haven't read (or seen) themselves. People do this all the time! That's why reviews exist! No one has time to read and watch everything. We are all always forming opinions based on something other than the full text of the work in question. Sometimes our opinions are "hey, this sounds interesting, I'm going to read it", sometimes they are "do not want".

Reviews can be especially important when the very premise of something sounds skeevy.

For example, two books I've seen recced all over the place recently are The Secret Life of Bees and The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time. After seeing those titles appear over and over, I decided to check them out and found that both summaries made me uneasy.

Secret Life sounded like yet another story where black people only exist to help the white heroine. The author is white. These two things alone were not enough to make up my mind. It could be that the summary is bad and the book itself does not fall into those traps. So I read the reviews on Amazon. There are a slew of glowing reviews...none of which mention the problematic aspects in a way that makes me think the readers had even thought about them. It wasn't that the reviewers discussed possibily problematic aspects and concluded that the author had done a good job; they seemed unaware that there was anything that could be problematic. So I looked at the negative reviews, and immediately found ones that discussed the book critically and addressed the points I had been worried about.

Curious Incident is about an autistic boy who, from the summary/reviews, sounds like every autistic stereotype rolled into one. The author is neurotypical. Positive reviews that mention autism at all praise the book for the insight, for a window into the autistic mind, etc. Now. I'm not going to say an NT author can never write something insightful re: autism, but I'm pretty doubtful, you know? So I check the negative reviews, and there are many comments by autistic readers who were unhappy with the portrayal. Who am I going to believe, when choosing a book that might possibly irritate me with its stereotypes and nonsense? Yeah, you can bet it's not NTs oohing and aahing about being ~enlightened~ by the portrayal.

In both cases, I have formed an opinion without reading the books in question. I am 99.9% certain that they would annoy me and waste my time. I will, if the books come up, not hesitate to anti-rec them and explain why I find them problematic, despite having not read them myself.

And that is what people are doing with Wrede's book. They saw a skeevy premise, they read reviews (positive and negative) by people who had read the book, and they decided the folks who had read critically and were engaging with the problematic aspects, rather than ignoring them or being unaware of the possibility, were the ones to be trusted.

Especially since not one positive reviewer has put forth any reason why the negative reviewers should be discredited. It's the same pattern in all three books discussed here. The only people engaging seriously and critically with problematic elements of the books are the negative reviewers. If positive reviewers make any note of the issues, it's to say things like "it's just fiction", which is not a defense and does not address the problems.

And having heard both sides, should I and others discuss the problems in the book, our opinions have just as much right to be regarded. (Not that I expect Bujold actually gave any more thought to that person's comments than she did to anyone else's. Her attitude is remarkably similar to Elizabeth Bear's.)



For further reading, see naraht's excellent links roundup (note: avoid anything by hatman for the sake of your blood pressure).

Okay, so, sometimes I come across something that really pisses me off, and I'll leave it open in a tab thinking maybe I'll post about it later, but it doesn't seem like I have enough to say for it to really be a post on its own, yet everything else I want to talk about that day is positive, and so will go in the happiness posts. So I often end up going eh, and not posting about annoying stuff.

Well! Now I have enough things that I've seen lately to make a post of their own. :p

1. You've probably already heard about the Amazon hijinks, but if not the gist of it is that Amazon has begun erasing sales rankings for any books with LGBT characters on the grounds that they are adult material. This includes, of course, many books which do have "adult" material (by which Amazon means of course sex), but it also includes children's books and autobiographies and books without graphic sex. It's very obvious that the claims of not wanting to show adult material in the best seller lists are completely bogus and this is simply a way to shunt aside any books about LGBT people. What they are saying is that the very existence of people who are not straight and/or cisgender is objectionable. (Reminds me of the film Ma Vie en Rose, a sweet story about a transgender child, which received an R rating in the US despite having no sex (or even reference to sex) or violence or language or anything that makes a film R rated.) Not only do books without sales rankings not show up in the best seller lists, they are also much harder (sometimes impossible) to find via search. A good links roundup can be found here.

2. A Massachusetts representative introduced a bill to make it illegal for anyone over 60 to pose nude for a photo or film. The logic is that old people are as incapable of giving consent as a child is, and therefore this is abuse. Well, that would be great if you were talking about someone with Alzheimer's or senile dementia, but we're talking about everyone over the age of sixty! No longer a consenting adult! She also wants to include the disabled in her bill. I mean, everyone knows that being physically disabled means you're stupid and unable to think for yourself, right?

3. A Texas representative thinks Asians should change their names to something "more American" so that real Americans don't have to pronounce their difficult names (like Lee and Kim!).

I'm sure there were more, but since I already closed the tabs whenever, I don't remember what or where they were. And besides, it's almost time for the delicious dinner of deliciousness. I can't be pissed off now!

So you know that whole thing where there's a live-action movie for Avatar: The Last Airbender starring a buncha white people?

That's no ordinary failboat. The makers of this film are determined to throw the biggest damn party they can on that failboat. Spectacular levels of fail on this boat here. Truly spectacular.

Because now that they've cast the lead roles with white kids, now they have a casting call for all the bit parts, and they want to let you, children of color, know that while you're not good enough to play the heroes, you can still be someone in the background. They'll throw you this bone.

Director-writer-producer M. Night Shyamalan is casting for The Last Airbender, a live-action film from Paramount and Nickelodeon based on the Nickelodeon animated series, shooting here from mid-March through July. (It's set in a world where human civilization is divided into four nations: Air, Water, Earth and Fire. The film's hero, the reluctant young Aang, is the Last Airbender. Aided by a protective teenage Waterbender named Katara and her bullheaded brother, Sokka, Aang proceeds on a perilous journey to restore balance to their war-torn world. Standard stuff.)

The O.C.'s Jackson Rathbone has been named as Sokka. Casting folks are looking for extras to play soldiers, martial artists, dancers, gymnasts, athletes and families - specifically physically fit people from 18 to 65 years old. The open call will be 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Saturday at Bullies restaurant at the Wachovia Spectrum. You're asked to dress casually or in the traditional costume of your family's ethnic background.

And I love the weasel-wording of this casting call. They don't ever say they're looking for people of color for these roles, but when they say you should dress in "the traditional costume of your family's ethnic background", they sure don't mean kilts and lederhosen.

I thought Leonardo DiCaprio's wankfest whitewashing of Akira would take the prize for most offensive live action version of an anime, but I don't know, man. These guys seem determined to take him on. (And since Leo's is only theoretical at the moment, they're winning by a landslide.)

This is a very interesting post. What also caught my eye was this thread, specifically "I'm currently confronting an internal bias that says the Caribbean simply cannot be the center of the world (in that whole, saving the world from evil sense)".

She is obviously talking as someone who wants to change that, who is resentful of the fact that white, American (or western in general) media and its focus on white Americans as the heroes is so prevalent that it has warped her own thinking in this way.

But it reminded me of the other side of the coin, of all the kids (American, presumably white) back on my Digimon messageboard, who would complain about Digimon and how wrong and silly it was that Japan was the focus, that Japan was saving the world, that Japanese kids were who mattered, that Americans were mentioned in passing a bit in 02, with the whole Digidestined all over the world thing, but that was it.

It used to make me so angry. Of course the focus was Japan. Of course Japanese kids were saving the world. It's a show made by and for Japanese people! Why the hell should they do anything else? These kids on my messageboard expected to be catered to by a show from another country. And this wasn't just the kids at home watching the dubbed version who didn't even know it was from Japan. These were kids who were into anime, who preferred subs to dubs and wanted the original version over what was aired in English.

And yet they still thought it ridiculous that Japanese kids would save the world? What the actual fuck, you know?

Just being reminded of it pisses me off.

And of course it's just that attitude that leads to stuff like the Avatar casting, or Dragonball Z or Speed Racer or Akira or any of the live-action films where characters of color are now suddenly played by white people. And Akira, of course is being moved to New York instead of Tokyo.

After all, it's silly for anyone but white Americans to be the heroes.

(Oops, that turned into a rant. *tags appropriately*)

Wow, today was full of ragenating stories.

First off, there's the casting announcement for Avatar. I've never seen the show, but even without watching, I managed to gather that it was about people of color, not about a bunch of white kids. Somehow Hollywood missed that. I think possibly the most eye-twitchingly offensive comment I personally have come across (I'm sure there have been much, much worse, but I have been sticking to safer waters) was this one. Did you know that it's impossible to cast Asians in an English-language film because Asians don't speak English? That there are absolutely no Asians in the world whose first language is English. Not even any kids who've lived in English-speaking countries long enough to be fluent! I mean, jeez. No wonder they had to cast white kids.

This article about how any guy (who's not out as gay) who kisses another guy onscreen gets subjected to the most offensive, ridiculous questions about how it felt to kiss a guy. The article itself is great. It's the questions themselves (and some of the "zomg must protect my masculinity" answers some of the actors give) that are enraging. And since I don't read/watch celebrity interviews, I was unaware of how common this sort of thing was. Also, I never had any feelings one way or the other about David Letterman before, but I sure have a massive hate-on for him (and the audience!) after reading this:

"I didn't want to screw it up," Franco told Letterman on "Late Show" last week.

"See, if it's me, I'm kind of hoping I do screw it up," Letterman shot back. "That's what you want, isn't it?"

"To screw it up?" Franco asked.

"I mean, do you really want to be good at kissing a guy?" Letterman said as his audience howled with delight.

Finally, we have this "call in gay" protest, "which encourages gays and lesbians to 'call in gay' rather than calling in sick". Setting aside the fact that it's unlikely to have any effect, and punishes businesses which hire and/or are run by gays and lesbians, and doesn't take into account that some people might not actually be out at work, the very idea of the protest is just soaking in privilege. Because yeah, of course everyone has jobs with paid vacation and sick time, so you could totally call in "gay" without harming yourself financially or endangering your job. *eyeroll* The people behind this can't even imagine that some people don't get sick time, period. That in order to call in and take time off even when they are legitimately sick, that means they won't get paid. Sometimes it may mean they lose their job. These days, some jobs require you to have a doctor's note to take any sick time, which means you have to be able to go to the doctor, possibly at considerable expense if you don't have insurance.

So yeah. Vein-throbbing, eye-twitching Ragenesday.

At least this is some non-rage-inducing news. A sheriff in Ohion "has ordered deputies to ignore eviction orders when people have nowhere else to live."

I wish people would stop trying to ruin my day with racism (and classism, though that was unrelated to Prop 8).

When I saw darkrosetiger's post yesterday about people of color being blamed for Prop 8's passage, I hadn't yet seen any of the blame. Now it seems like every where I turn someone is going on about how it was all those damn blacks and Mexicans who are responsible for Prop 8 passing. Mostly this is based on a stereotype of PoC being so much more homophobic than whites, and one exit poll that shows a high percentage of blacks voting yes. Somehow people either conveniently forget to mention or legitimately don't notice that this exit poll is of a whopping 2000 people - not exactly representative. There is also the fact that you can use filters on the county map on the LA Times website to see which counties are 75% or more white...all but two of which voted overwhelmingly yes on 8.

Prop 8 would not have passed if PoC hadn't voted for it. Yes, this is true.

It's equally true to say Prop 8 would not have passed if whites hadn't voted for it. And yet, somehow, that's not who I'm seeing get the blame here.

Prop 8 passed thanks to people of all races, people of all income levels, people religious and not. It passed thanks to smart advertising on the part of the Yes on 8 folks and bungling on the part of the No on 8 folks. It passed because of ignorance and fear and hatred and misinformation.

Period.