A Very StarCraft Rant

So I'm playing through StarCraft 2 again, and I seriously cannot believe just how bad the portrayal of women is. There are five total female characters that I can think of off the top of my head:

 1. Dr. Ariel Hanson starts as the damsel in distress, and depending on which plot choice you make, her part in the story either ends with death or with asking the main dude (Jim) out.

2. Mira Han "tricked" Jim's starship captain, Matt, into marrying her.

3. Protoss Executor Selendis. As far as I know, the Protoss are asexual - nothing about them is sexualized at all, and Selendis is the only decent female character. Naturally, she appears for only one mission and one cut scene. (Not to mention, of the five Protoss heros to be in that mission, she is the only female. Looks like the Protoss have problems with glass ceilings too!)

 4. Nova Terra seems generally decent, but her exit from helping Jim and company involves another dude turning to Jim and asking, "You ever think about hitting that?" COME ON NOW.

5. My personal (least) favorite, Sarah Kerrigan. She's Jim's actual love interest that got kidnapped by the Zerg and transformed into the evil Queen of Blades. But wait, Zerg are disgusting, slimy insectoid creatures! That means Kerrigan would be too, right?

HAHA NOPE! She gets to be a naked porn star with a bit of Zerg scales in the right places, and bony wing-things! This cinematic demonstrates even better Blizzard's intentions - she shows up at 1:45. I (do not) love how she is completely nude, yet somehow is still wearing high heels.

All of these women are white (there are two black dudes in the game, one of them UNBELIEVABLY stereotyped - I wasn't into social justice at all when I first played this game and I was still uncomfortable) and perfectly slender. Even Selendis is given a supermodel body. Oh, and not a single one of these women EVER speak to each other. About ANYTHING. The closest it gets is when Jim has to choose between Selendis' and Dr. Hanson's solution to the Zerg infestation. They are arguing about it! But they never actually address each other, but rather, talk directly to Jim!

Seriously, Blizzard? 14 years between the original and #2, and the best you have are these breathtakingly sexist tropes?

I can't bring myself to look forward to the next expansion. I just can't. Not after this.

"Vacant" Geek Girls

[TW for sexism and ageism.]

So, I'm a huge webcomics nerd.  I read dozens of them: Goblins, Girl Genius, OOTS, Girls with Slingshots, Questionable Content, Gunnerkrigg Court, Dumbing of Age, XKCD, The Meek, YAFGC, Lackadaisy, Sinfest, on and on.  In addition to keeping up with all these, I'm always on the hunt for new stuff, and have a ginormous bookmark folder full of "to read" comics.  Currently, I'm devouring Weregeek.

I'm also a huge geek in general - I love fantasy/sci-fi and gaming.  So, I'm positively adoring Weregeek because it appeals to all of my dorky interests.

This morning, reading along in the Weregeek archives, I came across this strip.  (If you can't see it, it's basically a four-panel comic strip in which one of the main characters has a fiery rant about a NYTimes article which posits that Game of Thrones couldn't possibly be of interest to women.)  I love reading outraged comments to horrible articles, so of course I scrolled to the comments below the strip.  And it was great!  I'm reading through these, nodding and internally cheering at the snark, and then.

Some douchebag made a comment that perfectly exemplifies why I'm hesitant to join a local LARP, or do cosplay, or D&D, or any of the things that Weregeek is about that I would love to participate in.

By commenter rb:

too bad that (vacant) geek girls appealing to the eye in my circles are as rare as epic (or similar) grade loot in a newbie area. or way off age D=

Seriously?

I read on, desperate to find among the people snarking that sexist article, someone also snarking that sexist comment.  But he went completely ignored.

I'm not here to condemn people for not calling him out.  I'm here to do it myself.

"rb", you are a misogynist (and ageist) asshole.  You remind me rather strongly of Mike from Something*Positive.  Before he started the superhero gig and actually became vaguely likeable.

Vacant is not synonymous with single.  What on earth possessed you to use that term?  It sounds like you think of single women as a parking spot that simply hasn't been taken yet.  Which is obviously so wrongheaded, I can't even.  You are the quintessential, entitled Nice Guy™.  We are not here to be easy on your eyes.  We are not here to be your potential romance.

We are here to do over-the-top roleplay of fantasy characters and go on epic quests.

Venting

[TW for sexism, racism, jingoism and classism.]

Okay, I just need to rant for a bit.

I'm a fan of country music.  I love the sound, and many of the songs are absolutely fantastic, and deal with difficult topics that most mainstream music avoids (e.g., cancer, abuse, etc.).

On the other hand, country music is a proud bastion for so many things that are horrible: racism, sexism, jingoism, BOOTSTRAPS.  This has intensified to absurd levels since 9/11.

But the one I need to rant about today is probably the most egregious example of sexism that I can think of off the top of my head (how sad is that?): Keep Me in Mind by The Zac Brown Band.

The way I listen to music is that I pretty much completely ignore the words for the first five listens, and then suddenly the words are there.  Now, Keep Me in Mind is the catchiest song EVER, and Zac is an excellent vocalist, so I kept hearing this fun new song and kind of hearing the words but not really. And then, suddenly the horrible, horrible words registered.  I don't even have to go past the first stanza, because IT IS THE WORST.  One line at a time:

How come all the pretty girls like you are taken, baby?

Ugh.  Yet another message of many reminding single women (NOT GIRLS FFS) that they're single because they're ugly, and that men are superficial enough to only be interested in women that meet the conventional standard of beauty.  Isn't it the feminists that are supposed to hate men?   Dudebros, y u hate men so much?

I've been looking for someone like you to save me

Men are not infants that require being saved.  Again with the misandry.  Which, of course, doesn't actually result in the marginalization of men but rather the women (saviors), and so it is misogyny masquerading as misandry.  Boys will be boys, and all that.

Life's too easy to be so damn complicated

If your biggest life complication is yearning after a woman you can't have (and you're whining about it like a toddler denied candy), then you are on a level of Not Getting It that no one can touch.  You are standing on top of Privilege Peak, and the reality down in the foothills is completely obscured by the mists of your white, straight, rich dudeliness.

Take your time and I'll be waiting

YOU ARE A CREEP NOW.  Go find a woman that is actually available.  OH WAIT all of the pretty girls are taken!  Well, gosh, that just leaves you in a pickle now, doesn't it?

Go away, think about your life for a while, and come back when you've moved beyond frat boy levels of sociability.

Because of You, I am Afraid.

[TW for assault, self-harm, homophobia, and transphobia]

In the last two days, I've been betrayed by people I trusted- all over an article I posted to facebook (of all places) The article proved the point that female comic book characters are over-sexualized to the point of being non-functional as superheroes. The author (who is also an artist) did this by drawing pictures of male characters in the same clothes and positions as female ones (thus showing that female's costume is actually functionally useless, even when on a male superhero). Someone I considered a friend read it and posted a 'helpful' response of "Get better articles," because apparently if men were over-sexualized, they wouldn't be dressed in that way. (And zomg they said bad things about fishnets).

I read the response and honestly did not have the energy to right then explain the point of the article, so I went the nice route and just asked him to read it again, as he missed the point (I even included a smiley face to show that I did want him to learn, cause friendship.) But nope, examples weren't up to his standards, need better articles. Other friends tried explaining it to him, nope, he continued on. Finally I was starting to get upset so (being as it's my space and all) I asked him to stop, as I would soon start to be less nice. He stopped, but soon after another person who I thought was a friend jumped in and started attacking me to 'prove a point' - basically, that though I was being patient and nice, the very fact that I didn't accept my male friend's opinion was me 'being nasty'. Because opinions can't be wrong or something. But at that point I snapped and fought back in defense of myself, but she just would not back down. She got nasty enough to trigger me very badly. Repeatedly I asked her to stop and reminded her it was my space, but while she acknowledged it was my space, she did not stop. She continued violating me with her words.

At that point my real friend jumped in and defended me, but the other commenter just kept coming, gleefully mocking me with phrases like "This is the most I've seen Ange post in years" and "lol I'm being a dick (her words) to prove a point" and other choice phrases. Violation after violation. No after no. Finally I just gave up, tried one last explaining comment, and went to sleep (or tried to, as I was still triggered and my anxiety prevents me from actually sleeping), with no support system.

[Boyfrog and company are going through their own stuff, and got defensive when I couldn't -literally no capacity for it when triggered- comfort them, then got angry when I called them on something. I admit, my words were pretty close to mean (for which I am sorry), and I know I can't speak for others' experiences, but I don't really have much control over my word choice when triggered- I react; I word vomit in a knee-jerk way. I don't sugarcoat. I describe what I see. Anyway, we'll see if that can get back on track at some point, but for now that's besides my focus].

Once morning comes, I eventually find the strength to go downstairs and at least check my email (yep, I felt my stomach and heart tighten in the grips of a panic attack as I checked), and sure enough, another reply. At that point I was too upset and defeated to bother replying, so I tried to calm myself, until I noticed I got a message from 'friend' number one- the guy who brilliantly pointed out I should get better articles, and whose entire position smacks of both misogyny, heteronormativity, and a dash of homophobia and transphobia (Men would never be dressed like that! Cause men.)

See, I even went so far as to try to reply and apologize (seriously, apologize for being repeatedly violated and attacked, and of course my 'nasty tone' -_- ), but he apparently has either blocked me or removed his facebook account. So, I figured I'd put it here on display.

If you want to help a cause quit spamming every article without a critical eye. If an argument is bad, the author loses credibility even if the overall point being made is in fact a good or valid one. I've been on the side of the author in almost every article you've linked that I read. However, there were so many that were so poorly written such a flood can only drown out those people that are better at doing it. I wasn't trying to help feminism, I don't have the time or the passion, I was trying to help you do better at what you've been doing.

Also, the point of the article was directly stated early in the article. Anyone who felt the need to state it themselves should reevaluate their own comprehension levels.

Comparing Women dressed in sexy women's clothing to Men dressed in sexy women's clothing to come to a conclusion regarding how men dress is a fallacy. Ignoring something does not make it refuted. Arguing logic isn't semantics. Saying after looking down on semantics that words have meaning is hypocritical. What I'm doing now is being an ass, while also not being wrong.

Anyone who thinks I'm dumb needs a SERIOUS reality check.

I hope the rest of your life is as miserable as the betrayal I felt yesterday. I have nothing but hatred for your kind.

You want betrayal? Try being verbally assaulted by two 'friends' over the course of 2 days, (a month after another, separate 'friend' decided to assault me in person), being gleefully triggered so badly that you want to slice yourself to ribbons, having little to no support system because they're all involved in their own stuff, having people 'secretly' show the attackers support though Likes and whatnot, and then being told to have a miserable life (while assigning things to me that I did not say). That is true betrayal, and I hope not one of you ever has to live through it.


ETA: I took down the whole article and attack, and put up a status basically saying that I'd been effectively silenced and triggered......and the woman who triggered me just asked if I was 'ok', cause it was 'nothing personal'......what fucking world do people live in that they can verbally assault someone until the point of trigger, and then ask a question like that, especially with any real seriousness.

Those Womenz and their Public Sexxorz

[TW for slut-shaming and objectification]

So, Reese Witherspoon won an MTV Movie Award last night, which is awesome for her. I actually enjoy her acting in the movies I've seen her in. And of course, as she's accepting the award, she gives an appropriate acceptance speech:

Accepting her MTV Generation award, the Oscar-winning actress slammed stars who have appeared in sex tapes and nude-photo scandals, telling them they should be ashamed of themselves.

....waitasecond.

Really? I mean, really really? You've just been given an award for acting and you take the time to blast other celebrities (read: women) for their bedroom preferences?

Of course, if Ms. Witherspoon was actually concerned about 'sex-scandals' (aka, the general public finding out) you'd think she'd place the blame on those who actually deserve the blame, such as the paparazzi, or the 'liberal media', or, I don't know, the culture which shames those who have sex lives that deviate in any way from the perceived 'norm' [Hetero, monogomous, no kink whatsoever, and definitely no women enjoying themselves or having sex because they want to have sex]. But no, she places this squarely on women (or as she says, girls), with this gem of a line:

“I get it, girls, that it’s cool to be a bad girl,” the mom-of-two told the crowd. “But it is possible to make it in Hollywood without doing a reality show. When I came up in this business, if you made a sex tape, you were embarrassed and you hid it under your bed.

Oh Patriarchy, the only culture where women don't enjoy sex, but simultaneously 'go after' enough sex to 'make it in Hollywood'. Oh and of course, add a large helping of slut-shaming with no mention of any male participation or activity whatsoever.

Oh, but she's not done, she has some 'helpful' words of advice:

Said Witherspoon, “And if you took naked pictures of yourself on your cell phone, you hide your face, people! Hide your face!”

Cause if there's anything we need more of, it's disembodied breasts or genitalia. Objectifying women ftw, amirite?

*vomit*

Klondike, You Disappoint Me

Here we have the new "What Would You Do for a Klondike Bar?" commercial. Translation as follows:

Announcer: New Klondike Mint Chocolate Chip Bars present "5 Seconds to Glory!" Mark vs. Actually Listening to His Wife! [Sounds of Mark's Wife talking, but not being able to hear the words over the announcer]

Mark's Wife:...beautiful, beautiful yellow squash, and I thought we could potentially paint the foyer yellow. What do you think? I know it's yellow, I know...

*timer sounds with a ding and confetti flies, with much cheering from Mark and two unknown females holding Klondike bars*

"What Would You Do for a Klondike Bar" theme song

*cut back to more cheering and celebrating by Mark (and the unknown, icecream-wielding females) while Mark's Wife sits, looking confused and being covered by wayward confetti.

Mark: "Oh yeah! Mmm! I did it! I did it!"

Ok, so let's break this down a little:

Apparently, it's now a sport to listen to your [your being het-cismale, as the commercial shows] wife for a whole 5 seconds! One which Mark gladly takes on (note that Mark's Wife doesn't have the distinction of even having a name), and "wins", thus he was 'rewarded' with a yummy ice cream treat. (And women whose only apparent job in this commercial is to jump around excitedly under confetti and bring him the icecream.)

There are so many things wrong with that 30 seconds, it practically makes my head explode. First of all, the 'listening to your wife is sooooo hard' trope annoys me muchly. Here I was, sitting here, thinking that you're actually supposed to listen to what your partner is saying, not because you'll get a "reward" (which I'll get to in a minute), but because you genuinely love hir, and you care about what zie has to say.

Which brings me to the second part, rewarding the (cis-het) male with icecream. Last time I checked, men were not infants, incapable of paying attention for more than 5 seconds [which, as the video "enlightens" us, takes a lot of concentration]; much less are they infants unable to concentrate for more than 5 seconds without getting a "reward" for being a "good boy". Men are, in fact, whole, separate, complete people, just as women are- men are no more the same as children as women are obstacles to be put up with.

Commercials like this are an insult to both men and women alike. They're a product of the patriarchy, used to shortchange and tear down both women and men. This can be counteracted, however, by expecting more. I expect more. Shame on you, Klondike. Your icecream is not worth marginalizing and stereotyping people over.

Stay Classy, Mike

[TW for sexism including objectification, ableist language, discussion of rape and abuse.]

So, I have this friend. For the sake of her anonymity here, I'll call her Greta. Greta has been in and out of a relationship with a guy named Mike for a number of months now, and I've been in the background watching and fretting. Things were never smooth between them, and the last time Greta broke up with Mike was unusually rough. In her words, she had to be "mean" to him two days ago to get across the point that she doesn't really want to talk to him right now. Mike, classy guy that he is, took the opportunity to rip Greta up and down in a blog entry that he advertised on his Facebook. (Normally I'd take pains to anonymize him too, but since he so clearly wants this to be public, it would be rude of me not to oblige.)

Entirely aside from the wild twisting of reality and ad hominem attacks, some of the things he says about women, sexuality and autonomy sent me into a flailing rage.

The blog itself inspired facepalm in name alone: Mike's Super Amazing Blog! Because, y'know, the more adjectives and exclaimation points involved, the better the blog's content. The offending entry, entitled What I Want, is a laundry list of things Mike is looking for - and things Mike is definitely not looking for - in a relationship. He begins with some classic ableist language ("lame") and waxes poetic about love and its variation and peculiarities. He asserts that he has very few demands, and that all he wants is this and this and this and this and this and that too, and a "good handful of boob" would be nice.

Mike then gets to the meat of his post: ten things he does NOT want in a partner. What strikes me most about this entire section is the oversexualization of everything. In his second point, "No Text Message Relationship!", which frankly should have everything to do with communication and nothing with sex, he twice alludes to sex. Apparently texting is okay when a woman wants to shag, but otherwise, he "can think of much more comfortable places to put [his] hands" than a cell phone.

The rest of the points have me torn between rolling my eyes heavenward and shaking in fury. Let's break it down: