ellicler: (Default)
annnd it's time for another round of wtf is my gender navel-gazing.
i'm genderfluid as in literally my feelings about my gender depend on context?? what people i'm with, what we're talking about. it's fucking weird is what it is. g.fluid is usually explained as 'today i feel this way and in a week i'll wake up feeling a different way', so like... for a long time my own experience and my ideas about this label didn't match. moreover it feels sorta dishonest to be like 'i'm among these super feminine women with traditional ideas abt femininity discussing cosmetics so i'm not a woman' vs 'i'm among frat bros so i'm certainly a woman and they need to shut up about western feminism destroying the culture'. i still haven't really figured it out. i just know that s.times i'm comfortable IDing as a woman and other times i'm not.
s.times i go out of my way to ID as a woman (using mostly or only female grammatical gender in speech) in order for my friends who are trans men to feel i'm not invalidating their experience and that i realise their gender's different from mine. other times i use mostly male grammatical gender for the opposite effect: to show my nb friends i'm like them and take their identity seriously and they can be comfortable expressing it. both feel a bit skewed, on balance. i think i prefer just literally switching in between sentences. otoh with my cis friends who aren't at all interested in queer issues i'm mostly playing up the unconventional femininity vibe. with some (men) it's sorta comfortable (because i feel i'm not a man, so i'm not like them, and thus female grammatical gender reflects that), with others (women, in mixed company) it's uhhhh smth i put up with, even though i definitely don't have the feeling that us women vs them men is the correct way to put me in a group where i belong. and yeah there's definitely times IDing as a woman feel natural, for example when discussing subtle and not-so-subtle sexism we experience with like-minded friends who'd also been on the receiving end of it.
anyway this is really minor but nevertheless grating. 

also i have to say that Russian and English induce completely different strategies of coping with these things. i suppose if i had English as my first language and had to be like 'here's my pronouns' every time meeting new people in queer-friendly places, i just might bite the bullet say 'they/them' and be done with it. but in Russian one has to pick male or female (grammatical gender) every time one opens one's mouth. (so actually it's way easier for trans people than in English? you don't need the awkwardness of 'will they ask for my pronouns or won't they', you just go and drop them completely naturally into the conversation - it would be incredibly hard NOT to do it.) so like, i've seen some nb people trying out alternative strategies, but by far the easiest route is either switching or sticking to the opposite grammatical gender to connote that you're not cis.

also also it's disorienting hearing people refer to you with different pronouns / with different grammatical gender in a stable way. i have a friend who always says 'he' about me, and it's... like, i appreciate it, but otoh nobody else does it it's out of pace.
another close friend is like... we refer to them always with she/her pronouns but use male gender in verbs when talking to them directly. it's also fucking weird. they're bigender (at least gong by their latest self-id) so... it's sort of 'anything goes' but also maybe not really in that it's a bit cowardly getting used to talking like that about them in 3rd person b/c it frees me from the need to calculate if the person i'm discussing them with is queerphobic or not.

ellicler: (Default)
Elli, do you HAVE to have so many opinions nobody cares about???

Shawshank Redemption:
- VERY little violence
- homos are scary & bad (UGH)
- the narrator always comes across as being in love with their subject (Great Gatsby!!). was this intentional for King or an artifact of the adaptation?
- Maine is VERY hhhhwhite, casting Freeman is inspired
- Andy had waited intentionally, could've skipped earlier. obvious question: waiting for Red??
- 'i'm tired of being afraid/scared all the time' - Red when released on parole
- very sanitised portrayal of violence, prison order, relationships. even sanitised masculinity! no wonder it comes across as VERY homosocial (esp Andy&Red's friendship), but everyone among prisoners are best buddies, and even guards (not everyone! just the warden and that one guy!) only screw over Andy specifically. no everyday violence. no grounds to be horrified w/the way the prison system is set up, as if it's mostly equitable - just philosophically the *idea* of losing your freedom. i think it perpetuates a myth abt prisons being just psychologically hard, nothing about terrible physical hardship & indignity & a thousand injustices & wolfpack ethics. not grounded in reality and not embodied.
- REALLY homosocial. Andy & Red's bond is - oh, i don't have words for it. they don't write fic that good about them, not even close.

- ofc nothing about racism b/c who cares. in a movie abt prison. right???
- but the narrator is not a second fiddle or a buddy or a sidekick. he's *our eyes*, we the audience are invited to identify with him and we are privy to his inner life thus we have the strongest bond with him. ...ok *maybe* the movie doesn't *quite* balance that ideally. http://www.kimgalovich.com/images/3002%20Final%20Paper.pdf
'color-blindness, which can also be called ‘color evasiveness’' 'a white audience in the 1990s would probably find it easier to ignore racial issues and keep the real world out of their film.' ROLLEYES
also a v.good article Vera, Hernan, and Andrew Gordon. "The Shawshank Redemption: True Romance"  here

- i need to read King's story. 'Andy was a part of me they could never lock up'

- Ebert: 'The key to the film's structure, I think, is that it's not about its hero, but about our relationship with him - our curiosity, our pity, our admiration. If Andy had been the heroic center, bravely enduring, the film would have been conventional, and less mysterious.'
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-the-shawshank-redemption-1994

- violence:
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-09-23-ca-41876-story.html
'envisioned the rest of the cons as a bunch of swell and softhearted guys who were probably put away for overzealous toenail clipping'
' The inappropriateness of having them in the same film with vicious attempted gang rapes seems not to have occurred to anyone with any influence.'
'The film's periodic bouts of violence are probably also intended as a reality booster.'
' "Shawshank's" zealousness in trying to cast a rosy glow over the prison experience'
ellicler: (Default)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wfNl2L0Gf8
Foucault is unfortunately right: any time we try to enact the concept of 'ideal justice' we are led astray by the cultural assumptions we've uncritically let slide. (Unfortunately he doesn't get the time to elucidate his example of the Russian revolution and the nuclear family structure which it engendered by using state power *after* a brief period of a true freedom of social experimentation.) Even going towards a view of 'better justice' is a futile experience unless we look for the ways *why* our *current* understanding of justice is not good enough, not in the abstract/logical sense, but in a social, cultural, economic sense - in short, how and why it's been shaped by power relations.
Unfortunately, we cannot act collectively *without* some sort of a symbol of unity, and Foucalt's "right is might" "we the proletariat should take power simply because it will be better for us" is just an appeal to an anachronistic theory of justice (it might very well be that it will *not* be better for *some* people - women? people of color? well-paid intellectuals? - that "we" take power right now in a bloody revolution, so how are we gonna convince them if not with a unified ideology? here we construct an *us* in whose interests the individuals are called to action).
Foucault's skeptisim / pessimism / non-committal may seem annoying, but you should remember that it's thanks to his work that's it's become possible to critisise such power relations as gender and race in a constructive way (thanks to the work of Judith Butler who very much stands on the shoulders of Foucault for example).
For years I've been annoyed by the philosophical nullity of Chomsky's ideas in this debate and other works, he's a throwback straight to Plato. And yet it's easy to identify with his practical political position because it's born more of plain common sense than of any scientific inquiry. However Foucault rightly points out that the practical reality of 'direct action' isn't grounded in splitting hairs about the definitions of legality but instead in the necessary and effective methods available to the participants.
It's important to say however that the 'system of knowledge', the 'grid' Foucault talks about isn't actually born out of thin air to replace the old one - but presumably mutates from the contradictions inherent in the previous state of affairs? And thus it may be useful to exploit, for example, the international law by pointing out how it contradicts itself and also the actions the rich nations are allowing themselves to undertake - without fully subscribing to the ideas behind it.
ellicler: (Default)
haha i'm trying to remember what kind of sex ed i had in school (early 2000's). would be fascinating to ask fellow russian ppl about theirs.
i think it wasn't so much 'abstinence' as 'nothing'?? iirc, they were too ashamed to actually talk to us about sex, but there were a couple of lectures where they separated us girls from the boys and told us to not be afraid of puberty / menstruation and gave out free tampons (which i still bless them for b/c i wouldn't have dared to actually buy myself some and thus would've been stuck with pads which are much less comfortable for me; but there were too many myths about actually sticking smth 'down there' for me to dare and try tampons without encouragment). i think they also said some pretty gross stuff about how we needed to wash more often 'those days' and that our bodies' smell was more noticeable, for example to boys?? noticeable and disgusting, was the vibe. like, that actually did mildly exacerbate my body issues afterwards yay.
anyway, other than these tentative attempts, my parents also bought me a couple of popular  translated sex-ed books (mostly abt the physical stuff, the birds and the bees, but the tone was still striking in its complete lack of judgement!! a fucking breath of fresh air tbh) and called it a day.
also b/c i was very young (younger than kids in my grade) and poorly socialised during my school years i fell through absolutely any and all social nets that were supposed to give me a crash course into sexuality; i never talked to fellow kids, almost never even watched popular movies to get the discourse from. i read almost exclusively classics (and thanks to my lit teacher for implying that Dunya's attitude of 'rape is worse than death' in 'Crime and Punishment' is admirable!! jfc still having nightmares about that that one). and also some trashy magazines of my mom's that taught me to be afraid of rape in a neurotic way; yeah in retrospect that wasn't appropriate for my age.
so my late teens (up to 20) have been, in order, a rude awakening to and repulsion from the theme of sexuality in general; then finding fandom and getting discourse and education here, bless you. to this day, when i don't skip explicit scenes in fics that aren't *utterly brilliantly* written, as would be my first inclination, i do it because i *need* a source of sex positivity in my life (and being ace in our culture tends to skew me the other way automatically) and there just isn't any other comparable one.
ellicler: (Default)
while i'm irresponsibly hiding away from social media (which is what this always comes down to), i've been (re)watching 'Black Mirror'.
Read more... )

the mood

Jan. 20th, 2018 08:47 am
ellicler: (Default)
 writing (pointless inelegant) essays about A.'s fics in the comments section under A.'s fics on AO3...
#likeaboss

'before you point out that I’m hypocritical, consider that I could just hate myself, which would make me perfectly consistent' (c)
ellicler: (Picard-and-Q)
...with my usual perfect sense of ill-timing, when I have 10+ books to read for various future projects, I am instead reading The Left Hand of Darkness. I'm close to the middle now, and it's already recognisably a love-story, of the most perfect kind.

one central character thinks of the other (they are not yet close to being anything like friends, they are in a common political soup together):
"The Envoy spoke well, with moving candor and urgency. There is an innocence in him that I have found merely foreign and foolish; yet in another moment that seeming innocence reveals a discipline of knowledge and a largeness of purpose that awes me. Through him speaks a shrewd and magnanimous people, a people who have woven together into one wisdom a profound, old, terrible, and unimaginably various experience of life. But he himself is young: impatient, inexperienced. He stands higher than we stand, seeing wider, but he is himself only the height of a man."
IDK how I didn't see or remember or wasn't moved by this on my first reading of it, some years ago? maybe that was before I discovered fanfic, and with it the possibility of minds meeting?

...when I say 'love-story', I am of course being coy: what I mean is a story of a profound meeting between two minds. well, for all intents and purposes, that IS a love story, right?
'The jack is in the middle of an understanding.' (c)
'Two intelligent, amoral men attempt to communicate. With, you know, each other.' (c)
I would wonder if it's only women who are capable of putting this kind of dramatic tension into the *heart* of a text (as opposed to having such a story, however beautiful, in the perifery, and making the heart of it a single character or a larger story or an ethical issue etc.) and yet I *have* read Dostoyevsky through all my teenage years and sometimes he does this too.
ellicler: (Default)
Q, an omnipotent entity from Star Trek, as written by Alara:
"I know you don't think less of women.  But you think of them differently."  He began to pace again.  "It's wired into the fundamental nature of your brain, the deepest biological distinction you can make.  You apply it to nonhumanoids, you apply it to inanimate objects, it colors every perception you have.  If I changed sex you couldn't help but look at me differently.  And since gender is irrelevant to me, it'd be a difference that wasn't real, wasn't based on something I chose.  If you look at me differently because I'm behaving differently, that's one thing.  Even if I didn't deliberately choose that, it's still the result of a change in me.  But if I change sex, that's not a change in me-- it matters to me not at all.  But it matters to you, to all humans, profoundly.  So to you there would be a drastic change and to me I would not have changed at all.  And I don't think that's honest.  I do try to be consistent, at least."

In the latest TF fic by Astolat there's the canon idea of robots having gender (based exclusively on the ability to "contain a spark" - hold a new robot's 'soul' while it develops - which is apparently a minor design difference), but as Astolat's written it, gender doesn't seem to have any social implications in the cybernetic society. You just... change the pronouns.
And it really breaks my brain a little, because, yes, I *do* think about men and women differently, and that's just logical. In our world *any* gender is steeped in ages-deep context and anyone who *has* a gender has formed *some* relationship with that context.
Take Galvatron, for example - the crazy megalomaniac Deception overlord, who loves war and power and commands with an iron hand, given to violent unpredictable outbursts. When you say "Galvatron, he" - I just easily accept it, it's a very basic archetype. If you say "Galvatron, she" - my brain starts running around in circles, trying to pattern-match the idea against any other examples of women-in-power, yet the database returns no results - powerful feminine archetypes are built on very different principles. Then the brain starts to imagine some 'human' context in which Galvatron could exist and her relationship with it - a simple yet inescapable mistake. And if I don't catch myself in time, I either drastically rewrite Galvatron's personality in my head or I conclude that it's impossible for her to exist. Oh, well.
ellicler: (Picard-and-Q)
is triggered hard with this wikipedia page: Gender of connectors and fasteners.
i mean. it's just. perfect. male and female piping connections. "Female nut threaded onto a male bolt". "Lego toy brick connections are male on top, and female underneath"!!

also today is the day astolat published the third TF fic which is also about robots having gender, also sex and how they make kids. this is the life.

like, it's so far beyond ridiculous it somehow??? circles back into endearing.

Profile

ellicler: (Default)
Элли Клер

December 2020

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
1314151617 1819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 10th, 2025 02:10 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios