vasaris: (cuddle cthulhu! by Vasaris)
Cthulhu on a cracker. I'm mostly posting this because its simultaneously hilarious, ridiculous, and lachrymose.

Apparently, Alyssa at ThinkProgress thinks there's been no revelation of what average people think of superheroes in the Marvel Universe. There's no context, no background for SHIELD. She finds this disappointing, given the basic plot of Agents of SHIELD.

Never mind that the Marvel Universe is approaching its its 100th birthday. There's plenty of evidence for how average people feel about superheroes -- even in the cinematic universe, since Whedon made a point of montaging it in Avengers, and it comes up in the Iron Man franchise -- because it's been dealt with in a variety of ways in the comics. I never read them, but a brief dip into Wikipedia is enough to see that, yes, there's a context for SHIELD.

The TV show is a spinoff of movies spun off of multiple comic book series that are, in some cases 50+ years old. There is no feasible way for a TV pilot to back fill all of that in, especially when at least, what, ten movies including the overall Avengers (Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, Captain America, Avengers) franchise, the X-men/Wolverine franchise, and Fantastic Four movies haven't done more than hint at some of it.

Inasmuch as I can understand disappointment with the script, or the acting, but recognize that the base premise, in many ways, isn't Whedon's. He's working from a play book that has, in fact, already been written, in a universe already familiar to millions. He wants to entice those of us who are unfamiliar or marginally familiar, but his audience is made up of people who would be bored and turned off by exposition about a universe they grew up with.

And, quite seriously, I have to laugh at you, Alyssa. If you're interested in the "we need to discuss the deployment of superheroes in a public forum" I direct you to the Civil War storyline. Also - did you even notice how you implied that superheroes are weapons and not people? Fictional people, true, but still -- not objects. The idea that a show about the structures that might support superheroes or superhero teams should be deliberately exploited for political purpose and debate in essentially real time? Please. Don't get me wrong, philosophical underpinnings are undoubtedly there, but that isn't the purpose of the show. Being disappointed that a vaguely-campy-already-has-a-fanbase show doesn't live up to your LET'S BE TOPICAL BECAUSE REASONS! expectations is ludicrous.
vasaris: (cuddle cthulhu! by Vasaris)
This has been a remarkable week for feminine badassery -- whether one agrees with Texas State Senator Wendy Davis or not, it seems to me that one has to be impressed by any person who can talk for 11.5 hours and stay on topic (because the times they said she wasn't on topic -- it's only off topic if you're an ingorant twit), do so without water, food, or a bathroom break, and still look like they're willing (and able) to take on the world. Texas State Senator Leticia Van de Putte's pointed -- and timely -- comment still makes me smile. And Rep. Duckworth? She is a warrior goddess whose disguise as a double leg amputee does not work very well. I will never believe she is anything other than Adrasteia incarnate.

But this isn't about women being badass and awesome and amazing, this is about a man poorly representing his sex, gender, and political party. )
vasaris: (Default)
You know, it bothers me a lot less when a conservative tells me s/he thinks I'm wrong than when s/he says I'm unAmerican. Every time I even glance at the backlash against Obama's win, I come away with a sick horror. For all that I find a lot of the visible, frothing GOP to be OMG, WTF batshit, with a side order zealot-frosted krazykakes, I don't doubt that they're American. I totally understand disappointment, even fear (because I honestly do fear the GOP, not just on the front of human rights, but in how the GOP views America vs. the rest of the world, deities above, below, and in the deep blue sea...), but I cannot understand, or condone the "America died" and "We should secede" rhetoric, much less the claims of we weren't divisive enough, WTF?. Aside from the obvious issues (sovereign nations provide their own currency, security, and such, that I doubt right wing separationists have thought of), it boggles me that that is somehow a rational response.

In a GOP win, I would have tried to fight within the system, supporting issues at a state level, even if they couldn't be managed at the federal level. I would campaign, and call, and argue one person at a time if necessary.

But I would never have called GOP supporters unAmerican. I would never have said Washinton, California, and Oregon should secede from the Union (despite the fact I'm fairly certain they could be self supporting as a group). Because, yeah, I think they're wrong in ways that matter deeply to me, but I don't think they're magically not American.

So... Dear GOP: Get Over Yourselves, because We're Americans Too.
vasaris: (buy a clue)
I kind of want to marry State Senator Nina Turner of Ohio. I believe we totally should ensure that the fragile state of male reproductive health should have as many vigorous and prying inquiries made into it as so many State representatives and senators would like to have regulating us poor, weak-minded, foolish-for-thinking-our-bodies-belong-to-us women.

I also want to apologize to all moderate, reasonable, fiscal-conservative, non-asshole Republicans for the fact that this giant bag of offal believes that s/h/it is on your side. I mean, you've got a wide variety of flaming assweasels asserting that every last one of you are bigoted, racist, misogynistic, gay-bi-transgender-queer-despising -- oh, let's be realistic and call it human hatinging in the name of God, mostly, since they come across as 'We hate everyone who is not a member of our specific God-worship, because if it's not our way you're wrong and going to Hell', so, y'know, everyone who isn't them -- jerkface meaniebutts, but I'm fairly certain that's not all Republicans. And this is me, still failing to understand why anyone worships a God that apparently hates everyone in the name of Love. I'm pretty sure the Bible doesn't mean what these people think it means. *boggle* For that matter, why anyone would assume that God would want people who use him/her as an excuse to hate everyone around them is also pretty baffling, to be honest.

I mean, Liberals have more than their share of assweasels, but What-The-Everloving-Crap is that bumper sticker? Other than grossly offensive, jaw dropping, and likely to turn people's brains off with outrage (or force them offline with an error on their boot disc, because I mostly just wandered around with an 'I... can't parse that' but it took a while to get my mind functional again, what with having to load Windows into safe mode and resetting to a previous save point, and hoping that my backups hadn't been corrupted.)

So... I'm sorry that not only do the shit-flinging jerks make your side look stupid, it's making your side look like it's made entirely of terrifyingly ignorant and bigoted assholes. Seriously, after the Limbaugh thing, it becomes just that much more difficult to take the Right very seriously, because I'm not-so-secretly thinking -- 'Why should I give a damn what a bunch of flamingly ignorant, wildly bigoted, humanity-hating jerks want for any reason?'

If someone is specifically after greater polarization in American Politics, that was surely the way to go.

...Osama bin Laden, is that your spectral laughter I hear?

(And now for a whole new method of terrorism that would certainly work a treat. Why bomb buildings if you can exacerbate the existing tensions enough to cause a country to collapse? o.0;)
vasaris: (Default)
WTF, Limbaugh.

Okay, I realize that not everyone who I'm friended with is a liberal (I'd call myself a more or less liberal moderate), and I realize that not everyone agrees on things like abortion and birth control, but I can, and will, always take issue with the attitude that because a woman is on birth control pills, it's because she's having sex with every Tom, Dick, and Harry that crosses her path.

This attitude ignores the very obvious:
1. Married women use birth control.
2. Women in committed relationships use birth control.
3. Single women who are not promiscuous use birth control.
4. Single women who are do as well, but they're hardly the dominant measure of women in the world.
5. Women with a wide variety of issues with their reproductive systems use birth control to even out their hormone levels and make their lives easier.
6. Women use birth control simply to manage when they *do* have periods.
7. Women use birth control because, let's face it, if you're raped it's far better that you've preemptively taken precautions. Having one less thing to worry about when dealing with a violation doesn't strike me as a bad thing.

Comments about 'I'll buy enough asprin for all the women at Georgetown to hold between their knees' is just disgusting. It is not the sole responsibility of a woman to prevent sexual activity from happening. Leaving out the part that on average, a woman is smaller and physically weaker than a man, and thus more vulnerable to threat of rape -- where is the offer to tie all the boy's flys closed? Hmmm? Oh, that's right, if a man has sex with a woman, it's her fault. If he has sex with a man, it's his fault -- and he's an unholy degenerate for it. But the issue of homosexuality is a bit beyond the scope of this rant.

Why is a single woman on birth control a slut and/or a whore because she's preemptively taking birth control? Why is she at fault if sex occurs? Sure, she can keep her legs shut -- but surely men can keep it in their pants.

Taken in context -- that Ms. Fluke was testifying about a woman who had been denied insurance coverage for medication to treat uterine cancer, which just happens to also be birth control pills -- the whole thing is even more horrifying. She's to be called a slut and a public whore because... she wants insurance coverage for a medication that is prescribed for a wide array issues with the female reproductive system.

And then, of course, there are the other issues -- like insurance will cover Viagra which has (according to Wikipedia) about two uses aside from treating erectile dysfunction. There is little other purpose to Viagra but the having of sex, but a man is not a slut for using it. He's not a whore. He's allowed to have all the drugged up sex he wants, and not be judged for it.

Male privlege, let me show you it.

But historically, insurance has not paid for birth control. It's a moral judgement, not a medical one. The moral (not medical) judgment is that birth control pills exist for sex only and women shouldn't be allowed to have that. Yet, men can have Viagra, which also is also about having sex, but that's okay.

*shakes head*

Insurance will often pay for IVF. It will pay prenatal care. It will pay for birth, and for as many children as a person cares to have. Yet, one of the arguments that I have seen regarding insurance paying for birth control is one of 'Why should I pay higher premiums for you to have sex and not have children.'/'Why should I pay higher premiums for your lifestyle choice?' I really have to counter with 'Why should I pay higher insurance premiums for you to very expensively not have sex in order to have children? Why should they reflect you/your partner's pregnancy (regardless of how it came about)? And then pay higher premiums because the pregnancy and the children will be covered?' After all, having children is also a lifestyle choice. And, honestly, the people with children cost me (as a non-childed single individual with real property) a hell of a lot more in taxes, higher premiums, and all, than the childless woman who is religiously taking her birth control pills and having sex with every man she comes across (well, provided that she's also using a barrier method, because the pill? Isn't really the thing that enables promiscuity... that's condoms).

So, seriously, 'why should I pay for your lifestyle?' -- bite me. When I am excused from every tax levy for schools, when my insurance premiums don't take into account IVF, Viagra, and your kids, only then are you allowed to argue that you don't need to pay for 'other people's lifestyles. (Note: I don't have a problem with my property taxes paying for schools, nor -- with the exception of IVF, because I have issues with IVF in general -- do I care about overall insurance premiums reflecting services I never intend to use, but I will *not* accept an argument about 'paying for other people's lifestyles' from people who are subsidized by society and do not acknowledge it.)

It's a bizarre argument and not one that sways me much.

Especially as, given the even more divisive issue of abortion, ready access to birth control is the single most rational place for pro- and anti- abortion to meet.

Calling women sluts, shaming them for daring to have sex (or seek pleasure with their partners), denying them access to a medication that can be lifesaving for a moral judgement that is not levied on men, raging against their right to access to said medication for hypocritical reasons -- none of this moves me.

I understand that many people are passionate about the subject; I understand that they believe -- as deeply and fully as I do -- in things that I find illogical, fallacious, and often morally reprehensible; I know that not all people will agree with me, nor do I believe that all people should.

But the difference is: I don't wage war on men to deny them access to Viagra because, dude, it's just sex. I do not wage war on the childless and infertile to deny them access to IVF because dude, adopt or maybe God is trying to tell you something. I do not wage war against childed people, trying to refuse them acess to my tax monies (for education or social services) because, wow, did you even consider if you could afford that mouth before creating it?

I let these people have their lives without trying to cause them harm. I do not (or possibly cannot) understand how people like Mr. Limbaugh can wage war on women for the trivial reason of sex, especially when birth control pills are so often used for reasons other than birth control.

ETA: For the purposes of this rant, 'birth control' = 'hormonal birth control, generally in the form of pills', although I doubt that Limbaugh and those like him would react any differently to any form of birth control being covered by insurance... except abstinence. *considers how one even attempts to cover absinence in health insurance*
vasaris: (Cthlhumas by adora_spintriae)
Apparently I need it because I think all people who are abused by their domestic partner, regardless of gender, deserve to be heard and that the subject of domestic violence is too often narrowed by society to just 'Men beat their girlfriends/wives.'

It seems that thinking that domestic abuse is wrong, full stop is -- if I understand what happened in [ profile] cf_abby_tribute correctly, I am being a horrible, horrible apologist (I'd link, but it's a locked entry). I'm not entirely sure what I'm being an apologist for, mind, as I have acknowledged that a particular guy writing in to Dear Abby (I'll get the links in eventually) is being at best an ignorant twit and at worst a misogynistic prick. I think it's because I think that his particular ignorance and bullshit should be called out in their specifics rather than generalized to the phrase 'Won't someone think of the poor men?' because that dismisses something that's a real topic as being unworthy of consideration.

Given the way that society dismisses, ridicules, and torments women who are in abusive relationships and having difficulty escaping them, I find it bitterly ironic that any individual who would advocate for abused women and fight against domestic violence toward them would then dismiss and deride men who are abused by their domestic partners. I believe the theory is that bringing attention to those in the minority of abusive domestic situations somehow is supposed to undermine the fact that women are abused.

Me, I think acknowledging that anyone can end up in an abusive relationship and helping turn the tide of society's opinion toward it being wrong all the time regardless of race, gender, class, sexual orientation, and/or love of vegetables is a good thing and a step forward.

Still, I apparently need sympathy for that belief (and for the belief that it seriously undermines your argument against the dismissal, ridicule, and torment of one group if you turn around and do the same to another), so please, lovely people, pity me for my ignorance, close-mindedness, and lack of empathy.
vasaris: (Default)
Why is it that I hate little baby paperclips and absolutely adore baby binder clips? I mean, we're supposed to be wired to like babies, but I find myself with lots of unlove for itty-bitty paperclips and the urge to squee like a fangirl at bitty binder clips.

Apparently my maternal gene is broken.

Oh, wait... it is *me* I'm talking about.
vasaris: (Default)
...but I have to say, I like this guy.

Everyone has different opinions on homosexuality, and all, but the question he asks is a good one:

How many homosexuals (bisexuals, pansexuals, asexuals, or, for that matter, transgender or other group marginalized for their sexual preferences and/or gender identification) does God (deity, random chance, or whatever) have to create before one recognizes that maybe, just maybe they're supposed to be there? (Yes, I recognize YMMV.)
vasaris: (Default)
I think that all e-courses that should be named "How to be a manipulative asshole and not be noticed" should be played as drinking games. I'm seriously considering using such as a method to get completely hammered this weekend. Or some equivalent. Also, it's an easy way to cheat ones way to 40+ hours of "training."

I just wish it didn't make me feel so dirty. Seriously, are people supposed to fall for this crap?

I'm coming to the conclusion that a high(ish) IQ means living a life where its hard to believe people are this dense.
vasaris: (FOSbycesare)
Having lifted this from this thread on Fandom_Wank I find that despite the fact that I don't think anyones reading this, I've got to rant a bit about it.

I don't understand why people think that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry each other. In the broadest sense I have a feel for why conservative, generally Christian groups have a problem with the idea of homosexuality and even why they would have difficulty with them marrying within the Church.

What I don't understand is their problem with legal marriage. Legal marriage and religious marriage are not the same thing. Truthfully, they never have been the same thing.

Religious marriage is generally a ceremony, meant to join two people in the eyes of their deity as a unit. It is a vow of commitment made before (and occasionally to) the strongest judge a person may have available to them... their deity-of-choice.

Legal marriage, on the other hand, is a slip of paper saying that two people are joining their households and finances into a new, legal unit. This unit is responsible for the upkeep of said household -- finances, property, children (if they should have any), etc. Legal marriage brings tax and insurance benefits (or, in some cases penalties) that any two people who share responsibility should have the right to share. If I had a same-gendered partner, why shouldn't I have the right to make decisions about their welfare when we have joined our households? If I had an opposite-gendered partner, I could.

For centuries religious and legal marriage have tended to occur at the same time, leading to the confusion that many people seem to have about the issue. If I lived in a theocracy that would even make sense.

However, I live in the USA. Our government is not a theocracy. The civil side of marriage is just that, civil. It isn't religious, has nothing to do with religious taboos, and should be equally available to any two (or more, if for some bizarre reason you feel the need to join your finances with more than one person) people who desire to do so.
vasaris: (Default)
Fandom_Scruples is at it again, but even more fun, of course is that elance had five bucks to make F_S a paid site.

And, amidst the praising and petting and posturing comes... teh wankage.

I'm not sure which is more amusing "I've submitted Fandom_Scruples to LJ for harassment!" or "I think I should submit you to LJ for harassment... and F_S is just trying to do the right thing! As a responsible adult don't you think it's the right thing to censor the internet... If a seven year old read a Weaselycest gang bang with Ginny, they'd be scarred for life."
Read more... )
Am I the only one who thinks that it's hysterical that the first match for Cthulhu in the spell check is Catholic?
Page generated Sep. 26th, 2017 04:23 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios