SO. GROSS.

sexism, stunt violence that echoes actual violence, stunning lack of self-awareness, stupid pregnancy tricks, probably some other stuff too )

Okay, seriously, I have so much work to do tonight, but I was listening to that as I did the dishes and I really, really had to vent before I could possibly concentrate.
Two signal-boosts:

First: Free Admission to ITHACON40/Pippi to Ripley3, the Ithaca College Campus, Saturday May 2, 2015 10am-5pm. Special Guests: Bruce Coville and Laura Lee Gulledge. Free kids workshops include: comic drawing workshops, fantasy writing, steampunk art, superhero cape making, star wars armor workshop, Japanese sword, Belly Dance, Pathfinder RPG game, Game Space, and Zombie Ballroom.

ITHACON40 full guest lineup; Pippi to Ripley full program.

Plus a Friday evening event (also free):

7:00-9:00 Panel on Women Making Comics (Klingenstein Lounge, Ithaca College Campus Center), with Laura Lee Gulledge, Morgan McKenzie (published as “Maegan Cook”), and Danielle (Ielle) Palmer.

Pippi to Ripley is where I gave my Mary Sue talk a couple years ago; I can't make it this year, but if you can, check it out.

Second: the Tiptree Award is expanding into Fellowships, to "support the development of new work, in any form or genre, that uses speculative narrative to expand or explore our understanding of gender, especially in its intersections with race, nationality, class, disability, sexuality, age, and other categories of identification and structures of power" ($500 year, two recipients). The application process is being developed in coordination with micha cárdenas; applications are expected to be opened at the upcoming WisCon (May 22-25, 2015).
It's late but I'm jazzed from good conversation and think I can quickly make this presentable before I go to bed.

Description:

Strictly speaking, there's no reason an artificial intelligence should express gender in human terms (or at all). Yet in much recent film and TV -- such as WALL-E, Her, Person of Interest, The Sarah Connor Chronicles, and Caprica -- gender and/or sexuality has been integral to the vision of AI. How have such portrayals affected what stories are told? What are their strengths and weaknesses? What would it mean to imagine a genderless AI -- or a queer AI?

Charlie Jane Anders, Abigail Nussbaum, Nic Clarke, Michael Morelli,Jed Hartman

Nic: reviewer, watched all the programs being discussed

Jed: former fiction editor for Strange Horizons, now consumes media; fascinated by gender for long time

Mike: Masters student, giving paper on sexuality in Banks tomorrow, feminist literary critic

Abigail: blogger & reviewer, Reviews editor at SH, writes lot about film & TV from feminist perspective

Charlie Jane: writer, blogger at io9, including AIs in some of work (including one forthcoming resolutely ungendered one)

notes, with no fail that I recognized! )

So this was fun! If I've mis-identified anything let me know.
This was my last panel of the day, but I'm going to write it up before the other remaining one, because it had an upsetting thing at the end that I'd like to clear off my list of things to talk about.

Description:

On the one hand, initiatives like the SF Gateway are helping to ensure the SF backlist remains accessible to today's readers, and an increasing number of "classic" SF writers are receiving the establishment seal of approval in series like the Library of America (Philip K. Dick) and the Everyman Library (Isaac Asimov). On the other hand, the SF readership is increasingly diverse, with fewer readers who have come to the field via those "classics", and many who find little of value in them in any case. In other words the traditional SF canon is no longer tenable -- but the history is still out there. So what alternative models and narratives should we be using to understand the field's past? Should we be working to expand the canon, or to describe multiple overlapping histories -- or something else?

Kate Nepveu (m), Connie Willis, Alvaro Zinos-Amaro, Chris Beckett, Joe Monti

I saw criticisms of my moderation from a person on Twitter, who thought I talked too much. I will not apologize for one of those instances (or for believing that I have things to contribute to the panel beyond just setting discussion in motion), but there were some points where I could have been more concise, especially since this was another 50-minute panel.

I asked by asking why we want to convey genre history: is it different for readers and writers, or between fantasy & SF? I said that I thought it was genuinely useful for fantasy readers to read _LotR_--though less so than twenty years ago--but I wasn't sure the same was true for SF, since the commercial genre can't be traced back to a single book that way.

I think the general consensus was that it was more important for writers. Connie said that when she teaches Clarion she hands out a 50-book list, because her least favorite critique is "this is a really good story that Bradbury did in 1952." Generally people agreed that writers should know the most famous plot twists/types; something of the genre conventions (insert here the thing about genre being distinguished, if not defined, by way information is conveyed to reader); and something about the major works in your topic area, otherwise you get mainstream writers thinking that they're saying something profound about robots etc. when genre readers are like, "done that back in 19-whatever."

(But tropes are different; just because someone's done "Adam & Eve in space" before, as one of the panelists, I think Chris?, had done, doesn't mean you can't. It's the gimmicks that only work once because of surprise, and even then if they're not well-known now . . . )

Somewhere pretty early people said that readers shouldn't read the canon because it's (medicine/work/homework--I forget the exact phrasing). They should read the canon because it's good (or the good bits of the canon).

I mentioned the rare works specifically in explicit dialogue with an identifiable thing: Peter Watts' "Things" (the movie _The Thing_); Neil Gaiman's "A Study in Emerald"—which I embarrassingly called "A Study in Scarlet" until the audience corrected me, thank you, audience—the latter of which doesn't work at all if you don't know Sherlock Holmes canon. But besides those, which are pretty easy to spot, what benefit can there be for readers to know genre history?

Connie said that every work is in some way in dialogue with others, because that's what storytelling is, all the way back to its origins. When she started writing her time travel stories, she made a list of all the things she disliked about existing time travel stories. Possibly here, Joe said that Ann Leckie hadn't read _The Left Hand of Darkness_ before writing _Ancillary Justice_, which both do things with pronouns and gender, but she was aware that _Left Hand_ existed and what it did, which he found surprising, but maybe it was hard to say what reading it would have added.

In response to a question, the panelists were generally not in favor of authors making that kind of inspiration/works-being-referenced explicit to the reader, in afterwords or suchlike, because it's so much fun for readers to make those connections themselves, and if they don't, the works ought to stand on their own anyway. It's to enrich the understanding not to create it. (Somewhere prior to this I'd said that I was of the view that The Author Is Dead, and though I heard some objection to that from the authors on the panel =>, at this point I believe at least one person said okay, maybe The Author Is Dead after all, at least somewhat.)

I'm fairly sure about this point we were running very low on time, so I said, here are the other things I was hoping we'd talk about, let me rattle them off in case they spark questions from the audience. (This is the bit I won't apologize for talking.) They were: what multiple overlapping histories (mentioned in the description) might consist of: subgenres, groups of authors working together, publishers . . . ?; other ways these genre histories might get conveyed: reviews, Wikipedia, Encyclopedia of SF?

I learned a lesson about myself as a mod here: because the panel was on the same level as the room, I stood up to see people and point at five people to ask questions in order. But when it was time for the next person I should have stood back up, because it turns out I rely on physical locations of people and I couldn't remember who was next, which was awkward.

Unfortunately the only question I actually remember at this point was the thing that was upsetting, a.k.a., In which Connie Willis and I disagree whether the historical formation of the canon excluded women and minorities )

Until that point I had been enjoying the panel quite a bit, and I do think there was fodder there for more discussion. So further thoughts would be welcome, from anyone. However, I am going to screen anon comments out of an abundance of caution: if you're new here, please review my commenting policy. I will unscreen comments as soon as possible.
This is going to be a not-report for reasons I will get to.

Description:

Fandom has a rich heritage of exploring gender roles, sexism, misogyny and patriarchy. In current fandoms there are repeated discussions of the problems associated with fandoms includingDoctor Who, Supernatural, Harry Potter, X-Menand Game of Thrones. Fans write detailed meta incorporating popular terms such as fridging and the Bechdel test as well as more complex cultural theory. Yet, at the same time, there is a common trait in fandom, especially media fandom, where sexually active female characters are slut-shamed, women who are perceived to interfere with the popular relationships on a show (whether canonical or not) are vilified, and fan works recreate heterosexism. Sometimes actresses playing characters receive online hatred and bullying while fans who criticise the sexism of an object of affection are rejected by fellow fans. In this session we explore ways in which (largely) female fans engage with feminism and misogyny within their own communities.

Megan Waples (m), Katherine Jay, Kristina Knaving, Kate Keen, Kate Nepveu

Here is what I wrote yesterday:

This was a very wide-ranging panel, so much so that I kind of have no idea how to talk about it.

Uh, here are links to two things of mine that I mentioned at the panel: How to Discuss Race and Racism Without Acting Like a Complete Jerk, which has a good deal of applicability to discussions about all kinds of oppressions; and An Introduction to Mary Sue and Her Critical Uses and Abuses.

. . . my brain is not working right now. Um.

In no particular order!

Removing sexism and other oppressive attitudes from one's reflexes is hard. Everyone is at different points in journey.

cut for racism )

Anyway! After that I did not get back to these panel notes until now, which is mid-day Sunday. There was other stuff yesterday (more anon) and then I saw some criticisms of me on Twitter and I thought about going to another racism-related panel to be supportive and I wanted to cry at the thought of someone being an asshat again, so I went back to bed. (It's early in the con to be hitting the wall, and yesterday was objectively not that bad, but all the tourism before was catching up with me, I think.)

So. The panel started with Megan, as the mod, asking us to express / vent our rage in a really good yell, which was surprisingly easy to summon (at that point I wasn't actively angry about anything!) and very cathartic. Megan also shared a story of a woman she knows getting a fat-shaming Tweet from someone at the con about her outfit.

We acknowledged that gender is not a binary and that sexism, homophobia, and transphobia are all connected, but I'm not sure how good a job we did after talking in non-binary terms, for which I apologize.

My notes for the panel ahead of time, besides the links above:

* Intersectionality can be hard. Listen and be empathic but don't assume that one experience of oppression maps to another.

* Fanfic: if your reason for not writing female characters is that they're poorly characterized in canon, you should, and I mean this with love and support, sit down and think hard about that, because what fandom does is take underdeveloped characters and develop them (and give them fandom-eating pairings, in some cases *cough* Clint/Coulson *cough* ).

* Need for female-led/dominated spaces.

* Things to do:
** Call out sexism you see
** If you can't or can't yet (and it's hard, though it gets easier): support people who do by commenting, retweeting, reblogging, emailing, etc.; promote fests for underrepresented characters, leave comments or kudos on works that feature underrepresented characters, make the fanworks you'd like to see. Little bits really do matter.

Other panelists added teaching and supporting kids and young adults in your life (your children or the children around you). Sexism exists in fandom because fandom is part of society.

That's almost nothing to report on from a ninety-minute panel, so if you were there, or if you want to ask about if something was brought up, please do.

That I previously posted to G+ and forgot to move here.

First: Another post about rape at Fugitivus, an excellent (definitive?) explanation of why rape culture is culture.

Second: [personal profile] absolutedestiny has vidded Toph and Lin Beifong to LL Cool J's "Mama Said Knock You Out," and it is AMAZING. Embed behind the cut, or download at their journal. Spoilers for all of Avatar: The Last Airbender and season one of The Legend of Korra.

embedded video )

Some things I've been wanting to post about, on a theme. (Alas.)

First: What fairy tale [*] would you eradicate from existence, given the opportunity?

I would pick Beauty and the Beast, and indeed I have managed to dissuade SteelyKid from asking for it, because that is a really harmful bedrock assumption to have about the way people and relationships work. Possibly a maximally harmful one, at least of the big-name fairy tales. ("Cheaters win," or perhaps more precisely "it's okay to cheat funny-looking people" (Rumpelstiltskin, the Frog Prince) is also bad but less so, I think.)

(This thought brought to you by [personal profile] metaphortunate's insightful post on 50 Shades of Grey and female fantasies.)

[*] In the Brothers Grimm/bedtime story sense, please, not in the smart-ass "religion!1!!" sense (or whatever). Not that that's very likely from y'all, but still.

Second: I commend to your attention this Captain Awkward followup post on creepiness and the posts linked therein. (I hadn't linked to the precipitating posts because I couldn't think of anything to say beyond "these make me so angry that the hairs on the back of my neck are standing up," but you should read those too, to the extent consistent with your own well-being.) Lots of good concrete advice for the creeped-upon and for people who don't want to be creepy (including that it's their job to do something about it, it's not the responsibility of women to fix them, with their magical spell-breaking love or otherwise). Of course nothing will reach creepers who are doing it on purpose, but at least this may reduce the plausibility of their "but no-one ever told me not to touch strangers!" excuses, as well as demonstrating the importance of community standards and support in reducing the acceptability and prevalence of creepiness.

Third: speaking of which, Readercon's Board resigned and the concomm issued this quite good statement of the con's change of position. I am still very angry at the former Board for failing to do its job in the first place and making the concomm go through all that extra work and angst, however.

Fourth: a while ago [personal profile] deepad had a post on words you wished were mainstream. I didn't have any at the time, but gradually I have discovered that I want the ones where just pointing and saying, "fucking (thing)," is self-explanatory. As you can tell from this post, I have been wanting to point and say "fucking rape culture" a lot lately.

(Other candidates: manpain, heteronormativity, slut-shaming, white privilege. I am not sure why these are so much more about sexism than racism; am I missing obvious terms or having a failure of cluefulness?)

You know, I was going to make a post about how the intersection of the news lately (particularly Trayvon Martin's murder) and the bridge of a Decemberists song nearly had my crying in my car yesterday evening, but the point would just be what the subject line says, and this gives you more time to read the links.

[*] Yes, I saw the doctor guest post over at Scalzi's. I actually found it more depressing than anything because of the comments, and not even the predictable derailing ones, the "for the first time I feel some hope!" remarks. Seriously? One anonymous doctor arguing for civil disobedience after one of these horrible laws has passed—the efficacy of which I have considerable doubts regarding—and suddenly everything's sunshine and roses? What-fucking-ever. (Especially given the entirely unjustified assumption by many commenters that the anonymous doctor in question was male. Yeah, we've never seen that pattern before.)

" . . . but I can't help it, I love him anyway, in a way that is True and Tragic and not at all pathetic."

I feel like there must be examples of this besides Tigana and Acacia, but I am coming up empty. I mean, even the Harry Potter "Death Eaters conquer" AUs I read back in the day were generally plastered with warnings for dubcon and wrongness. Anyone? (I would be particularly interested in any examples written by women.)

When non-winter infant and toddler girls' clothing [*] has, as a rough approximation, at least 33% less fabric than boys' clothing (because we require two and three year olds to gender-conform by showing skin!), and when I was able to find precisely two picture books, out of the thirty-odd displayed face out at my local B&N, that had female-identified humanoid-ish protagonists who weren't princesses and who did things.

(One of those was white. The other was a pig.)

Fuck systematic oppressions, I say. Fuck them with a goddamn chainsaw.

Also, recommendations for picture books, or anthology-type-things of fairy/folk tales (about 10 min./tale), that are not sporkworthy are highly welcome.

[*] Not that I am shopping for these at the moment, but it remains a massive irritant.

Idle question for anyone who's around on a U.S. holiday weekend.

This poll is anonymous.
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: Just the Poll Creator, participants: 100

"Better half" to non-ironically refer to spouse/significant other/romantic partner?

I self-identify as female; yes, I do/would use "better half."
3 (3.0%)

I self-identify as female; no, I do not/would not use "better half."
70 (70.7%)

I self-identify as male; yes, I do/would use "better half."
1 (1.0%)

I self-identify as male; no, I do not/would not use "better half."
21 (21.2%)

I self-identify in another manner; yes, I do/would use "better half."
1 (1.0%)

I self-identify in another manner; no, I do not/would not use "better half."
3 (3.0%)

Ticky?

Ticky!
48 (59.3%)

Pool
13 (16.0%)

Stream
24 (29.6%)

Ocean
30 (37.0%)

Lake
23 (28.4%)

Hydrophobia
8 (9.9%)

my thoughts )

(Note: because this poll asks about gender identity, I've made it entirely anonymous; no-one can see who answered what, even me (though the resulting poll text may be ambiguous about that). Also, if you aren't logged in to DW through a DW account or Open ID (such as LJ), you can't fill out the poll, but you can comment. If you want a DW invite code, just ask.)

Francine du Plessix Gray (b. 1930) reviews a new translation of Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex:

The other pivotal notion at the heart of “The Second Sex” — a more problematic one, which Beauvoir came to on her own [*] — is her belief that, in Parshley’s translation, “one is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.” This preposterous assertion, intended to bolster her argument that marriage and motherhood are institutions imposed by men to curb women’s freedom, will be denied by any mother who has seen her toddler son eagerly grab for a toy in the shape of a vehicle or a gun, while at the same time showing a total lack of interest in his sister’s cherished dolls.

. . . seriously, you think toddlers are immune to gender socialization, alone out of every other kind of socialization?

Also, please note that SteelyKid (female) eagerly grabs for toys shaped like vehicles, guns [**], and dolls.

I only wish this paragraph had been earlier in the review, because that would have saved me a precious minute or two out of my day.

[*] As opposed to the one that, and no I am not making this up, she got from a man.

[**] A broken air-powered Nerf dart gun from the mantel, which she delighted in pumping up.

I've been seeing some links to fanhistory dot com for a quick summary of what's been dubbed SurveyFail. Please don't link to that site: it is run by a woman who outs fans for profit, literally. She has even less respect for fandom than the "researchers," I would argue, because she knows the fannish ethical norms she is violating.

Instead, here's a short survey by [info - personal] tablesaw, and a longer one over at FeministSF (among many others; see the SurveyFail tag over at [info - community] linkspam). I also highly recommend this eloquent response, before the fail began multiplying, by [info - personal] eruthros.

ETA: I am reliably advised, by someone who does not wish further public attention brought to the matter for obvious reasons, that fanhistory has very recently demonstrated that it has not changed its ways.

Last panel report; second-to-last con report.

I Spy, I Fear, I Wonder: Espionage Fiction and the Fantastic.
Don D'Ammassa, C. C. Finlay (M), James D. Macdonald, Chris Nakashima-Brown, Ernest Lilley.
In his afterword to The Atrocity Archives, Charles Stross makes a bold pair of assertions: Len Deighton was a horror writer (because "all cold-war era spy thrillers rely on the existential horror of nuclear annihilation") while Lovecraft wrote spy thrillers (with their "obsessive collection of secret information"). In fact, Stross argues that the primary difference between the two genres is that the threat of the "uncontrollable universe" in horror fiction "verges on the overwhelming," while spy fiction "allows us to believe for a while that the little people can, by obtaining secret knowledge, acquire some leverage over" it. This is only one example of the confluence of the espionage novel with the genres of the fantastic; the two are blended in various ways in Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon, Tim Powers' Declare, William Gibson's Spook County, and, in the media, the Bond movies and The Prisoner. We'll survey the best of espionage fiction as it reads to lovers of the fantastic. Are there branches of the fantastic other than horror to which the spy novel has a special affinity or relationship?

Lilley was a last-minute replacement for John Shirley. If I'd known he was going to be on the panel ahead of time, I might not have gone, being deeply unimpressed with his behavior at a World Fantasy Con panel about non-European urban fantasies. Mostly (but not exclusively) thanks to him, you get a bonus rant about sexism at the end of this.

Note on panel composition: five white males. (Nakashima-Brown's name was acquired by marriage and not ancestry, according to a later conversation with him.)

Because more time has passed, I'm less certain about some of these expansions; I've noted this where it occurs. I welcome clarifications or corrections to the notes from those who were there.

panel notes )

bonus rant about sexism and 'female characters who are just men in women's clothing' )

From Tiger Beatdown:

Desdemona [*] is not the person you want to bring into your "ladies cheat too" argument.

Truer words.

[*] ETA: from Othello, people.

A few weeks ago, I was rather taken aback when a child development book twice suggested that parents "encourage the development of gender identity by using the words boy or girl when you address your baby." My immediate reaction was, "Surely, in our society, the last thing I need to worry about is SteelyKid not knowing she's a girl? And, how bad would it be if she didn't have a strong gender identity?" (Sex and gender are very small parts of my identity. Free-associating "being a woman" gets me "stupid reproductive system," and free-associating "being female" gets me "stupid fashion industry" and "sexism." Other things that often get lumped with sex and gender are separate in my head.)

(My reaction to the book's statements was also colored by the "Avoid" list shortly after, which included "Worrying that telling your baby she is a 'good little girl' is a sexist remark. Political correctness is not an issue when you're teaching your baby gender identity.")

But this made me realize that I did call her "girl" a lot, without conscious thought: "hey, baby girl," or "oh, good girl!" Since then, I've made more of an effort to use her name: it's something I've been trying to do anyway, and it is also one syllable and thus fits the cadence just fine.

Edit: To clarify: it's far more important to me that she be a good (happy, smart, strong, wonderful) SteelyKid than a good (etc.) girl, and so I want to get in the habit of expressing that early. I hope the distinction is self-evident.

* * *

Twice, strangers have assumed that SteelyKid was male. The first person, on hearing that she was not, asked somewhat indignantly, "So why's she in blue?" (She was wearing a brown shirt and was in her car seat, which is gray with green-blue accents. The second time, she was also in her car seat, and was wearing green.)

And yet yesterday, I was sorting through some hand-me-down clothes from a family with two boys. I kept a lot of blue clothes, but found myself setting aside a number that were just too little-boy—for no reason that I could clearly articulate to myself, except that I couldn't see myself putting them on her and so there was no point in keeping them, even though I was aware of the irony and uncomfortable with it. After all, before she was born, some people said that we should find out her sex so people would know what clothes to buy. My reaction was that an infant, who didn't know what pink or blue signified, would hardly care; that I hated the overwhelming emphasis on an infant's sex (i.e., "What are you having?" to mean "Is it a boy or a girl?"); and that I thought color-coding them by sex was kind of dumb. (I didn't usually say this out loud.) And yet.

Edit: To clarify: until SteelyKid has preferences, we're going to dress her in stuff we like, because we're the ones who have to look at it. And we don't like frills or most pink.

No conclusions, just observations.

What are your thoughts about infants and gender?

Edit 2: SteelyKid's reaction )

[livejournal.com profile] telophase rocks and has coded that 1930s marital rating scale as an internet quiz:

23

As a 1930s wife, I am
Very Poor (Failure)

Take the test!

In contrast:

79

As a 1930s husband, I am
Very Superior

Take the test!

As a follow-up to yesterday's post, here's the full booklet of Tests for Husbands and Wives on Flickr.

  • A husband who "Publicly . . . regrets having married" is only -1 (while "Helps wife with dishes, caring for children, scrubbing" is only +1).
  • Husbands using profanity is -1, while wives using it is -5; ditto "suspicious and jealous." Husbands have to get drunk for -5, while wives only have to drink; husbands have to be addicted to gambling for -1, while wives who simply gamble get -5.
  • Husbands carrying adequate insurance get +5. Does this mean life insurance?
  • "Writes on tablecloth with pencil"?
  • Huh. "Attends church" is +10 for husbands; maybe they go to Saturday evening services or late Sunday morning services, so the dutiful wives can still let them sleep in?
  • Finally, I am . . . not really sure what to make of the asymmetry in points WRT sex (husbands giving their wives orgasms = +20; wives who "react[] with pleasure and delight" to sex = +10). Or perhaps I just don't want to think about it that much.

By my quick tally, I am a Failure as a wife, but Chad and I both make Superior husbands. ([livejournal.com profile] telophase has said she's turning this into an Internet quiz, for those who'd rather not tally up their scores on paper.)

Still lots of discussion going on; this is just an attempt to highlight a few different aspects.

[livejournal.com profile] novapsyche describes why she took part and how she reacted to the original post.

[livejournal.com profile] synecdochic on "sex-positive", "getting-laid-positive," performative sexuality, and bystander consent.

[livejournal.com profile] delux_vivens on overlooked racial aspects of the "project" and subsequent discussions.

[livejournal.com profile] vito_excalibur proposes the Open Source Women Back Each Other Up Program. One place for buttons and T-shirts is CafePress. Practical tips from kathryn_ironic in comments and shaysdays in a separate post.

And on a lighter note, [livejournal.com profile] nineveh_uk imagines the whole idea as a lost flashback from Strong Poison.

Trying to highlight interesting comments that I've seen, without being too repetitive of things people have already said in comments to my prior post (at least as they stood a few hours ago, before I went off to an appointment):

[livejournal.com profile] coffeeandink has links to good comments in the original post; in comments to her post, [livejournal.com profile] rydra_wong succintly articulates the privilege behind the original post, and [livejournal.com profile] giandujakiss points out the broader context about what men and women are taught to want.

Also in [livejournal.com profile] coffeeandink's comments, [livejournal.com profile] lnhammer notes the problems with the originators' choice of name, and says, "I suggest everyone start calling it the Public Domain Boobs Project. Mockery being a most excellent criticism."

In a comment to [livejournal.com profile] the_red_shoes's post, [livejournal.com profile] rushthatspeaks points out not only the threat of the question but the way that people opposing it are being told they're unworthy of being heard.

[livejournal.com profile] springheel_jack sets out how this reinforcement of sexism stems from the basic libertarian fallacy.

[livejournal.com profile] hahathor proposes The Open-Source Knuckle Sandwich Project.

ETA 2: I also like the way [livejournal.com profile] misia phrases her Open Source Swift Kick to the Balls Project.

Finally for now, [livejournal.com profile] theferrett has edited his original post to say that people shouldn't do this and that the Open-Source Boob Project is dead. I have issues with the phrasing of his edit, but am glad of the practical statements in it.

ETA: on a tangent, [livejournal.com profile] veejane has smart comments about safety at cons. And now I'm really done for a while, possibly the night, honest.

May 2017

S M T W T F S
 1234 5 6
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28 29 3031   

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Tags

Syndicate

RSS Atom