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.
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.
Current Music:Abney Park - The Wrong Side (Vernian Processed Mix)
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.
They're not really thumbnailed, and my spelling is dodgy as I didn't know who most of the people were when I was drawing them, and my sense of humor is not everyone's, and they left in some of the stuff with just scribbles, but. Grab the image link and view it directly; some of them are pretty big. http://www.marriageequality.org/index.php?page=sketches
Skin lightening creams are only now starting to become popular in my country.
Because of my job, I went to a cosmetics evening that pitched new products and one of them was called Bi-White (you can imagine my sniggering), but was pronounced "be white" (yeah, fail on so many levels) and the product pitcher said it was very popular in Asia and there was a lot of demand for it in that section - being the Arab population.
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.
One night I was taking the Metro North from 125th to Woodlawn and a black woman got on with a suitcase. David helped her put it up on the rack--she was struggling with it. But her lotion exploded and spattered us and it smelled really strange and terrible and immediately gave me a rash. I asked her what it was, but her English was incomprehensible. She was very embarrassed and I told her not to worry about it that it was fine. I'm pretty sure it was skin bleaching lotion and that made me depressed.
That article about the skin lightening creams was very strange for me to read, being a person who had been picked on and gotten lots of unwanted attention as a child for being so pale. To the point where I tried to tan and found I couldn't...I just burn and any tan I do get isn't enough to turn my complexion from super-goth white to a normal tan.
On 3D - yeah if you don't have good depth perception to begin with, 3D is either a complete fail or very frustrating. For most of my life I couldn't understand three dimensional renderings in two dimensional space. Turned out I had no depth perception. Only one eye was working for distance. The brain had 'turned off' the signal from the other eye otherwise I would have had double vision.
Had it fixed surgically. Have fighter pilot depth perception now. Only problem - I developed a bit of vertigo (cause everything is sooo deep when you look down). For a year after surgery I couldn't walk down a flight of stairs without getting dizzy.
I think I'll be skipping the 3D experience - its too much like those early days of discovering depth perception, disconcerting and not very pleasant.
I am so glad someone is finally mentioning that not everyone can see 3D.
Oh thank ghu somebody has said something about this, something I can point to and say, "Stop telling me I'm full of shit when I say I can't see those stupid 3D image or see even the 'new' 3D movies without wanting to vomit (and still not seeing the 3D effects)."
I swear, one more person who tells me I'm making it up is going to get slugged.
I've never actually tried to watch something in 3D, but I have a strong inkling that I wouldn't be able to see it. If it relies on depth perception then yeah, no good for me. I like the glasses, though.
When I was a kid, I'd get frustrated because I can't do those Magic Eye puzzles. I can stare at those things forever and not see anything. Finally, when I was 16, I asked my eye doctor if that was because of my wandering eye and he was all, "Of course! You don't really have depth perception." I felt very vindicated.
I have exceptional depth perception and it makes 3D feel awful to me actually. I get seasick. Patty doesn't have depth perception of the sort that that stuff works on, so she can't see it at all.
I'm already aggravated by the forced shifts toward Blu-Ray and HDTV. I've seen some of the calibrated TVs and I actually don't like how realistic it looks. There's something about film quality that is like reading from a page... it gives you just a little separation between reality and fiction, and reminds you that there's a choice in where you focus.
came across this...
Date: 2010-01-16 05:05 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-16 05:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-16 06:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-16 06:35 pm (UTC)Because of my job, I went to a cosmetics evening that pitched new products and one of them was called Bi-White (you can imagine my sniggering), but was pronounced "be white" (yeah, fail on so many levels) and the product pitcher said it was very popular in Asia and there was a lot of demand for it in that section - being the Arab population.
Bleh.
Re: came across this...
Date: 2010-01-16 07:14 pm (UTC)(*) I've read the New York decision, but can't say anything specific about Indiana's.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-16 08:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-16 08:43 pm (UTC)So yeah. Weird.
Re: came across this...
Date: 2010-01-17 03:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-17 07:49 am (UTC)Had it fixed surgically. Have fighter pilot depth perception now. Only problem - I developed a bit of vertigo (cause everything is sooo deep when you look down). For a year after surgery I couldn't walk down a flight of stairs without getting dizzy.
I think I'll be skipping the 3D experience - its too much like those early days of discovering depth perception, disconcerting and not very pleasant.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-17 12:32 pm (UTC)Oh thank ghu somebody has said something about this, something I can point to and say, "Stop telling me I'm full of shit when I say I can't see those stupid 3D image or see even the 'new' 3D movies without wanting to vomit (and still not seeing the 3D effects)."
I swear, one more person who tells me I'm making it up is going to get slugged.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-17 11:14 pm (UTC)When I was a kid, I'd get frustrated because I can't do those Magic Eye puzzles. I can stare at those things forever and not see anything. Finally, when I was 16, I asked my eye doctor if that was because of my wandering eye and he was all, "Of course! You don't really have depth perception." I felt very vindicated.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-17 11:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-19 12:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-19 12:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-19 02:36 am (UTC)