Tuesday, November 29, 2011


I need to rewrite this post on Erasure, Dehumanization & Oppression. It was slippery when I wrote it, and it feels slippery still. Just started re-reading it, and I know there's a better way I can put it. I'm just not sure what that better way is yet.

But there has to be one, that doesn't make me feel as if the pieces start getting slippery one two paragraphs in.

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Wonder Woman's New Origin

Via OddityCollector

Excuse me while I laugh.

I mean, the 'solution' to Wonder Woman, is NOT to have a writer with an understanding of mythology, is not to possibly be having her fighting the paranormal, (couldn't ever be as much as I would dislike it personally, to tap into the HUGE Paranormal Romance and Twilight crowd with a truly kick arse heroine), it's NOT to have writer and artist capable of mixing in a little 'Percy Jackson & The Olympians' or 'Harry Potter' - the whole child of legend and secret hidden worlds and battles the rest of mankind never knows about.


It's apparently to make WONDER WOMAN into Kevin Sorbo's Hercules: The Legendary Journey's.

I laugh.

There's speculation all the time that they (TPTB) have got no market research going on, no clue whatsoever about readership etc... But this? I mean, on the road from Jody Picult to THIS right here? It just screams 'IF YOU DON'T HAVE A DICK WE DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH YOU!' It's so perfectly obvious that they're doing the fannish stories that have lived in THEIR heads about the characters THEY liked as young boys and when it comes to female characters, outside the range of bed interest, they don't know wtf to do.

Even as I try to avoid it all, the news comes up and there in my face is yet another arsewipe move.

Really? The only way Wonder Woman can be written about, is if you (DC) focus it through the lens of a man? If you're obliquely telling a man's story about his daughter?

These are your bright ideas? Wonder Woman via Zeus (ZEUS) OF ALL DAMN Grecian Deities - I can smell the built in fail in any future intimate relationships Diana could attempt with male characters from here) and Supergirl via the lens of how she's not Superman? How different she is?

Wonder Woman, child of clay, gifted with life and talent from a host of goddesses (and more recently, Hermes) - that's the myth, you ignorants. That's the lore.

Sunday, October 9, 2011

Capturing A Thought I Had - And Where It Started Leading

Erasure is part of dehumanization. Part of the key issues of oppression is dehumanization. Erasure -> (leads) to Dehumanization. Dehumanization + Other Issues -> (leads) to Oppression. If those other issues are missing, then it doesn't lead to Oppression. But there is still Dehumanization. There is still an assumption of what fits parameters for normal human. There are still actions taken against people who've been dehumanized. Punishments. So called 'cures' and 'encouragements'. It's easier, after all to try and fix people who aren't yet fully human, or who need guidance to be fully human or who need to know their place will be to never be fully human.

(I originally wrote the part in strike out, but in re-reading before I even post it, I caught myself. The never be fully human + knowing one's place; That's slavery. That's part of the Other Issues that joins to Depersonalization to create Oppression. I fell into the trap of forgetting Erasure is only PART of dehumanization. When dehumanization has all parts, all necessary components, when it is fully accomplished, there's no attempt to save an individual, or cure them or teach them better. They're not misguided or lost. THEY ARE NOT HUMAN. And are no longer treated as such. Which is why it no longer matters what happens to them, from starvation and imprisonment to body parts cut off and being burned alive).

I keep coming across clashes between some parts of the Asexual Community, and various parts of the PoC community about whether or not sexual privilege exists and whether or not Asexuals are oppressed. And frankly, right now, I think the hiccup is confusion over what happens AFTER Dehumanization has been successfully accomplished. I think parts of the asexual community are hearing 'You are not oppressed! You have not been dehumanized!", but hearing it as. "You are not facing lack of recognition as a normal human being". The latter is true, I do not believe the former is.

But it's so EASY to forget erasure is only ONE PART of dehumanization. And that dehumanization is the FIRST STEP to Oppression. It's so easy to think of it as Erasure = Oppression. And thus, the PoC and SJ communities are hearing something that sounds very, very much, like ___ = 'the new black'. Or more appropriately. Asexuals Are The New N-------s.

That shit will get a body popped in the mouth, virtually or otherwise.

There are checkpoints to oppression. And thus oppressions can intersect. A person can, ultimately, be dehumanized for multiple triggers; being female, being PoC, being gender transgressive, being non binary. But there's more involved in dehumanization than erasure. There's hate, fear, desire to possess, desire for power, loads of things I can't properly think of off the top of my head. But it's ERASURE +. There's more.

It's what's possibly being explained over and over again in all these posts I see; what oppression is, all the weights that shift the dial to that place; to the bedrocks of an institutional, generational, foot on the neck.

Erasure is a start. But it's not the horrible, horrible, end game. It's not even the first volley on a war against a self. It's the prep work. It's the first step of stage one; Dehumanization. Dehumanization is the first step of stage two; Abuse & Exploitation. And right now, things are not so bad, societally speaking, that erasure of asexuals is likely to lead to oppression; oppression = dehumanization + abuse & exploitation + other issues I've likely forgotten.

Is the possibility there? Yes. The possibility is always there, when there's an institutional, generational set up decreeing who is normal, and how they should be rewarded for it; medals for towing the line. But right now asexuals are far more likely to come under danger of dehumanization via something else, some overlap they have relating to how society views women (which affects women and gay men and young boys who don't act masculine enough - for cultural values of masculine) or how society views 'darkies' be they African Descended (in the US or elsewhere) or West Asian, or South or East Asian, or of Islamic Faith. Or how society views the disabled. Or any others I've missed.

Is Erasure powerful, by the way? Yes it is. It does harm and hurt. If you can't see any reflections in the world of who you are, then maybe you don't exist, maybe you can never be or do... anything. Which is something often discussed about PoC in Media, specifically visual media; the importance of PoC as heroes, not sidekicks etc. But for asexuals, I would imagine erasure is very powerful. Until recently there hasn't been much vocabulary to try and break down attraction, not much easy non scholarly conversations about sexual arousal vs sexual attraction vs emotional arousal - not to mention a whole host of stereotypes about who feels what and why, usually bound up into perceived gender stereotypes. It's highly possible to not feel the way everyone else seems to be feeling (based on how they act) and leapt to the thing you HAVE heard about. Who's going to tell such a person they don't just have to try harder to feel content, or find the right person or... or or or - that there's a term for who they are, and it's not in a medical book under 'affliction'.

If no one says, for example, 'It's ok to be Takei' then you end up a fifty year old coming to terms with not wanting to die feeling so crap and/or unfulfilled or lonely or who knows what. So yes, erasure is a big deal and it's part of the control mechanisms of the kyriarchy. But it's a place with breathing space. And there's lots going on, online at least, making noise and raising visibility against that erasure of asexuals.

Which means when you claim Erasure = Oppression, you're devaluing a whole host of oppressed peoples and their struggles and their voices.

It's not oppression to tell someone who isn't actually oppressed, that they're not oppressed. The best example of people who claim that, are white folks screaming reverse racism. It's not very good company.

Thursday, September 1, 2011


So much THIS.

CHRONICLES OF MANSPLAINING: Processor Feminism and the Deleted Comments of Doom

After you read that, I would like for some of you, perhaps the thoughtful ones who have half a half a micron of a clue, to imagine the moment of intersectionality, that happens in incidences of mansplaining, when the woman in question is a woman of colour, particularly in America, a black woman.

I'm not asking you to hunt and peck substitute in white privilege for male privilege in that essay. I'm asking you to take the WHOLE of that essay and add just a little extra weight; what it might be like to have all of that going on AND the added weight that the man in question thinks you're worth even less than an ordinary woman, because an ordinary woman is white.

Because in such a context as was explained, a woman could be hurt, but for YEARS in the US and in countries colonized by whites, indigenous women, including black women, could not be hurt; because they had the shape of women, the body parts of women, but were less than women.

Back in the day you couldn't rape a black woman. Because no such laws existed. It had to be clearly stated as a hypothetical that a black woman had autonomy over her own body. As a fricking LAW. And well, jaywalking is on the books too, isn't it.

And if man = smart goodness and woman = not so smart then black woman =... ?

And just think about what that might mean when white men, and white woman can contribute to that assumption that your time, space, life is up for theirs to grab and use however and whenever they want.

And when the explanation over there, describes how this can happen in an online medium, think about what you've seen online against female bloggers of colour. The same steps. The same process. With that little added weight.

Just think about it.

You might even be able to put two and two together when it comes to all the blog posts about the book and movie 'The Help' and how it was a case of a white woman 'splaining - but that might be a bit too advanced. So just stick to the first lesson for now.

ETA: 301 Class - Intersectionality node of being a woman and disabled, or being a woman and an immigrant or being a woman of a certain age, or being a woman with children. 302 Class- Multiple intersectionalities; being a disabled woman with children who is also a PoC. This isn't about oppression olympics, remember, it's about how much more power in society a white male has, how much more entitlement he thinks he has to anything to do with that woman, how little she matters as a person with ideas, opinions, deserving of respect, even a hierarchy of needs, in the societal equation that's been drilled into his head.

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

And This Is Why I've Been Posting Less

Someone pointed me to Extra Credits finally doing an actual "Race Episode". It's all about how it defines the white character in LA Noire. And how people aren't defined by 'skin colour'. They mention racial baggage conscious and subconscious but don't go into talking about what that is and how it informs anything.

So the same watered down, navel gazing, oblivious BS as I noted last time with additional, you can swap sexuality and gender for race in their prior spots on those topics.

Friday, July 15, 2011

For The Record

Just a little head's up to the various people blah-blahing about me. I an not an African American. I am, however, African Descended. That is, I am black. Not all black people in the world are African American. There is no such thing as a British African American. Or a Swedesh African American.

It is fascinating to me, however, that attached to some mealy mouthed edict of the fact that I (and others) am/are black, there is always some following statement of "You can't talk to that one, because she's an angry 'African American' and is convinced this incident is racist and is thus now highly irrational. You know how it is.".

And yet, when many, many PoC point out "Damn, so and so is being a defensive white person. AGAIN. Not listening to reason, etc... you know how it is." It's suddenly all about hate or something something, and OMG THEY WANT TO TURN SLAVERY AROUND! WHITE OPPRESSION! THEY WANT ME TO TAKE ABUSE!

I mean, it's not confusing. Hardly. But it is fascinating. How privilege and expectations of white supremacy warp pov is very very fascinating.

Someone should do a study.

Thursday, July 7, 2011

Ruminating On FilmCritic Hulk; Thoughts On Criticism


Some people will not like the written style of the essay, some may not enjoy reading it, due to said style. I've done my best to c/p the parts I find most relevant to the dynamic I see often between readers, authors and book critics, especially the divide between readers and 'professional' book critics. And most especially between authors, professional book critics and readers with a particular perspective and the language to express it aka social justice readers.

I am aware of the words just before I start c/ping that discuss bias involved in opinions. I believe having a bias towards social justice and non invisibility of minorities is NOT actually a bad thing and counters the bias against paying attention to these matters as all, as if the world were a contextless, historyless rainbow farting magic bunny land.

Bold and italics (strong and emphasis) as originally posted. Things in colour are my emphasis.













Do note, I will laugh at anyone who comes away from this thinking I'm describing activist reactions to exclusion as purely emotional, and thus untrained and in need of processing. Emotions aren't separated from the insult of invisibility, no. But people capable of having an actual conversation (however highly peppered with cussing) have long since processed all that they can bear, and then some.

I will also laugh at anyone walking away from this thinking the only reason these things are seen, is because people are looking for them, with some kind of 'Playing The Race Card Super Cool Spectacles'. You don't look for invisibility, invisibility slaps you in the face - which oddly enough makes me think of that so and so who was all 'Straight White Male Gamers Are Being Oppressed' at the Bioware Dragon Age 2 people. Not being specifically catered to - nay, exclusively catered to, felt like invisibility to him, and thus like a slap in the face.

Fuck You, Jim Butcher

OH, okay. Now I get it. I'm white, so I need to have that kind of hate thrown my way and STFU. <- Jim Butcher (Twitter Account)

Also this:

LucyZephyr I did respect them, actually. Up until the "fuck you Jim Butcher" part. < - Jim Butcher (Twitter Account)

Ghost Story comes out this month. The 26th, I believe. And Jim Butcher has opened his mouth and I have heard about it and now, now I can't fucking FINISH the damn series!

I want to. I really, really want to. I've more invested in Harry and Murphy and Tom and Ivy and Mouse and Mister than I had in Miles Varkosigan.

But the tone argument? THE TONE ARGUMENT?!

Your Chicago IS the most white washed thing since ever. And it IS no consolation that somehow people of colour just don't SHOW in your universe all that much, but werewolves, demons, fairies, fairy tales, do. That it's a hesitant feeling when Indigenous American Folklore is invoked, cause 'Injun Joe' is mystical red man of mysterious powers.

He honestly doesn't get it? Can't project it? Imagine it? Hypothesize it? He's writes what he writes and he honestly can't see/hear the hurt and disappointment and sorrow in that 'FUCK YOU JIM BUTCHER' ? He can't get inside another person's head at all? His privilege as white and male is THAT FUCKING THICK? REALLY?

He can't see it as akin to Murphy saying 'Fuck You' to yet another person disparaging her because of her size, her gender, her sex, or her appearance happening to match some cute fragile woman ideal?

He can't see it as akin to Tom saying 'Fuck You' to any person who thought Vampires can't want more than they are? Or that his only interest in Justine could be as food?

He can't see it as aking to HARRY saying 'Fuck You, COUNCIL' for thinking that people don't grow and change, don't and can't learn discipline or different forms of discipline, can't be led unwilling and unknowing into things? But turn it around, make a change and become BETTER?

HE of all people, given the characters he writes, can't imagine the bound up emotions of someone screaming out 'FUCK YOU' at their disappearance? At their malignment?

He has his character scream 'FUCK YOU' to the Christian Deity, and to Arch Angels, and it mean so much, so very much and be all about not expecting a reverent tone when respect and trust aren't even jagged and broken but crushed glass pills?

He can't get it? Privilege is too thick? He has to pull an Elizabeth Bear and an Emma Moon and a Patrica Wrede?

All these years I've been reading more skill into his writing than is really there?

Well fuck. Fuck indeed. Fuck you, Jim Butcher.

Aside: I want to hold out hope for him. I really do. I think this might be the first time RACE FAIL has touched someone whose work I enjoy so much. Not respect, but enjoy; their universe being a place of actual escapism; a safe place. So I know that my lingering stupid hope that something will somehow hit his forebrain and illuminate and enlighten is the remnant of that the trust I'd placed in him as a writer - the trust that let me follow him when dabbles in chauvanism and dangling plot ends and shortened classism issues and all the damn gay jokes.

But sweet spikey haberdashery, I know better than to expect change.

PS: I saw the tumblr response to the series weeks ago and agreed with it, and put my hope in the new book. And now I laugh, I laugh that NOW near the release date it's apparently been linked to him and he's being ass enough, loud enough, that it lights up the boards in my circles.

[ETA: Link to OP. (July11th)]

Saturday, June 18, 2011

Potholes In The Road: PrinceLess (Review)

The Info: Princeless is a graphic mini series (1st 4 issues arc to conclude by end of 2011). It is written by Jeremy Whitley, art and colours by M.Goodwin, published by Action Lab Entertainment in conjunction with Firetower Studios, Whitley's own independent small press.

It's about a female teen protagonist of colour and her adventures in a world where princesses get locked up in towers, guarded by dragons - a situation she is not at all happy about. She's out to save herself and her sisters. Thus, one guesses the name. PRINCE LESS.

Preview copies will likely be available for San Diego Comic Com (So late July). The book is aimed for distribution through DIAMOND, for pickup at local comicbook shops as well as conventions.

Note: I'm going to say right now, I don't think this review is going to be what the creators might have hoped it would be. Though I am still thrilled at receiving an e-copy to review.

As I Read It: My initial thought, at seeing the first page is - What?- Isn't this supposed to be about a PoC Princess? Then I read. Then I got to the second page, and felt an immediate bond. And then with each panel, I began to fall seriously in love. It was, a bit, like looking into the past and seeing a very obstinate, practical little me (or some of the people I proudly call friends) objecting to the familiar princess story.

And then I hit the word Moron and was troubled. 'Lower than normal princely intelligence' indeed. Smack of ablism right there. What if the Prince had been sweet and true and someone with a mental/cognitive disability? I'd have rather seen 'Foolish' used in it's place. Since what was implied was lack of sense and or self preservation and words have power and history, which the protagonist goes on to mention.

Wait, where did that Prince go? Did he get called mentally deficient, slurred against, AND get eaten? That's really disturbing me more than any speechifying about how FAIR (as relates to maidens and princesses) has meant WHITE of PALE SKIN and BLONDE HAIR, while using the word Moron. I'm not big on Oppression Olympics in my reading fare.

But I am further cheered at the realistic ick moment of putting on the belongings of dead - squishly eaten people. With the armor looking bitten and body fluid spattered. I'm not sure the intended age group for the comic; but the added reality, just applied as a practicality in the art, is a good touch.

Also? The toppled trope of bare-back riding made me smile.

Not making me smile? The appearance of the King. I understand the protagonist must think her father (and all men who set up this system of princesses in towers) ruthless - especially as they care nothing for dragons, like the one she's befriended, or the princes that get set up to conquer or get eaten. She's right in thinking it's a choosing system for a particular type of male as 'son-in-law'. It's not mentioned, therefore I'm hoping it's more implied later that Princesses do not inherit their kingdoms and this whole princess-tower-dragon deal is a way for their Fathers to find and choose an heir.

That said? Not everyone holding up a sexist system is a misogynistic asshole. And there are historic fear-mongering echoes in showing a large, brutishly drawn dark brown skinned man, both being an ASS and having his foot on the back of a terrified, subservient white man. Does Black & Deemed Ruthless have to look like a THUG? Like the reason white women clutch their handbags and pearls and cross the street - the buy in to the hype of 'The suspect is a black male, around 6feet in height....'.

And the use of the word 'Boy' by said thuggishly drawn black man in power.... Echoes I say, pushing the wrong damn buttons.

Really. Why is it white men can be smart, ruthless, or just perhaps callous, while also intelligent - be of all shapes and sizes, be ruthless in many different ways. But a black man, a deeply brown skinned man - to show him as 'powerful' only happens one way?

And ahh, there it is, the in universe note that he's searching for his own heir. Right next to the Queen being... 'Do you have to be such a brute, dear'? Given the system, it's HER kingdom he's ruling. She's the reason he has a kingdom at all. And she appears inches from implied domestic violence in how much freedom she has to live her own life.

AND, for extra measure; there's a black ruler, leader, obviously head of household scorning at implied gender performance transgression; Homophobia and transphobia in a nice little knot, out of the mouth of the unenlightened black man. He has 7 beautiful daughters, one we've seen as brilliant and there's a moment when he says he chose an easy dragon to protect her, that I thought maybe he's only going through the motions so she can rule through her husband. But a re-read of the line, makes it seem more like he's written her off and wants RID of her as soon as possible.

And now we swing back from my disgust to an odd conglomeration of gender conforming or prince conforming in this case; Princes have to look beautiful and effortless. And there's some class issues being sprinkled in as well.

Though I do wrinkle my nose at how the Prince figure gets understanding; you see his trials, his brainwashing, his pain and hurts and our PoC Princess is strong strong STRONG from the get go. So strong they could only manage to get her in a tower in the first place through TRICKERY.

And ahh, the prince who was called an ablist slur, has his sensitive side exposed, juxtapositioning the King-Father's thoughts on what it takes to be a true King.


So more downs than ups for me. Especially as I consider that in the tower, despite no longer having a mother to comb/wrestle her hair (while calling the portrayed, squee inducing, curly state as TANGLED), the Princess somehow has a smooth side pony tail instead of afropuffs or braids.

Other Thoughts: The sad thing here is that I approve and like the art. It's the kind that makes me think back to PBS story-telling or Reading Rainbow. It's art with a cutesy style, yes. But art with movement. The world is solidly alive. And the colours vivid (though I admit to having been dealing with some eye problems lately and having gotten a new monitor. So I'm not sure the colours I'm seeing are the actual colours. But even so, I'm captivated). My one gripe with the art is that I personally am confused about the real world equivalent heritage of the Prince. His skin is darker than some, and lighter than others who seem much more analogous to African Descended. I can't quite figure out if he's meant to be 'tanned / outdoorsy' or what. Actually right now I can't tell if the Prince who was slurred and the Prince at the end are the same; the eyebrows look different, the hair looks different, the skin shading looks different. Is the Prince at the end a forgotten Prince? And lighter brown skin or pale skin, having the King Ruler be a darker skinned brute with a boot on them, that impact isn't much changed.

Hope: I do not know if the next three issues have already been through the printer. If they have been, I can hope, perhaps that things get fleshed out enough to off-set the things I found jarring. If they aren't, maybe there's a chance for some changes.

I am strict in what media I consume. No more begging. No more taking hand outs. No more scraps of this and that, twisted perpetuated stereotypes. No more Oppression Olympics. But others may not be as strict or have the same social justice priorities - if so, with this review, they now know what they'd be getting.

Comments Open: You know the rules - civility, no derailing, and I don't publish fools.

Parts of This Would Have Been Email To Box-InThe-Box


**Imagine Joker-style pained laughter here**

Peter and MJ irked and sore hurt. But Clark & Lois - seriously? Of all the ways for DC to follow in Marvel's footsteps; seriously? "

Huh. Wow. Alrighty then. Here I've been wondering how it is I felt like I walked away from Marvel so much easier. And I ended up thinking it's because I like characters in Marvel Universe; whereas I Like DC Universe (or did) and have favourite characters within it.

Wow though. I've had this little niggling grieving/mourning thing going on - thinking about stuff despite my turning away. Realizing how surreptitiously or not as it may be, I've been keeping up and aware with the DC Universe. And I've been mildly hurting over the whole 'Damn, they finally do digital after I'd rolled my eyes at Batman's Death and (concept of) Batman Inc and thought the, at least, I was walking away'.

But wow.

It's entirely possible if Action Comics is 'Superman at the start' - it refers only to Action Comics. It's also possibly that DC would do the 'immortal, long lived Superman' (as many people have remarked on) but instead of having say Lana Lang as his first wife, and Lois now as his second (since Superman is apparently an unerringly heterosexual alien) - there's what instead...?

Because the SMALLVILLE fans haven't known Lois & Clark lead to marriage? What?

All this talk of taking characters 'back to their core' seems to me to be removing them from the time-stream and flow and experience they've had till now, and taking them backwards; removing all nuance and layer that has grown on them, deepening who they are - and along with it deepening the scope of the universe; you know one actively showing more diversity than straight, white, cis, hetero, currently able bodied, males.


No Richie as backup for Virgil. Lois & Clark Kent = No. No news on if Batgirl is the 'Untold Adventures' or if Oracle remains. More besides, plus all the implied ageism of 'making them younger and fresher'. Cause wise, older and experienced heroes - who needs that. 20somethings know everything!

Oh DC. DC. Thanks for making it an extra spoonful easier. Apparently I needed a numbing agent.

Thursday, June 16, 2011

Ouch. Deep Breath. Expected Disappointment

"One of the primary things we've done with Static — just to show that we're positioning him a little differently — is to take him out of the Dakota setting and place him firmly in New York City. There's a chance you'll see other Milestone characters, but we really want to make Static a primary hero of the DC Universe."

Because you apparently CAN'T be a MILESTONE character and be a PRIMARY DC UNIVERSE character. Because apparently STATIC can get play as part of the DC Universe, but Milestone characters are NOT part of the DC universe.

Suddenly my want of Virgil in college, dealing with those issues - alongside Richie, and the responsibilities of superheroing seem very, very, small.

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Couldn't Help Myself- I Peeked

Saw the DCnewUniverse Covers (summary descriptions here). Rolled my eyes at Red Robin's Costume. Smiled a bit at Jason , Kyle and Tim getting their own teams. Noticed how much non auxillary pallid swamp face there is. Cringed at the: BATWING: The first black character to wear the Batman mantle. Wasn't that supposed to be a woman by the way? One Batman has - you know what? My favourite characters (and canon) are safer in my head; that place where Shadowpact lives, and grows without a need for Justice League 'Dark'.

It would all be so much simpler if there were just regular elseworlds and favourite characters could grow, and grow old and mature and pass on legacy and live in universes with more than a few tinkle drops of social justice awareness.

Damn this hurts. I had no idea how much I'd wanted to read about Virgil at College; of Static maturing and growing and team ups and more. Not always highschoool, not always highschool problems.

I walk away but I still dream, which leads unconsciously to hope.

I will say this, as much as I remain surprised that things can still hurt me - it says just how much I grew up loving these characters, just how much a part of myself they feel to me; I see in them. Whatever, however DC continues to miss the things that first inspired me, and continue to exclude me and mine from their universe, degrade the heroes that bear slivers of my reflections - I need to remember this love and this pain so that yes, folklore characters such as this can live in my head and inspire my own writing (public or private).

G'bye, Jason, Guy, Bruce, Jonn, Virgil, Kara & Kara (PJ). G'bye Diana most Wonderous and Beloved (just under Batman). G'bye Kal and Connor and Dick. G'bye Harley. G'bye Oracle. G'bye Vixen, G'bye Kon. G'bye Renee. G'bye Jim. G'bye Kate Spencer. G'bye John. G'bye Birds of Prey. G'bye Gotham. G'bye Arkham. G'bye Metropolis & Opal City. G'night Alfred.

Meanwhile, I've a comic preview to read and comment on - I'll go do that now and stop being so maudlin. It is what it is, yes? I mean, I've totally survived waving the hell G'bye to Peter and MJ, Dazzler, Dagger, Cloak, Hank, Kurt, Mystique, Magneto and a Scott Summers who made any damn sense.

ETA: WTH DC? Nutscare Castrating Amazon Women? Really? Seriously? Amazon = Man Hating? Seriously? That bullshit in 2011?

Sunday, June 12, 2011

Gay Girl In Damascus Is Fake

Via DV: It's a white guy from Turkey in Turkey possibly from Georgia USA, happily appropriating revolutions, west asian culture, social justice woman's culture and all the rest and he's sorry for the trouble he caused for claiming she'd been kidnapped. BBC interview here with the woman whose picture was appropriated/stolen/misused etc... Extra info over in this link .

I would say something about white men; white cis, hetero, privileged men, appropriating/taking/stealing/absorbing/claiming to be giving a voice to while smothering real true voices with their other hand - but I'm just too upset, really. It's always easier to add the dressing; to guess, to fantasize to hypothesize than to listen and raise up and bring the spotlight to actual individuals.

You give a PLANT a voice, a dog a voice, a chair a voice. That is anthropomorphism. People of colour, women, people of varied non dominant gender identity or non dominant sexual identity or non dominant ability levels (mental, physical or otherwise and other non dominant individual societies) don't need to be 'made to seem human'. We already are.

And we don't need other people trying to tell the stories we do have to tell - because they're too busy imagining how it could be to hear how it really is.

Wednesday, June 8, 2011

G'bye Oracle. G'bye Grown Up Mature Amazing Barbara Gordon

I don't have much anything to say. White cis, hetero, currently able bodied people are taking America the world back from a more diverse humanity. And Hollywood continues to be THE ALL WHITE SHOW ALL THE TIME (with a mammy here and an Old Jiving Jo There).


That means there's (more of) a vacuum of stories, diverse stories for a diverse humanity. That's how I've got to think, that's what I'm going to focus on. Everything, anything else, leaves me exhausted. I've got no more pearls to throw before swine.

[I'd put Candle In The Wind here, but can't find an instrumental version I like and Oracle's no 'English Rose'.]

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Shorter: Akira - Hollywood Movie Version

THE DECISION: Recognition Glee for white people, Recognition Rejection for the rest of us, particularly Japanese and Japanese descended people.

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Black Panther

Reginald Hudlin: "BET Wouldn't Air 'Black Panther' Because It Was Too Male & Young For Their Audience"


How are prostitutes who don't kiss, too young?

How are notations of the USA's habit of black-ops actions (Banana Republics anyone?) to bend a country to their needs, too young?

How is dialogue about South African establishing families and their treatment of black natives, too young?

Seriously, looking at the Black Panter Animated Series; yes the animation is like something out of the early 70's but with better colouring, and the direction for action scenes is a bit better stylistically, more martial arts and less fisty cuffs.

But despite the art, the whole thing reads as 'Too Black Positive For White Advertisers'.

Too Male? Too Young?

What the hell?

I can't believe I'm about to buy something (for my birthday no less) involving Reginald Hudlin. But I am, just so I can own something, that lets me see white US government types say things like "What are they going to do, chuck spears at our planes." And then realize what they said, get told to shut up, they're only making it worst, and eventually get thrown out of the room.

Also, Jill Scott, Alfre Woodward, Carl Lumbly, Djimon Hounsou - Uhm, Yes please!.

PS: Yes, I am totally willing to spend $13 US on two episodes, having not seen the rest. This is how much I enjoy the concept of a POC and in this case specifically Black and African power fantasy.

PPS: Is it still Marvel Comic Canon that Wakanda of all places after centuries of defending itself against all comers, fell at the hand of DOOM? And is now a country in crisis? **eye rolls**

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Yet Another 3 Things....

1) There ain't nothing like the tone argument, that then compares discussions of sexism, particularly rape culture with discussions of, racism and homophobia and then somehow feels it makes sense to mix in abortion. If I were to interact with said original poster I would ask if they're putting a fetus' human rights on par with the rights of living, breathing, thinking, feeling people of colour, people who are queer, and people who present as female.

The OP then calls them all overly passionate, gut feeling, illogical responses. Talks about how 'rationality' is needed to win the day, and other thoughts most ignorants think are original and neutral while they actually have their heads up their asses. Author-quest.blogspot (if you're curious)

{ Aside: I cannot be the only person who rolls eyes at individuals who want to say "Freedom of Speech matters even for 'icky' speech". But who then demands others hold their tongue decrying things THEY find outrageous? And who then calls them selfish for having their say? Is there a spell of ironic unseeing hypocritical + 10 that gets thrown on these folks?}

2) The internet evolves fast. Three years ago I wasn't thinking about that. I should have, however, because I think even then I knew the rule for PoC was 'pics or it didn't happen'. And, well, you have to be in control of the pics to make sure they don't disappear and get overwritten by more recent images. If such happens, then someone might actually comment about how Vixen in the 'earlier days' was LIGHT SKINNED and costumes change among superheroes. Not only is this 'ignorants confident they're having original thoughts they just have to put out there', (but that I won't publish). WTH internet/tech time is that person thinking of? Earlier days? Did the 1980's morph into 2008 when I wasn't looking?

3) Worse though, to get that comment right after hearing the news that Dwanye McDuffie had passed away...

I'm going to hold onto MY GREEN LANTERN

That's it. That's all.

Saturday, January 22, 2011

Making A Living vs Profit

Right now my thoughts on the IPR debate are as follows:

Creators (and aides to those creators) form a product and deserve compensation for the depth of their time and whatever sacrifices they made for that product. That is, making a living.

The Intellectual Property Rights Institutions (ex: Publishing Industry) are concerned with making a profit.

At some point in the 20th Century - making a profit became subtextually branded as 'making a living' (all that, 'the life to which one has grown accustomed'). To where "The Right To Make A Living' became "The Right To Make A Profit", which then further became "The Right To Make A Huge Profit".

Looking around, I see many people incensed that some folks dare say 'The Right To Make a PROFIT - IS NOT AN ACTUAL HUMAN RIGHT' and pointing out the way IPR Institutions develop systems of exploitation.

Personally I find the Publishing Industry extremely culpable in this, since many writers do not actually 'make a living' until the Corporations start making a 'profit', and thus are left propping up the system currently exploiting them.

A serf must first tend to his lord's fields and harvest, then to his own and pay all required fees and taxes. If there was anything left over, that could be sold to contribute to said serf's own 'wealth'.

Oh look the Kyriarchy and intersectionality. But those are just 'made up words' to some. And social justice is 'the new fandom' and people are trying to make names for themselves, and no one really cares about the big important things like starving children in [ insert obviously not developed world far less developed North America here ].

And some people {Who truly disgust me and bring out my annihilate them all urges} just must be BRAVE in pointing out this social justice thing is a bunch of doublespeak for poor people and poc minorities wanting permission to steal/cheat/whatever while claiming the 'system' is 'oppressing' them.


No, I am not putting up links. I understand as a PoC having a discussion it is my 'duty' to point to people's words, to prove that I am not misquoting them or misrepresenting them. But some truly reprehensible things have been said, to the point where I just don't give a fuck. Believe me or not. I am not pointing you to the cesspool.

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

3 Things Make A Post

1. LIAR, by Justine Larbalestier won was officially granted the Carl Brandon Kindred Award this past weekend, it seems. I think Justine Larbalestier is potentially a very nice person. I understand that she 'tries'. I also understand that I will be very unpopular because I do not think LIAR deserved any kind of PoC Exemplar award, and I honestly feel that the award was won more for Larbalestier's actions concerning the 'CoverFail', than for her writing a book with a young black (mixed) girl as an unreliable narrator with potential bestial leanings.

Back in 2009, I mentioned LIAR, without mentioning it by name. Now, I am.


2. I am aware of Tunisia. If you are not, I suggest you check it out. I am also aware of Haiti and the return of Baby Doc. I also suggest you read Who Removed Aristide; which has some background on the vengeance and exploitation enacted against Haiti by the French and taken up by the USA. As well as The Denial Of Self Determination. I would ask you ponder the term 'Banana Republic', that you ponder assassinations, dictator placements of people (men) who were/are pro-USA policies of exploitation. That you consider why there are people who do NOT think the USA is the greatest country in the world, but often can't say or do much about it. That you ponder what Freedom, really means.

There is potential and there is actuality. The USA has slid past like a sullen teenager on potential for decades, all the while hiding backdeals and dark deeds and now more obviously doing things to affect the average citizen - while leaving its potential, its ideals, by the wayside.

There is very little difference between the USA's corporate elite nobility (major and minor) and the myth of Marie Antoinette's 'Let them eat cake'.


3. A friend asked me to re-post this statement/thought of mine:
"Sometimes it feels as if people get caught up in being ashamed of what they like, then defending their right to like it. And completely miss the part where what they like is draped in a lot of society's ills and unthinking. And they'd probably have a lot less guilt, if they separated how society uses it most often, with what is the actual structure underneath."

I had originally applied it to kink and sex, realized it could be applied to cultural appropriation and realize now it also applies (to some extent) to patriotism. Many people in the USA, love the USA and refuse to hear a bad word against it, they defend it, unfailingly, despite facts and proof, and lived experiences of others and sometimes their own feelings of doubt and confusion. They refuse to separate the ideal from the actuality; to separate the turn on, from how it is framed.

Example: Someone can love the flavour of vanilla, without loving ice-cream, without having to deny they are lactose intolerant. There are other things with the flavour of vanilla even if how they are introduced to vanilla, is via ice-cream.

Also, please note the USA is not alone in the auto-defense. The French do it, all the time, including thinking that a real Frenchman/Frenchwoman would only say, think, this kind of thing. The Germans do it as well, 'how, who and why is a real German'.

A person can love a thing, and still admit it has problems, it misses the mark, it needs help, it has exploited and hurt and damaged. They can love a thing's ideals, its ultimate form, its dream form. They can love how a thing excites them and titillates them, but also subtract that excitement from damaging circumstances. If you can take fat and calories out of a recipe, or take allergens out of a recipe, how can people not take hate, racism, bigotry and sexism out of a thing? How can they not take dehumanization and objectification out of a thing?

Have a fascinator, not a feathered headdress. Explore power exchange and put away written fantasies about characters in concentration camps or prison or slavery - because really no true romance ever blossomed between authority captor and prisoner there.

And finally, admit American Exceptionalism is a lie. It was exceptionally exploitative, violent and domineering, yes. But it was not the perfect storm that formed a perfect country with no marks or blemishes or wounded, bleeding, dying, decimated, whipped, cut, stolen, beaten, segregated, ostracized, interned, imprisoned, manipulated or denied.

Thursday, January 6, 2011

The Ministry Of Truth Lies Upon De Nile

I've never spoken about this before, because I am not German and I wasn't sure exactly how to phrase things and explain things as a member of the international community of earth, that is/was/could or can be affected by something German.

Swastikas aren't allowed in Germany, even when used as part of a faith and civilization older than Germany - even though the emblem itself was appropriated by a faction of Germany. Also not allowed? Nazi propaganda films. I would have to look a little closer to find out if there's a museum exception or the like, but my general interactions showed no such thing.

Germany comes across as extremely ashamed of its Nazi related past. It puts the insistence of American Jews to never forget, to have and hold memorials and historically accurate exhibits into sharp relief when it seems very much as if Germany is so ashamed of it's Nazi related past that it attempts to expunge all mention; to forget. As if a symbol alone, a pamphlet alone, a film and more, by denying their existence, forbidding them, it would somehow bring back all the dead, all the lost, stolen, burned, destroyed property, all the lives crashed and disturbed and never again the same.

It's a shame merged with terror; an indescribable loss of face. And as I said in the beginning, it's a difficult thing for me to contemplate as I am not German. I do not assume to understand German culture, or German sensibility (or Austrian Culture & Sensibility).

But I do live in America. I have encountered the word Nigger. I've also encountered. "You know those kinds of people" and "Ghetto" and "Your kind are always..." and "Race Card". And and and...

Do the people - I'm not even sure what word to use, it's more than white washing, it's sort of privilege washing with a dash of convenient excising; do these people attempting to erase the word Nigger from Huckleberry Finn, will they ever be able to admit they do this out of shame?

Aside: Re-reading before posting, I'm struck by the similarity to object aversion similar to what Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Survivors sometimes deal with. US-America, North America as traumatized by all the various genocides and indigenous torture it helped commit. But more even than the victims, refusing to confront the pain it's caused so it can heal. And thus never being able to meet across the table from anyone who refuses to deny the truth of all that's happened.

No wonder there are two and three and four Americas. The idealized dream, and the broken realities the victims are trying to fix.

It's not as if people reading the book won't have come across the word. Nigger, before. They just won't get a chance to see it used in context, from a certain time period, and associate it with how people thought then, how people think now, the weight of words and terms etc. There will be no chance to grow for people reading this shame-marked book.

I understand in America that many things are simplified and modified under guise of accessible to a wider audience. I can never forget my disgust in picking up a Bible and reading it, and watching Johnathon and David solemnly shake hands, vs the weeping and hugging and far more emotive expressions of friendship, joy, relief and more. It struck me as gender policing and homophobic and completely erasing the historical context (such as it is after hundreds of years and myriad scribing) and also the cultural context.

It seems there's a vein, a streak in American culture production that likes to deny history, and the changes in society, the good and the bad, and all in-between. And now, like the Bible's been changed, Huckleberry Finn will be changed.

And this change comes from fear and shame. This change means teachers and parents don't have to discuss America's past another bit extra than they already don't discuss it now. It's part of the whole 'Oh, Slavery was so long ago - why even Huckleberry Finn has 'respectful' terminology. So why bring up possible present day effects'

It's Post Racial BS, is what it is.

Other countries, other cultures and peoples are preserving the Nazi legacy, if only as a warning, if only so history can be learned from. But in this age of American Commercial Imperialism, who's going to be keeping as non adulterated as possible a time-line via historical artifacts and literature and art, the lessons and relevance of Chattle Slavery; You had a bed, a chair, a horse and a slave. And the horse cost more than the nigger.

Funny isn't it, how White Supremacy gets to decide when a thing is done, has passed it's time, is no longer needed or relevant. How it gets upset when lynching photos are preserved and slave and more often ex-slave, child of ex-slaves diaries and journals are preserved and when history is preserved.

Again I'm reminded of military PTSD survivors , who perhaps don't want to accept and move on past what they did in action. Because it clashes with their concept of themselves as nice people. Even though they're still hypervigilant and trigger happy and apt to respond as if still in that haze of battle chaos and objectification necessary to kill and maim others.

I can't even get into the whole thing with 'Ijun', because to me, Ijun leads to Stolen Generations. You can't separate the two. A dehumanizing word had a purpose and that purpose had means and programs and politics and governments, actions and massacres, justifications, denials and now, in the present day, some shame.

Sometimes the USA (and I expect, Canada as well) is like a being who insists that reality is what they SAY it is, rather than what it actually is. When someone in our households or on the street insists on their reality instead of the one the rest of the world can see, hear, smell, taste and touch - we say they're sick and try to find them help (or some just avoid them, fearful they're dangerous). But Northern America? It's the Emperor With No Clothes, constantly believing it somehow has the power to warp reality to be what it sees in it's inner eye. Water isn't wet. Snow isn't cold. Nigger isn't a painful word of its past and present. Injun was never spoken. Faggot is not a word associated with blood and death.

Oh wait...

Hate is Love. War is Peace.

Sunday, January 2, 2011

Happy Gregorian New Year - 2011

Just what it says on the Tin, folks.