Words cannot express what having someone to share the morning with means. Because up until I moved up here my relatives were scattered hither and yon so for the first few years of the 21st century, I was strictly solo-ing it. And that bites.
Instead I got to wake up next to TYG, cook breakfast for us, then take turns opening presents. Surprisingly few books this year for me or even book-related gift cards (my friend Ross did deliver The Adventures of Pete and Pete second season). Instead it was heavily slanted to kitchen stuff and food (note: this is not a complaint): Pizza paddle, ceramic knife, kitchen scale, mortar and pestle plus assorted chocolates, cookies and other tasties. I think I shall be snacking on Christmas at least until the end of January.
Of all that stuff, the mortar and pestle, even though I asked for it, is one I’m not sure I’ll use much. Of course, the standard homeowner advice is that you should get rid of something you don’t use regularly, by which logic maybe I shouldn’t have asked for it. But I’m not a compulsive buyer of kitchen gadgets and my kitchen isn’t unreasonably cluttered, so I’m fine with that; it’s self-indulgent, but sometimes I enjoy being self-indulgent. And now that I have it, perhaps I’ll think of new ideas: A quick search on-line revealed that it’s highly recommended for making pesto, for instance. It will be fun finding out.
For TYG, I got an assortment of books, some fabric, a cane chair, a lamp and I made banana bread for her Christmas Eve.
It was a wonderful morning, then we went to a friend’s for Christmas dinner (fondu), the Doctor Who Christmas special and Cards Against Humanity.
Unsurprisingly I woke up today feeling quite lazy, but I managed to get some less demanding tasks done (reading possible markets, looking for markets, submitting, etc.).
Monthly Archives: December 2013
Christmas Day!
Filed under Personal
The female audience (and other sexism-related links)
According to Paul Dini (of Batman: The Animated Adventures and many other things), Cartoon Network doesn’t want one. Or more precisely, it wants a predominantly male audience for its shows—having one with more girls watching is a black mark.
Dini confirms something I’ve read elsewhere, that CN sees its brand as Shows for Boys. So presumably having a heavy girl audience means a)the network assumes the show is not doing enough Boy Stuff and so should be axed’ b)just having shows which are known to be girl favorites makes it harder to present the channel as Shows for Boys; c)Girls are just icky and have cooties, which is why some version of second-string DC hero Hourman’s getting a TV show before Wonder Woman.
This is an annoying thing in entertainment. TV has a predominantly female audience so (I’ve read) network execs spend a lot of time thinking about how to draw more men (though most channels are much more concerned about keeping female viewers than CN apparently is). Intermediate and Y/A novels are more heavily read by girls, and publishers (according to an article I read some years back) spend a great deal of time thinking how to draw more boys.
Yet in the movies, where the default audience is male, nobody seems to feel drawing more women is important (the standard rationale is that they’ll go to whatever their boyfriend/husband wants to see). And in comics, the female audience is repeatedly brushed aside.
I am not surprised, but I am annoyed.
Speaking of comics, writer Scott Lobdell publicly hit on/harassed a female cartoonist (MariNaomi) on the same panel, then immediately apologized to her husband afterwards when he realized the man had been there for the event. Not MariNaomi, just her husband. He did later issue an apology for his “humor” having offended her, although as several people have pointed out that’s not the same as “I was out of line to say that.” There are several good discussions you can click through to at the link.
Also on comics, GeekMom looks at problems with the rebooted Wonder Woman. While I have reservations of my own, GeekMom hits on a point that hadn’t occurred to me: in contrast to a Wonder Woman surrounded by other women (Amazons, Wonder Girl, Etta Candy) she’s a solo act surrounded by men.
Moving away from comics, I blogged recently about Ross Douthat’s theory families with daughters are more likely to vote Republican (and why he’s probably wrong). Another blogger points out that this means families with sons are more inclined to vote Democratic (though contrary to his post, a lot of liberal bloggers mention the Republican advantage with men). Echidne has more on this.
And now a totally unrelated point that’s worth celebrating, sort of: Queen Elizabeth has pardoned Alan Turing, the computing pioneer and code-breaking whiz who was convicted of “gross indecency” for homosexuality and in the wake of that, eventually committed suicide. It’s too little and too late, but it’s better late than never.
And on a slightly more upbeat note, an And column on what Nelson Mandela’s success in overthrowing apartheid says about the future.
Have a wonderful Christmas or Festivus or any other festival of your choice. I’ll be blogging again December 26th.
Filed under Politics, Undead sexist cliches
Because I could not stop for dinner–
Or more accurately, I did stop for dinner, which took a while longer than expected, but was very tasty (tofu vegetable curry with roast potatoes). So just links tonight.
•Great customer service—not: Groupon notifies some shoppers this week that the Nexus tablets they bought won’t be coming, even after Christmas.
•The Duck Dynasty debate goes on: Illinois Republican Ian Bayne declares that by making anti-gay, racist remarks, Robertson was standing up to tyranny just like Rosa Parks! More freaking out coverage courtesy of Roy Edroso. They’re also freaking out over “Pajama Boy”—Edroso catches one pundit asserting that wearing pajamas out of bed is the first step to anarchy (a highpoint in right-wing fear of disorder). And Jonah Goldberg insists that making gay jokes about pajama boy is wrong, but of course, we shouldn’t kick up a big stink about it (talk about passive-aggressive).
•A conservative argues that as people don’t want to give him money for Wal-mart employees when he asks, that proves they don’t want to pay higher prices in return for higher Wal-Mart wages. As opposed to, say, not trusting someone who asks you for money in a Wal-Mart parking lot (and as noted at the link, higher prices don’t have to follow higher wages).
•A diner serves free meals to the homeless. Other businesses call the cops. Which makes me think of this dude.
•Wal-Mart uses charity to skirt laws on campaign contributions.
•Same-sex marriage just became legal in Utah.
•Men’s rights activists continue seeing the fight against rape as a threat to men’s rights (wow. Sounds familiar).
•A politician claims coverage for pre-existing health conditions is bad because it’s all the sick person’s fault. Because getting cancer is just like bad driving.
Filed under economics, Politics, Undead sexist cliches
The Duck—and the Dynasty!
I imagine everyone reading this has heard about the fireworks triggered when Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty (a reality show on A&E about a Louisiana family that hunts ducks and markets duck calls) told GQ recently that homosexuality is a sin and in his entire life in the South, he’s never seen black people abused or heard any of them talk about discrimination (Defeating the Dragons points out the improbability of the latter point for someone old enough to remember Jim Crow). A&E has suspended him; conservatives (some of whom embrace the show as Great Conservative Television) have freaked out over the oppression, violation of the First Amendment and how this presages the imminent fascist destruction of all Christianity (I had a lengthy argument over that last view on Facebook).
Taking it from the top, this is not a First Amendment issue. That applies to the government, not to A&E or any other private company.
But should it? I must admit I’m divided on that point. The principal that your employer can fire you for anything you do and say in your private life (assuming you’re not, in fact, doing anything illegal) is not a good one. The University of Kansas’ announced recently, for instance, that it now has the right to fire staff for use of social media that’s “contrary to the best interests of the university.” Pretty much anything beyond OMG I Love My Masters could fall into that category.
On the other hand what you do and say while on the job is fair game. If you go to a church that preaches homosexuality is a sin, that’s your business; if you refuse to serve homosexuals on the job, it’s your employer’s. Likewise if you work in Barnes & Noble and refuse to sell Bibles because you’re an atheist or Korans because you’re a fundamentalist (a Pat Robertson-affiliated legal group has tried for years to give Christian employees the right not to sell skin mags).
So is Robertson speaking his mind a matter of private or public life? After all, he’s only in GQ because he’s a star on a successful A&E show—it’s not like a random man-on-the-street interview.
And it’s really hard to argue that a TV channel, or a publisher, or a bookstore doesn’t have the right to reject books or shows with a particular point of view they disagree with. Some YA agents are still squeamish about books with gay characters, for instance. I think that’s narrow-minded as hell, but no question they have the right not to represent a book they’re not comfortable with, nor does a publisher have an obligation to market a book if she disagrees with the message.
Does Robertson’s interview fall into that category? Again, not sure.
It is worth noting, as Roy Edroso does, that a lot of the outrage comes from people who normally claim that businesses have power absolute and workers none. And Slacktivist points out that a Christian group recently revoked an invitation to one of the Robertsons to speak because the family plans to market its own wine line. Astonishingly, nobody on the right seems to feel this is a huge violation of anyone’s rights.
Like I said, I’m still conflicted, even though Robertson’s views are still appalling bullshit. But there are mine, for whatever they’re worth.
Have some holly dolly linkage
A law professor blogs about being targeted not for her ideas but being a non-white woman. I’ve heard many people claim over the years that because of affirmative action, women aren’t taken seriously, but the reactions she described show someone can always find grounds to discredit a woman. She slept her way in. Her job isn’t really important (one of blogger Matt Forney’s arguments why women don’t deserve self-esteem). She’s an “outlier.” And so on.
•Several major New York stores agree not to stop and frisk nonwhite customers.
•Given the usual undead sexist cliches about what’s “natural” for men and women, here’s something natural and very different.
•Michigan won’t even let private insurance cover abortion costs now. Wonkette points out that while riders are allowed, a rape victim who becomes pregnant won’t be able to get one.
•Digby suggests the amazing freedom of having lots of investment options (instead of boring old things like Social Security) is a bigger pain than it looks.
•Lovely. A San Francisco entrepreneur grumbles that the city’s poor don’t realize it’s “a privilege” that they’re allowed to walk downtown on the same streets where he goes to work.
•Looking at 2014: some First Amendment cases ahead.
•The School-to-Prison pipeline.
•Bank and credit-card agreements are written to take away our right to sue.
•Mormons now allow black priests.
•According to this blogger, Homeschooled women are way smarter than feminists but they don’t take part in debate or anything unfeminine like that. And they know men and women are different! Defeating the Dragons points out it’s possible to be feminist and homeschooled.
•Here are the latest legal attacks planned for Obamacare.
•I’ve written about men’s rights activists before. RH Reality Check discusses the problems of misogynists reinforcing each others’ views on women.
•Antifeminist Camille Paglia babbles bullshit but keeps getting published.
•Recommendations from Obama’s committee on fixing the NSA. Digby adds more here. Like her, I think this is good news, but it’s not going to be welcomed with open arms.
•It used to be “society’s to blame” was the stock explanation for poor kids running wild. Now it’s a rich kid who gets to get off with manslaughter. As noted at the link, won’t this just reinforce his belief that he’s never going to pay for his actions.
•A judge in Utah refuses to crack down on polyamorous relationships (not a multiple marriage), saying the state’s pushing the law too far. Meanwhile, a judge finds the collection of phone metadata unconstitutional.
•Abortion is not like slavery. And as I’ve said myself, contraceptives are a good thing.
•Some noteworthy women’s health studies from 2013.
•A useful reminder on the limits of digital content—as in, you may buy it, but you don’t own it.
Filed under Politics, Undead sexist cliches
Books
XMEN: Magneto—Testament by Greg Pak and Carmine Di Giandomenico is the kind of book I feel guilty about not liking much. Starting with a youth named Max in 1930s Germany (if the title doesn’t clue you in, I will: he’s going to grow up to be Magneto), it follows him through Kristallnacht, genocide and death camps (where stays alive, as some Jews did, by working to clean out the crematoriums) before he finally escapes with Magda, a Roma concentration-camp prisoner he’s fallen in love with. This is very well researched, but it doesn’t do anything that other tales of the Holocaust haven’t done many times. And while I respect the creators’ desire to keep it realistic by not including any super-elements (Magneto’s powers are minimalized), that also makes the connection to the Marvel Universe (where super-beings were actively involved in the war on both sides) tenuous. Admirable intentions, but it felt more earnest than good.
COYOTE Vol. 2 by Steve Englehart and multiple artists chronicles the battles of Sly, a shapeshifter, against the sinister Shadow Cabinet along with his efforts to figure out what connection, if any he has to the original Coyote the trickster god.Fun, but another villain, the Djinn, is a stock Islamic terrorist type and making him the modern leader of the medieval Hashashin was a mistake (as the sect, the Nizar Ismaili, is still around, which the story ignores).
APPEASEMENT IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS by Stephen Rock argues that defining appeasement by Chamberlain’s efforts to talk Hitler back from war simplifies a policy with a long history and several successes, such as Britain winning over the US in the 1890s by conceding on several key issues such as the Canada/Alaska border. Rock says this is a textbook example of when appeasement can work: Britain didn’t give away anything it considered vital (being much more concerned about its European enemies), correctly observed that America could be appeased and that the real issue was as much the US wanting to be taken as a Great Power as the specific problems. In contrast, Chamberlain at Munich not only misread Hitler, but even after realizing it took little steps to prepare for war. However, Rock says, even there history gets it wrong, as Britain and France did threaten war if Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia instead of just taking part of it (Hitler considered Munich a defeat), and Germany invaded Poland in full awareness that Britain and France wouldn’t back off. A good analysis of an often-simplified issue.
Like The Lie That Settles, my interest in MODERNITY BRITAIN: Opening the Box, 1957-59 by David Kynaston is personal as I was born in 1958. Part of an ongoing series on post-WW II Britain, the book presents an era when television is the new cool thing, redevelopment and slum clearance were promoting heated debates and the question of whether Britain was or could be something called “meritocracy” was also the subject of much discussion. Kynaston mixes the big issues with a kaleidoscope of plays, social events, best-selling books and names dropped, such as a promising new actor named Judi Dench and a very unpromising new playwright (in the consensus of the critics) named Harold Pinter, plus a member of Parliament named Maggie Thatcher. Entertaining for the most part (and if I were writing anything in Britain in the era, invaluable), but as it’s part of a series (Tales of New Jerusalem) Kynaston doesn’t always bother with context: even as a former British schoolboy, a lot of the issues discussed in his section on schools went over my head.
A Little Bit of Christmas
Compared to last week, relatively light Christmas viewing as I caught up on various TV shows instead.
SNOW GLOBE (2007) stars Christina Milian as a young New Yorker wishing for an old-fashioned warm-and-fuzzy Christmas instead of the loud bickering that marks her Italian/Cuban family’s get-together. Then she discovers a magical snowglobe lets her enter into a fantasy Christmas town (rather like a stereotypical Christmas TV special, actually) and ultimately has to chose whether a dream of Perfect Christmas is better than the imperfect people she loves. I enjoyed this much better than I did the first time I caught it, possibly because while not great Christmas art, it’s a lot better than the films I checked out earlier this month. Unusual in that the family doesn’t learn any life lessons, Milian just learns to deal with them better. “I walk around to the other side of the tree and count the lights.”
SCROOGE (1935) is another that works better for me than the first time I caught it. Based on a stage play, it varies quite a bit from the Dickens novel, with some good scenes in Scrooge’s office and a diminished role for the ghosts (Marley’s completely invisible). In contrast to the original’s emphasis on human suffering, this shows a happy, prosperous London with a lot of emphasis on the Lord Mayor’s feast, driving home that Scrooge (Seymour Hicks) is bitter and alone (as Life and Times of Ebeneezer Scrooge notes, it also offers a happy vision in contrast to the reality of the depression). This may also explain why we see Tiny Tim’s body awaiting burial at the Cratchit home in Christmas Future—it makes a point of comparison with Scrooge, who dies alone and whose corpse is then robbed. Not the best, but worth a look “No, Bob Cratchit, after this I’m going—to double your salary!”
TWILIGHT ZONE: Night of the Meek has department store Santa Claus Art Carney lose his job on account of his drinking (“I cannot hide my emotions so I either weep—or I drink.”) only to discover a capacious sack from which he seems able to produce any gift for any person. Like One Magic Christmas, it’s the kind of Dark Christmas where the light eventually wins out. “Just once I wish that Christmas could be the night when the meek inherit the Earth.”
Valuable life lessons (#SFWApro)
Life lesson number one: When you lose a piece of work, whether it’s a computer crash or leaving a manuscript behind in a move, reconstructing is painful. Particularly when it was a finished work. Because it never feels as good as the original.
Case in point, Let No Man Put Asunder, an older novel I’m rewriting. I know my ability is better than 20 years ago when I last worked on it, my characterization is stronger—but it was finished, damn it! And trying to rebuild it from memory (the manuscript is gone except the first few chapters) is ohhhh so painful.
Life Lesson Two: I love writing fiction. I shouldn’t obsess too much over my self-imposed deadlines or even outside deadlines. I like doing this stuff! It just struck me this morning that I haven’t been enjoying it this week, so I made a conscious decision to relax and enjoy the work on Asunder. I felt much better at the end of the day.
Of course, one of the reasons I wasn’t enjoying it is that most of the week was spent replotting Brain From Outer Space. And I don’t outline well. I’m much better plotting as I write; I can replot fine with a short story but a full-length novel is absolutely painful.
That said, it looks reasonably good, though I’m going over it a couple more times before the end of the year. As I mentioned previously, I’ve revised it so that I don’t hopscotch around so much between POV characters. However there’s still Alan, Steve, Jo and Dani, with a couple of smaller roles and I wonder if that’s too much. However I don’t want it to be all Steve’s story (I’ve worked hard to give Dani a personal arc, and she deserves it) and I don’t think I can cut everyone else out. But I’ll think about it Monday.
I also got 1,000 more words in on the first draft of my post-WW I novel, which I’m now calling Danse Macabre.
I also polished my submission package for my steampunk novel, Questionable Minds. I’ll send it off to an agent next month—I’ve been told agents get besieged by NaNoNaNo drafts in December, and I’d prefer to avoid the herd.
And I have a new article out in Raleigh Public Record.
And that’s pretty much it. Surprisingly, although my mind wandered off during the frustrating parts of the replotting, I got done everything I intended to get done, so yay me.
Mid-Season Hiatus
It’s that time of year when shows either take a break or end their season (those crazy cable seasons). So looking back on some of the shows I reviewed a few months back—
•Agents of SHIELD has had a couple of very good episodes, such as the follow-up to Thor 2 where a couple of terrorists get hold of leftover Asgard technology. That’s the kind of spy mission regular TV series just can’t top. Unfortunately, most of the episodes are still interchangeable with any other show; FZZT, for example, has contagion from an alien artifact infect the team, but they could have kept the show almost identical if they’d changed it to Ebola. For a show set in the MU, even the movie MU, I expect better. And the question of how Agent Coulson came back to life isn’t really interesting enough to keep using it as a running thread—he’s almost certainly an android/LMD, big whoop.
This could improve a lot if they’d throw in some low-level comics adversaries: The Fixer, Living Laser, the Druid (not a real druid, just a phony using advanced chemistry to substitute for mysticism), the Adaptoid, etc. Though the last episode before break was a little livelier, so we’ll see how the second half of the season goes.
•The Tomorrow People, on the other hand, has turned out much better than the X-knockoff it seemed to start as. Admittedly it’s not going anywhere the X-Men haven’t, but the personal relationships are interesting and the plots have been enjoyable. So I’m in for the rest of the run.
•Lifetime’s Witches of East End wrapped up its first season and returns for a second in 2014. It turns out that the immortal Beaumont witches (variously preserved by straight immortality, a cat’s nine lives and reincarnation) had an old foe from their past life to deal with, lots of personal drama (of course) and the slight problem they’re refugees from Asgard (I’ve no idea if it’s the Asgard or just a convenient name) and a lot of people back home want them dead. A very good job, though as with most witch-related shows, it blithely ignores the existence of Wicca (so there’s only one kind of witch, and that’s the made-up kind in the show). I’ve tried to check out the YA novel it’s based on, but unsurprisingly it’s constantly checked out.
•Once Upon a Time in Wonderland—left me cold after about four episodes. They’re much more interested in the Aladdin elements (Jaffar is the big villain) than in Wonderland; they drop a few Wonderland names, but there’s no sense of Carroll’s bizarre sense of whimsy and skewed logic. Of course, Disney’s Alice cartoon missed all of that too …
Filed under TV
Undead Sexist Cliche: Women who give away the milk are DOOMED!!!!!!
One of the earliest cliches I tackled was the idea men won’t ever marry a woman who gives it away (“it” is sex. In case you couldn’t figure it out). And that just as women having premarital sex destroys men, it will ruin women’s chances for happiness. All women want to get married; no man will ever get married unless it’s the only way to get laid. Therefore if women make it possible for men to get laid without commitment, they’ll never get married and will wind up broken-hearted and alone.
Of course lots of people have sex before marriage and still marry. Or don’t marry but remain permanently pair-bonded. So the thesis is prima facie bullshit, but right-wingers love to bring it up. A depressing amount of America’s approach to sex is built around the conviction that all men want sex, all women want commitment, therefore sex before marriage only benefits men. One woman in an online discussion I was part of said she was sexually active and kept getting asked “Well, why not charge? Then at least you’d get something for it!” The fact she was getting something for it (same thing as the guys. Orgasms) just slipped by people.
Pundit Ross Douthat is a firm believer in the Milk Theory, and now he’s come up with a new exciting wrinkle: it also explains why families with daughters vote Republican (a variation of a theory he’s expressed before)! Because they want to protect their daughters’ virtue from sleazeballs like the womanizing protagonist of a book Douthat just read, who breaks women’s heart because he’s not interested in commitment, only sex (such a concept has never before been written about in fiction, so it’s small wonder Douthat was impressed). And Republicans who are against sex-without-consequences, will do that better than Democrats who will let women by ravaged by lustful seducers.
The rationale for this is a study that according to Douthat, proves his point by showing families with daughters vote Republican. Except as Echidne notes at the link, the study doesn’t bear out that theory.
The theory is based on another hypothesis (details at the link) that when times are hard, it’s more advantageous for a living creature to bear sons who have a greater chance to propagate the genetic line. The study’s extrapolation is that if parents have lots of sons, libertine sexual mores are advantageous to spreading their genes; if they have daughters, it’s better to restrict sexual mores so their daughter has greater chances of landing a male partner who’ll stick and support the baby and her.
Of course, as Echidne points out, this is a dubious theory even if the statistics (based on one 17-year-old study) supported it. It could just as easily be argued that parents with sons have more invested in voting Republican and preserving a system that keeps men on top, whereas daughter-parents should avoid Repubs like the plague. Or that supporting a party that favors birth control and abortion enables the daughters to control their fertility even better.
It’s rather like the argument that women’s supposed biological drive to seek good providers was hardwired in prehistoric times, yet somehow it’s evolved enough to push them to seek rich powerful men rather than young hunter types who could provide for our ancestral mothers. Likewise, evolution in the theory Douthat adores is apparently sophisticated enough that a drive to produce sons in a crisis can translate into a biological drive to vote conservative.
I’m thinking not.
Another shot at Douthat from New York Magazine, and one from The Hairpin (pointing out that “avoid men who will break your hearts” doesn’t logically transition to “stay a virgin until married.”)
Filed under Politics, Undead sexist cliches
