Captain Awesome and the Spacecapades

I've been involved with / following the stuff going on with the Feminist Frequency Kickstarter. Apparently the latest development is that, since the scare tactics aren't working, the persons who are angry about the project started their own fundraiser to try to one-up FemFreq. Their project is called "Misandry in Videogames", and they're very explicit that they won't need the money to make their webseries, it's 'all going to charity'. The comments are predictably full of obvious attempts to deride, defame, or undermine confidence in Sarkeesian and her project, both on the actual project page and in the comments from the backers.

Here's the thing. I think that, if this project were legitimate, it would be a worthy effort. If these people were looking to improve the interpretation of men in video games by critically analyzing the way that video game companies tell us that we perceive men in their sometimes crappy representations, I'd think this was a pretty good effort. The lack of depth of character and humanity is a serious problem with the entirety of pop-culture. It is no failing of Feminist Frequency that its focus is on addressing the problems in pop-culture representations of women. It would still be great if some other organization devoted to improving the rights of some other oppressed group wanted to do projects to raise awareness and inspire conversation about the problems in pop-culture representations of men.

The fact of the matter is this though: they don't really mean to make videos that are thoughtful critiques, and it shows. They're angry, they have decided for whatever reason that Sarkeesian is false and plans to blow the money she's made on something unrelated to the project she's doing. They don't care about the reality of the situation, they don't care about whether or not they're proving her right-- that there is a problem with sexism in interpersonal relations-- every time they comment in to tell her how much they hate her in their variety of colorful ways that I have no desire to quote here.

What really sucks is actually the backlash to the backlash. The definition of peaceful protest is that it must remain PEACEFUL. If we were putting ourselves in danger to achieve peaceful protest, it would require our maintained innocence-- carrying no weapons, refusing to stoop to the violence that our enemies were waging upon us, willingly making examples of ourselves if necessary to get the message across that this problem is big, and real, and must be fixed.

In the online world, the way to maintain innocence is never to actually insult-- not even through backhanded insults-- and regrettably, Sarkeesian failed to do this from day one by calling the response 'trolls'. It's not her fault, because that is the term we apply to generalized internet harassment ('I'm being trolled'). But the word still festers and rots in the hearts of those who are called it, especially those who, for whatever reason, didn't realize that they WERE trolling, and seriously thought that Sarkeesian was demanding privilege, instead of requesting equality.

I'm not saying these guys are right to be doing such assholish stuff to anyone, ever, and I'm certainly not saying that Sarkeesian is in the wrong. However, to respond to these people by dehumanizing them, referring to them as trolls, or babies, or whiners, or otherwise making mass generalizations about them, is not even REMOTELY helpful. Trolling the trolls back is just fucked up. That is bullying the bully. And you know what? That makes you one of the people in the crowd who's pointing and laughing and doing nothing to solve the problem.

Sarkeesian here is the true victim. She didn't do anything wrong, and she's being bullied. Beyond that, her bullies are being victimized by the people who are looking on and linking their support of Sarkeesian inextricably with statements like:

"and all these 12 year olds need to shut the fuck up"
"haha, poor whiny neckbeards! get out of the basement!"
"don't worry about all those guys with tiny e-peens!"

I can't stress enough how vitally important it is to be aware that SHOWING SUPPORT does not require you to PUT SOMEONE ELSE DOWN. In fact, it severely undermines the support you show if you go out of your way to insult someone else. EVERYONE'S rights matter. This is true. Sarkeesian knows it, and we know it, and shockingly enough, even these 'trolls' know it. They are freaking out because they have the unrealistic expectation that, if Sarkeesian is successful, everyone will turn on them and start bullying them and denying them rights.

This is NOT TRUE. What we want is to be treated as equals. But we'll never be able to get that message across to these guys because instead of reaching out to them and extending patience and tolerance, the people who are supposedly supporting Feminist Frequency are reinforcing that fear every time they make another of these thoughtless, harmful comments.

It would do everyone good to remember: Every bully has probably been bullied before. That nerdy kid who's mean online? There's a chance he gets beaten up for no reason IN CLASS by his classmates, while some teacher who should care, but doesn't, sits around doing nothing. That guy who's really angry and buff, with all those tattoos about murder, who's screaming that you're a faggot in online gameplay? There's a chance he was sexually assaulted by a relative in his youth, and never reported it, let alone came to terms with it.

The reason abuse is SO AWFUL is that it is a cycle. I don't ask you to have sympathy for them-- you don't have to, I know that some people really make it hard and sometimes, that's just detrimental to solving the problem. But DON'T CONTRIBUTE TO THE ABUSE. I don't care how funny it is or how much you want to fit in to what you have perceived as the mob mentality. Abuse is abuse no matter who you are and no matter what your reasons are.

Don't poison the good thing that Anita Sarkeesian is trying to do by countering abuse with abuse.

Edited to add: Shakesville also has a good article about this:

Saying "it's just the internet" enables the abusers and harassers. That phrase is their ally, their justification. It lets them off the hook for behavior that could be considered criminal if done in person. It shifts the blame to the victim of the abuse by suggesting they just need to, say, "grow a thicker skin" because it's somehow not real because pixels and wifi and anonymous commenting ability.

1. Bra shopping

( I had to get new bras. )

2. Movie time with Emma

( The gist of this is, Mirror Mirror is a romantic comedy, but I was expecting better of it. )

I will say it tried a little, though, and Sean Bean does know how to tug at the heartstrings a bit.

Movie could have used more dwarf scenes. They were seriously the best part.

Oh! And who put in the drawn out "attacked by badly animated CGI puppets" scene? Seriously, that was just-- not funny or entertaining. It just felt long to sit through.

Final complaint: Just say the whole name. "Snow" is a dumb nickname. Every time someone called her Snow, I wanted to reach through the screen and punch them.

Interesting note: I did have dreams the following morning that involved being pestered by the robot other-self of Julia Roberts, who I kept grabbing by the head to snap her neck. She unfortunately kept reappearing and butting in on whatever it was I was doing in my dream, so I kept doing it. It wasn't a violent or evil act in the dream, but it felt odd to have been dreaming about something like that when I woke up. Mostly I was frustrated that it required so much effort, but wasn't permanent because she was a robot.

3. The neighbors

I met our actual neighbor last night. The one who was screaming for help the night I called.

She, as we suspected, thought we were making ALL of the 911 calls, and that we were complaining about noise, and I explained what had happened. Why I had called, and only called once.

She told me how upset she was. (She was a little tipsy and holding an open can of Bud Light, so probably feeling pretty vulnerable.) She's trying to get her son back. She was trying to do a nice thing for friends of hers across the street who'd been evicted by letting them stay at her place. These friends are the ones who fight all the time and have gotten her the eviction notice. These friends are the ones whose presence have led to her boyfriend abusing her, and beating her the night I called. These friends left pot in her apartment, which nearly got her arrested.

I told her how upset I had been that the police did nothing to help her, and that I had called because I was worried about her; never about the noise. Never because I would want to kick someone out of their home.

She said, "I don't know where I'm going to go. And it just-- sucks. Because I never even got to properly introduce myself to you guys, you know? I didn't want to be the shitty neighbor."

I held out my hand and told her my name.

She shook my hand and told me hers.

I told her I hope things get better for her. Soon.

Her boyfriend came home while we were talking, and after he went into her apartment, she leaned in and whispered,

"I'm really glad you did call. Thank you. I'm really glad you did."

And then I cried for a while. I'm really glad I called, too. Even if the police didn't do anything to help her, even if I've contributed to any of the bad stuff, even if we have to live in fear until the eviction is done.

Maybe it made some tiny difference for her to know that someone heard her and cared. I really hope so.

I don't know how to do better than what I tried to do. I can't offer her a place to stay, or a way out. I wish there was something concrete I could do. I do think I might start volunteering somewhere, or at least look more heavily into jobs where I could help people who are really in need, more like this. I had already looked a little, but I was being kind of a wuss about it and letting myself be chased off by the fact that I don't have the prerequisite qualifications yet. Maybe I can get them.

4. D&D

I am still mopey now, and was definitely mopey in the morning, with regards to the conversation I had with the neighbor. D&D fortunately was scheduled for today though, and that helped to keep my mind off of it for the most part. (It's pretty hard to be mopey when your friends are being awesome at you.) We did start late because Bret bailed on us without letting us know earlier in the day, so we were waiting for him to show up; but we had a blast. The group we ended up with has a great dynamic!

Most of the session was spent alternately kicking ass and making fun of the Ice King-- er, Winter King, but we couldn't resist calling him Ice King, really-- as we explored his mysterious castle and took out his creepy army. The gist of things was, back in Sweetgrove, winter had mysteriously started out in the middle of late spring, and everyone was puzzled by the sudden, unseasonal snow. A magic flying boat full of undead warriors crashlanded in town and started attacking everyone. By the time Tamli and Charlie drove off the jerks, they'd already killed a guy; and it turned out that the winter would be eternal if we couldn't return the Ice King's scepter.

We did end up returning it, but then the guy had the gall to ask us to kneel before him. While Charlie politely gave it a shot, Tamli, Alice and Damien were having none of that, and with Charlie's reluctant assistance we were able to trash him. (A lot of this session involved Tamli shouting victoriously over fallen foes, Charlie neatly and efficiently clobbering things when they least expected it, Alice wearing the mysterious Ice Crown and sneaking around in the nude, and Damien discerning magical secrets with his keen eyes and other senses. There was also a point where Damien breathed fire for a bit, which was awesome!)

When we got back, Tamli rushed off to the church to resurrect the civilian who'd been downed by the undead soldiers. She'll be spending the next two weeks helping work the poor guy's farm while he rests up. That frees up Fletcher to be available to help the town guard, who Danny hilariously joked are close to installing a Batman-esque signal with a bow and arrow on to summon him.

Ultimately, we returned back home richer, but it took us long enough that a big group dinner was needed to refuel us afterward.

Tomorrow I get to see my brother, since he's in town. I'm very excited to see him! He also sent me a mystery text around midnight...curious!

The reason being that Sweden's got some potential to be moving towards gender equality, which is a cause I think is worthy.

Of course, the article itself can't abstain from the doubt that comes of most people thinking about a world in which, gasp, gender is forcibly NOT permitted to be used as a discriminating factor. The comments, even worse, are like poison; nobody gives a shit if women are granted equality, or people who do not identify with any traditional gender roles are given the opportunity to develop from youth.

The article goes to great lengths to say "What about the children?"-- yes, what about the toddlers, who are too young to say they would prefer to be treated as men or women?

Well, what about them in the current set up, assholes? Parents are indoctrinated from THEIR birth to treat girls one way and boys another. Studies have shown that if you tell a parent that the baby they're holding is female, they'll be more overprotective of it and keep it closer. If it's male, they'll be more likely to encourage it to explore. It doesn't matter what gender the child actually is-- both are just as likely to want to stay close or go ranging-- but the parent, who is already socially conditioned, has notions that are transmitted to the child.

The article cites, as if this is proof of some great crime against these lucky toddlers, that some schools in Sweden have removed certain types of interaction or toys because they found that the children would revert to existing societal roles that they're working hard to abolish, otherwise. I don't see this as proof that the kids just love being jammed into the existing social stereotypes-- on the contrary, the parents of these children will have grown up in a society that still gave them the same bias that every other society already has. In the home, the teacher has no control, no ability to help give all children an equal opportunity to speak.

Having grown up in a world where I was always shunned a little bit for being willing to speak in a public forum (a shameful thing for a girl, who is societally expected to shut up and listen when the men are talking), for being eager and quick to learn (how dare I make men feel threatened by being intelligent), for preferring to do sports as a kid to playing with the other girls, whose two-faced nature repelled me, I can honestly say I would have loved a school environment that was as free and open as my home environment. My parents put no expectations on me. Two-year old Dev wore coveralls and had short, curly hair; five-year-old Dev had long hair because it was Cool, swam constantly, and played with dinosaurs and sandcastles in the backyard; nine-year old Dev was pals with the boys, played basketball every day during lunch, was ostracized by her female peers with the exception of one or two girls, and struggled confusedly with the concept that she should already have a boyfriend, which didn't seem desirable or to make any sense. At school, I had to deal with things that didn't make sense to me; when my grandparents visited, I had to deal with old-fashioned and inaccurate expectations of what it meant for me to be a little girl. But at home, with just my parents and my brother, I was who I was. I liked things from both sides and as it turns out, both genders appeal to me.

So to heck with all this fear of the unknown. Anyone who thinks making an actual, concerted effort to change the world so that women get true equality is a bad idea doomed to obvious failure because "gender identity" is "hardwired" by your sexual organs is just afraid of what might happen. They're repulsed by the idea of a world that, to them, is so different from their comfortable norm.

I think they can deal with being slightly uncomfortable and learn to accept it. Moreover, I think they should.

And I think I might have to consider the merits of someday moving to Sweden. You know, if I ever make it as a successful author, or something. That'd be kinda nice.

Edited to add unrelated notes: Man! So I bought these amazing chicken-stuffed-with-spinach-and-cheese things from the grocery store for my lunch. It's just grilled chicken + spinach, cheese and tomatoes, and it was totally delicious. They were on sale, so I'll be having those for lunch at work for a while. Also probably great to have at home for dinner with Danny, so I'm keeping that in mind.

The way they're made is a little clumsy, though. Having had flank steak with peppers and cheese actually cooked inside the meat, I think I could probably do something similar with chicken and whatnot and get to choose what goes in. Sounds like a good choice for experimentation-- stuff 'em with garlic, spinach and onions instead, maybe. I do like the cheese, but I think these'd go best with a small side salad, and cheese is filling, so it wouldn't be totally necessary, per se.

Tonight we're going to be making tacos for dinner, which both Danny and I are looking forward to.

Apparently Wisconsin has decided that women don't deserve equal pay to men; read all about it.

This is utter bullshit. This has to stop. Apathy and defeatism are the disgusting slugs in the belly of the internet.

I have some congressfolk to write.

Edit: Honestly, I read this one too the other day, and while I consider it more of an opinion piece, I still think it's important and accurate. I've definitely experienced what Valente is talking about here; I can say something MANY TIMES, but my companions-- male or female, but especially male-- will later say the same damn thing as if it is their unique and original idea.

This is not slapstick; this is extremely frustrating, this is being ignored, and this is being shunned and treated as a second class citizen.

Pointing this out repeatedly to Danny got him to start crediting me my ideas. It's easy when you're not the person being ripped off-- when you're not the artist whose work is being copied, or the author whose words are plagiarized-- to laugh and go 'what are these people even talking about? I guess I understand in theory, but it's not like it's that big a deal'.

Belittling the frustrations of other people-- laughing at them while also refusing to acknowledge that you are hurting them-- is no way to solve a problem. I'm very grateful that Danny eventually came around and started to point out when something is my idea. It makes me feel a LOT more willing to excitedly tell people when something is Danny's idea, as well.

But you know what still happens around the D&D table? Whenever it's my turn during a combat, I usually have to repeat myself four or five times. Especially if I have a question. This doesn't happen to the guys around the table, and I assure you, it's not because my voice is of a more dulcet tone. This is something I wish could be improved. Until it's acknowledged as a problem, however, it can't be fixed. And in the meantime, it is being ignored.

To immediately demonize a woman for daring to criticize someone else-- no matter who they are-- is criminal. It is an effort to silence that woman and keep her from speaking, and that is not a worthy or acceptable aim.

To ignore, shun, or laugh off a woman's input is equally criminal.

Listen to the people around you. All of them. Even the ones you don't like very much. We are all humans. We all deserve the right to speak, the right to live, and the right to try to make our lives better.

The government we have right now is doing a shit job of helping that to happen. We are entrenched in outdated notions of societal structure, and the importance of religious affiliation to societal integrity. YOU HAVE THE POWER TO CHANGE THAT from the ground up. Make it happen. Don't vote in politicians who're willing to do crap like this.

Please, listen to me. Listen to us. Women are people, not prizes, not children, not possessions.

And in a moderately related note, it is this attitude, this backwards creepy sexism, that makes me reject the 'marriage' custom. The ritual selling of the woman to the man, dolled up to look as attractive as possible so he will feel like he's getting something valuable? No thanks. I wouldn't inflict that one someone I love. I certainly wouldn't accept anyone who claimed to love me trying to inflict that on me.

First, it's important to note that I have not read the books. The reasons why aren't complicated. I don't often have time to read for fun. When I do, I usually like to read something that is in the genre of speculative, science, or fantasy fiction; excluding those, I might read non-fiction to learn about something I think is neat, and so on. Young adult fiction rarely falls in my radar.

Aside from that, I just wasn't interested in The Hunger Games particularly. The concept sounded like it had been pieced together from a lot of other sources I've already read and enjoyed. I felt similarly about what I heard of the Twilight books, and about Harry Potter.

However, I ended up going to see the movie for the following reasons:

-Reviewers touted the movie as being an action film with a female lead. I wanted to see that.
-Reviewers and critics described Katniss as saving herself, and rescuing Peeta in a role-reversal of the usual damsel in distress thing. I wanted to see that, too.
-Reviewers of books and movie alike insist that this is Amazing Stuff, and well, I like to believe people when they say such things.

Overall, I give the story a B for effort. It tried hard to put forth the idea that children should not have to live in violence and it was pretty earnest about that. I liked that about the story, and I liked certain moments of the movie very well. The shaky camera gave me a pretty bad headache afterward, but it also brought out the emotion in a few of the scenes, while emphasizing the underlying theme (I thought, anyway) of Panem not being as amazing, wealthy or vast as it wanted its citizens to think it was.

However, as a fellow author, I feel that the author took the lazy way out on a lot of things, since none of the things I take issue with were noted as being different between the book and the movie.

Problem A: The ending.

Have you read Fahrenheit 451? I am going to spoil the ending for you if not. At the end, Guy Montague goes off into the woods to join the rebellion against the technocratic society that he used to help burn books and signs of past knowledge. His new fellows are the remnants of a society that used to teach literature, etc. Each member of the resistance memorizes a book and can recite it to new people so they, too, will remember. It's pretty cool, and involves a drawn-out chase scene where Montague ultimately escapes the authorities by hiding in a river to avoid being scented by tracking dogs.

Well, at the end of Hunger Games, Suzanne Collins is setting us up for a sequel. So instead of running off into the woods like she seemed inclined to do at the beginning of the story, Katniss just sort of sparkles in the spotlight and stays in District 12. I could not believe that this character, who had gone through that ordeal, was being given the option to go back home to District 12 in the first place. I really couldn't believe she was deciding to stay there instead of immediately pack her things and get the heck out of dodge, loved ones snug on her back.

I might forgive this as a movie failing if the second book didn't feature a second set of Hunger Games (ala Harry Potter, the series I blame for this genre of diluted-brand-fantasy-for-the-mass being so goddamned popular for the last twelve years), but according to wikipedia, it does. I also can't help thinking that the power-play between Katniss as a rebel of District 12 and the angry old man who recognized her as a potential martyr and said 'whoa, don't let her be a martyr, that will end badly for us' was tremendously fake. If he truly found her threatening, then he could have had her eliminated at any time after the games. It's downright stupid to let her go home- if it was Running Man, she'd be killed off screen and hidden away, since the illusion of 'winning' was needed but the actual winners were not.

And since Haymitch is around to give advice to new 'reapings', why is it that Peeta and Katniss are going home instead of staying in the Capitol to help coach for the future games? Well, okay. Say I accept that the Big Typical Evil Guy is fine with letting Katniss live, so long as she goes back to District 12. That's all fine. I could suspend disbelief for that.

Still: Why, then, does Katniss choose to stay there instead of running?

If Hunger Games had given even the slightest ounce of agency to Katniss, we would have seen her leading a big old group of people off into the wilderness to escape from Panem's Capitol at the end. But instead, she just goes back to District 12.

It's like she says to herself, "Welp! I enacted some shadow of social change and reform to help my oppressed brethren! Time to go home and be oppressed some more!" I am not impressed.

Problem B: "Saving herself" apparently doesn't mean what I thought it meant.

Katniss does an excellent job of not saving herself throughout the movie, and I confess I was left a little perplexed. The three top examples I can cite:

-Oh no, I've been burned very badly! Don't worry, have some magic burn cream that turns it into a scab in just a few hours. Courtesy of your pal Haymitch, and deus ex machina!

This was the most forgiveable instance, because we'd been informed in advance that it was likely to be necessary and how it could happen. I still didn't buy the magic burn cream wicking away her wounds, but how she got it made perfect sense. Unless, of course, you have a problem with the subject-to-sudden-gusts-of-wind parachute of medicine just happening to land near enough for her to actually use it.

-Oh no, I'm stuck up a tree! Don't worry; Rue has an idea of how to get me down. (This dovetails also with 'oh no bees! But Rue has magic healy leaves for me and she'll watch over me while I sleep, so it's cool.')

You know, as cool as it is for Rue to show up and help Katniss out by pointing out the beehive, it was pretty bizarre that she spotted the beehive and Katniss, who'd been stuck in that very tree and would have heard them buzzing at SOME point while sleeping up there, did not. Furthermore, doesn't it seem kind of vicious for Rue to have Katniss take out the competition while also putting herself at risk of genetically enhanced killer hallucinogenic bee-stings? I was severely interested in Rue when I briefly thought 'man! That little girl is smart and deadly! How clever she is, to play on her adorable little girl charms to take out a potential of SIX COMPETITORS all on her own!'

But no, it was really just that she wanted to help out Katniss. Which is fine, except for the part where I know I'm supposed to think it's "okay" to kill people by torturing them horribly with poison instead of just getting it over with and stabbing them, damn it. Also, I get the impression that it's "okay" for the brainwashed teens who were raised expressly to fight or die in this tournament, because they're jerks about it. Don't worry, Katniss, you did the right thing. But since you didn't trust Peeta and well, you did kill anyone at all, however circuitously and evilly, you get to have wicked hallucinations for a while.

It's cool though! Rue will give you the magic herbs you need to heal. And she will somehow defend your body while you sleep it off, despite being a tiny unarmed girl. Totally.

-Oh no, I'm about to get killed by a knife-wielding psychopath! Despite her smaller stature and my stronger muscles, I can't get up! Don't worry; the guy from District 11 is here to kill her for me so I can stay precious and pure. Which, by the way, is Problem C.

Problem C: If it's supposed to be so emotionally moving, then why is it Katniss only kills the straw-characters, and only through the most removed and complicated fashion possible?

I'm not gonna lie: There are about three actual characters in this movie. They're played by Ms. Lawrence, Mr. Harrelson, and Mr. Kravitz. And for most of the movie, that means there's only one actual character, because the other two aren't part of the actual games.

This is not because they're better actors, though I think being older does help. It's because the rest of the sacrifices are just actually, literally sacrifices. Just because it's veiled in the deceptive coating of comfort doesn't mean it's less horrible to kill them. The movie avoids making you feel bad about the slaughter because there simply are no other characters. It doesn't matter if Katniss kills them, because we don't get to see their interviews and their lives and feelings. We don't get to know them as people before the games, so it's not like we care that they're dead, after. Furthermore, it's implied that it'd be okay for Kat to kill the kids from Districts 1 and 2, for example, because they're snobs who got special training for the Hunger Games and the privilege of volunteering. We're encouraged to feel, "Oh, they acted like jerks, so it's all right that she killed them. Thank goodness Katniss is still alive and safe, and pure of heart. She just wants everybody to make it."

Katniss gets to evade the dehumanizing horror of the match by not having to kill anyone directly. She uses a bow, which means she can kill at range; when she doesn't, she uses genetically engineered bees (a far more horrible, painful death than just being stabbed-- but it's okay, she got stung too) and the other competitors take care of the rest for her. While I think the use of the bow is a good idea, because it lets her have an advantage, I would have much preferred to see the struggle Katniss had to go through of actually killing people. Not strawmen-- it doesn't count if we as an audience are comfortable with watching them die. People. Actual people. People like Rue.

The only kill that counts, as far as I'm concerned, is the kill that kills someone Katniss didn't want to kill. Otherwise, the point of the story is something else. If the point of the story is that she beat the Hunger Games with the power of the Human Spirit (a plot device I actually like; I think of it as the Flash Gordon/Pulp way of winning a fight), then Katniss doesn't need to kill anyone at all. She needs to be a far more outgoing person, and to sway the combatants to her side, turning the twenty four sacrificial lambs into a cooperative entity that fights back against The Man. Given Gale's dialogue at the beginning of the story, it would have fit just fine. I mean, it would have been nice if Katniss had suggested it herself, but here's the thing.

Katniss's response to "we should stop watching and not let them have power over us. We shouldn't let the Hunger Games control us" was "it'll never happen." Katniss is ridiculously fatalistic. She doesn't believe she can get through the bloodbath without killing. Yet despite that, the story focuses not on how she manages to deal with the fact that she's going to be killing people and that she has to do it, but on how she avoids ever actually doing so.

Let me explain.

As big a deal as was made of Katniss concentrating on shooting her bow, she actually only used it to attack three people. Person one is justified because he was attacking her and killed Rue. Person two is justified because she was already attacking Katniss with throwing knives. And person three is the last competitor who isn't from District 12. He's willing to kill Peeta, he's willing to die. He's suffered the games, just as she has. Though he's a non-entity until that single moment, in the moment before Katniss kills him, her enemy is made into a character. He's resigned to his fate and feels powerless.

So the only kill in the movie that mattered was this guy. After all the talk of Katniss shooting squirrels right through the eye, I would have been impressed if she shot her enemy through the eye in this moment, unfazed by his hold on Peeta. I would have been really impressed if she'd hesitated just long enough that he actually snapped Peeta's neck, and then she shot him. I know, I know-- that would have made Katniss less unique if she only won the games "standard", but I also think it would have made for a better story. I was interested to see Katniss get to understand Haymitch better, as a fellow survivor of a gruesome battle royale.

Instead, she shoots his hand (freeing and saving Peeta), and then Peeta throws him to the magic holo-wolves. Katniss does end the poor bastard's life, but out of sympathy, not because she had to make a hard choice. She basically cheats her way through the Hunger Games, empowered by the author's own hand, without ever having to confront the hard choice that the games are supposed to be all about.

Problem D: The ol' Intent Stare

Katniss had this problem to ludicrous degrees. The actress clearly was capable of doing better than Deer In Headlights Stare all day, but a large part of the movie focused around her staring blankly at people and looking terrified. This is not really interesting to watch (I would have accepted a voice-over internal monologue if there is one in the books that I missed out on, guys!) and considering how well she did "rage", "upset and crying" and "terrified for her friend's life", I was disappointed to see the actress spend most of the movie acting like a statue. Whoever decided to direct it that way, I hope you can blame the script. Because geez. What was that?

Problem E: Deux ex Make the Show Go Our Way

The fireballs to make the forest fire, the imaginary dogs, the night-to-day-to-night-whenever-we-feel-like-it? What the hell was that? Lazy, is what. If she's inside of a goddamn simulation, who cares if she's near the border? She can't leave because there's a wall there. Make it an electrified wall if you want. In fact, that would have made sense since then escape attempts equal death. Instead, we have this ludicrously over-elaborate plot with the people running the show creating a forest fire (which should have spread and taken the whole forest, since it didn't rain and we all saw how Bambi turned out. Forest fires are nothing to sneeze at. But it simply faded away after injuring Katniss).

Then there's the "we want to finish it soon" part of the film, where they're trying to rush the Games. Instead of no longer providing food, or something really simple like that, the show maintainers create holographic dogs to go after the competitors. ....why? I mean, Panem's rich, right? Why not...actual dogs? Or wolves? Why not just release them into the enclosure?

I was not clear on why the competition was held inside of a holographic false-wilderness but I was especially not clear one why they were changing what time of day it was arbitrarily. Did the author just include this feature so she could have it be whatever time of day she wanted and not worry about continuity errors?

Overall, the whole event was managed in a way that left me wondering how the Expendably Wacky Beard Guy had gotten and kept his job in the first place. If you want someone in particular to win, can't you just engineer their success? If you want someone in particular to lose, can't you kill them? If you're lobbing fire at them already, I mean...what's the point in only doing it halfway?

Problem F: Editing

Overall, the movie was still a good watch. I wouldn't say "enjoyable", since it took itself extremely seriously and it was about a moderately serious premise, but I don't regret watching it. However, the movie is an overwhelming 2.5 hours long, and involves so many slow pans, long shots of eight different angles of Katniss tensely drawing her bow and preparing a shot, and long, drawn out scenes with no surprise and no punch to them that I was honestly surprised to find that some content had been cut out of the movie, for whatever reason, from the book.

I feel like better editing could have shortened the movie by about forty five minutes and made it more interesting. I hear the book is VERY fast-paced and full of action, and I don't doubt that the book would have been harder to dissect and find flaw with than the movie because of this difference.

Oh, but the whole mockingjay pin thing was WAY more trite than I'd expected it to be! Seriously? She JUST gave it to her sister for luck/protection (and it failed, too-- hence, drawn for lottery), so her sister immediately gives it to her the next hour or whatever. I thought that was pretty weak. I hope in the books it didn't happen like that, because if I can blame it on weird editing timing, then the pin being ridiculously significant to the franchise would be less goofy.

ANYWAY.

So would I recommend the Hunger Games movie? Sure. If you've read the books, I think you'd like it. I do hear it's pretty true to them, and the movie was still a good watch. I liked Haymitch, Rue, Katniss and Fashionista Guy, and even though I found the repetition of "girl on fire" almost as silly as saying "may the odds be ever in your favor", I liked the costumes too. I will forgive the silly spinning-dress-on-fire scene and the unsubtle symbolism of a sacrifice being set on fire because I like to think that the Fashionista Guy and Katniss wanted to fight The Man by calling attention to the screwed up nature of the Games.

I've made my meager (possibly financially unwise, but hopefully sound) contributions to two of the politicians in my state who are fighting the reprehensible HB 2625, and trying to put forth anti-bullying legislation to actually help children. I'm not rich, and that's not likely to change any time soon, but damn it, the only part of the country I have any ounce of ability to change is the one I live in.

So I've decided to do what I can. Not just voting-- though that's important too-- but putting my money where my mouth is.

Yesterday, we completed the module for ModuleMonday, and killed the mighty Orcus. Next week, I'll be running Steampunk London; just have to decide what system it's in. It sounded like neither Emma nor Melissa could make it otherwise, though I might check with Emma one last time. (Melissa definitely can't.)

Should find out today whether to be panicking or get back to my life. So that's something!

Here's the number one reason I'm not interested in getting into computer programming.

Disappointingly, I still have to deal with it in my work life occasionally. For me, this is when people will re-explain a problem using terminology specific to their profession ad nauseum in an attempt to make it clear that you're wasting their time, and actually it's all on you. This is the number one behavior of COWORKERS that I dislike about my job. The handling of the upper management is bad for other reasons, but I like my coworkers, with this one exception. What's worse, I sometimes do this to other people. So what can I take away from that?

-Some of it is discrimination
-Some of it is just that it's really hard to communicate with people. As the person explaining, you may have no frame of reference by which to actually explain to the person you're addressing. As the person being explained to, you may have no means to successfully convey what the problem is in a way that the first person will actually understand. (This is the biggest problem: we have HOUR LONG DISCUSSIONS sometimes when someone can't figure out what the heck I mean because having it described out loud is too confusing; this is nothing on them, and everything on how stupid our processes are. When you SHOW someone the problem, the process is infinitely faster.)

I mostly deal with the exact thing mentioned in the article in my personal life; people online will comment telling me to "lighten up" when I post about an issue I find important, which is hardly friendly and certainly not helpful. But I do it too! "Lighten up" is such a useless piece of advice, but we all think it's useful at one time or another, when we're worried and don't know how to help our friends out with something stressful. It SEEMS like a useful thing to say at the time, but that's a place where you have to put yourself in your friend's shoes. They're stressed out. They would probably like NOT to be stressed out. Saying 'lighten up' is the same as saying 'walk it off'. Utterly unhelpful, callous, and unsympathetic. And man, guys, I don't want to associate with people who are like that.

I definitely can't stand a society that is based around demeaning and demoralizing other people like this. The worst of it, to me, though, is when women buy into it.

I hate women that work really hard to "blend in" to the male-oriented culture by putting down the rest of their gender to try to seem cool. You know the kind-- "nerd" girls who are quick to remind you, "haha, WOMEN, right? They're so crazy and ruled by emotion! Not like ME though, I'm one of the guys"; or "normal" girls who will say, "Oh, well, it was that time of the month! you know how crazy girls get then!" to try to exempt themselves from responsibility for their actions. Or the worst-- "nerd but still totes normal, guys" girls, who will be quick to e-peen with you over some stupid trivia, and just as quick to remind you 'But my favorite color is PINK! I'm so CUTE!'.

Come on, fellow ladies. Let's be cool about this. And let's be cool about our own gender, okay? We're actually pretty dang awesome.

This was already on my mind, obviously, because we recently watched Being John Malkovich and Adaptation, which while interesting films are still the kind of romance that exemplifies the idolization of the girl that the man is in love with, without treating her as an actual equal. You know, romantic comedy; where the guy's awkwardness is somehow supposed to be adorable, and make up for the fact that he doesn't actually care about the girl, about her life, about what she does or wants to do; that he doesn't see her as an equal, but a prize.

Here is an article that everyone should read.

What is it about: Healthcare, family planning (that is to say, being allowed to plan your family instead of forced to allow someone else to do as they like), maternal mortality (that is, death because of pregnancy or attempted illegal abortions during pregnancy).

What is the TL;DR of this article?: Numbers prove that, like prohibition, anti-abortion activists are only putting us at risk by suggesting that abortion be stopped. In countries where abortion is legal, it is less common. In countries where it is not, it is often the only option for women who are denied access to contraceptives.

What is the secondary TL;DR?: Women cannot be given equal standing in a society that denies them the right to control how many children they have, and when they have them.

So make it up to me, now I'm kind of depressed about how shitty things are for women internationally!: I'm planning for a short Steampunk London (yes yes it's cliche, blah blah) game, and I need to decide on some Details!

1.) The game will be short enough that I plan to do a short comic of each session's events for the players to refer to. Should this comic be:

a) In color?
b) A specific length (short or long?)
c) available on just the journal(s), or also DeviantArt?

2.) The game will be a sandbox (In essence: A fully designed setting with all the NPCs, treasure, what not I expect could possibly come up already planned; I will give the players the map of London, the low-down, and they will decide what THEY want to do without any This is Your Mission nonsense from me. It is meant to be a silly, fun game). Should I...

a) Make the map a little like a pop-up book?
b) Make the map just flat, with tokens or whatever on top of it?
c) Give only a description, not the map, and let the players make their own map?

3.) Finally, if you'd like to contribute to the setting a little, comment with a person, place, or thing you think would be awesome to find in AU, Magic-is-Real! Steampunk London, and I will work it in!

Edit: Man, does anybody else hate cutesy speak with a passion? Sometimes I read internet stuff and I wonder if I'm alone in that. (From porn that talks of a woman's "clitty" to fandom squeeing over predictable 'ambiguously' gay nicknames in anime to discussion of Game of Thrones' end and whining about the 'cliffy' lasting forever...seriously, what? Am I weird for thinking this is, well, weird?)

Try to net buyers with fake female sales reps on your website.

I know which dealership I want to do business with now, because of the three who sell the car I want in my area that I was even willing to look at, two employed this tactic.

How can you tell if it's fake?

I suspect it's possible that it's not, but have you ever seen a sales rep for a car dealership that is female? There are none in my area, which contributes heavily to my dislike of the process. When asked if they could personally be available for a test drive with me, both supposedly female agents declined to give me a specific answer. After all, it'd be pretty hard for the lady to be there if she isn't real, wouldn't it?

Why I'm going to try the guys I'm planning to try first instead:

They still don't have any female employees, but their website boldly puts up their staff list and shows me what each rep is good at. I could even specially request one if I wanted, probably. That is much more likely to generate good feelings for ME than having a lie issued from the site first thing in a ploy to try to gain my trust without earning it.

Why I'm offended that they do this:

I bet it works on a lot of women. Women are treated very poorly by sales representatives, especially for car dealerships, because they expect to win by intimidation tactics. The same tactics are used on men, but I've never heard stories from men about being told to "respect" the salesman by said salesman and "listen when he's talking".

I'm sorry if this is boring for anybody else, but since I've often wished people could share advice on how to get a fair shake at this damn car buying business, I figured I'd try to post about anything useful I learned along the way, including getting totally swindled, if it happens. It's easy to say "don't be fooled" and "don't let them push you around" when it's not happening; but I'm as bullheaded as they come, and I've been swindled lots of times. HOW to avoid swindling and the like is definitely the advice I wanted, but lacked, so I'll do my best to relate how I did it, anyway.

So, personal rule number one:

Do not give out phone number to car salesmen. They will call you incessantly, long after you tell them that you have in fact purchased a car. I know this from past experience and others around me. I switched phone numbers to avoid this problem. Car salesmen are like outbound phone centers. They will misuse your personal information forever if they can.

Anyway. I've now checked with three dealerships, one of which I definitely like, one of which I'm okay with, and one of which I have no intention of even visiting, especially after seeing the "female chat online" trick played twice. Urgh. Time to gear up for battle.

I had a lovely weekend! I'll write about it later. I also have a summary to finish from last week's D&D. And, oh, before all that, work to do. But! I have been poking around places for new jobs or side jobs or anything, really, and one venue I wish I could take more seriously is Craigslist. It's not that the site itself is necessarily bad for advertising an open position: job listings can be posted on it and it allows you to contact people regardless of the nature of your business (while some sites might not have a category for certain types of businesses).

However, any potential employers out there need to provide a certain minimum of information for applicants to believe that you are legitimately a business, and not just a scammy spammer trying to send endless junk-email to our inboxes.

1. Provide the name of your company. Oh, you don't want to risk people calling you to ask for further details? Well, too bad: you're the company, you want applicants, that's how it's done. This way, we can look YOU up and decide for ourselves in advance if we want to work for you enough to apply.

2. Provide quick and friendly correspondence if you choose not to reveal a large amount of information about the specifics for a position. If you yourself are not too great with this sort of customer service, make sure you have someone else that can handle it for you so you communicate well, and come across as someone that potential employees would actually want to work for.

3. Never, ever, ever try to internet dick-measure with me by brushing off my questions about the position and your company without answering them and telling me that there are just so many applicants already that you'll need me to do some extra work to get your attention.

Point A: I just did. I asked you questions about your company and here we are, talking. Your lack of acknowledgment with regards to this effort on my part says a lot about you as a potential future boss, and the fact that I probably don't want to work for you.

Point B: I don't care how many applicants you have. That's not my business and it's not my problem. If the position has already been filled, say that it has; if you don't like the cut of my gib, then tell me right now that you don't think I'd be a good fit. But if you desperately want someone to apply and are hoping they'll be your ideal candidate, responding in the manner described above is a surefire way to send that candidate off to other pickings in other places.

You'd think I was referring solely to experiences with Craigslist ads, but I've had the same thing happen with companies advertising through CareerBuilder or temp agencies. Right now I can afford to be picky, but even if I couldn't, I'd go to a physical location and apply for a retail position before I'd trust someone who acts like these scummy folk do.

Also, not to spam you guys, but my news feed threw me multiple articles rehashing the same complaints about the current administration's bid to require that birth control medications be provided even by religious charities.

A lot of "religiously affiliated" persons are speaking out against this, claiming that it impinges on their religious freedoms.

To that I say, sorry guys. Your "religious freedoms" are infringing on the personal freedoms of the women you seek to oppress. You wrongly educate people to believe fallacies so that they will continue to be a part of your religion. You actively lie in an attempt to further a personal agenda. You know why you are so quick to accuse everyone else of having agendas? It is because you know full well of your own.

I've heard lies taught to children such as 'pot will make you infertile, or make your children gay.' Not only untrue, but what's wrong with being gay? Why is being gay held up as a threat?

I've also seen plenty of religious opposition to abortion. Okay, anti-abortionists. What are you proposing we do for all these children we are going to keep, then? Are you going to pay, out of pocket, to help these women to support the children you insist on bringing into the world?

No, you victimize the women by claiming that they should have been more responsible about becoming pregnant.

How are they meant to be more responsible about it when you:

-deny that being raped is a crime committed by the rapist, and blame the women who are raped and impregnated with such excuses as 'she shouldn't have dressed or acted like that'

-deny children education in contraceptive procedures that would at least have kept them from getting pregnant until they were ready

-deny contraceptive devices that are primarily designed to protect the health of the individuals using them (such as condoms, which are the number 1 best way to prevent STDs, or birth control pills, which are often used to regulate menstrual cycles that are cripplingly painful, or even to treat conditions that are medicated by hormonal regulation)

I'm sick of hearing the opinions of these religious parties who claim to be oppressed by the government's effort to provide fair and equal health care to the entire nation. I am not in charge of the US, and between being female and holding the opinions I do, I sincerely doubt I ever will be. But if I was, my first order of business would be separating church and state properly, like they are supposed to be; prioritizing the health and safety of the majority of my people, not the minority; and most importantly, keeping in mind that any life I insist be brought into this world be one I make efforts to care for, support, and cherish.

If you want to be pro-life, you'd better plan to be responsible for THAT choice.

Edited to add: The thing that bugs me the most is probably the Victorian-era anti-sex mentality that is harbored here; by making sexual things forbidden, you only make them more desirable to the people you are forbidding them to. Remember prohibition and how well that worked out?

I've been thinking about Dragon Age 2.

Specifically, I've been thinking about the ending. I've seen lots of different reactions to the ending; my own was not necessarily the one I saw most commonly, though with time and distance I found myself agreeing with the majority, more or less, because in some ways, they were very right.

The problem with the game is that Act 3 feels like Bioware threw it together in much less time than the rest of the game. Act 3's conflict is soulless and uninteresting, because none of the choices are really meaningful. Who gives a shit if you side with the mages or the templars? Everyone is going to go nuts in the end anyway, because there's only one ending. And this pretty squarely returns to what everyone has told me about other Bioware games that I have not played: Bioware, you are pretty bad at endings. According to people around the Bioware forums, their endings are historically pretty half-cocked, lackluster, and all around kind of bad.

'Why did they drop the ball so hard in Act 3?' is the question I heard most in regards to Dragon Age 2. A common accompanying statement was 'Why wasn't the plot with the Qunari the main plot? Everything selling the game implied that it was.'

I think maybe, possibly, there was a very belated realization that it might seem a bit racist to have the primary antagonists of the game be a race of 'monsters' who follow a religious doctrine that is not the pseudo-Christian status quo of Dragon Age thus far. Assuming this is a bit much; Bioware seems to have conveniently 'forgotten' to include the option for same-sex romances in SW:TOR, has never handled gender roles in a way I find fully acceptable, and seems totally unwilling to market their games in a way that accepts the idea of a badass female protagonist as being equally acceptable as 'the canon protagonist' as the male one. (I was, as some may recall, pretty incensed by the promotional materials for DA2, which acted like only Male Hawke was real, and didn't even depict Female Hawke on the cover of the goddamn box. The funniest thing about this, of course, is that I like Marian Hawke way better than Garrett Hawke for 'default appearance'. I loved both VA's and enjoyed playing as both genders, but Bioware acts like it has to be ashamed of offering a female lead whose value isn't determined by her appearance, but her strength, character and gumption (you know, like male characters get to be)).

Whenever Bioware makes efforts to fix their problems-- racism, gender bias towards male characters, efforts to provide same-sex relations-- there's a lot of turbulence along the way. Wildly vocal white-privilege young male members of their forums throw bitchfits, from time to time, about how they're not "paying enough attention" to their "real audience". People they are trying to please by fixing their problems are extremely difficult to satisfy, and unfortunately, as with anything, there are different voices within those communities too-- fans who have different opinions from each other on the proper way to handle the equalization of genders, the removal of racism, or what not. I understand that it's tough, so I wouldn't be surprised if they at some point in production said 'oh shit! This conflict isn't really what we should end this on. Let's rearrange things so that the Qunari conflict comes first, and then the mages/templars thing comes to a head.'

The thing is, it's not that the mages/templars thing coming to a head is bad, necessarily, but since they're trying to write with a direct sequel in mind (not a good idea, I think), they didn't even consider the possibility of doing multiple, equally acceptable canon endings.

I honestly think that multiple, equally acceptable canon endings would have been the best way to handle the end of Dragon Age 2 for three simple reasons:

-A larger number of people will enjoy the ending if they can make a wider variety of choices, reflecting their desires as players more completely

-The fastest way to get better at something you suck at is to practice it as much and intensely as you can. Can you imagine if Bioware had prepared fifteen potential endings to the game? I think I'd have also felt a lot more forgiving of a mediocre ending if I knew that it wasn't the only one.

-Presenting the game as essentially a futile struggle against a horrible event that could never be averted is neither artsy, nor fun for the player.

I could see that trouble was brewing for me LONG before the "decision" ever came to bear, and discovering that I was powerless to stop it made it difficult to finish the game because it sapped my excitement for it. Bioware claims to be providing the option of choices in their games-- that they offer the opportunity to play a game that is unique from other players' experiences because the differences in what you did or said actually, significantly alter your playing experience. The most significant difference I had from other players in my first playthrough was that I hadn't had Isabela around enough to keep her, so I didn't get any third-act quests for her at all because she never came back. That was a pretty significant change, and I respected it-- until I played through a second time, kept her, and discovered how little she contributes to the third act just in case you happen to lose her. Rather than have a very different experience as the Hawke who had Isabela around and thus lived a cheerier life for it, I got to see how little Isabela mattered, whether she was there or not, and I was kind of disappointed by that. I want Isabela to matter-- I want her cheery and boisterous personality to be such a big part of life that things feel noticeably different without her. But BECAUSE Bioware is ultimately catering to people I would pretty much identify as douchebags-- who do horrible things in their playthroughs like sell Fenris back into slavery, kill Merrill, and give Isabela over into the custody of the Arishok after romancing her-- and making sure that their bad choices don't penalize them too much, the game suffers for it.

I feel like these choices SHOULD matter. Your life should be a lot harder, and grittier and darker, if you treat your friends like crap, or throw them casually away. Otherwise, what's the point of playing the game and choosing your character's personality?

In conclusion, Bioware, work on your endings. Do this by making multiple endings for your games that give value to our choices! Please and thank you!

I just had Jack-in-the-Box tacos for the first time ever and they're amazing. They are like crack. I want more already and I'm not even hungry!

In less delicious news, sometimes things like this happen:

Fandom: I want this m/m or f/f couple to have a baby! You can have them be transgendered, or do mpreg/immaculate conception, lol, I don't care!
Dev: Adoption exists! What the heck!

or this:

Fandom: Oo, best idea! Let's have X character in Y crossover to a thing you've never heard of!
Dev: Can there be another fandom for crossovers or something? I don't care about Y fandom and you are GETTING YOUR CONAN IN MY LUPIN

or this:

Fandom: Lol it's better when X character is a girl because he's so girly anyway!
Dev: YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT
Fandom: Ok um then how about turning that butch girl into a dude? I bet then she'd be hot!
Dev: *sob*

Have revived Lebowski-icon because it is appropriate, though I couldn't quite make it perfect using the upload-image/crop feature. I'll fix it when I get home, perhaps!

But really, seriously, those tacos were amazing.

( I hadn't realized that Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus didn't get an Oscar, and I should have known-- that was the year of Avatar, wasn't it? --but how depressing. )