Page Summary
ayoub.livejournal.com - (no subject)
girlofavalon.livejournal.com - (no subject)
redstapler.livejournal.com - (no subject)
chaos-by-design.livejournal.com - (no subject)
kalichan.livejournal.com - (no subject)
byzantienne.livejournal.com - (no subject)
i-amthecosmos.livejournal.com - (no subject)
featherofeeling.livejournal.com - (no subject)
bodlon.livejournal.com - (no subject)
riverrocks.livejournal.com - (no subject)
Style Credit
- Style: by
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
no subject
Date: 2010-11-07 11:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-07 01:39 pm (UTC)Brazil isn't so much about cinema yet as it is about TV. I read an interview, once, with a well known soap opera writer that shocked me with his voicing that heartthrob male actors who are gay should stay in the closet, for the sake of their image with the public :O
no subject
Date: 2010-11-07 02:58 pm (UTC)I'm pretty thankful for the way my parents treated such things. Namely, no bullshit, and an honest understanding that they trusted me not to be reckless with my sexual health.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-07 07:14 pm (UTC)My question is this; My situation as a teen was that of being a mousy wallflower constantly having to dodge creeps. No one seems to believe that such a phenomenon happens; creeps only bug "bad girls" who were "asking for it". How does a young person get help for a problem that society refuses to believe happens, I wonder?
no subject
Date: 2010-11-08 01:49 am (UTC)It is not so much the appearance of the female target that matters, as it is the construction of young women as commodities for male use in the mind of the man doing the targeting, a construction encouraged by patriarchal thinking which goes unacknowledged in mainstream culture despite it informing so much of how we think about gender and heterosexual relations.
So, to beat what many consider a tired old drum of feminist thought, it's objectification, not "appreciation", that's the issue. And I think in order to expose it, we need to ask the right questions of people who don't see it in order to get them to overturn their assumptions. Like the interviewers in this video did in re: the assumption that people "choose to be gay":
no subject
Date: 2010-11-08 05:40 pm (UTC)And then they turn around and act confused as to why so many girls and young woman think Edward Cullen's behavior isn't inappropriate...
As a result, in addition to being put off of sex for a very long time, also had the feeling that I was either not very intelligent, or had something wrong with me in the "communicating with others" department. I am willing to admit that some of that was probably a case of me inheriting the "Irish Catholic Super-Oblique Hint Dropping" gene, but still...
In the first few months after starting the Dream Job, it was all I could do to not gawp like a fish whenever I would say, "We need to do it like this..." and folks would agree with me. No arguments, no derailing, no "are you sure", etc.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-07 03:06 pm (UTC)Or to put it more simply: if you're unpopular and spend four years sitting alone in the cafeteria, what does it matter if some yearbook staff make a big deal about making sure you're in a candid shot?
The article about attitudes about teen sexuality in Europe vs. the US isn't surprising at all. I'm just amazed how many people can't accept that puritanism simply doesn't work.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-12 11:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-07 03:46 pm (UTC)If you haven't read The Pursuit of Love and Love in a Cold Climate, you should. For PC* research purposes if naught else. ;-)
*We need another abbreviation. PalCr? Dunno...
no subject
Date: 2010-11-07 03:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-07 03:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-07 05:35 pm (UTC)Are you referencing something? Or am I seeing connotation where you're just playing with cadence in a very effective way?
no subject
Date: 2010-11-07 05:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-07 06:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-07 06:52 pm (UTC)I went dystopian novel places in my head. But ah well!
no subject
Date: 2010-11-07 06:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-07 07:01 pm (UTC)it's very effective. Also ow.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-07 07:02 pm (UTC)Which is fine really. I've enough to keep myself busy. But it will pop up at the drop of a hat.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-08 04:06 am (UTC)Two years in a row.
Okay, now it's funny, but "now" is about 27 years later.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-08 04:24 am (UTC)I think that beats my being in both advanced class for academia and remedial gym one year.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-08 04:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-08 09:43 am (UTC)I do understand the idea that homophobic people could oppose efforts to make children/teens feel more comfortable with homosexuality. The article describes anti-bullying campaigns that go beyond just saying that children shouldn't bully other children about anything, even if they disagree about whether it's right; instead, they do try to "normalize" homosexuality. To me, the "homosexual agenda" is a real and awesome one: item #1, to make the world a safe place for people to openly love someone of whatever gender and to present their gender in non-normative ways. I think we should work really, really hard for that, and that schools should be encouraging it (that's how you cut at the root of bullying, not by telling kids on one hand that it's not ok to be gay and on the other that they shouldn't taunt others for it). But I also think that we should acknowledge that that idea, that change in the world, is very frightening to people who don't want their children to grow up thinking that being gay is fine (who knows, maybe they'd "decide" to "become" homosexual themselves!). Let's face it, the "tolerance" campaigns in the article go beyond teaching kids to be nice to each other and do attempt to change the values their parents might have taught them. It's time to 'fess up to that, to say that it's not that radical, and to not back down.
With regard to I understand, at least abstractly, the trying to save people from hell thing; it's the hastening people's way there business where I get confused. I don't think that the people who object to the "tolerance" campaigns think it's wrong because they want to save the people being bullied. I think they're far more concerned with saving the people doing the bullying, the people saying that homosexuality is wrong, from perhaps being swayed to the other side.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-08 11:42 am (UTC)(Speaking of cultural literacy, my viewing of Moulin Rouge! last night got interrupted at the scene where Christian is walking out of the theatre and Satine starts singing "Come What May." Fucking hell.)
The Olbermann continues to give me quiet fits. The man is opinionated and passionate, and his work allows him to be in ways that aren't traditionally acceptable. Journalism is among the professions that I've always idealized as a vocation, like the priesthood or being a counselor; there are things one has to give up in order to do the Work. (It's possible that these things are like unicorns, but if that's so I'll play the "I WANT TO BELIEVE" card and place myself squarely in the Fox Mulder/Neverending Story camp, thankyouverymuch.) I wonder how much his actions were calculated in a belief that it would allow him to strike at FOX, and how much of it was just ridiculous bad judgment (and how much these things aren't mutually exclusive because Liberals in our culture have more to prove).
Still, it will be good to have him back.
Also, can't we have Sir Ian sainted or something? The man's very existence makes life better.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-08 12:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-08 12:07 pm (UTC)I've seen the introduction before this, and I saw it in, erm...August?
(To be fair, in 2001 I was living with the Bastard Ex who largely prevented me from having any kind of life at all, and who Did Not Care To See It. I missed a lot between 1999 and 2004.)
no subject
Date: 2010-11-08 01:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-08 02:14 pm (UTC)it makes me envision what an R-rated version of Moulin Rouge, that was that consistently dark would have been. And it's probably the scariest film ever not-made.
Shivers. Lots of them.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-08 02:22 pm (UTC)And that story (the MR that wasn't) is what I'm asking for for Yuletide this year.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-08 02:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-08 04:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-08 12:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-08 01:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-08 02:13 pm (UTC)(Also, the cabal of bald, bespectacled musicians made me happy. Like they're another species, sort of, who congregate like prairie dogs or birds.)
Amusingly, I spent far too much time trying to figure out if that was Dave Foley playing the Duke. Which, having now looked it up I feel a bit silly (it's dark in the wrong ways for Foley), but there was just something in the character-actingness of it and Roxburgh's features with the hair and the mustache that I wondered.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-08 05:53 pm (UTC)