One episode, you have a woman taking back her ex-husband and accepting his son as her own – even though, seven years earlier, he divorced AND SUBSEQUENTLY CLONED HER when she refused to relocate to Eureka for his job and further told him that she didn’t want to have children. (What remains unsaid is that he probably had to create several clones before he found one sufficiently amenable to his desires. What became of the others, I wonder?*)
The next, we meet a genius scientist who habitually subverts her desires to those of her (supposedly) slightly-more-genius husband, all for the greater good – only to discover that she’s the true intellectual superior in the relationship; he’s merely been stealing her ideas all along! (And their marriage is most likely an ongoing kidnapping/rape situation, built on his theft of her short-term memories…using a device he stole from someone else, to boot.)
So which is it – are you feminist-friendly, or not?
* You can call it “over-analyzing”; I consider it “taking a story line to its logical conclusion.”
“A while back, it was about a year ago, I think it was, I had this apartment in San Francisco. I lived on the third floor in this little tiny apartment building, had a little two rooms and a dog, right. I lived on the third floor and I used to walk around town and I had, you know, a couple of pairs of Levis and a couple T-shirts and I thought I had my shit pretty good together, man. You know, I was out on the streets talking and talking, doing all that shit, and every time I found a nice piece of talent he went right straight downstairs to the chick on the second floor. There was another chick on the second floor, right. And I couldn’t understand, I couldn’t understand, I kept thinking, Janis, why are you doing wrong suddenly? Well I so decided to get up one morning…haha…and check out the chick’s action, right, figure out what she had going that I didn’t have going. I got up at 9:30 in the morning, which I want you to know is an effort on my part. And I got up at 9:30 in the morning, I hid in the stairwell right next to the chick’s across from her apartment, right. And I watched her and watched to see what she had, man, that I didn’t have. And I’ll tell you what she had, man, that chick hit the streets at noon. I mean I didn’t even get up till three.”
Yes, there are debates to be had about Hit Girl and Kick-Ass. There are always debates to be had about violence and vigilantes, and what they say about us. But I’d prefer the conversation also turn to why preteen girls don’t have a movie like Kick-Ass that they could see. Let’s ask why Kick-Ass was the only script option Ms. Moretz had if she wanted to play, in her own words, “an Angelina Jolie-type character. You know, like an action hero, woman empowerment, awesome, take-charge leading role.” By now, she should have had a lot more superhero and fantasy options to pick from. There are young adult genre books that center on something other than vampires. There are comic characters who are teenage girls. It’s ridiculous that they languish on the shelf while Spider-Man goes back to high school. Again. You might even ask why Millar thought no one could relate to a teenage girl, and insisted on centering the story around Dave and his girlfriend problems.
ZOMFG! Bill O’Reilly believes in a Constitutional right to privacy!
No, it’s true. Well, kinda sorta:
Apparently the Constitution only protects the rights of the rich, the white, the heterosexual, the cisgendered, the faithful and the non-pregnant – and only when they’re in complete agreement with all opinions O’Reilly, natch.
I haven’t been up to blogging lately (for reasons explained below), so here’s yet another crosspost from easyVeganInfo. Never leave your dog/cat/baby/child unattended in a vehicle, people.
Sorry for the lack of posts this week, y’all. I’ve been sick since Monday night, and feel ill-equipped to do much more than the daily link roundups. I imagine that the maxim against blogging while drunk includes blogging while drunk on NyQuil. Anywho, I have a number of post ideas on the back burner, so hopefully I’ll be coherent enough by mid-week next week to resume my regular blogging schedule.
Until then, did anyone happen to catch the latest installment of ABC News’ What Would You Do? Basically, it’s a hidden camera type show, wherein ABC News sets up various discomfiting situations in order to determine how the observers stooges will respond. For example, one segment that got some play on the feminist blogs involved a couple (of actors) who were seemingly out at a bar on a first date. When the woman excused herself to the restroom, the man (quite obviously) slipped something in her drink. Cue the crazy.
I only caught the last twenty minutes or so Tuesday night’s episode, but that was more than enough to make me wish I hadn’t. In the last segment, “Dog Left Inside a Hot Car,” a large, fluffy Golden Retriever is left inside a car parked on a suburban street on a hot summer (spring?) day. (The car actually has a hidden A/C unit cranked, and the dog’s trainer is lying on the backseat floor, covered by a blanket.) The windows are cracked so the dog’s barks are audible, and the dog’s “owner” walks to and from the car several times in order to see whether observers will confront him. Strategically placed hidden cameras record passerby reactions.
So, what are your thoughts? How do you think the passerby handled the situation? Did the results exceed your expectations, or fall short? And wtf about those firefighters, eh?
It’s been so long coming, I kind of expected my Bush countdown clock to do at least one cool trick on the 20th. Maybe replace the numbers with an animated exploding A-bomb, or some unicorns and rainbows. At the very least, a smiley face. But no. It got stuck at 0 for two days, and now it’s counting backwards. Way weak, computer geeks. I was promised CHANGE, but this is quite literally MORE OF THE SAME.
