Oh, Mister.

Latest episode of Supernatural (“The Slice Girls”):

Really fucking sexist thing, or MOST really fucking sexist thing?

Seriously I want to throw something or strangle somebody oh my god. That was fucking horrific. Fucking sexist jackasses.

I am so incredibly fucking tired of seeing this “Lollipop Chainsaw” game on my dash.

I fucking hate everything about that game ALREADY, and it’s not even out yet.

As I’ve said before wrt this game: Sexism does not sell to me. Just… fuck the designers who decided that in order to have an action game with a female protagonist, she had to wear essentially a sports bra and a skirt so short it’s a wonder you can’t see her underwear 24/7… though they show said underwear a lot anyway because they apparently think everyone loves “panty shots”.

Seriously, what company made that game? I want to make sure I never give them money. 

Someone tagged the secret I last responded to with the following:

Tagged as: I’m a feminist. I ship Sherlock/John like there’s no tomorrow. and I absolutely love Moffat’s portrayal of Irene Adler. but the more I think about it the more I’m convinced that all the hate for Moffat’s female characters has nothing to do with feminism. or feminist ethics or whatever. but with the fact that he writes really strong women. and it can sometimes be difficult for teenage or twenty-something girls to identify with them. like most of us are more like Molly than Irene or River.

And I just… no. All my rage, I just. Flames. Flames… on the side of my face.

I hate this shit. I hate this dismissive bullshit that says you can’t possibly be offended or see sexism in Moffat’s female characters, you’re just ~jealous because you’re not as “strong” as they are. It strikes me as, despite the author’s claims to be a feminist, very anti-feminist and sexist in and of itself (“oh, you silly girls are just jealous, you don’t really have legitimate concerns!”). Dismissing women’s concerns as simply “jealousy” or an inability to identify with strong women? God, that’s pretty fucking sexist, isn’t it?

I won’t start in on Moffat’s women in Doctor Who. To be perfectly honest with you, I’ve had that discussion so many times by now that it runs my temper straight into surface-of-the-sun temperature range and I just… can’t. But the next time you think Moffat isn’t sexist, just remember what he did to Amy Pond. Just remember River Song running about asking if she looks fat or her hair’s alright in the middle of World War II.

As far as Sherlock goes, I agree wholeheartedly with what someone once said here on Tumblr (I don’t have the source, though): Any story in which Irene Adler loses to Sherlock Holmes is inherently sexist. That doesn’t touch the character, but I feel it sets the tone. I won’t go into all my issues here, because… frankly, I have a bus to catch in a few hours and shouldn’t do it on an empty stomach. But a few points, briefly:

1) Moffat’s Adler is a “strong women” brought to her knees - in the end literally - by her emotions. Her feelings. She was beaten because she ~fell in love. If you really think this isn’t ridiculously sexist, I don’t think we’re watching the same show.

2) Her sexuality was everything. Literally. Everything about her seemed defined by her sexuality. Her profession, her personality, her manner of dress, her interactions with others, etc. Sure, this can look like “empowered woman who is secure in her sexuality”… but to me, it’s an unrealistic portrayal that reduces Adler to her sexuality and nothing more. It is everything. Which brings me to my next point.

3) They sexualised and demeaned her “title.” In the short story, “A Scandal in Bohemia,” Sherlock Holmes is the one who gives Adler the name of “The Woman” - a title of respect from a nineteenth century man who has never met a woman of his match before, who outwitted him and thus became singular in his view. In Moffat’s Sherlock, “The Woman” is Adler’s working title as a dominatrix, making it something that she did not earn through her own virtue as well as making it an inherently sexual title - which adds to point number two as well as making me, personally, feel incredibly awkward when Sherlock addresses her that way (because it is her title as a sex worker, her byname, his refusal to call her by name rather than using that seems dirty, demeaning — it indicates a lack of respect, where in the ACD stories the title was a mark of respect). The sexism here should be quite obvious even to the most casual viewer.

4) Her, um, lesbianism. I don’t know about you all, but as a queer woman, this infuriated me. I was on with the idea of a lesbian Irene Adler. I love that, I think it would be awesome. But no, lo and behold, Moffat has the only person Adler actually falls for be… a man. Sherlock Holmes. She is never shown to have an actual relationship or anything of the sort with a woman - she is shown “working” with one woman,  and makes one or two comments about her assistant, and that’s it. This is both homophobic and sexist, as it reeks to high heaven of the straight male fantasy that lesbians will suddenly stop liking women for the “right guy”.

5) Irene Adler in the original story was far from a dominatrix or a master criminal. She was an adventuress and former opera singer, with no actual malicious aims. I find portraying her as a criminal mastermind to be fairly sexist if only because it implies that an “ordinary” woman could not possibly be the woman who bests Sherlock Holmes - she must be evil.

6) She couldn’t, apparently, figure out what to do with all that blackmail material  she had… until she was told what to do with it by a man. Er. What.

As I said, not an exhaustive list— but enough to be getting on with. I’d like to disclaim here before someone accuses me of it that I do not, for the record, believe that sex or sex work is inherently demeaning or “dirty” in any way. I am a sex-positive feminist who supports legal, heavily-regulated sex work under certain circumstances. However, I must stress that I had many issues with the way Irene Adler was portrayed as a sex worker in the show, especially within the larger cultural context, the fact that the character herself seems to have been largely exported from Stephen Moffat’s wet dreams, and the overall sexist themes emenating throughout the episode. I do not mean this to be in any way a commentary on my general feelings about IRL sex work, merely the depiction of it in this show. I do, however, firmly believe that taking a title borne of legitimate respect and turning it into something basely sexual and devoid of respect is wrong and sexist, and nothing will change my mind on that.

In short, my issues with Irene Adler have nothing to do with being unable to relate to her. They have everything to do with her being a sexist caricature who was treated horribly by Stephen Moffat as her writer. Though, you are right about one thing, tagger — I can’t relate to Irene Adler as written in Sherlock. She comes across to me as entirely too one-dimensional to identify with.

(I also really, as an aside, dislike a) the idea that teenage and twenty-something girls are somehow “too immature” to identify with those characters and this is somehow a flaw rather than a fault of the writing, b) the implication that Molly is not a strong female character, and c) that there is something wrong with being like Molly. There is nothing wrong with “being a Molly” and it hardly means that you are weak or immature. For the record, I do not identify more strongly with Molly, though I love her and all other loyal, sweet Mollys out there - I identify the most with Sherlock, for reasons that are probably significantly less obvious on this blog than they are in real life.)

Anyway, now that I’ve done that tirade, I’m off to make something to eat.

If you don’t agree with me, I will ask that you do me the respect of not flaming me. I’ve got quite the day ahead of me on very little sleep, and I don’t want to start a Tumblr flame war.

Yeah, god damn those feminists, hating a really misogynistically-written caricature of a character! How fucking dare they, right? I mean, they should all just bow down to Moffat’s second rendition of “I’m going to try to make this character look like a Strong Female Character so you’ll all ignore the heaping, blatant tons of sexism I’m piling on.” They should never feel uncomfortable or conflicted about a character whose entire being is defined by their sexuality.

I mean, feminism is all about loving every single female character in anything ever, uncritically, and especially so if the straight white dude who wrote her says she’s a feminist portrayal, right? No one should ever have strong feelings about why that character might, in fact, be a really freaking sexist portrayal, or just plain not like a character because they think she’s obnoxious, or… I mean, what is the world coming to when those uppity women think they’re allowed to have opinions and feelings about things, especially when they sort of relate directly to feminism and how women are portrayed in media?

In case you couldn’t tell, that was all sarcastic. And I couldn’t give less of a fuck if you hate me, secret OP, for daring to hate a character whom I find obnoxious and whose screen presence makes me uncomfortable (hi, I’m asexual, excessive sexuality on my TV makes me uneasy), and who is an incredibly sexist, homophobic and frankly gross depiction of a character whom I have liked very much in the past (in ACD canon and other intepretations), among having other reasons to hate her.

Oh, and I don’t “call myself a feminist” — I am one. Not liking Moffat’s sexist, homophobic portrayal of Irene Adler doesn’t make me any less of a feminist, so thanks for that implication.

Sincerely,

A Sherlock fan who does not get on with Moff’s Adler

(Source: bakerstreetconfessions)

No, how about just… no. Something can actually be brilliant and still contain sexist, racist and homophobic content. Being well-written or well-acted doesn’t excuse a show from that. Saying no one should complain about that content because you don’t like them complaining.. well, let me take the smart bet that you’re white, straight and quite probably male, to so thoroughly miss the effects of such content on viewers and the reflection it puts upon the source.

Further, I firmly believe that if you truly love something, such as a television series, you owe it to that loved thing to point out its flaws. Otherwise they persist, and it prevents the thing you think is so great from becoming even better by stopping being racist/sexist/homophobic/etc.

Put simply: I criticize Sherlock because I love it, and I hate seeing what I love tainted and degraded by my eye by containing such demeaning, bigoted ideas. I will continue to complain and point out said bigotry as loud and as long as I can — because I love the show, and I know it can be better than that.

Put even more simply yet: Shut the fuck up, douchebag.

(Source: bakerstreetconfessions)

notcuddles:

lakidaa:

thecolorplaid:

assassinscreedproblems:

Problem 474 was really just another typical submission, people give us disagreeable opinions all the time. No one got upset when we posted the one about Ezio being more attractive as an older guy, or about Desmond’s beard being ugly, even though I’m sure many people disagreed with those opinions, just like people are disagreeing with this one. Heck, I disagree with all three of those, but we posted them anyway because if one person considers it an ACProblem, then chances are that some other people do to.

If you still think the submitter or we the mods are misguided, that’s fine, you have every right to be angry, but don’t you think our fandom has had enough wank lately? Can we please just let this be water under the bridge?

-Travis

I like these mods.

Guys, just direct all those fuckers at me. It was my submission and I’ll take this shit as it comes.

Hey, get fucked.

PS: This is a shitty apology.

Yeah, because “I don’t like a fake person’s beard” is TOTALLY THE SAME AS “I’m a sexist douchewaffle who judges REAL LIVE PEOPLE for how they happen to enjoy a piece of media.

 Seriously. That submission was a load of sexist bullshit.

I also freaking loved (and by loved I mean omfgragedat) the followup (which for some reason I cannot seem to reblog) about how the person running assassinscreedproblems is a ~gamer who is a girl~ and “girl gamers” are omg making people not take women srsly as gamers because it is so. fucking. important that we are validated by male video game players, so we must conform our interests and expression to what they will approve of and take seriously! Heaven forbid women like games with hot guys in them! Men might not take us seriously if we do that! Never mind how many guys play Dead Or Alive 587434.5 because of the scantily-clad girls. Never mind how many games out there are made specifically so guys will play them because they have hot women in them. I mean, seriously, did anyone think dudes were picking up the Dead Or Alive Beach Volleyball or wtfever game because they thought the gameplay aspects were awesome?

But I guess they get a pass because they’re men, and men are never separated into ~srs gamers~ and perverts, they’re just gamers. It’s the default, bog standard is gamer = guy = take him seriously when it comes to gaming. No matter what he plays. But women, no, women need to game seriously or else they’re at fault when guys laugh at women who play video games! It’s not sexism, guys, it’s those damn gamer girls. How dare they enjoy games they like for reasons that don’t align with the reasons guy gamers enjoy them! How dare women like seeing hot guys in their games! Don’t they know that video games are only supposed to have hot women in them? God, what entitlement, amirite? Let’s separate the ~srs gaming women~ from the ~gamer girls~ because every time a woman is treated in a sexist way by asshole gamer men, it’s the latter’s fault, okay?

I mean, you know, I don’t like those girls who pose mostly-naked with video game controllers either, but that is a separate issue. Women are allowed to enjoy the games they like for the reasons they like them, and people have no right to fucking shame them for that. So what if they like Assassin’s Creed because of the good-looking men. I happen to enjoy the Iron Man game for the voiceovers; I enjoy Army of Two for the two-player coop mode; I enjoy Red Dead Redemption because I get to ride around on a horse and help people. Does that make me ~not a serious gamer~? Am I a horrible “gamer girl” because I don’t love games for their shoot-‘em-up capabilities or their control structure or whatever? Am I a “bad girl gamer” because I play Resonance of Fate for the gorgeous graphics? Am I not srs bsns enough to call myself a gamer because I never bothered to complete the main quest in Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion? I just have to know, you guys. What is the criteria for being a ~girl gamer~? What is the criteria for not being serious enough to be allowed to enjoy your games for whatever reasons you have for enjoying it? At what point am I allowed to just like a game without being criticized for my reasons why?

You know what, just fuck anyone who makes a distinction between gamers and “girl gamers.” Just fuck all you sexist assholes pulling that shit. And fuck anyone who doesn’t take female gamers seriously just because they can admire a well-rendered man.

(via suashi)

Seeing a post on Livejournal or a Livejournal-like site by someone on my friends list, talking about triggering shit that I have specifically told my entire flist is triggering to me without a cut or a warning or anything.

So now I get to feel like shit again. GREAT THANKS LJ “FRIEND”.

Anonymous asked: Yeah Yeah I live in nyc too and i drive so dont make that excuse. You can move up in social class. My parents went through nyc public schools all their lives ones a lawyer and ones a doctor. You put limits on people. Americans are lazy. Everyone has an excuse, they put the blame on everyone else except themselves. Take responsibility. Question how old are you and do you go to college?

I thought I said “learn how to type”? Nice avoiding all my points, too, btw.

Some people in NYC drive, sure. I call them “idjits or rich folk who think the subway is ~dirty and don’t want icky poor people near them” or “cab drivers.”

Good for your parents! My parents grew up poor as fuck and never went to college, and I grew up poor. I mean, it’s nice that you’ve clearly always been privileged and pampered, but not everybody’s lives are like that. Not everybody gets that lovely head start. You probably never had to live off of school lunch alone when you were a kid. You probably never wanted for a winter coat when it got cold out (and trust me, the winters in Vermont, where I spent part of my childhood, are fucking cold). You probably never had to scrimp and save for the most basic of household goods. Congratu-fucking-lations.

Americans are not lazy. Americans are some of the hardest fucking workers I’ve ever met. My mother is a nurse in an old folks’ home, and she makes a fucking pittance to care for and wipe the asses of rich people’s parents. She is almost 60 years old and she will never be able to retire. My friends work at various jobs — hotel clerk, English teacher abroad, laundromat clerk, grocery store cashier — and they work harder than anyone else I fucking know. They work harder than the rich fucks I know from school. They work harder than you probably fucking do. Americans are not lazy. They ARE LIMITED. Americans are limited by the fucking system. They are limited by the asshole, greedy rich. They have no mobility. Where should they get it from? From you? Will you pay me enough over the meager salary I’ll earn if I become a social worker that I can afford to stay in NYC, eat, and get health insurance? Will you pay for my friends to chill and take business courses so they can get better jobs? Will you pay for me to get my Masters?

(And if they all get better jobs, who will care for the elderly? Who will work at the laundromats?)

FTR, I think I’ve said this on my blog before, but I’m 24 years old. I have a BA in Social Science (focus: Sociology & Political Science). I am currently a second-degree student studying for a BA in Criminology, with intent to get a Masters in that or Forensic Psychology.