(NSFW: Suggestive Language and Sexual content in the comments)
I may not understand the Schrodinger's Cat experiment perfectly (I'm not, alas, a quantum physicist), but I do understand the Bechdel test. This is another test whose value is largely in the mind and in understanding the larger implications, and yet it's frequently misunderstood when brought up in conversation and particularly in reference to specific works. The test itself is fairly simple: does the work in question have two female characters who have a conversation with each other about something other than a man? Yes or no?
There's wrangling over the details, of course. Do the two female characters need to have names or a minimum of screen presence? Does the conversation need to be a back-and-forth or will a single line from one female character directed to another female character do the trick? Can the topic be a man, if the man is being discussed in a professional (i.e., not relational) capacity? If a single unnamed female cop asks a single unnamed female desk clerk, "Have you seen this man?" in the course of a criminal investigation and otherwise there are no female characters for the rest of the movie, is that "good enough" to pass the test?
There are fights over these questions. Serious ones. Speaking as a member of both the Firefly and the Star Trek: Voyager fandoms, there can be seriously hurt feelings and angry recriminations when the Bechdel test is brought up. Short version for the uninitiated: Voyager had a long history of sexually exploiting its female characters and focusing everything through Male Gaze lenses, but over the long running series, there were still many conversations between the female characters on the nature of humanity, the burden of responsibility, and the importance of finely ground organically grown coffee. Firefly, on the other hand, is generally seen as a more feminist-friendly work, but the series ran for a very short time and the Bechdel examples are fewer and farther between. It is impossible to bring this up online without hurting feelings. And, in fact, the whole thing usually degenerates into a few people explaining that the Bechdel test is not a measure-o'-feminism and a lot of people responding then what is it good for?! and then everyone walks away frustrated and unsatisfied.
It's true: the Bechdel test isn't a measure of feminism in a work. It's not a measure of whether or not a work is good. It's only very rarely even used as a reason to see or avoid a movie, and when it is, it's a question of personal taste and choice on the part of the viewer. So what is the test good for? Most people, myself included, use the Bechdel test as a thought experiment only. The question isn't "is this particular movie worth watching". The question isn't even really "does this particular movie pass the test", although that consideration is part of the bigger question. No, the real question the Bechdel test makes us consider is "why is it so hard to come up with a list of examples that pass the Bechdel test?"
Go back to the Firefly example above. Name me a scene where two women have a conversation that isn't about a man. Well, you'll probably reach for the Kaylee/Inara pampering scene where Inara brushes out Kaylee's hair in her shuttle. Name me a second one. Well, you'll dig down and pull out Kaylee asking Inara how many of her male clients wanted to take her away from her life as a Companion. We'll let you have that one, even though it's sort of about men, because I'm nothing if not reasonable. Name me a third one. Well... didn't Inara have a female client in one episode? We'll count that, even though it's somewhat overlaid with male gaze which is even lampshaded by Jayne's announced intentions... and even though most of what Inara and her client talk about are, in fact, men. Name me a fourth one. Um. Okay, surely the gals must have had some light banter around the dinner table at some point, and wasn't there that one scene where River states to Kaylee that she is badass? Not really a conversation, but we'll count it. Name me a fifth one. A sixth. A seventh. How many can you give me? Not ten, I'll bet.
Now name me thirty scenes in Firefly that feature two men having a conversation that isn't about a woman. I'll bet you can do that in ten minutes with plenty of scenes to spare. The men discuss reavers, the Alliance, the ship, the state of the finances, and the likelihood of the ambush they're flying into frequently and often. They have side discussions about wealth and privilege and religion and politics and guns. They discuss the moral implications of their thieving lifestyle, and they wrangle over how their lives will be affected if they give away money they can't afford and make enemies they don't need in order to help people they don't know. They discuss their loyalties to one another, and where those boundaries lie. They even talk about silly hats and hilarious bar ballads.
None of this means that Firefly is a bad show; I love Firefly. None of it means it's an anti-feminist show: the women are three-dimensional characters in their own right, and they're nuanced and complicated and thoroughly interesting to me. (YMMV, of course.) No, the value of the Bechdel test here isn't to trash Firefly or make it out to be a bad show because it's failed to give the female characters a voice.
Instead, the value of the Bechdel test here is to get the viewer thinking about the ways our society views women and the ways it views men. If your women on screen only interact with one another in stereotypical "feminine" ways -- in this case, largely talking about and growing interpersonal relationships -- then as a writer, you've failed to recognize and reflect the reality that women frequently and daily have conversations with each other about regular stuff. We talk about our jobs. We share our aches and pains. We discuss movies and TV shows and food and books. We exist as regular people, just as regular as the men around us.
The Bechdel test is a question of presence. Reading through the listings on the Bechdel Movie List, one is struck by how many films fail at the first point by only having one (or zero!) named female characters. Those tests that do pass, frequently hinge on split-second 'conversations' -- "Can I use the bathroom?", in one instance, and "Angel, no," in another -- that have to be diligently dug from the memories of the viewers reporting back from from the theaters. The take-away here isn't that there are a lot of bad movies out there; the take-away is that it's really dang hard to find the examples necessary to satisfy this simple test.
Presence of women in movies is important. In a world where women make up roughly half the population, it's been shown time and again that we're underrepresented in movies. There are three male characters to every one female character in movies. In group scenes with large crowds, the representation drops to one out of five. If women aren't visible and aren't vocal in movies, this aggregate under-representation underscores an ongoing belief in our unimportance. The Bechdel test illustrates that perfectly, not by picking out "bad movies" in particular, but by illustrating the incredibly unbalanced ratio of men to women in movies in general.
Take the same Bechdel test, and make it a question of race instead of gender. You'll have the same problems, with many of the same movies. It's not much easier to find scenes of non-white people having conversations about things other than white people; and -- just as with the original recipe Bechdel test -- the most obvious aversions occur in movies where the entire cast is made up of the group in question. It would seem that women have the best chance at having a voice when all the men have been excised from the movie, and that non-white characters have the best chance at having a voice when all the non-white characters have been removed from the cast. What can we make of this?
The "Reverse Bechdel test" -- in which the viewer is invited to find examples of two men having a conversation about something other than a woman -- is interesting because of its rarity. The test is usually only 'failed' if either all (or all-but-one) characters are female. These movies exist, it's true, but they're generally marketed almost exclusively to women; rarely is the summer blockbuster movie cast with zero male characters and expected to do well at the box office with men and women alike as excited viewers. It would seem that having a 1:5 ratio of men to women in a movie is generally expected to have similar ratios in the audience, but having a 5:1 ratio in favor of men isn't likely to hurt sales too much.
And this, in the end, is perhaps the real value of the Bechdel test: the solidification of the lowest possible expectations. The Bechdel test doesn't demand an equal ratio of female characters to male. It doesn't look for equal amounts of screen time or character importance or impact on the plot. It starts with the very basic question: of all the many, many characters in this movie -- ten, or fifteen, or twenty, or more -- are at least two of those characters female? And in this first step, an astonishing number of movies fail. And if we adjust for race and ignore gender, we still see a surprising number of movies that fail. What can we make of this?
Well, one possibility is that the roles are being written as white male characters who need white male actors. Fair enough. If you're writing a screenplay for an Apollo 13 remake, I guess you can't stock the space shuttle with a Chinese woman, a black man, and a Native American transgendered person. That wouldn't be historically accurate. But here's the thing, almost none of the movies I watched this year dealt with historical figures who had to be X gender and Y race or else be Historically Inaccurate. And 90% of the movies I watched this year could have been cast entirely from random selection of race and gender for 90% of the roles. And yet... for some reason... they weren't.
I can't tell you why that is, because there are a lot of possible reasons at play here. Maybe writers tend to be predominantly white males who therefore predominantly write white male characters. Maybe casting directors tend to be predominantly white males who therefore predominantly cast white male actors in parts -- or perhaps they predominantly over-value the white male dollar at the box office and cast according to the assumption that white male audiences want white male actors. Maybe directors tend to cut parts written for non-white non-male characters as being less valuable to the overall piece than the parts written for the white male characters. Maybe a lot of things.
What I can say is that this sort of thing is sharply outlined by thought experiments like the Bechdel test. What I can say is that it takes something like the Bechdel test to get people to stop talking individual movies -- which largely boil down to preference, interpretation, and fan wars -- and to start talking cultural trends. What I can say is that this conversation is precisely why we need a Bechdel test, why we need lots of Bechdel tests, for gender and race and sexual orientation and a variety of other measures. The Bechdel test sharply outlines what our society presents as normative, as the "default" form a character does and should take.
That is what the Bechdel test is for. Not for the one-off artistic efforts, but for the aggregate effect as a whole on minority voices in our culture.
--Ana Mardoll
The Bechdel Test, Bechdel-Wallace Test, or the Mo Movie Measure, is a sort of litmus test for female presence in movies and TV. The test is named for Alison Bechdel, creator of the comic strip Dykes To Watch Out For, who made it known to the world with this strip.Most people who talk about Schrodinger's Cat do so with the understanding that the "experiment" is a thought experiment only. The concept of the Schrodinger's Cat is used to illustrate in the mind an aspect of quantum physics, namely how (if I understand correctly) an event at a purely quantum level could have a practical effect on the physical world. There's no real value, however, in going out and getting a cat and a box to put it in -- the "experiment" in question is in the mind, and not in the box.
In order to pass, the film or show must meet the following criteria:
1. it includes at least two women* (some make the addendum that the women must be named characters)...
2. who have at least one conversation...
3. about something other than a man or men.-- TV Tropes
I may not understand the Schrodinger's Cat experiment perfectly (I'm not, alas, a quantum physicist), but I do understand the Bechdel test. This is another test whose value is largely in the mind and in understanding the larger implications, and yet it's frequently misunderstood when brought up in conversation and particularly in reference to specific works. The test itself is fairly simple: does the work in question have two female characters who have a conversation with each other about something other than a man? Yes or no?
There's wrangling over the details, of course. Do the two female characters need to have names or a minimum of screen presence? Does the conversation need to be a back-and-forth or will a single line from one female character directed to another female character do the trick? Can the topic be a man, if the man is being discussed in a professional (i.e., not relational) capacity? If a single unnamed female cop asks a single unnamed female desk clerk, "Have you seen this man?" in the course of a criminal investigation and otherwise there are no female characters for the rest of the movie, is that "good enough" to pass the test?
There are fights over these questions. Serious ones. Speaking as a member of both the Firefly and the Star Trek: Voyager fandoms, there can be seriously hurt feelings and angry recriminations when the Bechdel test is brought up. Short version for the uninitiated: Voyager had a long history of sexually exploiting its female characters and focusing everything through Male Gaze lenses, but over the long running series, there were still many conversations between the female characters on the nature of humanity, the burden of responsibility, and the importance of finely ground organically grown coffee. Firefly, on the other hand, is generally seen as a more feminist-friendly work, but the series ran for a very short time and the Bechdel examples are fewer and farther between. It is impossible to bring this up online without hurting feelings. And, in fact, the whole thing usually degenerates into a few people explaining that the Bechdel test is not a measure-o'-feminism and a lot of people responding then what is it good for?! and then everyone walks away frustrated and unsatisfied.
It's true: the Bechdel test isn't a measure of feminism in a work. It's not a measure of whether or not a work is good. It's only very rarely even used as a reason to see or avoid a movie, and when it is, it's a question of personal taste and choice on the part of the viewer. So what is the test good for? Most people, myself included, use the Bechdel test as a thought experiment only. The question isn't "is this particular movie worth watching". The question isn't even really "does this particular movie pass the test", although that consideration is part of the bigger question. No, the real question the Bechdel test makes us consider is "why is it so hard to come up with a list of examples that pass the Bechdel test?"
Go back to the Firefly example above. Name me a scene where two women have a conversation that isn't about a man. Well, you'll probably reach for the Kaylee/Inara pampering scene where Inara brushes out Kaylee's hair in her shuttle. Name me a second one. Well, you'll dig down and pull out Kaylee asking Inara how many of her male clients wanted to take her away from her life as a Companion. We'll let you have that one, even though it's sort of about men, because I'm nothing if not reasonable. Name me a third one. Well... didn't Inara have a female client in one episode? We'll count that, even though it's somewhat overlaid with male gaze which is even lampshaded by Jayne's announced intentions... and even though most of what Inara and her client talk about are, in fact, men. Name me a fourth one. Um. Okay, surely the gals must have had some light banter around the dinner table at some point, and wasn't there that one scene where River states to Kaylee that she is badass? Not really a conversation, but we'll count it. Name me a fifth one. A sixth. A seventh. How many can you give me? Not ten, I'll bet.
Now name me thirty scenes in Firefly that feature two men having a conversation that isn't about a woman. I'll bet you can do that in ten minutes with plenty of scenes to spare. The men discuss reavers, the Alliance, the ship, the state of the finances, and the likelihood of the ambush they're flying into frequently and often. They have side discussions about wealth and privilege and religion and politics and guns. They discuss the moral implications of their thieving lifestyle, and they wrangle over how their lives will be affected if they give away money they can't afford and make enemies they don't need in order to help people they don't know. They discuss their loyalties to one another, and where those boundaries lie. They even talk about silly hats and hilarious bar ballads.
None of this means that Firefly is a bad show; I love Firefly. None of it means it's an anti-feminist show: the women are three-dimensional characters in their own right, and they're nuanced and complicated and thoroughly interesting to me. (YMMV, of course.) No, the value of the Bechdel test here isn't to trash Firefly or make it out to be a bad show because it's failed to give the female characters a voice.
Instead, the value of the Bechdel test here is to get the viewer thinking about the ways our society views women and the ways it views men. If your women on screen only interact with one another in stereotypical "feminine" ways -- in this case, largely talking about and growing interpersonal relationships -- then as a writer, you've failed to recognize and reflect the reality that women frequently and daily have conversations with each other about regular stuff. We talk about our jobs. We share our aches and pains. We discuss movies and TV shows and food and books. We exist as regular people, just as regular as the men around us.
The Bechdel test is a question of presence. Reading through the listings on the Bechdel Movie List, one is struck by how many films fail at the first point by only having one (or zero!) named female characters. Those tests that do pass, frequently hinge on split-second 'conversations' -- "Can I use the bathroom?", in one instance, and "Angel, no," in another -- that have to be diligently dug from the memories of the viewers reporting back from from the theaters. The take-away here isn't that there are a lot of bad movies out there; the take-away is that it's really dang hard to find the examples necessary to satisfy this simple test.
Presence of women in movies is important. In a world where women make up roughly half the population, it's been shown time and again that we're underrepresented in movies. There are three male characters to every one female character in movies. In group scenes with large crowds, the representation drops to one out of five. If women aren't visible and aren't vocal in movies, this aggregate under-representation underscores an ongoing belief in our unimportance. The Bechdel test illustrates that perfectly, not by picking out "bad movies" in particular, but by illustrating the incredibly unbalanced ratio of men to women in movies in general.
Take the same Bechdel test, and make it a question of race instead of gender. You'll have the same problems, with many of the same movies. It's not much easier to find scenes of non-white people having conversations about things other than white people; and -- just as with the original recipe Bechdel test -- the most obvious aversions occur in movies where the entire cast is made up of the group in question. It would seem that women have the best chance at having a voice when all the men have been excised from the movie, and that non-white characters have the best chance at having a voice when all the non-white characters have been removed from the cast. What can we make of this?
The "Reverse Bechdel test" -- in which the viewer is invited to find examples of two men having a conversation about something other than a woman -- is interesting because of its rarity. The test is usually only 'failed' if either all (or all-but-one) characters are female. These movies exist, it's true, but they're generally marketed almost exclusively to women; rarely is the summer blockbuster movie cast with zero male characters and expected to do well at the box office with men and women alike as excited viewers. It would seem that having a 1:5 ratio of men to women in a movie is generally expected to have similar ratios in the audience, but having a 5:1 ratio in favor of men isn't likely to hurt sales too much.
And this, in the end, is perhaps the real value of the Bechdel test: the solidification of the lowest possible expectations. The Bechdel test doesn't demand an equal ratio of female characters to male. It doesn't look for equal amounts of screen time or character importance or impact on the plot. It starts with the very basic question: of all the many, many characters in this movie -- ten, or fifteen, or twenty, or more -- are at least two of those characters female? And in this first step, an astonishing number of movies fail. And if we adjust for race and ignore gender, we still see a surprising number of movies that fail. What can we make of this?
Well, one possibility is that the roles are being written as white male characters who need white male actors. Fair enough. If you're writing a screenplay for an Apollo 13 remake, I guess you can't stock the space shuttle with a Chinese woman, a black man, and a Native American transgendered person. That wouldn't be historically accurate. But here's the thing, almost none of the movies I watched this year dealt with historical figures who had to be X gender and Y race or else be Historically Inaccurate. And 90% of the movies I watched this year could have been cast entirely from random selection of race and gender for 90% of the roles. And yet... for some reason... they weren't.
I can't tell you why that is, because there are a lot of possible reasons at play here. Maybe writers tend to be predominantly white males who therefore predominantly write white male characters. Maybe casting directors tend to be predominantly white males who therefore predominantly cast white male actors in parts -- or perhaps they predominantly over-value the white male dollar at the box office and cast according to the assumption that white male audiences want white male actors. Maybe directors tend to cut parts written for non-white non-male characters as being less valuable to the overall piece than the parts written for the white male characters. Maybe a lot of things.
What I can say is that this sort of thing is sharply outlined by thought experiments like the Bechdel test. What I can say is that it takes something like the Bechdel test to get people to stop talking individual movies -- which largely boil down to preference, interpretation, and fan wars -- and to start talking cultural trends. What I can say is that this conversation is precisely why we need a Bechdel test, why we need lots of Bechdel tests, for gender and race and sexual orientation and a variety of other measures. The Bechdel test sharply outlines what our society presents as normative, as the "default" form a character does and should take.
That is what the Bechdel test is for. Not for the one-off artistic efforts, but for the aggregate effect as a whole on minority voices in our culture.
--Ana Mardoll
The Slacktiverse is a community blog. Content reflects the individual opinions of the contributors. We welcome disagreement in the comment threads, and invite anyone who wishes to present an alternative interpretation of a situation to write and submit a post.
In that latter case the man's whose dream Freud analyzed was tracked down and stated that a) he thought the analysis was a real reach and b) Freud's sessions did little to cure/help him.
This is one of many reasons why Dream Analysis Books don't work for me. Who dreams about six dogs staring at you outside a window? My dreams LAST NIGHT involved getting a new kitten (tuxedo colored), bringing it home, acclimating it to the 2 existing cats, noticing a frightening grinning Gremlin on the patio outside WATCHING ME, opening the glass door and GRABBING said gremlin by the scruff of the neck, taking it to Husband and demanding that he do something about all these damn supernatural gremlins on the property, and having Husband scoff that I was holding an adorable doggie, and me noting with suspicion that, yes, the gremlin had apparently turned into an adorable doggie, but it had better STAY THAT WAY if it wanted din-din. And then the doggie had an avatar pop up to join the family because apparently my life was The Sims 2 and we all had "family member" avatars in the upper left-hand portion of reality.
How do you turn to the Dream Analysis Book index and deal with that??
Posted by: AnaMardoll | Nov 22, 2011 at 12:34 PM
My experience with the OMG NEW POSITIONS!! is that they're a lot of fun for a few minutes, and then someone's knee gives out, or there's carpet burn, or whatever. Which is not to say those few minutes aren't Good Times, but I feel like the standard four or five are the standard four or five for a reason, and that reason is "not everyone takes triweekly yoga classes".
AND NO ONE HAS THAT HAPPEN IN MOVIES!!
At no point does someone say, "You know, the closet floor is nice and all, but this carpet is hell on my knees, and I've scraped away several layers of skin at this point."
My god, how did we derail the Bechdel thread into sex therapy sessions? Ahahaha.
Posted by: AnaMardoll | Nov 22, 2011 at 12:35 PM
@Izzy - yeah, pretty much. Plus, from a copywriting point of view, NEW POSITIONS is a bit of a dodge. It's a way of pretending you're talking about sex in a fun and frank way without having to
a. Acknowledge that different people have different tastes and hedge your suggestions accordingly
b. Encourage your readers to actually, y'know, talk to their partners about their fantasies and preferences
The NEW POSITIONS article is like cracker jokes: about equally unfun for everybody, and hence useful as an icebreaker, but nothing more.
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Nov 22, 2011 at 12:36 PM
How do you turn to the Dream Analysis Book index and deal with that??
Well, it obviously means you're preoccupied with your parents' sexual relationship and suffering from penis envy.
No, I don't have the index to hand, but I'm sure Freud would have proved it somehow.
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Nov 22, 2011 at 12:37 PM
Well, it obviously means you're preoccupied with your parents' sexual relationship and suffering from penis envy.
Well, I wish they hadn't had sex with Gremlins in front of me when I was a child, because that dream freaked me out a bit.
Posted by: AnaMardoll | Nov 22, 2011 at 12:39 PM
* glances at thread *
Er, TBAT, can we get a "Mildly NSFW" warning for it?
Posted by: Amaryllis | Nov 22, 2011 at 12:39 PM
I think Freud had to make the "everything stands for the opposite -- maybe except when it doesn't" to deal with the fact that real dreams don't reduce well to his type of analysis unless you allow ANYTHING to mean ANYTHING that the analyst wants it to mean.
BTW, modern studies on brain chemistry/dreaming have an interesting impact on Freudian analysis.
I tend to have boringly obvious dreams which are updated by changes in my own life.....
When I was in school I would dream that it was the day of the test and I had forgotten to go to class all semester.
When I was in grad school I would dream that it was the day of the oral defense of my dissertation/thesis and I had forgotten to write it.
When I was teaching I would dream that I had to lecture and had forgotten to prepare the lecture.
or
I would dream that I had to teach and had forgotten to go to the class.
Then when I was a department chair I would dream that one of my professors had forgotten to teach/not turned up and I had not noticed it......
Notice the pattern?
Posted by: Mmy | Nov 22, 2011 at 12:43 PM
When I was in school I would dream that it was the day of the test and I had forgotten to go to class all semester.
I still have that dream, and I've been out of school for 5+ years now. *shivers*
Who has the dream that they're getting up and getting ready for work/school but then they wake and they have to take a shower and do their hair for reals all over again? I hate that.
Posted by: AnaMardoll | Nov 22, 2011 at 12:46 PM
On the other hand, I do get the "showed up to work/school without clothes" dream but instead of being upset by it, I'm just slightly embarrassed that I've made all my co-workers uncomfortable and I wonder if I shouldn't go home for the day rather than continue to make them uncomfortable.
Posted by: AnaMardoll | Nov 22, 2011 at 12:47 PM
Damn it, I refreshed without noticing it hadn't actually posted again, didn't I?
taking it to Husband and demanding that he do something about all these damn supernatural gremlins on the property
This is my favorite part of your dream. It made me laugh aloud.
-
@mmy,
If you don't mind explaining, what's this about Freud and noses?
Posted by: chris the cynic | Nov 22, 2011 at 12:48 PM
I still have that dream, and I've been out of school for 5+ years now. *shivers*
Heck, I have that dream, and I'm thirty-four. And it's almost always A-level history: I forgot to pay attention the term we covered that particular period...
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Nov 22, 2011 at 12:51 PM
My god, how did we derail the Bechdel thread into sex therapy sessions?
Something to talk about that wasn't a man?
Posted by: chris the cynic | Nov 22, 2011 at 12:51 PM
My god, how did we derail the Bechdel thread into sex therapy sessions?
It made it a female-safe space, and women talk about sex a fair bit given a safe place to do it?
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Nov 22, 2011 at 12:52 PM
@Kit: Seriously, my God. But those magazines--at least from my at-the-gym-or-beauty-shop reading--while they are occasionally useful and interesting, have a *lot* of recycled content. NEW POSITIONS, Why Men Don't Commit, Sex Tips*, Weight Loss Tips, and then the whole fashion deal.
They also spend a fair amount of time talking about extremely mild kink in "ooh, we're edgy" tones, like fuzzy handcuffs and a nurse's outfit are the equivalent of Friday nights at De Sade's. Although in fairness, judging from their letters column and the perennial "I think I might like to get tied up sometimes, is there something wrong with me?"** advice-seekers, perhaps they need to.
@AnaMardoll: I blame myself. ;)
I don't mind so much in the movies or books--I tend to go for fantasy/escapism--but the magazine stuff makes me giggle a bit.
*Which, in my experience, are either so obvious as to be a waste of print, so out there as to be traumatic ("...no, I will *not* be applying a scrunchie there, not if I wish to have a second date, thanks much anyhow") or theoretically useful if I had the diagram in front of me at the time.
**Yes, there is: to wit, you've spent the last fifteen years in a particularly remote cave.
Posted by: Izzy | Nov 22, 2011 at 12:56 PM
BTW, modern studies on brain chemistry/dreaming have an interesting impact on Freudian analysis.
Now I'm curious again... :-)
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Nov 22, 2011 at 01:03 PM
I don't know about derailing, but near to my favorite part of Slacktiverse is watching the turns the conversations take as one person builds off another who tangents off a third, et cetera, et cetera. It's like watching a group thought, with all the random tangents about BSG that entails.
Posted by: Wysteria | Nov 22, 2011 at 01:06 PM
@Amaryllis: TBAT, can we get a "Mildly NSFW" warning for it?
Your comment came in at almost the same time as an emaiil request from Ana Mardoll to add a NSFW warning on the post.
It has been added :)
Posted by: The Board Administration Team | Nov 22, 2011 at 01:08 PM
Ugh, Typepad, WTF.
@Kit: I agree. In fairness, that family of magazines--which I mostly read while at the salon or gym--does tend to recycle content. It's the same sort of thing as Silver Age comics: the assumption is that your readership is going to change every X years, and therefore you can run basically the same article on sex positions and Jimmy Olsen getting turned into a gorilla without anyone really noticing. And sex positions are easy articles to recycle.
Said magazines do throw a "talk to your partner about fantasies" thing in there a fair amount; they manage to make it sound like it's the newest idea on the block, which seems odd, but given that they also run some kind of "I think I might like getting tied up sometime, is there something wrong with me?"* letter every three months, maybe they need it.
@Ana: Hee, yeah. I don't mind so much--I tend to choose entertainment for escapism/fantasy--but still.
*Probably: you've clearly spent the last fifteen years in a particularly remote cave, and bat-inflicted wounds can be nasty.
Posted by: Izzy | Nov 22, 2011 at 01:09 PM
@Izzy: Ugh, Typepad, WTF.
TypePad had "spammed" you. I "unspammed you."
It seems in a mood today. If anyone has a post "go missing" just mention it on the board or email us. If one of us is around we will check for you.
Posted by: The Board Administration Team | Nov 22, 2011 at 01:11 PM
@chris the cynic: If you don't mind explaining, what's this about Freud and noses?
Well there was a time when Freud did a lot of work with Wilhelm Fliess who believed that there was a relationship between the nose and the genitals.
The pithiest summation is probably the one at Wikipedia:
Posted by: Mmy | Nov 22, 2011 at 01:17 PM
[tw: Rape Culture, BDSM]
"I think I might like to get tied up sometimes, is there something wrong with me?"
*sighs*
This is a post that needs to be written, and if nothing else I think we'll have to tackle it in Twilight: Breaking Dawn discussions in ten or fifteen years. Everything I want to write on the subject turns into something like "it's because of Rape Culture that we can't have nice things!!" only in angrish.
I think quite a few people are very conflicted about ANY level of BDSM because they're anxious about what it might say about them as a person. Telling folks to just relax and enjoy whatever makes them happy isn't going to cut it for most -- there kind of needs to be a logical breakdown article of "no, you are not a bad person or a feminist failure or a stepford robot just because you happen to like X".
I think Tiger Beatdown wrote something on this with regards to romance novels. I'll have to dig around for a link.
Posted by: AnaMardoll | Nov 22, 2011 at 01:38 PM
@mmy
Thank you. Nothing with Freud ever has a happy ending, does it?
I probably should have just looked it up myself but my computer is being exceptionally slow right now. It's ... it's trying to glimpse Heaven by cross referencing 101 photographs of a stone burial marker, specifically the statue of an angel (I'm guessing Gabriel since it has a horn) on top of it. Apparently that takes a lot of memory.
Posted by: chris the cynic | Nov 22, 2011 at 01:42 PM
@Ana: Ahh, that makes sense.
I come at it from...well, been on the Internet since twelve, went to a liberal high school and a more liberal college*, and tend to react to any such questioning with sort of "Your kink is okay, *duh*. What is this, *Rumspringa*?" exasperation. Perhaps shouldn't.
*As I think I've said before, my main problem with BDSM was getting the Phedre-wannabes to stop telling me about their dark souls: dude, every third sophomore has a dog collar, go away.
Posted by: Izzy | Nov 22, 2011 at 01:50 PM
@chris the cynic: I probably should have just looked it up myself
Not a problem :)
It is always easier/faster to look something up if you already know the answer and Fliess is not well known/remembered today.
Posted by: Mmy | Nov 22, 2011 at 01:55 PM
NEW POSITIONS is a bit of a dodge. It's a way of pretending you're talking about sex in a fun and frank way without having to
a. Acknowledge that different people have different tastes and hedge your suggestions accordingly
b. Encourage your readers to actually, y'know, talk to their partners about their fantasies and preferences
And in my admittedly limited experience, all those positions invariably have penis going in vagina, as though cunnilingus, fellatio, anal sex, and pegging are not things people do, and gay/bi people don't exist at all.
Posted by: MercuryBlue | Nov 22, 2011 at 02:23 PM
Well, there's some oral, but...yeah, basically. The assumed audience there is female, cis, straight, and looking for a committed monogamous relationship, which would be fine if those magazines didn't advertise themselves as "for all youngish women" or similar.
Posted by: Izzy | Nov 22, 2011 at 02:27 PM
But those magazines--at least from my at-the-gym-or-beauty-shop reading--while they are occasionally useful and interesting, have a *lot* of recycled content.
Oh, I've written enough copy to be sympathetic. There's only so much you can say on any given subject, and if you've been told to write X words on subject Y, your options are limited. I just wish they had better material to recycle.
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Nov 22, 2011 at 02:31 PM
But those magazines--at least from my at-the-gym-or-beauty-shop reading--while they are occasionally useful and interesting, have a *lot* of recycled content.
Basically - what Kit said.
I am in the process of reading newspapers from 100 years ago and it is amazing how often I read almost the same copy in advertisements of then as I do in advertisements now. But it makes sense. There is only so much that you can say about pimple removers and lotions for eczema.
Posted by: Mmy | Nov 22, 2011 at 02:44 PM
@TypePad---for THAT I got captcha?
Posted by: Mmy | Nov 22, 2011 at 02:44 PM
You know, being around slash writers does wonders for your comfort level about sexual kinks...
(On a vaguely related note, when NaNo is over my next writing project is planned to be a series of blog posts about DM'ing from a feminist/anti-oppression perspective; does that sound like something people would be interested in? I know there are other tabletop gamers here.)
Yes, I'd find that fascinating.
Are you allergic to the "hypoallergenic" ones too? I am. I can't even wear 24 carat gold. And I can't have metal necklaces either (neck gets an itchy rash). I can wear leather cords or cloth necklaces with a metal or wood pendant (the pendant will be resting on my shirt, not on my skin so it's okay).
I developed a metal allergy when I had my ears pierced, at age 18: it started with my ears, and then spread to my neck, and then hands, and then stomach...
These days I put nail polish on the back of jeans buttons, put up with the rash caused by my ring, and limit the amount of time I spend wearing necklaces. Oddly, my ears tend to be fine.
Posted by: Deird, who needs to get back into RPGs | Nov 22, 2011 at 03:05 PM
I've been getting captcha an awful lot lately...
Posted by: Deird, who is secretly trying to hack into the comments section to sell you all a bridge | Nov 22, 2011 at 03:06 PM
Another woman chiming in to say that I developed some kind of allergy to wearing earrings, some years ago. I tried to then only wear hypo-allergenic metals, but that made no difference. I didn't get swelling or pus (although I have a cousin who did); it was just that my ears itched unbearably. It was *so* bad that, very regretfully, I let my ear holes close up, about 15 years ago now.
When I did wear earrings, it was always either just one earring, or two different earrings. I hate for things to match. I wanted to be distinctive, in my largely conventional family, and that was enough to mark me as 'creative' (if not weird, in a bad way).
The annoying thing is that no one ever seems to have noticed that they haven't seen me wear earrings in at least 15 years. Because I still get earrings as presents occasionally, including for this year's birthday. So when is a good time to tell people (or remind them) that you don't wear earrings?
Posted by: Laiima | Nov 22, 2011 at 03:13 PM
I don't have any trouble with wearing bracelets or necklaces.
I would also be interested in reading about "DM'ing from a feminist/anti-oppression perspective", and I haven't gamed since h.s. D&D 30 years ago.
Posted by: Laiima | Nov 22, 2011 at 03:16 PM
When I did wear earrings, it was always either just one earring, or two different earrings. I hate for things to match.
I am reassured to learn that I am not the only one who doesn't like all matchy-matchy all the time.
I still get earrings as presents occasionally, including for this year's birthday. So when is a good time to tell people (or remind them) that you don't wear earrings?
If I were you, I'd put in the thank-you note that the earrings are lovely, exactly the kind of thing you'd love to wear, but unfortunately you have a metal allergy that renders all earrings unwearable, and you'll be passing the earrings along to someone who can show them off as they deserve.
I have often been accused of being too blunt.
Posted by: MercuryBlue | Nov 22, 2011 at 03:18 PM
I have often been accused of being too blunt.
*looks around for fainting couch*
In Ana's family, we went through this a few years ago because I'm allergic to perfumed lotions. You have to start the seed in, say, March where you write out a family letter that obliquely mentions -- among a host of other things -- that you had an unfortunate incident with some lotion that you bought for yourself (lest people fear it was their Christmas lotion that caused the problem) and end with a note that you're swearing off all lotions except your Very Special (and unnamed, this is important) brand.
Then coming near Christmas, when people are asking Ana's Mom about presents for Ana, Ana's Mom is charged to gently remind, as if off the cuff, "and, oh yeah! Ana is allergic to any kind of lotion." This will remind people of the March letter and the idea is planted and stuck.
Why, yes, we are a Guess Culture family. And, yes, Husband comes from an Ask Culture family. And, yes, this causes a great deal of tension and confusion at times. o.O
Posted by: AnaMardoll | Nov 22, 2011 at 03:31 PM
I would be extremely interested in the article on DMing from a feminist/anti-oppression perspective.
I'm another one who has trouble wearing earrings. It seems to happen with every type of earring--my ears feel irritated, I'm constantly conscious of the earrings' presence, and there's always a bit of pus on the posts of the earrings when I remove them. What's really weird is that not only can I wear necklaces with no problem, my navel piercing is also completely trouble-free. I got a keloid and an infection right after I got the navel piercing, but some antibiotic + hydrocortisone cream from the doctor cleared it up nicely, and I've had absolutely no trouble with or discomfort from the piercing in the seven years since.
Posted by: kisekileia | Nov 22, 2011 at 03:32 PM
Count me in as well for "DM'ing from a feminist/anti-oppression perspective". I haven't really had the chance to play or the energy to DM in what feels like forever, but you know, some day!
Posted by: Little Pink Beast | Nov 22, 2011 at 03:33 PM
[[Laiima: I still get earrings as presents occasionally, including for this year's birthday. So when is a good time to tell people (or remind them) that you don't wear earrings?]]
Heh. I don't have my ears pierced, and I've had that problem--mostly, actually, from my aunt who likes to buy me and my cousin (we're the same age) similar artsy gifts. Hasn't happened in a while, since most of my family has realized that I don't wear earrings.
I did have my cartilage (top of my right ear) pierced for a while, but then the earring fell out one day, and the hole closed up. Never bothered to get it re-pierced, though I liked having that ear pierced. Maybe I'll do that again...
Posted by: sarah | Nov 22, 2011 at 03:35 PM
@Izzy
I come at it from the exact opposite experience - my family was extremely conservative, to the point where I was worried there was something seriously wrong with me that I fantasized at all, much less that I'm kind of on the kinky side (though I haven't had much experience with it in real life, due to lack of opportunity), and I can all too easily understand the thought process that goes 'That sounds kind of hot... oh god that makes me a horrible person and probably a sex-obsessed pervert.' It makes for an interesting mix between leftovers of that upbringing and more recent 'can you be a good feminist and be kind of subby?' mental gymnastics.
I'm not sure I'm up to commenting further, but I found your comment about 'spending the last fifteen years in a particularly remote cave' sort of uncomfortable.
Posted by: Akedhi | Nov 22, 2011 at 03:37 PM
This seems like a good thread to link to a word-cloud post based on gender-based toy marketing.
So, here:
I like heroes, battles, action and so forth. I was never, ever, big into dolls. But as an adult I have to say...girls get sparkles and magic. Girls win. (Girls even get love...and fun, which is a special kind of horrible.)
If you add together the biggest words from both, you get some awesome-cool play concepts. Magic friendship party heroes, transform! And so forth. Needs moar science, though. Actually, when I was a child I thought the two coolest words I could ever see in an ad were "remote-controlled."
Posted by: Lonespark | Nov 22, 2011 at 04:12 PM
@Akedhi, I'm not Izzy but, iirc, she's from Boston, and I'm guessing has probably lived most of her life in rather cosmopolitan areas, so she likely takes it for granted that everyone is as open-minded or well-read or unshockable and she herself probably is.
I used to be like that too, when I grew up in Chicagoland, and had never lived anywhere else. Then I moved to Oklahoma City, briefly, and later lived in Indianapolis for 13 years. In both cases, I found out that things I took for granted as being totally "normal" were in fact, completely unheard of in the places that I then lived. People thought I was a freak for mentioning that those things existed, never mind that I thought they were perfectly okay.
Iow, a lot of what seems normal is context-dependent. And if your context is mostly people exactly like you, you are less likely to realize that perhaps you are in a bubble, and other people are different than you, and a lot of them are nice and/or interesting, even though you don't agree on a lot. That was my experience anyway.
Posted by: Laiima | Nov 22, 2011 at 04:16 PM
This thread has just reminded me that I don't have my time to find a church where my five-year-old can take a sex ed class when he turns six.
Posted by: Lonespark | Nov 22, 2011 at 04:18 PM
I don't know. In New England you would never know how kinky anyone is, because there is a long list of things Decent People Just Don't Talk About. Which I think is great a lot of the time, because it leads to not prying into people's religion or economic status or politics or whatever and making them unfomfortable. But it also leads to a whole lot of assuming that everyone is just like you, and not finding out that your neighbors are struggling and need help, or that yeah, there are other gay/pagan/polyamorous/heavily tattooed/country music appreciating people nearby, so it lonely and snobbish and jumping-to-conclusions-y a lot, too.
Posted by: Lonespark | Nov 22, 2011 at 04:22 PM
And I was just telling people how I felt like there was a lot more freedom to express yourself out west. But then that includes bigoted expression, argh. Culture is a can of worms.
It's hard to be poor here in this upper-middle class town in this country-club-attending-parents school. It's isolating, and so much is assumed. The school assumes my kid has two parents with plenty of time and money, DTA assumes I must be uneducated and on welfare. I guess there are lot of people living in-between these days, professionals out of work, qualifying for foodstamps and maybe medicaid until the unemployment runs out and then not knowing how to navigate the system to feed the kids and pay the bills. And navigating the system takes so much time and effort and pieces of your soul.
Posted by: Lonespark | Nov 22, 2011 at 04:27 PM
Agreed with Lonespark on the list of things you Just Don't Talk About. I live in New England, and one of the more puzzling things is that everyone is very happy to assume I'm a lesbian, but no one would dream of asking me if this is the case. I get lots of 'you two are so cute,' but no 'so, are you two dating?' both when I was dating a girl and when I was not dating a girl at all.
Posted by: Wysteria | Nov 22, 2011 at 04:30 PM
@Laiima
That's been mine too, actually. Getting out of the bubble I was raised in was definitely very eye-opening.
I'm not sure if it came across, but I was definitely not trying to defend the sort of subculture that makes having a sexuality, much less expressing it, was something to worry about. I was just trying to express that it made me uncomfortable to say that there was in fact something wrong with someone who had to ask that question, if not exactly in the way the question is generally meant, since I've been that person.
Posted by: Akedhi | Nov 22, 2011 at 04:32 PM
Where are you, Wysteria?
Posted by: Lonespark | Nov 22, 2011 at 04:33 PM
Lonespark - Western Mass in the US, 3 hours north of NYC, 3 hours west of Boston, right by the border of Connecticut. I've lived here since I was 4 or so, so roughly two decades. We get a lot of NYC weekenders, and a lot of locals who find them vaguely suspicious. My family was part of neither group, not rich enough to weekend, but new to town. I'm still living at home right now (because the times, they are delightful).
Posted by: Wysteria | Nov 22, 2011 at 04:36 PM
Just a little west of Sturbridge/Stockbridge, then? (*is just southeast of Worcester*)
Posted by: cjmr | Nov 22, 2011 at 04:38 PM
So, New England: Guess Culture on a large scale? It's something I am coming, more and more, to associate with the Protestant, and specifically Unitarian, establishment that previously help sway, and I see it in church a lot and I feel I don't fit in, whereas in my old UU church I was pretty happy. My mom's family has it, too, even though they moved to New England from Ohio and Pennsylvania. But these days the Establishment is more Catholic and other things, and the culture in general is insular without having that same "I know what's good for everyone" thing.
Posted by: Lonespark | Nov 22, 2011 at 04:38 PM
We totally need to have a Massachusetts/New England Slactivite Bash some day. In Central Mass. somewhere, maybe? After the holidays, certainly, and maybe to do some specific service project or support some political/civic cause, but just hang out and have coffee/tea/juice would be great, too.
Posted by: Lonespark | Nov 22, 2011 at 04:41 PM
Or play board games. I need more board game playing; it's been waaaaay too long.
Posted by: Lonespark | Nov 22, 2011 at 04:41 PM
Right by Stockbridge in the Berkshires, yeah. I'd be more specific, but I distrust the memory and magical indexing powers of the internet. *side-eyes Google*
Posted by: Wysteria | Nov 22, 2011 at 04:41 PM
Livin' at hoooome. It's the new...something awesome, right? Right?
Posted by: Lonespark | Nov 22, 2011 at 04:42 PM
My folks are east-ish of Worcester. We moved from New York to MA when I was 13, and it was...culture-shocky for me, I guess. These days, I've probably got more New England than New York in me, though after 7 or 8 years of living in Philly, that's probably been diluted as well.
I miss New England, some days. Speaking of which--I'll probably be up there for winter break and over Christmas. Anyone in the area want to have a Slacktivite meet-up in December?
Posted by: sarah | Nov 22, 2011 at 04:42 PM
Living at home: it's frugal, sensible and only occasionally mind-rippingly frustrating! Er. That's keeping a positive outlook, I promise.
I will also raise a hand in overall bouncy approval for Mass. Slacktivite meetups, though I need to check with Akedhi and see if she would come with me~
Posted by: Wysteria | Nov 22, 2011 at 04:47 PM
Lonespark, I think we share a brain! :)
Posted by: sarah | Nov 22, 2011 at 04:47 PM
Or play board games. I need more board game playing; it's been waaaaay too long.
I'd help with that but you insist on being in Massachusetts (fun fact, I can type mass[random sequence of letters] and firefox will know I'm trying to type your state.)
girls get sparkles and magic. Girls win.
With respect, getting Edward Cullen is the opposite of winning.
Posted by: chris the cynic (on a computer not currently engaged in a religious experience) | Nov 22, 2011 at 04:51 PM
Settlers of Cataan, anyone?
Posted by: sarah | Nov 22, 2011 at 04:52 PM
Oh, y'all just gave me the perfect opportunity to share something I've been wanting to post here for days. Via Shakesville, Ponies doing Musicals, 'a pair of My Little Ponies singing a medley of showtunes, including "Defying Gravity" from Wicked'. Those are some magic sparkles I can get behind - though as a kid, my cartoon was She-Ra all the way, all the time. She had a sword, and it was pink. What more could a little girl who was forbidden Barbies ask for?
Posted by: Wysteria | Nov 22, 2011 at 04:58 PM
Settlers of Cataan, anyone?
I must share a pic now. My friend made cupcakes and took pictures:
Posted by: AnaMardoll | Nov 22, 2011 at 05:21 PM
Ana, your friend's cupcakes are both awesomely nerdy AND delicious-looking!
Posted by: Ruby, on the go | Nov 22, 2011 at 05:30 PM
@Ruby, aren't they, though? I'm not one for decorating, as I just want to NOM NOM NOM and be done with the whole thing, but the little sheep and the painstaking grass was JUST SO CUTE.
Posted by: AnaMardoll | Nov 22, 2011 at 05:31 PM
Dream Dictionary: I found one when I was about thirteen, and for months I thought "a link with the past [was] holding [me] back" because I kept dreaming about school...
Most of my dreams are pretty obvious when I think about them. I remember being really puzzled by one when I was twelve: standing at my bedroom window I watched a large bull charge through the hedge. No idea about that one ;-)
ugh, Freud. That dream with the large white dogs sounds beautiful, and might have held the key to something. But no, he has to sledge-hammer his own issues onto it as usual.
@AnaMardoll: at risk of doing just what I've accused Freud of, could your dream have anything to do with the having or not of offspring?
BSG: is this the time to mention that I sang in a sextet with Baltar?
Posted by: Julie paradox | Nov 22, 2011 at 05:33 PM
@AnaMardoll: at risk of doing just what I've accused Freud of, could your dream have anything to do with the having or not of offspring?
Possibly, but doubtful -- we're infertile, so I do dream about babies from time to time, since we spent several months this year trying and failing to conceive. I think it's more probable that I dream about kittens because I really want to have 30 kittens and Husband isn't thrilled with that plan.
The Gremlin/dog thing I really have no idea. If I was going to get pseudo-deep, I'd say it's the confronting of a fear (the gremlin was watching me from the outside of the house in the dark, and I grabbed him, which is pretty gutsy) and manipulating it into a protective figure (it became a loyal dog, dependent on foods and belly-rubs).
Posted by: AnaMardoll | Nov 22, 2011 at 05:42 PM
Settlers hell yes.
chris, I'm occasionally in Maine; more often, Mr. Lonespark drives down here from Biddeford, so he could totally pick you up en route.
Posted by: Lonespark | Nov 22, 2011 at 05:44 PM
Hey, in the time it took me to write this post someone spoke to me.
Lonespark, if you're ever interested in doing something with me that doesn't require me to figure out my own transportation just contact me to ask. I'll probably be free and if I'm not it's not like there'll be any hard feelings.
-
On an almost entirely unrelated subject, I have now seen what amounts to maybe one and a half episodes of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic and from this I have learned that I apparently can't tell the difference between women and men. Rainbow Dash sounds like a boy to me and it wasn't until after watching much of an episode centered around Rainbow Dash that I realized she was a she. I think I learned that weeks ago, I never forgot it, yet today when I watched keeping that in mind I still felt like I was hearing a boy.
And lest one think that my problems would be solved if I weren't talking about a Pegasus, I've also recently seen a picture of the most adorable teenage boy I've ever seen, except I originally thought it was a picture of the most adorable teenage girl I'd ever seen. Gender recognition: I appear to suck at it.
Also on the subject of Rainbow Dash, I get the idea that there's an emotional payoff in showing that the person who was being all blustery and impatient is scared and the previously frightened person they were impatient with is brave, but I think there's a point where it goes too far.
The episode that I saw today involved a snoring dragon. After being smashed up against a rock with incredible force and coming face to face with seemingly certain death via dragon it comes to light that Rainbow Dash is now frightened of sounds that previously didn't phase her. In an, "Oh my god, we're all gonna die," flashback-to-terror sort of way. This knowledge was used to prevent her from setting a new record in something involving a ball and humiliate her in front of everyone, then everyone had a nice laugh at her expense. This gave Fluttershy a chance to act superior by rubbing Rainbow Dash's fear in her face after Rainbow Dash being impatient with Fluttershy's fear the entire episode.
It's a pretty straight forward revenge fantasy:
You look down on me for my fear? Well someday you'll be terrified and I'll make fun of you. I'll do it in front of everyone. They'll all see that you're scared and I'm not.
Doing it in such a way as to ruin Rainbow Dash's moment of triumph is just icing on the cake.
I get it, but I've never really approved of it. Friendship can be cruel, I guess, but if it's going to be magic maybe it shouldn't be so cruel. Maybe the best thing would be to not rub it in. (Have Rainbow Dash apologize and Fluttershy graciously accept, or something.) If Rainbow Dash is now traumatized by the sound of a dragon, maybe we shouldn't go out of our way to practice our dragon impression around her. Certainly doing it with malicious intent is wrong.
It reminded me of the cartoon with the two bulldogs the cat and the panther. The big bulldog was a jerk, I agree, but I never felt right about the ending being him traumatized into a subservient position. Surely there's a better ending than shattering the jerk's psyche via careful application of a violent monster.
Anyway, I've been told it's a great show, I guess I'll watch more in the future. Apart from the "Ha, ha, your unpleasant experience has caused to to be frightened of a certain sound, we're all better than you" ending it seemed nice enough.
Posted by: chris the cynic (on a computer not currently engaged in a religious experience) | Nov 22, 2011 at 06:01 PM
I just made a big ol' post that I think got spamtrapped. Can a flying mammal who likes tea check?
Posted by: chris the cynic (on a computer not currently engaged in a religious experience) | Nov 22, 2011 at 06:04 PM
Those cupcakes are awesome.
I will most likely be in MA from December 19 to Dec 29ish, if that helps. I would totally be up for some tea/coffee/board games/whatever. :)
Posted by: sarah | Nov 22, 2011 at 06:06 PM
I've never had to worry about tests I haven't studied for when awake, so I don't dream about them either.
I don't really look for symbolism in my dreams, except that rather obviously Freudian one last year. (This was back when I thought I was straight and hated it, so the personification of my libido was the villain of the piece. (If one stabs a libido through the heart with a sword, is that triumphing over one's baser aspects, or stooping to their level by using a phallic symbol? How do people who have metaphorical dreams all the time bear having so many questions like that?))
Posted by: Brin | Nov 22, 2011 at 06:07 PM
@chris: I just made a big ol' post that I think got spamtrapped.
Rescued you :)
Posted by: The Board Administration Team | Nov 22, 2011 at 06:07 PM
Rescued you :)
Thank you.
Posted by: chris the cynic (on a computer not currently engaged in a religious experience) | Nov 22, 2011 at 06:08 PM
I only go to MA every year and a half or so (last one was just a couple months ago), and I think the arrangements with my family would be tricky. 'Course, if we keep up the pattern I'll be nineteen and a half next time, and maybe that'd change things.
Posted by: Brin | Nov 22, 2011 at 06:11 PM
I just noticed something in the original post that makes me want to know more.
[the men in Firefly] wrangle over how their lives will be affected if they give away money they can't afford and make enemies they don't need in order to help people they don't know.
I can't picture this. I don't mean I don't remember it, though that is certainly true, I mean I can't imagine it. The only way I can see this conversation happening is if it's between Mal and Zoe. Maybe someone else is involved (maybe someone else brought it up), but the only wrangling I can see would be between Mal and Zoe. In part because Mal would shut anyone else down*, but in part simply because that's the sort of conversation Zoe would be in.
So, where does this thing that I cannot imagine take place?
-
* I can definitely see Jayne trying to start this conversation, but I can't see it being a conversation any more than he managed to start one after they got kicked out of Badger's in Serenity. Mal and Zoe talk business, Jayne follows along behind not seeming to realize that no one is paying attention to his lecture on mathematics (carry the nuthin'...)
Posted by: chris the cynic (on a computer not currently engaged in a religious experience) | Nov 22, 2011 at 06:23 PM
I'm a lucid dreamer, so the whole idea of metaphorical dreams makes me rather ... uncomfortable.
I mean, if in a dream I find myself naked behind the reference desk (which has never actually happened, either in a dream or real life, btw*), and I don't immediately dream myself a nice long jacket hanging right beside me so I can dressed ... well, obviously that means I *intended* whatever Freudian-Jungian-Tarot-Dr. Phil interpretation one wants to put on it.
I did have that "Finals for a class I've forgotten to attend" dream once -- actually, for I think every night two weeks in a row. So I finally dreamed myself walking up to the desk and telling the teacher "I'm sorry, but I graduated twenty years ago. Why don't you go find somebody else's dreams to haunt?"
*although I've been known to end up in school in my pajamas. Mornings are not my most coherent time, okay?
Posted by: hapax | Nov 22, 2011 at 06:29 PM
chris,
Sometimes, everyone is bad at telling male from female. This magazine cover had to be wrapped in opaque plastic lest the topless man offend customers.
TRiG.
Posted by: Timothy (TRiG) | Nov 22, 2011 at 06:45 PM
Well, now I have to watch BSG tonight and see if I can spot some specific Bechdel Qualifiers.
Yeah, my life is hard. *settles in with some pine nuts*
Posted by: Ruby | Nov 22, 2011 at 06:48 PM
Weeelll...it looks like between Christmas and New Year's might be possible for many? I am friends with many but not all of y'all on Facebook, so we could continue plotting, er, planning there, or stay here if we're not annoying the general populace.
Posted by: Lonespark | Nov 22, 2011 at 07:12 PM
@Brin: I've never had to worry about tests I haven't studied for when awake, so I don't dream about them either.
Am I right in thinking you are/were home-schooled? Also, if you don't mind my asking, do you get anxiety dreams about missing/messing up other important things? I've had anxiety dreams before exams and essay hand-ins for years, but I also get them about important appointments, doctor's visits, family gatherings ... a lot of stuff. They're all recognisably the same generic panicky dream, with a few details changed from time to time.
@Ana: I remain terrible at Settlers, but I would gladly play if it involved those cupcakes.
@Randomosity, Deird, Laiima, kisekileia, Little Pink Beast, anyone I missed (apologies): you've given me more confidence to actually write down my thoughts about feminism and RPGs, and reassurance that there really are people who are interested in the same weird subset of things I am. Thank you. I shall be sure to leave links in the blogaround when I actually manage to produce posts. Also, Randomosity, this -
I once jokingly told a friend that the next game in which no female NPCs were to be seen in an entire village, I was going to the village leadership and inform them that after we complete our current quest, we would help them find the village's missing women.
- I second MercuryBlue's motion that you should TOTALLY DO IT if the situation recurs.
Posted by: This Wicked Day | Nov 22, 2011 at 07:12 PM
If we did it at my house, there are a gazillion games to choose from; you need not get stuck with Settlers. Of course, at least half a gazillion of the games can travel to a more central location.
Posted by: Lonespark | Nov 22, 2011 at 07:19 PM
I would tentatively be around for a between-Christmas-and-New-Years thing, and will keep an eye out for further scheduling discussion.
Posted by: Wysteria | Nov 22, 2011 at 07:27 PM
From the article Timothy linked to:
There is nothing damaging about seeing a breast,
(This is only vaguely related to the topic at hand.)
Probably about a month ago I was at an occupy location where a woman was walking around topless. (I guess she was topless in the encampment but threw on a sweater or some such when she went to the protest location.) I was shocked, shocked I tell you, at how not shocking it was for that to be happening.
The world did not collapse, my mind did not default to constantly thinking about sex. It turns out that if a topless woman is acting normally everything goes pretty damned normally. I had always assumed that we're so conditioned to associate breasts with sex that it would completely screw up interaction with a topless woman. That didn't happen at all.
Which means that I now have absolutely no idea why we have such a problem with topless women. I always assumed that it was because of a sort of inertia that meant that toplessness would mess things up because we're trained to think of it as sexual, but my random bit of anecdata suggests that isn't the case.
Posted by: chris the cynic (on a computer not currently engaged in a religious experience) | Nov 22, 2011 at 07:31 PM
If we were planning a summer meet-up, I'd offer my house, but I literally do not have enough space for more than seven people to sit down here when the Christmas tree is up. (Not to mention, chairs. Chairs is relatively easy to solve.) In the summer we've got the 20 x 12 screened porch with a huge table...
Posted by: cjmr | Nov 22, 2011 at 07:46 PM
I was shocked, shocked I tell you, at how not shocking it was for that to be happening.
I have this recurring argument with Husband that my dashing outside to retrieve something from the backyard in a T-shirt and underwear is not, in fact, being indecent to the neighbors and, in fact, I'm far more covered than our neighbors-who-have-a-pool since the lady of the house has a bikini.
For Husband, however, the type of fabric covering a bottom is the difference between decency and indecency. This is something I cannot understand.
Posted by: AnaMardoll | Nov 22, 2011 at 07:55 PM
To get back to the original subject, something that occurred to me on the way home from a remarkably short class.
What I can say is that this conversation is precisely why we need a Bechdel test, why we need lots of Bechdel tests, for gender and race and sexual orientation and a variety of other measures. The Bechdel test sharply outlines what our society presents as normative, as the "default" form a character does and should take.
Yes and no. Will a work that passes the gender-Bechdel and race-Bechdel and sexuality-Bechdel and disability-Bechdel and so forth and so on be a work with a great deal of diversity in its cast of characters? Hells yes. Is it a problem on the same level if a work fails the race-Bechdel as if it fails the gender-Bechdel?
At the risk of being showered with rotting fruit, I'd say no.
Take Once Upon a Time. It's set in Maine. Ninety-five percent of Maine is white folk. It's also set in Fairytale Europe Equivalent, which I obviously don't have stats on, but which is overwhelmingly white. Do the folk of color need represented? Yes. (Do the folk of color need represented as more than blink-and-you-miss-it like the bishop at the wedding and Cinderella's godmother? Hells yes.) Should the show have two folk of color talking to each other about something other than white folk at some point? Of course. Is it a tragedy if such a conversation doesn't happen every episode? I refer you back to the ninety-five-percent-white figure. I wouldn't expect more than one or two eps in this season to pass the race-Bechdel, and if there isn't at least one, I'll be sad. (There might be tears.) Set the series somewhere less overwhelmingly white than Maine and it's a different story, but unless it's Detroit 1-8-7 I wouldn't expect particularly frequent race-Bechdel passing. (Note: I have never seen Detroit 1-8-7.)
Maine is, however, fifty percent female, like every other place on the planet. If Generic Ensemble Show with an ensemble containing at least two women can't pass the Bechdel test every episode, that is very sad. (The Big Bang Theory is doing ever so much better now we have Bernadette and Amy.) If Once Upon a Time can't find a way to have two of its three female leads, or one of its female leads and a side character who happens to be female, have a plot-relevant conversation every episode, that is exceedingly sad.
Mind, I watch Supernatural, where all the recurring women except two are dead and all the black men who got more than five lines are dead and most of the black men were antagonists before they became dead, and women of color? what women of color?, so take my opinion for what it's worth.
Posted by: MercuryBlue | Nov 22, 2011 at 07:57 PM
I can't picture this. I don't mean I don't remember it, though that is certainly true, I mean I can't imagine it. The only way I can see this conversation happening is if it's between Mal and Zoe.
I was thinking Train Job where Wash and Jayne (among other people, but the eye contact is largely between Heavy and Pilot) argue about leaving the captain because they really can't afford to upset their client.
http://youtu.be/JwwclY03lmg?t=3m37s
I'm sure there are others, but that was off the top of my head.
Posted by: AnaMardoll | Nov 22, 2011 at 07:58 PM
Is it a tragedy if such a conversation doesn't happen every episode?
I've never heard that a Bechdel test has to be passed every single episode. This would be incredibly onerous.
Posted by: AnaMardoll | Nov 22, 2011 at 08:00 PM
Suddenly started wondering how many episodes of Murder, She Wrote do and don't pass Bechdel....
Stop it, cjmr, that way goes madness!
Posted by: cjmr | Nov 22, 2011 at 08:02 PM
I've never heard that a Bechdel test has to be passed every single episode. This would be incredibly onerous.
Prosecution rests. Which reminds me, I need to get on the last couple eps of the anime, and then on to season seven...
Posted by: MercuryBlue | Nov 22, 2011 at 08:06 PM
Granted, I have not started at the beginning, but I already have two Bechdel Qualifiers!
Also, I agree that going episode-by-episode would be nigh impossible. Back to Firefly, what about War Stories, which is mostly about the relationship between Mal and Wash?
Posted by: Ruby | Nov 22, 2011 at 08:17 PM
*Googles War Stories transcript* This is the one where River and Kaylee are playing keep-away with an apple. Rewrite it just a little bit so Inara bought the apples instead of Jayne, et voila, Bechdel pass. Not exactly plot-relevant, but Bechdel pass, and it illuminates the characters. It would actually be fascinating if Inara bought the apples instead of Jayne, I think, though I haven't watched any of the show recently enough to verbalize why the idea intrigues me.
And any show that has equal representation of men and women, as every show ought to have unless it's specifically set in a place and time that excludes one or the other, should be able to have two women talking to each other about not-men just as often as it has two men talking to each other about not-women.
Posted by: MercuryBlue | Nov 22, 2011 at 08:26 PM
Prosecution rests.
OK, I concede that someone on the internet has done so at least once. :)
But isn't that kind of the point of my OP? Applying the 'test' to each show is simply a way to mark patterns. It doesn't (need) to mean that they are dissing the show or insisting that the writers make 8,000 characters and pass each possible Bechdel test each episode. Right? :/
(Thinking out loud here, not trying to pick on you. NO ROTTEN FRUIT! :))
Posted by: AnaMardoll | Nov 22, 2011 at 08:32 PM
@MB: I think the point of Jayne buying the apples was that he felt guilty about Ariel. Not that it wouldn't be interesting if Inara bought them, but I think that was the implication in the episode.
Posted by: sarah | Nov 22, 2011 at 08:32 PM
For Husband, however, the type of fabric covering a bottom is the difference between decency and indecency. This is something I cannot understand.
At a guess, I'd say that he considers your bottom covered in cotton to be far more provocative than neighbor's bottom covered in nylon. Which is a Good Thing.
Or so I choose to interpret it when hapaxspouse says something similar to me.
Or it could be something similar to the theory that guided the costumes designer for Classic Star Trek (whose name I forget) -- it isn't the *amount* of skin exposed that's sexy, it's the *unexpectedness* of it.
Barely-there bikini on an Orion slave girl: Expected. [Yawn]
Flash of the inside of the elbow on an otherwise completely-concealing gown: Unexpected. [Oh-la-la!]
Posted by: hapax | Nov 22, 2011 at 08:33 PM
Oh fer cryin' out loud, Typepad!
Was it the bikini or the inside-of-the-elbow that got you so excited?
Posted by: hapax | Nov 22, 2011 at 08:35 PM
I...don't know. There are lots of great stories to be told about men, or groups that are mostly male, and they exist all over the place...but it's still wrong for that to be the presumed default. And I absolutely think that's true of race as well. There are plenty of great stories to be told about white people, or groups that are mostly white, and such groups certainly exist now and throughout history...but it's still wrong for that to be the presumed default.
A lot of the time when women or people of color or people with disabilities or QUILTBAG people are either left out or tokenized, that minimizes their contribution to history. They were there, they were important, they just didn't get the credit or historical mention privileged groups do. And I think when your story is based on a location, or a period in history, you ought to work hard not to skew it toward a presumed default privileged group. That said, failtastic stereotyping is often worse than outright omission, but trying just a little can get a portrayal past that hurdle.
Posted by: Lonespark | Nov 22, 2011 at 08:40 PM
Isn't War Stories about the relationship between Mal and Wash and Zoe?
Posted by: Lonespark | Nov 22, 2011 at 08:42 PM
At a guess, I'd say that he considers your bottom covered in cotton to be far more provocative than neighbor's bottom covered in nylon. Which is a Good Thing.
Perhaps, but it's not really a compliment when it inconveniences me. But I'm picky that way. :P
Posted by: AnaMardoll | Nov 22, 2011 at 08:44 PM
It doesn't (need) to mean that they are dissing the show or insisting that the writers make 8,000 characters and pass each possible Bechdel test each episode.
Well, no, of course not. Any show that doesn't focus on a specific minority group is going to be seriously dragged by having to have a that-minority-group-Bechdel pass every episode. But women are not a minority, and I remain of the firm opinion that taking twenty seconds to have two female characters at least say hi to each other should be a requirement for all episodes of television, all films, and all novels, provided same aren't set somewhere that having two female characters is simply impossible. And going back to my calculation on the other thread that straight white cis Christian men in the US are outnumbered between three- and seven-to-one, I'm adding a requirement that every episode pass at least one minority-Bechdel test as well as the original test. I'll be generous and say that both requirements can be met by having the wheelchair-using woman talk to the lesbian about something that isn't straight TAB men.
Posted by: MercuryBlue | Nov 22, 2011 at 08:50 PM
*headdesk* Make that 'wheelchair-using straight woman' and 'TAB lesbian', because otherwise I'm falling prey to the very same 'this is the default USAian' assumption I was arguing against when I did that calculation in the first place.
Posted by: MercuryBlue | Nov 22, 2011 at 08:53 PM