sundries

[rm]

My help_haiti auctions:
solo fic: http://community.livejournal.com/help_haiti/3155.html?thread=2487635#t2487635
co-written fic:
http://community.livejournal.com/help_haiti/3155.html?thread=2549587#t2549587

The New York Times has a brief article on skin-lightening creams, which strikes me as one of those things that once again the New York Times is the last to find out about.

Men, hormones and the quest to stop aging.

On women, literature and recognition. Can I note I find all this stuff very tiring? I have enough gender issues without worrying if I'm just trying to circumvent the bullshit; it may be one reason (the other is that it was _made_ for print) that I've so held onto my name. It's true in theater too. Do I think a full-length Dogboy & Justine would get a better reception if it was seen as a man's statement about men instead of a woman's statement about women? Yeah, I do.

Villains and saints: or Elizabeth Edwards as the latest example of how women with public images never get to be simply human. And, of course, the New York Times places this in the Fashion & Style section.

Have you been following the Prop 8 trial online? I've been using The Advocate's Twitter feed. Anyway, the whole thing is sort of riveting and awful. The judge seems deeply irritated by the pro-Prop 8 lawyers, and sometimes seems to ask them questions just to see what nonsensical shit they'll say next. The Prop 8 Trial Tracker is also your friend, and tekalynn points us to this part of the transcript to remind us of the weight and misery of the closet. And, as tekalynn notes, read the comments.

I am so glad someone is finally mentioning that not everyone can see 3D. I can, but it's uneven for me sometimes and I don't like it. Patty can't. The possible future move to 3D TV, which I hate for other reasons (goggles isolate you from the communal experience of home viewing/discussing in real time with others) will completely screw up TV for a lot of people and it makes me unhappy.

Vid rec: Afraid of Americans. It's a fest vid, so we don't know who made it yet. Watchmen fandom. Well-done and smart.

Have _finally_ ordered the rank slides for the coat.

Comments

came across this...

[cozzene.livejournal.com]

That strategy, according to Talbot, involves a legal argument that says since straight folks can have a child, it's important for that child to have stability. So if an unwed mother suddenly becomes pregnant, she and the father can give the child instant stability through marriage. Since gay folks can't get each other pregnant by chance, the argument further goes, the right to marriage isn't all that necessary for them.

Some people may think this line of legal thinking is beyond wacky, but, Talbot writes, it helped anti-gay marriage forces win cases in Indiana and New York.

Link: http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/queer-town/proposition-8-trial-gay/

It's good to know that only the queers cause familial instability and that divorce isn't nearly as bad.

Re: came across this...

[matthewwdaly.livejournal.com]

I don't believe that the familial stability argument "won the cases" in New York.* It's so fundamentally flawed that it had to be debunked during deliberation as firmly as it was in the written dissent. Its only value is in giving cover to a judge who agrees with the "for the Bible tells me so" doctrine but knows that directly admitting that in a ruling would probably be grounds for impeachment.

(*) I've read the New York decision, but can't say anything specific about Indiana's.

Re: came across this...

[cozzene.livejournal.com]

I think the current judge let them know directly that he isn't buying that argument based on some of his questions. It's nice to see that.