"OMG!!! I think he's gay!!!" - part 3
Because two panics were not enough, because men and boys should face abuse and violence for doing something different, the Third Panic is upon us all...
There will be
mantyhose ("The exposure to these fabrics and colors are homosexualizing this manly man!", says the team of scientific researchers)...there will be
fifth-grade boys doing double dutch ("He must be pushed down the stairs! For America! For masculinity!", says the group of immature schoolchildren)...and just when you think that's all, the truth will emerge...
Oh My God!!! I think he's gay!!! - part 3 - Victims of the Bullies[/end movie trailer voice (and add tie-in videogame footage that involves bloody-horned-unicorn-riding-grim-reapers-with-chainsaw-maces)]
Perhaps I should know better by now, but why is it that such bullshit marginalization of men that participate in 'girly' things is so tolerated, yet when simpering wimps like
Johannes Mehserle shoot normal guys like Oscar Grant, we don't go making fun of them by calling them Joanne and making limp-wristed caricatures to drive home the point that stuff like this should not be considered manly? Isn't using the threats of harassment and violence to keep men from doing certain things the right thing to do? Then it should be perfectly fine to humiliate idiots like said simpering wimp above and anyone else that does the same thing. If we're lucky, no policeman in his right mind would dare shoot a black man in such an unjustified way out of fear of having their manhood questioned, since having your manhood questioned is the worst thing that could happen to us fragile, delicate, unstable men. That of course assumes the above-mentioned shame tactic is both effective and properly applied...
Maybe shaming men and boys out of 'girly' things isn't very effective since for every one that gets beaten to death and featured in the news (if they're that lucky), another one will appear and do
something they're not supposed to do. Maybe if the bloodthirsty, psychopathic masses that can pick on people minding their own business were to turn their anger on just a fraction of the people at the top that are directly responsible for our current economic crisis, said people at the top would clearly get the message not to fuck with those they're supposed to serve if they want to continue to be seen as the proper, upstanding men we're supposed to take them for (and not get pushed down the stairs at their jobs by blue-collar thugs).
Unfortunately, I look back at the idiocy that such "hey, men aren't allowed to do that! get 'em!" attitudes produce and dreadfully look forward to the idiocy that it will bring in the future, knowing well that for all the freedom and choice I'm supposed to have in life, my options are limited to either acting and looking like I have the power that men are supposed to have or to take abuse from some moron who thinks he has power.
Labels: annoyances, posted in windows
This Testicle Will Self-Destruct In Five Seconds
Of all the things society can get away with, threatening a man's sexuality has to be one of the most idiotic, especially when the issue at hand isn't something as serious as
endocrine disruption or
excessive drug use but a goddamned summer movie that appeals mostly to women called Sex In The City. Simply not having enough interest in the movie or the show it's based doesn't seem to be enough for some people though, and so we get one "gay panic"
article of several along with quite a few
confused commenters not quite getting that gay men and women aren't the only targets being aimed at or that it isn't about men not being the center of attention. One such commenter also asks if Sex In The City turns men gay, can Iron Man turn a woman lesbian. It's a nice question, except that if there were a flood of articles on the internet daring to assert such a thing, it would clearly be labeled in no small part of the blogosphere as misogynist, homophobic, etc. in far larger numbers that what's going on here since that's what happens when enough women don't like what an article says about them (one thing to remember about the Forbes.com article concerning career women). In the meantime, we get to pretend that men can easily turn gay and deserve nothing but mockery for it without any more than a murmur of misandry in the crowd, much in the way that the spell checker picks up misogyny but not misandry.
Since I'm in a cynical mood as usual, I'll go so far as to call these gay panic articles for what I see them as - word of mouth marketing. Even if that was all it was, I don't see exactly why it was necessary to take this approach when one thing Sex And The City already had going for it was that the leading stars were female (despite the "gay men in drag" snark from
a NY Times piece) in a summer season where most movies are supposed to be male-dominated. Oiling up the hype machine with the ol' sex anxiety snake oil wasn't necessary for anything besides subsidizing the snake oil salesmen and getting frustrated consumers to see SATC just because they're pissed off at what some article writer suggests about some peoples' sexuality. If
'Wall-E' beating out 'Wanted' in the first week is any indication of a trend, maybe the fact that
SATC also got #1 over Indiana Jones in it's opening week points to a trend of moviegoers not being that interested in action movies when given a choice between it and another genre. If that's the case, then this is sufficient enough of an explanation for me as to how this summer's movies can be expected to do (and why the videogame industry is still raking it in), though it doesn't immediately invite ridiculous attacks on heterosexual male sexuality, and I guess that's not as important to some people.
Labels: annoyances, posted in windows
Shock, Or Crock?
One week after the
decision by the California Supreme Court on same-sex marriage, I have to say all the
controversy surrounding it is just more election-year crockery. Of course, the same arguments as always are offered, though anyone who doesn't fear some bozo with a bible anymore than they would fear two guys kissing can cut through it all without much effort. Let us consider the issues at stake:
If we must follow everything the bible says and believe in it's inerrancy, then why in the hell did a PA bill that would've banned gay marriage get rejected for an amendment proposing to outlaw divorce except in extreme cases - a bill that could've passed in a Republican-controlled Senate and therefore "protect the sanctity of marriage"? (Isn't there something or other in the bible about how "whatever God joins, let not man separate"?) Furthermore, why aren't we calling for the execution of adulterers like Republican Vito Fossella? Leviticus 20:10 states "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death", so there certainly is a case for it. Better yet, let us ask where do we draw the line with biblically-mandated killing and the commandment not to kill, which makes for one glaring contradiction in an 'inerrant' work. After that, a discussion on whether to threaten homebuilders with eternal damnation for not putting fences around the roof of a new house is in order...
If we are to believe that heterosexual relations will be threatened by this, then what do we make of the lack of support for banning divorce, since that surely threatens marriage? Somehow I seriously doubt that your average organization of religious nuts will make a public statement decrying the evils of divorce as often and readily as they will against same-sex marriage, and the lack of public discussion over a "divorce lobby" (as opposed to the "gay lobby") is enough to support my point. It should be noted that of all the problems men have with marriage, hordes of homos wanting to join in never seem to have a significant part in the discussion. As long as the marriage strike goes on, it's not like denying or granting marriage to others is going to matter anyway and yet I get the vibe that I'm not supposed to care about that much, only how to define part of my manhood as being in opposition to men that really like men...big deal.
By the way, if public displays of affection are anything to go by, this generation of youngsters could care less as long as no one disturbs them from smooching at the bus stop. Maybe I'm reading it wrong though and they could be trying to get in every last touch and kiss before a black helicopter full of homofascists arrests the two and tosses them in a gulag, not that I've heard of it happening.
One other thing: is it me, or is all of this objection only directed at free citizens and taxpayers engaging in voluntary, consensual homosexuality and not at prison inmates being forced into it? I'm hoping it's me, because the thought of anti-gay people either secretly getting off on or completely ignoring the latter is about the only thing more ridiculous than the way they act as if heterosexual attraction is just gonna dry up and waste away unless we take lots of precious time to harass, put down, and physically harm gays mostly for existing and occasionally interacting with heterosexuals.
While I am a little upset that discussion of whatever voter referendum it was that banned gay marriage in California hasn't been mentioned much, I don't recall public majority opinion being as important before the war in Iraq began, or now as steadily increasing gas prices make things worse for car owners, among other issues with strong public opinion. Instead we just hear about how (insert institution here) is more important than what a bunch of public nobodies say or think. Then they wonder why some of the younger generation succumb to political apathy...
Labels: annoyances, politics, posted in windows
April Is For Fools
Ah...the wonders of having a
hacked PSP...well, that's what I could be saying, except that would require having taken advantage of the hacking by doing something like playing
Cave Story, or trying my hand at
homebrew coding myself. Instead all I have to show for it is a barely-played copy of Lumines ordered on eBay and a recently-completed copy of
Crisis Core that has left me slightly disappointed for several reasons of my own making:
Too damned short and easy (solution: replay on hard mode and do more than the first mission offered)
Not enough Aerith Cissnei (solution: same as above until her DMW percentage is 100%)
Subtle 'stabs' at political allegory (solution: laugh it off as a result of all the media hype about the election/nomination/scandal-of-the-week)With that said, what kind of fool would need to
hurt someone for a copy of Grand Theft Auto IV? Let me get it out of the way now and say that I won't be surprised at all if someone out there actually gets around to blaming the game itself for the violence that someone would resort to in order to get the game. I should be glad that such a thing hasn't happened at my place of work yet...as far as I know.
What kind of fool would
act outraged over some
tame photos of
Hannah Montana Miley Cyrus? I'm more unnerved over whatever face she's supposed to be making in that first photo. Looks like a 'gimme yo copy of Grand Theft Auto IV before I stab yo bitch azz' face to me - if a famous teenybopper girl can make that kind of face, that is. If the other eye were open, it could even be a 'you have done well to make it this far mister
Zack Fair, but now you must DIE!' face.
What kind of fool would expect
Queen's "Keep Yourself Alive" to sound anything near similar to the
multiple versions of "Keep Yourself Alive" from the Guilty Gear series solely on the logic that if
Sol-Badguy is the fusion of the game's creator and Freddie Mercury, then his theme tune would also be a mixture of original music with the original - and then be in for quite the shock at how...retro-sounding 70's rock sounds? Well, that would be me, and let's face it - robbing people over a game that 'promotes' robbery and freaking out over a teenage actress' bare shoulder/upper back/upper torso are far more foolish.
Labels: annoyances, posted in windows, videogames
"OMG!!! I think he's gay!!!" - part 2
Last year, there was
"OMG!!! I think he's gay!!!" - part 1 (cue hair-raising screams)...and now from the same blogger that bought you that unseen original comes the sequel...
"OMG!!! I think he's gay!!!" - part 2 : Shoot 'em up!Now with more sexual discomfort and expectations of male violence! Just when they thought it was safe to assume a supposedly heterosexual schoolkid could ignore another supposedly homosexual schoolkid, a gun will be fired (cue gunshot and more hair-raising screams) and a community will be shaken.
[end 'movie trailer voice' here]
Honestly, I'm not going to waste time pretending to be surprised, appalled, or even pleased that yet another case of
anti-gay bullying has resulted in the loss of another
male life - that of one *Lawrence King. While a woman who dresses like a man may very well become the next President of the United States (at the time of this writing), a boy who dresses like a girl gets a gunshot to the head. Even more depressing than that is how quickly some are to think passing a bunch of laws will be a better step than to encourage 'sexual minorities' to become just as violent and ready to kick ass as their 'normal' peers are supposed to be.
For all the claims that our culture is awash in violent entertainment, no one seems to be able to take away a really important message - that being ready and able to defend oneself is a better option than hoping your enemies will stop on their own or that someone else will save you. I can't recall any movie I've watched or game I've played where one is rewarded more for taking abuse than taking serious action (often violent) against the source of the abuse. Before anyone tries to state the obvious, yes, I know it isn't always possible.
Another thing I'll point out is how misguided some are to claim 'hypermasculinity' is the cause for these kinds of events (not that 'hyperfemininity' seems to get blamed for much). How can people think some moron is hypermasculine for killing a helpless kid over sexual issues when that same moron could have easily went around flirting with (and probably picking up) the girls on campus? Surely displaying the 'aggressiveness' to pursue available girls for courtship purposes would be more 'manly' than killing a boy who probably made no hostile gestures toward you, no? The fact that such misguided souls can consider events like this 'hypermasculine' in the first place represents societal corruption in and of itself. Passing this corruption onto otherwise normal developing boys while teaching them to give up 'girlier' interests and lash out in rage at the slightest questioning of their sexuality has to be the gift that keeps on giving to crooked politicians and religious lunatics alike. It virtually guarantees a steady supply of men that can be made into examples of why we need this law or that program. If that weren't enough, idiots like you-know-who try to convince the gullible that the presence of sensible gays (not to mention the fringes) is a nation-dooming sin; this while not spending nearly enough time and effort to remind the 'normal heterosexual man' that God wouldn't be pleased with all of the bullying and killing being done in his name - unless you know, certain parts of the Bible aren't really true.
All that's left for me to do in light of this tragedy and that
other school shooting is to give the true victims (meaning not the gunmen) a moment of silence and wait for the day a bullied gay kid will actually punch/slice/shoot the hell out of a would-be bully. That will be a truly surprising day.
*edited at 12AM 2/25/08 because I forgot to add the shooting victim's name the first time...
Labels: annoyances, posted in windows
It's All A Buch Of Hype
Not that I care much about the state of politics as it is now, but if there's anything that might 'cure' me of my cynicism, some guy that goes by the name of
Ron Paul could do it - besides, one of my coworkers claims to be one of his grassroots supporters. As far as Hillary, Romney, and the others go, I'm more than a little bored with the way their campaigns are going. By now, I'm no longer surprised that few political figures go public on the need to curb illegal immigration, and I'm not surprised that certain Republican
sex-baiting loudmouths can't even live by their own example. I'd have more respect for them if they did something more constructive, like raise hell over Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (the way they did over Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire)...without reading too much into that title.
If I was the type of person who went to the movies these days, I'd feel a bit bummed about not going to see Transformers or The Simpsons Movie. Actually, now that I think about it, I feel a little icky not remembering the original 80's
Transformers in addition to ignoring the newer Transformers Armada series. Besides, while the reviews I've seen for Transformers are mixed, those for The Simpsons Movie lean more toward the positive. Maybe missing out on Transformers wasn't so bad after all...
In yet another change from this time last year, I did not go to San Diego Comic Con due to personal problems...personal problems that wouldn't allow for a two-way road trip totaling 11 hours, starting and ending in Las Vegas. Thus there will be no report of my activities there this year...because there were none to speak of.
There's some cheer somewhere in this post though, and that's due to me finding out that
Growlanser: Heritage of War [YouTube video] will actually be getting released in the US. Even though I doubt I'll find any of
Satoshi Urushihara's female character designs as sexy as Growlanser 3's Annette Burns [
worksafe |
not worksafe] (you may have to copy the links and paste the address in a new tab/window to view) this time around, the gameplay looks different enough from that in Growlanser Generations
[YouTube video] to make it worth buying. The fact that it's only going to have one Limited Edition print run also doesn't leave much room for waiting until later. That said, I think I could've slipped a
Peanuts reference in this paragraph somewhere - lemme know if you find out where. :)
Labels: announcements, annoyances, politics, posted in windows, videogames
I Seem To Have Missed A Lot This Month
There's been too much that I've missed out on this month. "Like what?", you ask? We have the Spurs winning the NBA finals 4-0 over the Cavs (I'd have thought they'd win one game), some government plan about a 'gay bomb' (I'd love to see Focus on the Family or some group like them condemn that waste of thought as sinful and immoral), the death of Chris Benoit and his family (haven't watch WWE much since it was WWF, so I don't care as much as when Owen Hart fell and hit his head), Manhunt 2 getting an Adults Only rating (which is equivalent to an outright ban thanks to Nintendo's and Sony's policies), Paris Hilton acting like a damned fool over a 45-day sentence (let's face it...it's not that bad no matter how much she cried), and other assorted brouhaha.
Why didn't I cover any of it? For one, World of Warcraft has been eating up some of my free time. You see, first came the 14-day trial, then purchase of the Burning Crusade during a sale where it was $25, then finding out I needed an active account to play it after I broke the seal on the box, then a call to billing support in which a woman implied rather unclearly that I could use a game card instead of buying the retail version, then a 60-day game card purchase, then failure to activate the account using the card, and finally, purchase of the retail game with success at creating a new account. The past couple of nights has been spent guiding a Blood Elf Mage through the forest, shooting fire and ice at anything that can be attacked.
As if that weren't enough, I've gotten back into programming with the DirectX SDK and SDL.net, where recent experience suggests that the latter will be preferred over the former for the next few weeks.
Finally, there's the anime. Besides Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha StrikerS, Lucky Star and Hayate no Gotoku are most of I've been watching (on my computer) thanks to a lack of cable TV in the house.
If I weren't so lazy upon coming home from work or waking up on my day off, there'd be more content here. Maybe I ought to dedicate 30 minutes a night to writing a blog topic or something...
Labels: anime, announcements, annoyances, posted in windows, videogames
"OMG!!! I think he's gay!!!" - part 1
Unless you've been living under a rock for quite some time now, you may have caught on to a sad phenomenon that has been affecting men for a while. What is it, you ask? Well, there seems to be a great big gay panic brought on anytime a man has interest in something other than beer, sports, violence, or quick and easy sex. For example, note that in recent column at
Salon, a letter writer tells us of her friend, who apparently loves
accusing her dates of being gay. Why? Because they're into aromatherapy or shopping for antique lead crystal. If that wasn't enough, they also like seeing a "stereotypically feminine female" in a negligee in addition to a home-cooked meal and wine. Wow...I dunno about you, but that sounds better than having some thug wanting to live a life right out of a gangsta rap album, complete with the hatred of men, women, and 'softness' that comes with that territory. Not that such hatred is going to be 'gay' anytime soon...
Just when you thought it was safe to think of art and aesthetics as things that mostly straight men have spent several centuries creating, here comes
2 Blowhards to ask
why the topic of art is considered so gay in America (though the way the great big gay panic would have it, you'd be forgiven for thinking it was a worldwide concern), complete with a theory involving the last 300 years of American history. While it does cover enough good ground, there's a few things they miss that are fortunately picked up by a writer at
Our Word and Welcome to It. Particularly,
a post influenced by the one linked to above.
One great point referenced in both blog posts is that all this accusation of men doing unusual things because they're gay (for this day and age, anyway) may very well be part of an attempt at creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Another point I find good is the need to reclaim these things, which we have been robbed of. Not that either post elaborated on exactly why straight men are supposed to run away from anything society slaps the 'gay' or 'feminine' label across, but I plan on getting to this myself in part 2 of what may be a new series of posts here. I don't know when you should expect it, but it'll most likely come after my current living arrangement is less crowded than it is now and I can actually focus on making posts more often.
Labels: annoyances, posted in windows
