So we watched Batman: Year One

The tricky thing about Batman: Year One is that it's good, and I like it, but it's not really about Batman. I write stories like this too, stories focusing on a character that I'm maybe less attached to so that I won't be focusing too much on that character. And in the process, maybe sometimes you realize how interesting this otherwise-side-character is, because you're focusing the story on them. Since Batman: Year One is really about Jim Gordon, it's hard to say if it's only titled what it is because it wouldn't sell otherwise.

The straight-to-DVD movie they recently made of it is pretty good. The animation is superb, with the continued exception of vehicles being CGI while everything else looks hand-drawn. Seriously, guys, the vehicle CGI looks like shit. Please stop it. It is ridiculously jarring and always obvious.

Good things about it: Art style closely matches the original, I felt. Particularly noticed the almost chillingly expressionless media-persons, which felt accurate to the original comic. The fight choreography looked great, and it was fast-paced enough to be fun to watch.

Bad things about it: Vocal casting was definitely hit or miss for me. I'm sorry, Ben McKenzie, but you came across sounding a little more like a bored, but obsessive serial killer than Batman, to me. Likewise, I just don't care for Eliza Dushku; of course, I also don't care for this portrayal of Catwoman, so I guess it doesn't matter. She looked hot, she was muscular, and that was nice and all, but boy, was she petty. And apparently an ex-prostitute. Gee, thanks, Frank Miller. Still, this is nothing new.

I like Jim Gordon, so I like the story more or less. I'd never been able to read the comic all the way through because the affair with detective Essen made me annoyed, so I'm glad to have watched this, since the way that was resolved makes me interested in picking up the comic again. I do think that this is a problem I might not have if I'd read this before anything else. Then it wouldn't be symptomatic of a tiresome movement to "humanize" characters by making them awful people; it'd be the first, and I could be impressed by the idea that Jim Gordon is still a good person, even though he bullies his bullies, and cheats on his wife.

( Also, rambling about the new Hobbit movie and my mistrust of it. )

Edit: I also received my second-to-last package of doujinshi, finally. This means I only have one left, and it's even the one I most recently ordered! So that is cool.

Call to Cookies

Everyone, hold on a second.

I need you to go buy Girl Scout cookies. I know, I know-- you were going to do it anyway. Those cookies are super delicious.

Is this about Taylor of CA, who claims to be a girl-scout and has problems with the GSUSA organization allowing transgendered children to partake in the organization's activities and club?

It is, a little. I disagree fundamentally with the idea of putting such stock in gender that it can cripple your ability to do something because you feel like to do so you must be male or female. I strongly advocate gender equality and gender blindness. The arguments put forth by this so-called girl scout (evidently part of an organization called "Honest Girl Scouts", designed to repress girls even more than they already are by denying them sex education, in the interest of "purity"-- how Victorian) include complaints that she feels 'unsafe' knowing that the GSUSA may allow transgendered individuals to join the group.

Why should women feel unsafe around men? That only further empowers men and de-powers women.

Why should a little girl be treated differently just because of her biological origin? If she chooses to be a girl, that is what she is.

I find arguments like this wildly offensive; I am a woman, and I am not threatened by the presence of men, transgendered men OR women, or women. Furthermore, the implication that there is an inherent sexual perversion associated with transgendering is draconian, and needs to stop.

Is it worth explaining why sex-shaming girls of any type is harmful to women? It seems to me like the reasons are obvious. Girls should be free to express themselves sexually and so should boys. The act of sex is not inherently dirty, and it is pursued for mutual pleasure between consenting adults. It should be conducted cautiously to ensure neither party is hurt, and it should be conducted safely to ensure that neither party is given unwanted complications, such as tearing/bleeding, sexually transmitted infections, or unplanned pregnancy. The means by which you accomplish this is entirely up to the participants. Condoms and abstinence are equally acceptable forms of preventing STI transfer, pain, or childbirth.

What really irritates me is the misguided notion that purity is separate from gender identity, or sexual exploration. A woman who enjoys sex is no less pure than a woman who has never had sex. Purity is determined by personality and conduct, not by sexual proclivities or gender.

So please, buy lots of Girl Scout cookies, because they are delicious. And maybe, possibly, also because you think transgendered kids probably get enough flak already, and don't deserve to be singled out and bullied.