Professor Science is basically a diplodocus

one movement or two?

Sun, 15 Jun 2008 08:03:29 GMT

I was originally going to post this as a reply to hector_rashbaum's reply to my last post, but due to my general wordiness, it grew beyond the measure of what a reply can hold. I feel more like making it into a new post in and of itself, than trying to split it up into multiple replies.

This is what I'm replying to.

I've got a pretty good idea of the main point I want to respond to this with, but every time I try to preface it with a lead-in, I fail miserably to make good flowy writing or whatever. It is basically this: my personal view is that a movement should exist for which the main goal is to bring about equality between the sexes.

Feminism began as a movement to pursue equality, and it also began as a movement to advance the causes of women. Back in the day (I'm thinking a century or so ago, here, around the time women were pursuing the right to vote), male privilege extended into nearly every facet of life. Therefore, these two pursuits were exactly the same.

Things are different now. I don't deny that male privilege is still greater than female privilege. But, it is not a simple linear scale--you cannot set up a line with 100% female privilege on the left, 100% male privilege on the right, and perfect equality in the middle, and put a marker on this line. Separate situations can favor different genders. Female privilege does exist now in certain situations, and there are certain other situations where neither gender has any privilege.

Additionally, it can be somewhat subjective whether one side or another has "privilege." People--even within the feminist community--disagree on what should be considered "optimal," what should be considered "fair." Take women firefighters, for example. Some people believe that "fair" is requiring exactly the same physical attributes among men and among women. On the other hand, some people believe that this is inherently unfair to women because they have to work comparatively harder than men to achieve the same attributes, and thus the requirements for women should be more lax. I am honestly not sure one way or the other on this point; I'm only bringing it up to illustrate the subjectivity.

If there is a movement to advance the causes of only one gender, then, due to that subjectivity, it is going to "overshoot" a little. The people who don't yet feel that the other gender's privilege has been eliminated are going to keep pressing further and further until they feel it is--and the ones that feel it already has been, well, they won't stop the more radical ones, because the movement isn't for that other gender. That is even assuming every person in said movement has no intentions to establish privilege for themselves. (I do not make this assumption, although, thankfully, I think it is the minority of feminists who actually wish to create unilateral female privilege.)

I think, then, that there must be one of two things (either of which, incidentally, occasions me to disagree with your boldface statement): either a pair of movements to try and advance the causes of their seperate genders to bring about equality; feminism's aim being to eliminate male privilege, and ... "masculism?" .. 's aim to eliminate female privilege, or, alternately (and in my eyes preferably), a single movement that considers the interests of both genders. This movement would be for women and for men. It would welcome an open dialogue for discussion of percieved establishments of privilege for either gender. Men would not be "guests" here, nor would women; anyone would be welcome to contribute.

That is what I thought feminism was. Now, I am not sure. People say "feminism is not for men" so much that I don't think it really could be. Could it?

Perhaps the answer to that lies in that very 12-rule post.

9. Women are not a hive mind. Feminism is not The Borg. There is a wide range of diverse experiences and views within feminism. Just because one person on a feminist community agrees with you doesn't mean that we all will. Just because your feminist friend thinks one way doesn't mean we should all be expected to. Wide, sweeping generalizations and assumptions about feminism and women are not likely to win you any points.

My feminism doesn't have to be the same as... hers, yours, anyone's. If I choose to say that feminism, to me, means exactly what I want it to mean--a movement for equality in which everyone is in it together--then it is my right to make that determination. And, despite the perception of feminism in our culture, I think I am not alone in this view. The fact that I have a Y chromosome has no bearing on this; I am no less capable of defining what the movement means to myself than any given woman is.

There does remain a linguistic problem, though, which I'm not sure how to resolve. I don't really like using the same word to mean something different from what most people think it means. (I'm a big supporter of the notion that dictionaries and grammar books, etc, should be descriptive and not prescriptive.) I don't know if there's a different word that means what I want feminist to mean. Equalist? I suppose if I do go that route then I shouldn't really call myself a "feminist" anymore... but I don't really identify as not-a-feminist either.

Of course, in the vast majority of cases, so-called "equalist" views, and so-called "feminist" views by your definition are pretty much the same anyway, so even if I'm not one myself, I can still be allied with them.

feminist spaces

Sat, 14 Jun 2008 09:30:21 GMT

I've had a number of things I've wanted to say lately, but they are all jumbled in my mind, and I'm not sure I could say them remotely as eloquently as they deserve to be said. And, I'm tired. I've been tired for a while now. I think I can identify the last day I wasn't, and it's Saturday, May 31st. The following Sunday, and every day since, I've been tired. Hopefully this weekend will make me less so.

I'm not a member of the "feminist" lj comm, although I am of a couple others with similar topics... someone on metaquotes referenced an entry there. Some sort of "list of rules for men in 'feminist spaces.'" (There must have been some men who did not inhabit feminist spaces properly, previous to that.) A lot of things on the list made sense and were reasonable and whatnot, but the list as a whole kind of left me irritated. I think part of it was the tone (a bit ... condescending?), and part of it was the existence of a few particular items. I am probably not getting the quotes exactly right, here; I don't feel like looking them up again, since I am tired, as mentioned.

One was "don't be a white knight." Okay. Feminism does not need men to ride in on their horses and defend it. Fair enough.

Another was, "if other guys are being sexist, call them out." Okaayy... personally, I try to do my part to influence discussions among my guy friends without becoming so annoying that people stop listening to me entirely. I think I do alright in that regard. But... discussions between me and said friends would generally not be labelled a "feminist space." What gets me, is that this "rule" was laid out for "feminist spaces." So, some guy being sexist appears in a feminist space, and other guys are supposed to call him on it? But don't be a white knight. ....you can see how this leaves me a bit confused.

Seperate from that issue, but perhaps of greater concern to me in general, was the bit on feminism "being about [women]" (and not about men.) I don't really see how it can be about one without being about the other too. I think she may have meant to say that feminism exists to benefit women, and not to benefit men... I'm not sure how I feel about that.

"Isn't it about equality?" has become somewhat of an offensive phrase, apparently. Truth be told, i can imagine situations where this phrase coming out of the mouth of someone who generally has greater privilege would be irritating. Still, though, if exhorting the virtue of equality has become taboo in feminist circles... I fear for the movement itself.

I generally consider myself to be a feminist, but reading certain things like that, recently, makes me feel kind of... unwelcome. I feel like at the entrance of the park which in this analogy plays the part of Feminism, there's a poster of a woman with her hand raised out to a certain point, saying, "you must be at least this radical to enter." I've tried to stretch, a little, but I'm tired. I think I am just going to stand up however tall I naturally am standing, from now on. And I'm going to end this paragraph before this allegory gets any more obscure.

I've considered what it is that makes me want to be feminist in the first place... I think it has to do with the pursuit of self-improvement.

I've got to go on a tangent for a bit, so I'm going to indent here such that it will be clear when I've ended the tangent. I've been meaning to make another post about this, but somehow haven't gotten around to it.

I've come to the conclusion that all conscious behaviour boils down to one of three primary goals: survival, happiness, and self-improvement. There is a lot of overlap amongst those, but I've yet to think of something which doesn't fall into one of the three. Survival could, in fact, be under the heading of the other two... since you must survive to do either of those two. I think those two need to be seperate, though, since there are things that fall under happiness that do not fall under self-improvement (sometimes one just feels like being a hedonist for a little while!), and, I think there are things that fall under self-improvement that don't fall under happiness. People certainly put themselves through a lot of crap for the sake of ... many things that do not relate directly to happiness. Although, it may be the case that all pursuit of self-improvement is simply a means to a desired end, to feel happy by actualizing oneself. Or something.

Self-improvement can be subdivided much further; some believe it can be achieved through acquisition of material wealth, some through increasing one's physical or mental aptitudes, and some by striving to simply be a better person. In the moral or ethical sense. I think for many people it's a combination of these, and perhaps other factors.

So, coming back to the left margin here, I think my desire to be a "good feminist" is largely grounded in my desire to self-improve by being a better person. (Not entirely grounded, perhaps; I can't claim to be that pure-hearted, but mostly. That is another tangent, and I don't think this entry is the place to go into it.) I think somewhere along the line I partially (but not completely) absorbed some kind of sense that the more radical you are, the better you are, and in some ways felt guilty for believing things that were not as radical as some. I think, in retrospect, that this was foolishness.

Although I think I'm more radical than a good deal of the western population--I do pride myself on having some idea of some of the issues, and on awareness of words like "privilege" and "masculonormative" and whatnot--I think a lot of feminist ideas I've read are more radical than my own. There are people whose views resemble mine, who have taken it upon themselves to cease referring to themselves as "feminists," because of a perception among "regular" people that that word implies greater radicality than they (and I) espouse. I think that that perception is there, and I suppose I'm running over in my mind whether it should be the "main" meaning of the word, and thus, whether I should refer to myself with that word.

I consider myself a feminist because, to me, it is about equality, and equality is something I'm very much in favor of! But the notion that "feminism is about women" (and not men)--that's a different thing. I am not about unilaterally advancing the interests of women with no regard for men. (And I'm not saying that the majority of feminists are, even radical ones; however, the movement as a whole feels like it's going closer to that direction.) But, I suppose, even though I'm a feminist, I'm not sure I feel like being in "feminist spaces" very much.

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 06:18:17 GMT

Shhhhhhhh. Hey! .... Hey, stop jumping the ship.

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 01:18:48 GMT

I just want to say that I would consider being vice-president.

jobs where it is completely acceptable to drink on the job

Wed, 28 May 2008 05:54:59 GMT

Jobs where it is completely acceptable to drink on the job:

I was thinking about this a few days ago, when I was drinking a large can of tea at work and my manager, from a distance, thought it was beer. (He soon realized that would be pretty ridiculous though)

- Tester for alcohol (wine-tasters often just swish the wine around and spit it out, but I imagine they swallow a little; and I'm sure there are other people who need to actually drink alcoholic beverages to attempt to quantify their enjoyment for companies marketing them)
- Spy (or undercover agent, etc; as long as drinking fits into the assumed persona)
- Any kind of diplomat, really (as long as it's socially acceptable to drink)

There must be others, but I can't think of many.

memorial day

Mon, 26 May 2008 17:01:18 GMT

I just went to work for about 35 minutes, and then there was nothing else to do so I went home. I'm glad I live close, or that wouldn't've paid for gas. It'll be good to have (most of) the day off, though.

Mon, 26 May 2008 02:09:45 GMT

What am I waiting for?

What are you waiting for?

Sat, 24 May 2008 08:43:13 GMT

Slept for about two hours, got up to go to the bathroom, and it's been about two more and I've been unable to get back to sleep yet. (Good lord, i'm turning into my dad!)

Tue, 20 May 2008 03:01:17 GMT

I don't usually WoWspam the livejournal, but this is perhaps the achievement of the greatest import in the current expansion:

Illidan down!

Woo.

Slant

Thu, 15 May 2008 06:15:48 GMT

Slant

Our perception serves to distract.
This sentence is influenced by expectation.

Tue, 13 May 2008 05:52:33 GMT

"Just supposing... just supposing there were some extraordinary way in which you were very important to me, and that though you didn't know it, I were very important to you, but it all went for nothing because we only had five miles, and I was a stupid idiot at not knowing how to say something very important to someone I've only just met, and not crash into lorries at the same time. What would you say... I should do?"

For a 'line,' I think it's an impressive one, and I rather like it. Bonus points if you know where it's from (and no cheating)

Tue, 06 May 2008 06:36:11 GMT

I'm tired of having to start things.

Free response section

Mon, 05 May 2008 05:01:38 GMT

Feel free to answer in whatever level of detail you choose, with whatever interpretation of the question you find easiest to discuss.

What is "chemistry?"

Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:33:34 GMT

For those who have seen Alias, I discovered an unusual picture while repeatedly clicking "random page" on Wikipedia: Nikolay Annenkov, a Russian actor from the early 20th century. This has absolutely nothing to do with Alias, except that he looks remarkably like John Bristow, aka Victor Garber.

I guess that proves Jack Bristow is indeed, in fact, the immortal Milo Rambaldi.

In other news, I'm in Colorado, which is pretty awesome. I don't seem to be experiencing any reactions to Amy's family's cats, which either speaks to the effectiveness of Claritin, or, these cats just aren't cats which I'm especially allergic to. (Weird how that works.) I do have this strange... I donno, kind-of sleeplessness and increased heart rate, though, which aren't mentioned in any lists of Claritin side effects I've seen, and also aren't normally associated with cat allergy. Maybe it's the elevation? I don't remember having problems in Colorado when I was 8, but, well, I was 8 then.

( <3 Amy )

Sat, 12 Apr 2008 05:41:07 GMT

Age: 26

Where did you grow up: Texas

WHAT DO YOU CALL:
1. A body of water, smaller than a river, contained within relatively narrow banks?: cup
2. The thing you push around the grocery store?: baby
3. A metal container to carry a meal in?: braces
4. The thing that you cook bacon and eggs in?: kitchen
5. The piece of furniture that seats three people?: really big chair
6. The device on the outside of the house that carries rain off the roof?: robotic water sweeper
7. The covered area outside a house where people sit in the evening?: workplace
8. Carbonated, sweetened, non-alcoholic beverages?: delicious
9. A flat, round breakfast food served with syrup?: breakfast tortilla
10. A long sandwich designed to be a whole meal in itself?: longsandwich is looong
11. The piece of clothing worn by men at the beach?: tuxedo
12. Shoes worn for sports?: boots, if you are playing polo
13. Putting a room in order?: why was the room out of order? i guess that'd be like... skylifting
14. A flying insect that glows in the dark?: glow-in-the-dark ant with a hangglider
15. The little insect that curls up into a ball?: terminally afraid flea
16. The children's playground equipment where one kid sits on one side and goes up while the other sits on the other side and goes down?: okay this one is really pretty obvious but since i'm obviously trying to be ornery i'm going to say: that thing from Mario where standing on one platform causes you to drop and another platform to rise and vice versa
17. How do you eat your pizza?: it passes through my esophagus into my stomach
18. What's it called when private citizens put up signs and sell their used stuff?: a good place to practice haggling
19. What's the evening meal?: tonight? lasagna
20. The thing under a house where the furnace and perhaps a rec room are?: the Underdark
21. The thing that you can get water out of to drink in public places?: convenience store

that other meme I said I would post

Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:25:09 GMT

Give me a topic -ANY TOPIC- and I will write my thoughts on it. The catch? You have to post this in your journal and I get to pick the topic you write about.

Rules: Whatever the topic is that you write about you must have at least 10 sentences or 2 paragraphs. Lets have fun. And this is free-writing so I'm not asking you to deliver a masterpiece, just two paragraphs of your thoughts on whatever it is the person requests.

fandom meme

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 05:56:08 GMT

meme thing from anneliese

Give me a fandom and I'll tell you:

1. The first character I fell in love with
2. The character I never expected to love as much as I do now
3. The character everyone else loves that I don't
4. The character I love that everyone else hates
5. The character I used to love but don't any longer
6. The character I would shag anytime
7. The character I'd want to be like
8. The character I'd slap
9. A pairing that I love
10. A pairing that I despise

I have another one from her that I am apparently obligated to post, but it would be confusing to have that in the same post so maybe when this one dies out or something!

meme stolen from umegaki

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 00:31:03 GMT

1. Reply to this post, and I will pick four of your icons.
2. Make a post (including the meme info) and talk about the icons I chose.
3. Other people can then comment to you and make their own posts.
4. This will create a never-ending cycle of icon squee!

umegaki picked:

1. Singing Panda Enthusiast was perhaps my favorite throwaway character from the sock-puppet-and-other-miscalleneous-object-starring talk show, Sifl and Olly (although the Crescent Fresh dude runs a close second). He presented us with panda "facts" that'd make modern Chuck Norris fact enthusiasts look trite and cliche. ... Wait, they don't need much help! And he asked such important questions as: "What manner of camoflague is this: black and white? Hiding in an oreo factory--could be!" It is a good icon for posts involving silliness, of which I make many.

2. I did a "meme" a while back where I demanded people make me icons, and I think this one by jynxjynx was the only one I ended up actually adding to my icon set. I think because it's the only one for which I thought to myself, "hey, I will probably make posts/comments for which this icon is appropriately themed!" I didn't actually end up using it that much, but I think I did a lil. Plus, if I actually were turning Japanese I wouldn't mind turning into the woman depicted. I mean it's not like we see a lot, but hey, she's pretty cute, and stuff.

3. T-Rex is from Dinosaur Comics. He is hilarious and likes philosophy as well as stomping on things. A--awesome!

4. Amelie is from the movie which is also called Amelie, which I watched with niku_neko about, like, what, a year ago or so? It was a good movie! I was thinking about trying to make a transparent gif icon so that Amelie could be inside a circle instead of a square, like on the dvd case and some movie posters about it, but I suck at transparent gifs. Also: circles. Also: shrinking her down even more and still having it be a decent-looking icon. I should buy this movie.

Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:55:20 GMT

Work wants to change my schedule from 9-5 to 11-7!

Good:
- Sleeping in is very nice.
- It's because I'm on a new project that has to be done late afternoon, and I'll be the only person on it for a while which is good for job security I guess

Bad:
- Less time after work
- I kinda suspect my sleeping schedule will soon drift forwards until getting to work at 11 doesn't feel like "sleeping in" anymore

1e D&D

Sun, 09 Mar 2008 06:52:39 GMT

I just spent about twelve hours playing a game of 1st edition AD&D, in honor of the recently-late Gary Gygax. (For the two or three of you on this flist who haven't heard, he's the original creator of D&D, and he died not too long ago. Webcomics have also noted this.)

I'd never actually played 1e before. When I first started picking up sourcebooks, I suppose it was a little over halfway through the 2e era... such books as Combat&Tactics, the somewhat cheesier Spells&Magic, and the beyond-the-pale-cheesy Skills&Powers were fairly new on the shelves, as I recall. 1e, as it turns out, is pretty similar to 2e on the whole (above extra books aside.) There're differences, but they're far closer to each other than either is to 3.x, or any of the three to 4. (I am looking forward to 4. It looks intriguing!)

The idea behind this tribute was to be as true as possible to the old-style "Gygaxian" gaming experience. A big dungeon with pretty straightforward monsters and treasure, not a terribly large amount of roleplaying, and--in big contrast to how campaigns tend to work today--easy and permanent death. (Well, if any of us had ever made enough money to afford a Raise Dead spell, the permanent death thing might've been offset a bit, but as it was, we tended to stay dead when we died. I was the only person whose character never did.)

In keeping with this "traditional" gaming atmosphere, I decided to pick the most stereotypical foods I could think of to bring with me to the table: Cheetos and Mountain Dew. There was also beer, and, for some reason, friggin mead. (Not exactly typical gaming stuff, mead, but I guess they figured it was relevant because it was what actually got served sometimes in such ancient taverns of yore? Heheh. It was alright, but if I want really sweet wine-like stuff, I'd prefer plum wine.) On the whole, I think it was the most unhealthy day worth of food and drink that I've had in months. I'm not terribly anxious to repeat it!

The game itself was simple in some ways, and needlessly complex in others. Weird mix. Some rules were simple due to not having been developed yet as they are in the more recent editions. This was good and bad--the upshot was that it made combat progress very quickly compared to how it is in 3rd ed. Certain bits of the rules had complexity I've never seen since, though, such as the large table of bonuses/penalties that weapons get on various different armor classes. We just kinda ignored that. Some rules, although not really complex, were downright weird after playing 3e. Level caps on nonhumans was perhaps the most annoying during character creation--for no reason, since none of us managed to level beyond 4 anyway, but it was kinda conceptually weird. Dwarven fighters were limited to level 9. That... that's what dwarves do, man! I think Elven magic-users (now known as wizards) might've been capped at 11. The only non-humans that could be clerics were half-elves and half-orcs, which were capped at a whopping 5 and 4, respectively. (That's right, no PC dwarven clerics allowed, even though that's kind of a gaming mainstay now. NPC dwarf clerics were capped at 8.)

Oh yeah, half-orcs were in the core book in 1e. Huh!~ That was one thing which was removed in 2e, and put back in in 3e. Monks, too. Some of the classes were quite different--Ranger, for example, started with two hit dice at first level for no particularly good reason, and were a generally quite overpowered class. Both of the other guys playing were rangers at one point or another, although in one case, it was a short-lived character. That guy died a lot. I was the only one that didn't, really; my little dwarf thief lived all the way from his humble beginnings (only 3 hp), to the end of the day at 4th level. Had some close calls, too! Once I was the last one left alive against two orcs, and I was at two hit points. I hid, backstabbed one, and killed it, and then the other hit me before I could attack it too. I thought I was gone, then the DM rolls the damage... 1. I had 2 hp, and he rolls 1. I counterattack and finish it off, then grab my unconscious comrade and head straight back for town.

1e, on the whole, was an fun retro experience to have, but it's not something I'd want to make a campaign out of. The other guys felt the same. 3e is much more interesting to play--I like being able to keep a character, invest time into making his/her personality, and plan out class/feat/skill progression and stuff... none of which really works well in 1e. 3e has a lot more potential for character growth and depth, as well as for a wider variety of options... whereas 1e just straight up says things like, "No halfling clerics!"

Still, though, that said, I thought about some of the stuff that existed before 1e came out, and it seems incredibly innovative for its time. Gygax definitely deserves his due! I've never actually played nor seen the Chainmail game that directly spawned D&D, but just in general the idea of these early systems people came up with... the idea, for example, that you move however far you want in a dungeon instead of simply rolling a die and arbitrarily moving that many spaces around a game board. (Why do I have to pass Marven Gardens? Can't I just stop my car there?) It was pretty amazing stuff! And it's shaped all the RPGs that've come out since, in a huge way.

Speaking of which,

I better go log into WoW and make sure nothing's fallen out of my mailbox. I think things were pretty close to it, a couple days ago...

Memes where people guess things!

Tue, 04 Mar 2008 06:08:14 GMT

From anneliese and scattywah

- Go to IMDB.com and look up 10 of your favourite movies.
- Post five (5) official IMDB "Plot Keywords" for these 10 picks.
- Have your friends guess the movie titles.

1. catholic priest / breasts / cab driver / opera singer / invented language -- The Fifth Element - guessed by imaginari
2. suicide / marriage / flashback sequence / painting / family reunion -- What Dreams May Come - guessed by slimequeen
3. jewel thief / costume party / la marseillaise / mistaken identity / detective -- The Pink Panther - guessed by anneliese
4. time travel / robot as pathos / spacecraft / jukebox / tommy gun -- Star Trek: First Contact - guessed by imaginari
5. interracial marriage / government coverup / spacecraft / super soldier / gatling gun -- Serenity - guessed by westmarked
6. brain surgery / bittersweet / dyed hair / melancholy / childhood memory -- Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - guessed by neveth
7. elementary school / hell / friends who hate each other / film within a film / returning character killed off -- South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut - guessed by imaginari
8. actor playing himself / office / surreal / puppeteer / love triangle -- Being John Malkovich - guessed by imaginari
9. alcoholism / runaway teen / baby / tokyo / transvestite -- Tokyo Godfathers - guessed by imaginari

okay, i was having trouble deciding whether the last one should be obscure with almost-giveaway clues for people who've seen it, or common with obscure clues. here goes both!

10. smuggler / spirituality / sword fight / eaten alive / famous twist -- The Empire Strikes Back - guessed by neveth
11. golden rectangle / pythagoras / kaleidoscope / musician / duck -- Donald in Mathmagic-land - guessed by anneliese

YOU GUYS ARE REALLY FAST. Or my clues were really easy.

related note

Sat, 01 Mar 2008 17:41:46 GMT

Coworker, at work: "Doing this, I've lost all my attention span."
Me: "You've lost your what?"
Her: "Attention span."
Me: "Attention what?"
Her: "Span."
Me: "Sp-what?"
Her, finally getting it: ".... I.. I'm leaving."

I think Torchwood gave me some RP ideas for the next undead character I make, which will likely be a deathknight in WotLK. Could be something else, though. Might not even necessarily need be in WoW, although all of my friends that said they'd have D&D-esque games going soon, like, a couple months ago, are sorta dragging their heels about it, so I don't know. (I do hope I can play 4e once it's out, though.)

And if you're wondering what those have to do with each other, well. Actually, nothing. But if I wanted to relate them at a stretch: I was visiting an old teacher a little over a year ago before I started teaching, and he was checking emails--one had come from a parent, apologizing/requesting extra help for her kid, saying, "He can't help it, he has AD&D." ... Indeed.

Sun, 17 Feb 2008 04:05:07 GMT

I had a cold for most of this past week, and on top of that, work's been having "mandatory overtime" of 50+ hours. Wow raids still going on, and sleep schedule's been a bit wonky.

Despite all that, I've felt alive, energetic, and happy, and I give credit for all that to umegaki. She lights up my life!

Amy, you're amazing. <3

Seventy-two full-length meaningful rituals, I'm sure

Wed, 13 Feb 2008 03:54:08 GMT

I wonder if Minbari celebrate Valen-tine's day.

Captain Jack Harkness

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 06:54:00 GMT

I've been watching Doctor Who lately--the new one, that is, 2005 version. I like it quite a lot! Took a bit to get used to the odd juxtaposition of the retro style used for some of the aliens and technology with the otherwise-modern style of cinematic techniques and costumes and the like... but giant horrifying monstrous saltshaker cyborgs are second nature now.

I finished all the Doctor Who episodes, so moved on to its spinoff series, Torchwood, which I am finished with only one season of. It started out very rocky, I felt, with five of the first six episodes being kind of... completely... lackluster, one might say? (Kind of reminiscent of watching the worse parts of S1 Angel after seeing S3-5, perhaps.) But then it picked itself up very well. The second half of S1 seemed immensely better than the first half. I shall work on S2 soon!

I will say this about Torchwood, as well: it has more gay kissing than any other show I've ever seen that isn't actually about being gay.

...In fact, I'd say most lesbian porn has less gay kissing than Torchwood.

Probably not the sole reason, but a contributing factor to that could be the fact that John Barrowman aka the actor of (bisexual) Captain Jack Harkness, is openly gay himself. Led me to an interesting discovery; he doesn't want to ever use the term "marriage" for his relationship with his life-partner of 15 years, saying, "Why would I want a 'marriage' from a belief system that hates me?" I've really never seen marriage as an exclusively religious thing, so that mindset is a bit confusing to me--not that I object to his life choices or anything, but, if athiests and agnostics can marry, or people of mixed religions, or what have you; if people can marry with a justice of the peace without any involvement from any church, then I don't see how it's "from a belief system that hates" him, or gay people in general, at all.

...And that's setting aside the fact that even some religions, and possibly even some Christian churches, are fine with gay marriage. Not terribly common on the part of Christians, but I know a number of individual Christians who are cool with it, so it stands to reason there could be whole churches that are... hm. I'd look more into that if it weren't nearing 1am.

I think if I were gay, and had a life partner, I'd want to have the ceremony and refer to myself as married even if it weren't officially recognized. It's not illegal to refer to someone as your spouse if they're not! (As long as you don't do it on tax forms and medical releases and stuff, I spose.) That's even more true if one does believe it's a religious thing rather than simply a legal issue--since, if so, then your religion can marry you regardless of whether your government happens to agree if it's possible.

I suppose I view marriage as neither necessarily religious nor legal, but rather a matter of how the couple personally views themselves/each other, and how they present themselves to people.