nenena: (Devi - Flaming Tara)
Self, why did you think it was a good idea to mainline a big chunk of Tezuka's available work in English in one afternoon at the library. Why did you think that.

Because damn does Tezuka have glaring, horrible issues with women.

I mean, holy shit. When you read MW and Swallowing the Earth and The Book of Human Insects and two volumes of Astro Boy and the two volumes of Princess Knight all at the same time, it is kind of impossible not to notice that Tezuka has some seriously misogynistic, fucked-up ideas about women. And those fucked-up, misogynistic ideas are present in an awful lot of his work.

Yes, even in Princess Knight. In which Sapphire's swashbuckling skills and heroism are repeatedly credited to the fact that she was accidentally given a boy's heart. (*barf*)

I remember reading Phoenix back in high school and being struck by the terrible characterization of Tamami, the heroine in Future: she has no personality traits except being in love with the hero. Her only dialogue consists of her stating repeatedly that she loves the hero. Even up to the point where she gives up her life for his sake: So pure! So selfless! Because she loves him! She's supposed to be the heroine of the story, a woman so compelling that her death drives the hero to madness and obsession, yet literally the only thing that we readers learn about her is that she loves the hero. A lot. That's not a character. That's a plot device. How can I sympathize with the hero's obsession with Tamami when I have no idea what attracted him to her in the first place? Was she funny, was she smart, was she kind, did she have any personality flaws? What did she care about in her life (other than the hero), what were her goals and dreams? What was she passionate about? I don't know any of that about Tamami, because she's not a character: she's a cypher.

To a certain extent I can forgive the fact that some key characters in a work like Phoenix are going to be archetypes rather than developed characters with actual depth. BUT when most volumes of Phoenix deliver complex, psychologically nuanced studies of male characters while repeatedly shoving female characters into those prop-like roles in which they have no personality traits whatsoever, a clear pattern starts to emerge. And it's not a pretty pattern. Also, like I said before: it's fine for some characters in Phoenix to be archetypes, but when the central focus of a particular volume is to make us sympathize with a male character's obsessed attempts to bring back his tragic lost love, we had better be shown something interesting and compelling about that love interest - something that makes us feel for the hero's loss - or else the whole damn story just rings hollow.

Meanwhile, contrasting Tamami and her many sisters in Tezuka's works (much like, sad to say, Uran in Astro Boy) to the selfish and highly sexualized women in MW/Swallowing the Earth/The Book of Human Insects just makes the virgin/whore dichotomy becomes impossible to ignore.

What's even worse is that the villainous women in Tezuka's works claim to be feminists - and indeed, Tezuka presents his stories about these women as if they're supposed to raising questions about sexism that women face in real life. Unfortunately, Tezuka largely fails in this respect because it's hard to take his "feminist critique" seriously when his "feminist" characters are slithering boogeywomen with forked tongues.

So now that I've noticed that ugly pattern in Tezuka's works, I can never unsee it. Ugh.
nenena: (Devi - I'm Blue)
Judging a Book by its Cover: How Women See Comic Books

Consider, for a moment, if a comic starring Nightwing were brought out and described by the writer as a "sexy, dirty book." Imagine if she talked about how sexy Nightwing would be, proudly emphasizing this as the single most important aspect of the character.

Hey, I would buy it. A lot of other women probably would too. However, try to imagine the reaction from male comic book fans. A lot of them would be angry. A lot of them would be offended. The writer and artist on the book would certainly be accused of pandering to the female audience. A lot of male fans would refuse to buy the book.

At San Diego Comic Con 2011, Judd Winick described the new Catwoman as a "sexy, dirty book." He stated -- proudly and with great enthusiasm -- that he'd used the word "sexy" over fifty times the last time he'd been interviewed about the upcoming comic.

A lot of female fans won't be picking up Catwoman. And when they say so, they are told that the comic isn't "for them" and that they are "too sensitive." They are told, "if you don't like it, don't buy it" -- sometimes in the same breath as, "if you want to see more female leads, you have to buy all the books with female leads."

[...] Female characters do not have to be hyper-sexualized to sell. Buffy: The Vampire Slayer was one of the most popular television shows of all time and it starred a young woman who was, for all intents and purposes, a female superhero. The difference between her and the women between the covers of your average superhero comic was that she didn't fall into a Penthouse-esque pose every time she stopped moving, or wear clothing that could only have stayed on with the use of a lot of glue or an anti-gravity device.

Buffy was sexy. Buffy had sex. But neither of these defined her.


Much more at the link.
nenena: (Soul Eater - Put your game face on)
On the difference between Good Dogs and Dogs That Need a Newspaper Smack.

Definitely read through the whole thing. I love this metaphor now.

(I would not, however, recommend reading the comments.)
nenena: (Disney - My ass-kicking boots)
From Lucy Gillam:

The first is that true gender equality is actually perceived as inequality. A group that is made up of 50% women is perceived as being mostly women. A situation that is perfectly equal between men and women is perceived as being biased in favor of women.

And if you don’t believe me, you’ve never been a married woman who kept her family name. I have had students hold that up as proof of my “sexism.” My own brother told me that he could never marry a woman who kept her name because “everyone would know who ruled that relationship.” Perfect equality - my husband keeps his name and I keep mine – is held as a statement of superiority on my part.


There's much more at the original link.
nenena: (Default)
[livejournal.com profile] the_sun_is_up has a really good post about racism in the most recent MLP episode.

Also worth highlighting is this comment by [livejournal.com profile] mekosuchinae:

"Okay, can we call a moratorium on all analogies implying the Native Americans were as prejudiced or at fault as the Europeans/White Americans who attacked and disenfranchised them, stole their lands, and did their best to eradicate native cultures and peoples? Because, uh, no. At all. Ever."

THIS.

Also the fail behind the logic supporting the settler ponies' claims in the episode was so, well, failtacular that I still can't believe it was upheld as "reasonable" at all. The show made it very clear that the settler ponies built their orchard on buffalo land by *mistake* (as if the real white colonists that settled the American frontier took native lands by *mistake* but whatever) and then makes the logic leap that because the settler ponies took land that wasn't theirs by mistake, now they... have a legitimate claim to it. Somehow. Also, they worked REAL HARD to plant those apple trees, and the fact that they worked REAL HARD to farm land that was never theirs to begin with is also repeatedly upheld as a reason why they "deserve" the buffalo land.

I'm sorry, but WTF, My Little Pony? It doesn't matter that the settler ponies made a mistake - this is arguably proof that they weren't ill-intentioned against the buffalo, but it is NOT a reason why thy should therefore have a claim to buffalo land - and it does NOT matter that they worked reaaaaaaal haaaaaaaaard to farm that land as long as it was never theirs in the first place. So what if the settler ponies needed those apple trees to feed their village? That still DOESN'T GIVE THEM A CLAIM TO THE LAND THAT ISN'T THEIRS. If the buffalo had refused to share - as would have been their right to do so - then the settler ponies should have just scrapped their town and moved somewhere else. Yeah all of their hard work would have gone to waste, and that would have been sad and caused a lot of hardship for them, but here's the lesson that should have been learned: Accept the consequences when you make a mistake, learn from it, and next time do your freakin' research before you start working reeaaaaaaal haaaaaard to build your town. Wanting to be on that land real bad is not the same as having the RIGHT to be there. Jesus, show!

The settler ponies were completely in the wrong in this episode and the amazing twists of logic that the show comes up with to try to convince the viewers that they had a legitimate claim to buffalo land is just plain insulting as fuck.

Hmmmmm, kind of like how colonist/native conflicts from all over the world are continually misrepresented in history books and media depictions created by the colonizing powers. But I digress.
nenena: (Devi - Is it stupid in here)
So, this week's episode of MLP. Kind of reached all sorts of uncomfortable levels of fail, even worse than the Zecora episode.

This post @ deadbrowalking sums it up rather succinctly.

Dear Lauren Faust and the FiM crew: I know that your heart is in the right place, but please please please stop trying to make episodes about racism because so far you have shown that your only modus operandi is to rely on racist stereotypes and profoundly otherize non-white races in your half-assed attempts to teach kids about "tolerating" those who are different. This is 2011 and we should be past that level of fail by now. Come on.
nenena: (Disney - My ass-kicking boots)
This post absolutely cannot be signal-boosted enough.

Oh hey look: "Because of some relatively minor and now-over health problems when I was in high school, under the pre-Affordable Care Act situation, I could never get private insurance in the US after I got out of college. During that period, I only really went to the doctor while I was living overseas. (Given my relative engagement with American and disengagement with Japanese politics, the cognitive dissonance of knowing that Japan has, for the past few years, had a much stronger vested interest in my health than the US has been odd.)"

Yup. My experience exactly.
nenena: (Default)
A certain person should probably remove me from her flist if she doesn't want me to see her locked entries martyring herself for having to endure such horrors as a person with a disability pointing out to her that a single word that she used in a warning line for her fanfic is still used as a hurtful slur against people with disabilities and requesting if she could please change that single word. Just sayin'.

And, for anybody sitting at home thinking well *I've* never heard the word "spaz" used as a slur before, therefore it clearly isn't used that way anymore! here is some stuff that you might want to be aware of:

* http://www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/play/worst-words-vote.shtml "Spaz" is ranked second in a poll of most offensive disability-related words, right behind "retard."

* When Tiger Woods used the word "spaz" in a CBS interview after the 2006 Master's Tournament, it was considered so offensive that the LA Times changed the word to "wreck" in a subsequent printing of the interview, while the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Boston Globe eliminated that sentence from his interview quotes entirely. Meanwhile, there was a firestorm of coverage about Woods using the word "spaz" in the UK press, led by the BBC, the Telegraph, the Independent, and the Scotsman. Woods eventually issued a public apology.

* Similary, Simon Tiffin, who was the editor Esquire magazine back in 2003, issued an editorial apology the issue after Esquire printed an interview in which Sandra Bullock was quoted saying "I'm such a spaz."

* http://disabledfeminists.com/2009/12/04/ableist-word-profile-spazspak/ The money quote: Both 'spaz' and 'spak' have clear ableist roots because they’re shortened versions of an actual diagnostic term. They shouldn’t be used to refer to spasticity at all (unless, of course, as self identification by someone with spasticity) and they’re definitely not appropriate as slang terms to refer to people without spasticity.

* http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/ian-birrell-mind-your-language-words-can-cause-terrible-damage-1815641.html Warning for vile Oppression Olympics, but linked here anyway for the money quote: "We are giving people permission to say and do hateful things," said John Knight, director of policy and campaigns at Leonard Cheshire Disability, who himself had to endure screams of "spastic" from two aggressive men in the street just a fortnight ago. "And it's getting worse. If we don't address low-level abuse, we let people think it's acceptable, allowing it to proliferate and become mainstream."

* http://theinterroblog.blogspot.com/2006/04/it-aint-insult.html The money quote: How the hell did 'spastic' become so much of a pejorative that some people aren't even aware that it's a legitimate medical term?! How did that happen? More importantly, how can we stop it? I'd really like my descriptor back from the forces of bigotry and semantic pollution, thank you.

* http://www.pixeldiva.co.uk/thinks/spaz-is-an-unacceptable-term/ The money quote: By equating spasticism with looking stupid it not only perpetuates the stereotype that those with physical disabilities are automatically lacking in intelligence, but puts a clear separation between those with and without a physical disability of that type, something which the individual has no more control over than the colour of their skin or eyes and seems to indicate that they are less.

* http://disabledfeminists.com/2009/10/16/what-we-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-language/ Money quote: I loathe “well, it’s a value neutral term.” No, it’s not. If it was value neutral, it would not be in use as a pejorative. I loathe “no one really means that anymore.” Yes, they do, because if they didn’t, they would use a different word. Just like no one calls a “train” an “iron horse” anymore.

* I have some some very, very icky memories of being called a "spaz" in middle and elementary school because of this thing I used to do when I would flail my hands whenever I was having obsessive thoughts, particularly during one hellish week at sixth grade camp when a group of girls in my cabin decided to bully me so relentlessly that I had a nervous breakdown and cried so hard that a teacher thought I was having an asthma attack. And I'm an American. I grew up in Iowa. But oh wait I guess "spaz" totally isn't used that way in the Good Ol' US of A or whatever the fuck.

* I've worked most of my adult life as a teacher. I can't tell you how many times I've heard students use the word "spaz" to bully any of their classmates who are being socially inept or "different." But oh wait that totally doesn't happen in AMERICA.

Or maybe it's just that there isn't as much high-profile campaigning against the word "spaz" in the United States the same way that there is in the UK, which is why so many American English speakers feel that they're right to argue "But it doesn't meaaaaaaaan that over here!" Except for how, er, it sometimes does. If "spaz" were never considered an offensive term in the United States, then why would four major national American news outlets all independently decide that it was necessary to either edit or delete the word "spaz" out of a statement given by Tiger Woods?





Do words have multiple meanings? Yes.

Do many US English speakers use the word spaz simply to mean "silliness" or "excited flailing"? Yes. Does that change the fact that other US English speakers use the word spaz as a slur against people with physical and mental disabilities? No.

As long as the word is still being used by some as a hateful word, then it is a word with the power to hurt. As long as it is a word with the power to hurt, then it is a word that it would behoove anybody with decency or empathy for the fellow human being to think twice before using.

Besides, when you want to say that somebody looks silly or is acting like a dork or is full of failure or whatever, why not just say that they're "silly" or "acting like a dork" or "full of failure" or whatever? No matter what concept it may be that you're trying to convey, the English language is happy to provide dozens of colorful and creative substitutes for the word "spaz" that come without the nasty bonus of associating having a disability with being inherently undesirable or failtastic.

And that's all I have to say about that.

ETA: No, that's not all that I have to say about that. We've got some anons showing up in this post who apparently need some Language 101 remedial lessons. The very first person to comment on this post is an anon whining about me "condemning" and "accusing" people of being prejudiced when really they were using the word "spaz" in a totally innocent context. No. I'm aware that plenty of people use the word "spaz" without having any idea that it's still used as a slur or that it had bigoted origins, and they clearly don't intend anything hurtful when they use the word.

But even though you may not intend to hurt anybody when you use a certain word, you can still end up hurting a lot of people, regardless of your intent.

To anybody who has ever had it pointed out to them they they were using an offensive word that they weren't aware was offensive, whether because they read it in a blog post or actually had it pointed out by somebody in person or on the internet: Accidentally using a bigoted word without being aware that the word is still widely used with a harmful meaning is kind of like stepping on somebody's toe by accident. In real life, when somebody says "Ouch, you're standing on my toe!" do you take it as a personal insult or an accusation against you? No, because the person whose toe you're standing on knows that you aren't doing it intentionally - but they're still going to say something, because ouch that hurts and they want you to remove your foot! And since you know that they know that you didn't do it on purpose, you just remove your foot and move on with life, right? You wouldn't keep standing on the person's toe and tell them "Well since I didn't know that your toe was there and it was an accident, I don't have to remove my foot." Right? So when somebody points out to you, "Hey, I know that you probably weren't aware of this but that word is still used as a bigoted slur," it's the linguistic equivalent of saying "Um, you're standing on my toe." It's not an accusation against you, it's nothing to feel embarrassed or defensive about, but it IS something that you correct with a simple gesture - like substituting one word for another, the same as moving your foot an inch backward - and it's never a big deal unless you decide to make it a big deal by throwing a tantrum about it.
nenena: (Devi - I'm Blue)
Because this is too important to let it get buried:

First, in case you haven't seen the news yet today, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head at a "Congress in Your Corner" meeting today, and 12 other people in the crowd were shot as well. As of this writing Giffords is out of surgery and showing promising signs of responsiveness, but two six of the other shooting victims - a federal judge and a nine-year-old girl - have died.

The shooter has been arrested, but there's a bigger picture to be seen here than just the tale of one man with a gun.

Because of Sarah Palin's "Take Back the 20" list, which she is now desperately trying to delete off the internet. Unfortunately screencaps cannot lie.

For the record, this was Sarah Palin's campaign to target twenty congressional districts that were key for the Republicans to win back from the Democrats in order to secure control of the Congress, which normally wouldn't be an inherently malevolent thing - after all, there's nothing wrong with strategic campaigning - except for the fact Palin posted a map of the United States showing crosshairs on top of the targeted districts and actually sponsored an anti-Giffords rally that was widely advertised with the following text: "Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly."

In case you still don't believe that rhetoric like this has power, Giffords gave an interview back in March in which she discussed how she began receiving death threats, harassment, and vandalism right after Palin began the "Take Back the 20" campaign.

I don't believe for a second that Sarah Palin actually wanted to encourage anybody to shoot Gabrielle Giffords, but I do believe that Sarah Palin is a stupid lady who deliberately appeals to a demographic with a well-documented history of anti-government violence and who doesn't understand what the consequences of her rhetoric would be. EVEN IF you believe that "Take Back the 20" played no role in the shooter's motivation, that STILL doesn't change the fact that Palin's rhetoric was completely vile and totally out of line, even by US political standards (which is saying a lot!). Anybody not as famous as Palin would have been arrested for making terroristic threats if they put up that website and advertised an anti-Whoever rally that featured a firing of an automatic weapon as a symbolic gesture. Or, in other words, this comment thread.

Palin is trying to delete all evidence of her campaign, which at least tells us that she's smart enough to understand that she could very well deserve blame for her role in encouraging this vile act. Don't let the evidence be buried and don't let Palin get away with not owning up to her own rhetoric. The silver lining that could come from this tragedy is more people saying NO to violent and inappropriate campaign rhetoric, now that we've seen its consequences. That won't happen if Palin succeeds in burying the evidence and denying that her repulsive campaign ever existed in the first place.

ETA: Palin is now deleting old tweets, too.

ETA 2: Holy fucking shit. Palin's supporters are now commenting on her Facebook page and congratulating her for "getting rid of" Giffords. If anybody still has doubts that Palin's rhetoric was irresponsible, or that her campaign encouraged the shooter, this ought to remove that doubt. Congratulations, Sarah Palin, because your supporters include this guy who writes: "Go, Sarah! Gifford deserved to die. She was a liberal, a Jew, a health care reformer, an enemy of the NRA, pro abortion and pro gay... One down and 16 to go."

How did Palin not understand that PEOPLE LIKE THIS were her supporters. How.

ETA 3: Quoting this comment from [livejournal.com profile] elobelia, because it hits so many nails right on the head: "If a student at my brother's school posted an image on facebook with crosshairs over fellow students' faces while in other posts talking about solving their problems with these people with a gun, he/she would be arrested and expelled from school. It's funny that people aren't willing to hold Sarah Palin to the same standard they would hold a 15 year old kid. If I had posted those things on Twitter, you can bet the cops would have been swarming my house today to see if there was a connection between me and the shooting - as well they should have. I'm not saying Palin should be arrested, I'm saying we shouldn't put up with this bullshit from her." Yes, yes. THIS. (Actually I kind of doubt the latter part about the cops swarming somebody's house because of what they posted on Twitter, but the first part about the hypothetical 15-year-old kid? Absolutely true. I'm a teacher and I've seen kids actually arrested for saying even mildly threatening things on the internet before.)

ETA 4: From here: "Law enforcement officials said members of Congress reported 42 cases of threats or violence in the first three months of 2010, nearly three times the 15 cases reported during the same period a year earlier. Nearly all dealt with the health care bill, and Giffords was among the targets." Palin's "Take Back the 20" list specifically targeted congress members who voted in support of the health care bill. Tea Party rhetoric specifically targeted congress members who voted in support of the health care bill. And violence against these congress members drastically increased at the same time. Gee, you think there might be a connection?!

ETA 5: Sherriff Clarence Dupnik is a hero. It takes a lot of courage to be in the midst of all of that and still directly call out violent anti-government rhetoric as being one of the causes of the shooting, something which most of the major network news coverage of the shooting is still tip-toeing around or blatantly denying. It takes incredible courage to actually use the words "bigotry" and "prejudice" to describe the hateful rhetoric being stirred in Arizona, because although both of those words are 100% accurate descriptors, most reporters and commentators are still too cowardly to actually use them. Kudos to Dupnik for having the courage and honesty to call a spade a spade. Finally, it shows a great deal of sensitivity and intelligence to speak about Loughner's mental health the way that Dupnik did: YES Loughner is clearly mentally ill but NO that in no way shape or form absolves Palin, Kelly, and their ilk from being culpable for what happened. It is BECAUSE people with a combination of certain mental illnesses and prejudiced beliefs are suspectible to violent rhetoric that violent rhetoric is irresponsible for politicians to spew in the first place.
nenena: (Soul Eater - Have a nice dream!)
One Piece is the topic of this month's Manga Movable Feast. There are a lot of great posts so far, but my favorite is the most recent one from David Brothers. Kate Dacey also has some very insightful things to say about the artwork and Erica Friedman presents the most intelligent defense of Mr. 2's character that I've read yet. Which still hasn't convinced me that Mr. 2 isn't a grotesque, offensive stereotype or that his death wasn't incredibly problematic, but at least I can respect Friedman's take on the character.

The Microagressions tumblr puts a lot of this "privilege" business into perspective.

Ragnell is blogging again!! This post dissects one of the clearest examples of sexism in Hollywood that I've heard of in a long time.

Girl-Wonder.org is holding a membership drive as a precursor to electing a new Board of Directors. As someone who was on the original Board I can say that it was not only tons of fun and a great way to meet and network with new people, but it was also incredibly satisfying to be part of an organization that actually got stuff done. If any of y'all reading this have an interest in comics and Making the World a Better Place and finding ways to combine the two, then I'd urge you to at least enroll as a member of the organization, if not consider volunteering for an official position or even running for the Board. Ragnell has some good advice for those of you thinking about stepping up to the plate.

Niall Harrison is asking readers to submit their lists of the best Science Fiction written by women in the past ten years. Today is the last day to submit your list (oops!) but even those of you who don't submit your picks can enjoy reading the lists that others have compiled.
nenena: (W.I.T.C.H. - Irma rocks)
So, this thing happened to Kate Beaton. (Read the comments, as they are awesome.)

Gabby Schulz made a comic about how this happens a lot. (Do not read the comments, they are full of fail. With a few notable exceptions OH HEY THERE SCOTT MCLOUD.)

Meanwhile, here is a baby Japanese Serow.
nenena: (Devi - WTF?!)
[ETA: Kritik has edited his blog post in as a result of the discussion in the comments here. Ergo I now withdraw my objections to his post in light of the fact that his edit is a) directly addressing and challenging the sexist stereotypes that were in his original post and b) kind of awesome. However, in the interest of preserving the discussion itself, I'm leaving my original post unedited and intact below. I stand by everything that I wrote about prostitution and stereotypes thereof, even if I retract any specific accusations against AnimeKritik for repeating said stereotypes. Anywhoo, original post is below.]

Y'know, I'm used to seeing and hearing a fair amount of sexism in the Soul Eater fandom. The amount of misogynistic poo that gets flung at Maka on a regular basis just for daring to be a girl in the starring role of a shounen action series doesn't surprise me anymore.

But Animekritik?

Dude, I seriously thought better of you. I mean, I respected you so much. Until this morning.

Chapter 78 spoilers, Potentially triggery material, discussion of prostitution and sexual abuse, and swearing behind the cut. )

One link.

Jul. 26th, 2010 07:51 pm
nenena: (Default)
[livejournal.com profile] rachelmanija has a very interesting post and discussion about toxic tropes regarding disabilities in YA fiction.

It's depressing how many of these books have won and continue to win awards, too. :(
nenena: (Default)
[livejournal.com profile] earthy_dreamer has a PSA.

[livejournal.com profile] arionhunter has a roundup of early reviews.

[livejournal.com profile] racebending has a long and juicy discussion post about their reactions to the prescreening that Paramount gave them.

unfunnybusiness has a roundup of sneak peek clips and a video of Shyamalan shooting himself in the foot on national television in this post and its comments.

My favorite comment thus far:

Comparing this movie to Syfy movies is an insult to the careful consideration of casting Dinocroc vs Supergator. At least that show differentiate between large mouth reptiles and doesn't let those Tyrannosaurs Rexes take up all the major parts like some other dinosaur themed franchises.


I agree. I actually watched Boa vs Python. At least the entire movie was tolerable enough to sit through, which is more than I can say for the short 1:30 clips from The Last Airbender that you can see on Youtube.
nenena: (Default)
Moar linkspam!

SF and ablism (or: a not-as-such brief thought)

It seems as though when science fiction envisions a better, or at least more advanced, version of humanity it is one without disability, and thus one without disabled people. When you imagine a future without disability, it is a future in which you imagine that there are no disabled people.

so fucking special: mental illness panel ftw.

We never see a 'functional' person with mental illness. This is possibly because producers feel mental illnesses must be shown explicitly. There are people who are functional in their societies but not in a normative way.

Including Samuel

Samuel has cerebral palsy. Samuel is going to be an astronaut. Fuck anybody who says otherwise. Plus: Bonus awesome from Keith Jones, including videos and pictures from his wedding ceremony, which was made of pure awesome.

If only, oh if only

I have never mourned the existence of someone the first time I met them. (Or after that for that matter.) I have never grieved that someone was not the normal person I expected and hoped for. Not even for a little bit. Not ever. I have never “had to come to terms with” the fact that someone I knew was born different. I have never had any urge to commiserate with anyone else over these sorts of things. I do not look at a person and divide them artificially into the “normal” parts of them that I find tolerable and the “abnormal” parts that I find unbearable and tragic. I do not look at my friends, compare them to other people their own age, and think how horrible it is that I don’t have the good fortune of experiencing my friends hitting all the ‘typical’ milestones for their age group, there is no sense of loss here. These ways of thinking are just utterly and beautifully absent. It’s right that they’re absent. It’s wrong when they’re present. I keep hearing we have to allow for the fact that it’s only natural for people (you know, real people, which I’m not) to grieve this part of our existence. How it’s just wrong, downright insensitive, to want more from people.

Towards an Accessible Future: SF Story Contest

What does a world, or space station, or whatever look like when it has been designed to be accessible to everyone and how would people live together there?

ETA after the fact: Disability and the curing thereof

Because, I'm realising, what I want to see is ambivalence, mixed feelings. If you're going to go there, if you're going to cure a character, I want to see them have to struggle with what that means for them afterwards. Because disability isn't objectively always bad, and lack of disability isn't objectively always good, especially when we're talking about a character who has been disabled for a long time suddenly losing that. There are two things I really want to see a formerly-disabled character wrestle with: change and, related to that, identity.
nenena: (Disney - SQUID?!)
asdfghjkl;asdfghjkl;

I know that I don't post much about the gawdawful The Last Airbender film, mostly because by this point the number of epic, jawdropping failures that the film has managed to pull off before it even hits theaters has become too large to count. Still, this one REALLY leapt out at me:

http://community.livejournal.com/racebending/214837.html

Look at the way that Katara, Yue, and Suki's clothes are folded.

http://www.amazon.com/Last-Airbender-Dave-Roman/dp/0345518551

Look at the way that Katara's clothing is folded.

Jesus.

The next thing you know, they're going to have Suki sticking her chopsticks out of a ricebowl.

(By the way, in the animated series? They did the clothes-folding correctly. And if you were paying attention during the "Ember Island Players" episode you would have noticed that Jet's clothes were deliberately folded backwards in order to indicate that he was DEAD.)

ETA: Look, everyone! A dumbass came to play in our sandbox! How pwecious.

ETA 2: This comment sums up pretty well the astounding level of failure on display in the costume department.