I've been mulling this post over for a while, what I wanted to say, how to say it. I'm still not sure it's going to make any sense to anyone else, but what the hell, it's worth a shot.

I'm trying to find a way to describe where I fit on the spectrum of sexual orientation, and of gender identity, and it's not easy. On the surface, to anyone who doesn't know me very well, I look like a very normal person these days. Looks can be deceiving.

Let's start with orientation. I'm bisexual. I've known that since before I knew what the word meant. I'm not right in the middle of the Kinsey scale though, not exactly. When I was in my teens (and younger) I leaned more towards women, and now I seem to lean more towards men. I'm not quite sure why exactly, and I suspect it may be partly because right now I know very few women who could potentially interest me in a sexual way. For some odd reason I seem to find myself surrounded by women who are very vanilla, very conventional, and that doesn't really work for me on a sexual level. Even the ones I find physically attractive I suspect I would find very boring in bed.

So that brings us to the men. The older I get the more I seem to be drawn to men on a very visceral level (keep that word visceral in mind, it will be coming up again later). The interesting thing is that the men I find most attractive aren't really particularly "masculine" in a lot of ways.

This is nothing new, of course - I was a teenage goth, so it's not as if androgynous pretty boys are anything new. It is interesting, though - why do I have pretty much no sexual interest in the type of men mainstream Western culture says I'm supposed to find sexy? Athletes with big bulging muscles leave me cold. Overtly macho behaviour turns me off (it turns me off when it's women doing it too, but more about that later). What most people describe as "ruggedly handsome" I perceive as hideously ugly. In fact, it took me until my early twenties to realise that "rugged" wasn't a code word for "Chow Chow the Dog Faced Boy", to realise that other people meant it as a compliment.

I like men who are beautiful. Delicate pretty features, big sparkly eyes, soft skin...basically the men that I love look very much like the evo-psych model of what men are supposed to find attractive in women. Except that, without exception, they all also have something savage about them, something raw and visceral. If they don't then I don't find them sexy, no matter how pretty they are. I think it's a contrast thing.

I like men who are like me. I like men who are adept at operating in polite society, who have perfect manners and strong social skills and a sense of style - but who underneath it all are completely in touch with their dark side. I like them because they are my own reflection. I've never bought the idea that opposites attract. My opposite would be someone ultra-conventional, someone who believed that the traditional way to do things is usually the right one, someone who thinks that the way things are now is just fine. Either that or it would be someone soft and New Age-ey, a lover of Deepak Chopra and angel iconography. I have met both kinds of people, and I don't like them. These people and I do not attract, we repel.

So, beautiful men. Pretty boys. Bishonen. That's what works for me. I married one, after all. It occurs to me that many of the men I find sexy would be assumed to be gay by most people. A former boyfriend of mine always was, although in fact he was bi.

And there's another thing. These pretty boys I love? I also love to see them playing with each other. It amuses me that people always assume that if within a couple one person is bi it must be the women, and if they bring in a third party that will also be another woman. That hasn't been the case for me. I used to encourage my ex to hit on guys in clubs just so I could watch him kiss them. Sometimes we used to sneak off into dark corners and both kiss them together. Sometimes we used to do the same thing in public, locked in a tangle of sweat and heat and lust, revelling in the fact that all eyes were on us. Sometimes we used to take them home with us. Sometimes I used to watch my darling boy fuck those other boys. He never let them fuck him, though, because the only person allowed to fuck him was me.

There's the other part. I used to be very much into BSDM. I seem to have drifted away from the scene over the years, mostly because I got bored. I'm not much for rituals, really - generally I live my life in a pretty random way, and after a while I felt like a hamster on a wheel doing the same things over and over again.

That's not the only reason, though, although I didn't realise it at the time. The deeper reason is that I didn't feel like there was a place for me there. What do you call a person who's dominant, who's rough and aggressive and loves skinny boys at least in part because she can throw them around in bed, but who isn't attracted to submissives? Who is in fact rather turned off by people who are submissive in day to day life, but who has a personality that for some reason seems to attract men who want to be dominated?

What I seem to want most is things that feel visceral. Visceral sex, visceral music. Those seem to be the parts of my life where I feel free to let this part of my personality out to play. I'm constantly drawn towards and fascinated with other people who seem to work the same way.

So we're back to the beginning again. I like men who are like me. Soft and pretty and civilised on the surface and all sharp teeth and claws underneath. I like women who are like me, too, although there seem to be less of them out there. Not surprising, since the main aim of patriarchy seems to be to make damn sure that women's teeth and claws are permanently removed.

What do you call someone like me? I'm kind of drawn to the term genderfuck. That sounds right to me, somehow. I look very gender-congruent on the surface, but my personality is anything but. I like men who can often be mistaken for women, at least facially. I don't like butch women, though, which is odd, at least not in a sexual way.

So, once again, where do I fit into the big confusing mess that is gender theory, or queer theory?

That's not a rhetorical question by the way, I really am asking. Because all the recent talk about trans people and differing schools of feminist thought has got me thinking. I've been thinking for years, really, and I still don't know how to define myself. I'd be curious to hear what other people think. Maybe someone more steeped in queer theory than me has a better vocabulary. Maybe there are even other people like me out there.

Side note - the song I'm listening to is AWESOME, and fits my mood perfectly. Hell, it fits my personality perfectly. Download it here.

Dir En Grey - Hydra
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=76CTITI3
password = hydra

Random question for cat peopleWhy is my cat sleeping in his food?
By which I mean, he is sleeping with his body curled up next to his food bowl and his head actually resting in the bowl is if his food was a pillow (I have tried to take a picture of this but he always somehow knows what I'm up to and runs off before I can get a clear shot). For anyone who's thinking "ew" I will point out that he gets dry food, so it's not as bad as it could be but still...why? He's been doing this for a few weeks now and I don't get it. Does anyone else's cat do this?

Some thoughts about MRAs
Since someone mentioned MRA's, in the sense that I was being unfair to them, in the comments on my last post I'm going to go ahead and lay out my position here, just so that everyone is clear. In my opinion MRAs do not have any legitimate political positions. None. Zero. The whole "divorce is so unfair because men don't get custody" thing? Dude, please...the job of the judge in a custody case is to put the child/children in whatever situation will be best FOR THE CHILD. They don't care about the feelings of the father. They don't care about the feelings of the mother, either. That's not what they're there for. The only person whose welfare they're worried about is the child, and that's exactly the way it should be.And all the "American women are so mean" crap, give me a break. Just because some woman spurned you at some point in your history that doesn't mean that all women are evil bitches. We've all had crappy relationships that ended badly. Get over it. You are not entitled to an unpaid domestic servant just because you have a dick. So sure, go get youself a mail order bride if you think that will make you happy, but just remember that the moment she enters the USA American laws apply to her too, and she just might take a look around and realise that she doesn't have to take your shit forever. And another thing...I've actually lived on every continent except Antarctica and Australia, and women in other parts of the world are just like women here. Some are great, some are not so great, they all have actual individual personalities of their own. They're not the Borg in an apron. Assuming that they're all just dying to be your devoted little woman is a very foolish thing to do.And before you even start on the draft...we currently do not have a draft. I don't think we're going to any time soon, because even Chimpy Mc Flight Suit isn't that enthusiastic about committing political suicide. If we did have a draft I would have no particular philosopshical objection to it including women (Israel's been doing it that way for years), BUT I think the draft is wrong, period. Remind me why we're talking about this even though it doesn't actually exist again? So, yeah, not a fan of the MRAs. Being angry and bitter because you went through a rough divorce is not a great basis for a political movement.And no, feminist aren't criticising MRAs because we don't like men. We just don't like you, because we're generally not big fans of either sexism or stupidity.
And if you think I'm being a bitch and don't want to talk to me any more? The door's right over there. Don't let it smack you in the ass on the way out.

Some thoughts about the recent outbreak of intercine feminist warfare
I've been politely holding my tongue for a while in an attempt to be a good little team player, but you know what? That's not me. And I'm pissed off.There seems to have been a strange outbreak of "I am the one true guardian of feminism and I'm here to tell you the rules" and you know what my response is? Bite me. And I don't mean that in a "fun" way.The next person who uses the sneering grade-school insult "fun feminist' gets a frying pan to the head. I'm not kidding. When did it become OK to look down on other women because of a bunch of totally trivial crap? Does anyone seriously believe that the point of feminism is to be the conformity police? Because that's not what I signed up for, this is my movement too, and I'm not giving it up without a fight.
Here's the thing. I like men. Not all men - some of them are fucking assholes and the world would be better off without them. If every MRA in the world was struck by lightening tomorrow my only concern would be that it might make a mess and guess who would get stuck cleaning it up? Some men are evil, dangerous bastards. But not ALL men.
Let's all try to remember the words "patriarchy is not men". It really isn't. It's a social system.
Some men are perfectly decent human beings. They do not have male cooties. Everything associated with them is not tainted by association.
Here are a list of terms that I would be very happy never to hear again..."Fun feminist", male identified, pornstitution, "sex postive" delivered in a tone so sneering it is clearly intended as an insult. I could really do without hearing other women being told that their life experiences are invalid too. If a woman says that she likes BSDM or porn or sucking dick or whatever else it is that you don't approve of you know what? Maybe she actually DOES like those things. And maybe that's OK.And all the "penises are so icky" stuff - give me a break. We're not 12. If you don't like dicks, or men's bodies in general, that's fine, but in no way does it mean that there's anything wrong or un-feminist about women who do like those things. If you're really a feminist then give other women enough respect to assume that they are not morons and they actually do know what they do and do not enjoy.Now me personally, I tend to view dicks as interesting toys that nature provided entirely for my personal amusement, so that I would have something fun to play with. This is not because I am a brainwashed sexbot, this is because I'm attracted to men. Look at my icon - I love love love men's bodies, and there is nothing wrong with that. I'm attracted to women too and view breasts much the same way, even my own. I like sex. If that's a problem for anyone, too bad. Feminism is a political movement, not a cult. 100% dedication to the movement to the exclusion of all other interests is not and should not be required. All of our identities are comlex and multi-layered, and that's a good thing. So I guess this is my coming out post. I'm a feminist. I'm also a socialist. Both are equally important to me. Fighting racism is also important to me. I'm obsessed with books, music and movies. Sometimes I'm very femmey and sometimes I'm a complete tomboy. I love ice hockey. Unless you're an Olympic athlete I guarantee I can swim faster than you can. I'm kinky as hell. I love boys who kind of look like girls. I love them even more if their bodies are unmistakeably male. I'm bolshy and agressive and I like to argue. I'm complicated, and most other people are too. I am not a fan of those who try to push others into boxes. I resent it when the pushing is done by those who claim to be acting in the best interests of women. If feminism means anything it means treating other women with respect. Referring to other women as sexbots or snottily implying that they are only saying what they are saying to suck up to the boyz is not respectful. We get enough of that crap from the other side of the political fence.

PS Since there are no icons on Blogger I'm adding the pic here because really who couldn't use more pictures of really hot guys? That and I keep referring to "my icon" and those
viewing this on blogger must be wondering what the hell I'm talking about.

A question from one feminist to some of her fellow travelers – What the fuck is wrong with you?

I am of course referring to the two recent hate-fests that broke out over at I Blame The Patriarchy. Before I get too far into this, let me make myself clear – I do not hold Twisty responsible for what other people choose to post in her comments. She has a life to live offline and she can’t monitor comments 24/7. What I’m upset about is the hateful nonsense being spewed by some of her commenters.
I really never thought that I would see the day when a feminist would say that they thought ANYONE being raped would be a good thing. Take a look at this comment.

“I can only hope that being raped gives even the most insensitive man some small distaste for raping himself. Once raped, the fantasy is over. Once raped, a man can for the first time know that sex can happen without human dignity, and that losing that dignity is the opposite of arousal.But a man never deserves pity for being raped. After all, it’s not like he had sex. Unless he’s a gay man, it was just a little lesson in what it’s like to be treated like an object.”

I repeat, what the fuck is wrong with the person who wrote that, and all the other who chimed in with similar sentiments? So now rape is OK as long as the victims are men? Rape is a teaching tool? Have you all lost your minds?
For the record I don’t think that a man being raped is in some indefinable way worse than a woman being raped. ANYONE being raped is a tragedy. Feminists of all people should know that. The idea that people who claim membership in the same movement I do could joke about how funny it would be if men were raped more often and how it might teach them something makes me so angry I want to beat the crap out of them. My ex boyfriend was raped. Want me to tell you all about how funny that was? Care to hear about how he cried like a baby on my shoulder when he told me, how guilty he felt, all the ways in which he rationalized how it must have somehow been his fault, how he didn’t want anyone to touch him afterwards because he felt dirty? Still think it’s somehow less of a big deal when it happens to a man, or that it’s all a big joke?
Then there was the “let’s all pick on the trannies” hate-fest. Take a look at this.

“This is about what all this nonsense amounts to. In short, trans are nutjobs. The bathroom is about the last place I want to be alone with a male nutjob. These unfortunate, but seriously disturbed individuals belong on the 5th floor in a straight jacket. Not in a women’s bathroom.”

Again, what the fuck is wrong with you people? With all the real, genuine enemies that feminism has to face, actual enemies who could do us actual harm, you people think that we should be worried about whether the person in the next bathroom stall used to have a dick? Seriously? You don’t think that there might be a few more pressing issues to deal with?
It’s hard to think of any group more generally stigmatized and picked on than trans people. What does it say about a movement and the people in it when they choose to pick on the weak, on the very people who are the most vulnerable? How do you think any trans people who stumbled onto that thread must have felt? Look, I’m not claiming to be any kind of authority on the trans experience. I know very little about the whole issue, and I know that it’s my heteronormative privilege as a woman who has always been completely comfortable in my own skin that allows me to go on not knowing much. What I do know, though, is that there is absolutely no good reason for hate speech no matter how ignorant a person may be about a particular issue. If you don’t know anything, shut up. That’s a pretty good rule. Let the people who actually do know something talk, and then listen to them and try to learn from their experience. Wasn’t that one of the founding principles of feminism? Listening to others and learning from what they had to say? When did some of us forget that, and what is it going to take for us to remember?
I’m seriously disgusted with a lot of you right now. If nothing else couldn’t everyone at least demonstrate a little empathy, a little basic human compassion? Is that really too much to ask?

It’s About Time…Dir En Grey are FINALLY doing a real US tour
Finally, almost 10 years later, a real Dir En Grey tour in the US. An actual tour, with a full set and opening bands and the whole shebang. OK, so the opening bands kind of suck, but nobody’s going to see them anyway. I do feel kind of sorry for them though – they’re probably going to have to play their whole sets with the crowd screaming for DEG all the way through, and musically they’re a pretty poor fit.
I’m very happy about this tour. I was starting to think I’d have to fly back to Europe to see these guys play a full set, and much as I’m happy to go home and visit, the crowds in Germany are kind of scary. I’m a small woman (158 cms), I’m not too fond of being trapped in a mosh pit with big drunk guys. This is a much better option.
The whole thing is kind of amusing, though. To give some background for those who have no idea what I’m going on about, Dir En Grey started out as a visual kei band. Think pretty boys in make-up and feminine clothes. They initially attracted an audience full of adoring teenage girls, like most visual bands do, although in their case these were not the more mainstream teenage girls, and they still aren’t. Then a few years ago they changed their look. They pretty much look like a “normal” rock band now, although the eyeliner still makes the occasional appearance. No more skirts, though, and one of the guitar players has been sporting a rather sexy little goatee recently. For anyone who’s been paying attention over the last few years it looks like they’ve been deliberately moving away from the whole visual thing. One would think that now that they’re making an effort to conquer the West that would be a pretty easy thing to do, since most people here wouldn’t recognize a visual band if one walked up and smacked them in the face with its shiny hot pants. One would think that, but one would be forgetting the power of the internet.
What’s amusing me is that the visual thing seems to have followed them over here. I went to see them back in August as part of a big summer tour with Korn (who were better than I expected them to be, BTW. The Deftones sucked, though.). You could tell who most of the DEG fans were a mile off. There were literally dozens of teenage goth girls in silly stripy tights, cheap corsets and various other Hot Topic-spawned ensembles. In California, in August. It was kind of hard not to point and laugh, but I bravely resisted the temptation. There were even a few dressed up like the band – not the way they look now, they way they looked in 1999. The whole thing was bizarre. The metal guys who were there to see Korn seemed a bit bemused by the presence of angsty, horny teenage girls, especially when they started squealing as if they were at a Justin Timberlake show.
The kiddies seemed terribly upset to realize that the band don’t look particularly girly any more. The funniest moment of the whole day was when a couple of the guys came out to do a meet and greet and one of the girls screamed “Oh my God, Shinya’s a man!”. Now granted, he spent the first few years of his career in a skirt, but still, he’s been photographed shirtless enough times that one wouldn’t think his gender was really in doubt. There was another group of girls who kept complaining about the bass player’s choice of footwear – Doc Martens, or something similar. I spent most of the show with a constant chorus of “Why can’t Toshiya wear the pretty girly clothes like he used to?” droning in my ear. The man’s almost 30, 6 feet tall, and has abs you could bounce quarters off. He’s not a pretty little boy any more, and there’s really no reason he should be. Actually he looks much sexier this way (those who are reading this on LJ – see my current icon and try not to drool. But of course I only appreciate him for his bass-playing skills. Hey, stop laughing!). I was tempted to ask the kids what the hell was wrong with their libidos, but my parents brought me up to be polite…
So, it would seem that the visual subculture is making some inroads in the US. On the one hand this is a good thing. American girls need some alternative to the constant “you must love macho frat boys, even if you think you don’t” brainwashing they’re usually subjected to. The shit-stirring part of my personality is delighted that something that flips the gender script as thoroughly as the visual scene does is taking hold over here. Visual’s anime and manga cousin, yaoi, is also making serious inroads (more about that later), also thanks to the internet. On many levels this is a good thing.
It’s just kind of a shame for Dir En Grey. This is an amazing band. Seriously, everyone I’ve ever introduced to them who likes music at the heavier end of the spectrum loves this band. They deserve a wider audience overseas. On a purely musical level if there’s any Japanese band or artist that could cross over to the US, it would be these guys (although Ellegarden and D’espairs Ray have a pretty decent chance, too, and I would love to see someone take a shot at marketing Sakarai Atsushi or Kiyoharu). The problem is that on a musical level the natural audience for them in the US is metal, punk and industrial fans, and that demographic is mostly male and more than a little homophobic. I can’t imagine what they’re going to think of the cross-dressing, making kissy faces at each other during live performances, being followed around by hordes of screaming fan girls aspect of DEG’s history, especially since it seems to be following them over here.
Just to clarify, I have no problem with cross-dressing, boys making out on stage or any other aspect of the visual scene, although I’m not too fond of the shiny sparkly Alice Nine-style stuff. Back in college I had a group of Japanese friends who were all into the visual scene, which is how I discovered it. I like pretty boys in eyeliner. Pretty boys in eyeliner and skimpy clothing are even better. I’m just not sure how this is going to play out in America. I also suspect that there’s a storm brewing about yaoi, and that once American parents realize that many of their darling little girls are essentially reading gay porn they may not be entirely happy about it. DEG is inextricably tied in to that subculture, no matter how much they may have changed over the last few years. I just hope they don’t get caught in the crosshairs.
If anyone wants me to post some mp3’s I’d be happy to do so, BTW. I’m a huge music geek and am always happy to introduce other people to artists I love. Think of me as a female version of the John Cusack character in High Fidelity. I won’t post whole albums, though, because my connection is too slow and because I think that if you like a band you should actually buy their stuff and not just leech. Support the starving musicians and all that good stuff (and frankly Shinya could use some feeding up – hey, we could use him as the “support the starving artists” poster boy. I like skinny guys, but his arms scare me).
More music blogging later, and if anyone wants to go check out Dir en Grey in February I’m posting a link to the Free Will site below, they’re selling tickets there. Ticketmaster is selling them for some venues too.

Christmas Creepiness
Damn, it's cold!OK, ignoring that for a second, the cold has me trapped in the house on a Saturday night and I've been vaguely glancing in at what my boy's watching on TV every once in a while. Thus, I finally saw part of The Polar Express.Damn that thing's creepy. People took their kids to see this movie? I would imagine doing so had rather the same effect as giving them the traditional Sacred Heart lamp to put by their bed...those must be some freaked-out kids.Why are so many Christmas specials so creepy looking anyway? Frosty the Snowman's a little odd looking too if you ignore the chirpy soundtrack, that old animatronic/stop motion Rudolph thing is bizarre, and It's a Wonderful Life just makes everyone cry. It's almost as if people LIKE making each other miserable at Christmas. The only non-creepy Christmas TV thing I can think of is How The Grinch Stole Christmas (the cartoon, not the crappy Jim Carrey movie). I actually miss the UK at Christmas time. American Christmases just aren't the same. the TV sucks, nobody sings any of the good Christmas carols (I miss In The Deep Midwinter), it starts in October, and the food's all wrong.OK, enough of that...Merry Christmas to all who celebrate it, or at least celebrate the ritual gift exchange. And Happy Birthday to my cousin Fiona, who turns 34 today.Love and kisses to all.

Who knew that Christmas was earthquake season?I just felt the second earthquake this week. Granted, it wasn't a very big one, but still...what's going on? Did anyone else local feel that?Here's hoping that these little tremors are all we get and everyone has a safe and happy holiday.

GPS Tracking of Registered Sex Offenders – Most Misguided Law Ever?
I’ve been doing a lot of reading lately about the changes in California law requiring registered sex offenders to wear GPS tracking devices. The change in law seems to have spawned more debate after the fact than when it was actually voted on, which is a shame, as a public debate would have been a very good thing in this case.
Before I go any further let me make my perspective absolutely clear. I think people who commit sex crimes are the scum of the earth. My mother was an abused child, my best friend was raped in high school. I hate these people. I think all of them should be strung up by their balls, or at least locked up where they can’t do any harm for the rest of their lives.
So, I have no problem with increasing the level of punishment meted out to sex offenders. The problem is, I would really rather that punishment focus on making sure that they don’t repeat their crimes, and in that regard tagging them with GPS devices is completely useless.
Firstly, the things don’t work very well. They’re easy to disable (seriously, some aluminum foil will do the trick). All they show is where a person is – they can’t track what the person is doing. Unless our concern is keeping a particular person away from a particular place, and we have cops on hand to swoop in and stop them if they get too close to that place, the things are basically useless. Where they might have some applicability is in cases of stalking, where a person has been forbidden to be within x number of feet of a particular building, but even in that case they wouldn’t do much good when the stalking victim had to leave the house.
Secondly, they deceive the public into thinking that we’re “doing something” about sex offenders when in face we’re missing the real issue by miles. Whether we’re talking about child abuse or the rape of adults one fact remains the same – in the majority of cases the victim knows their attacker. What the focus on high-tech hocus-pocus like GPS devices does is reinforce the idea that most cases of sexual assault are the result of “stranger danger”, of the masked man in the dark alley or the creepy guy hanging out by the playground. In the majority of cases that just isn’t the reality. I’m not saying that those people don’t exist – they do, but the fact remains that in a minimum of 70% of cases (some agencies say the number is over 90% when considering attacks on children) those who are sexually assaulted are assaulted by people they know and trust. That’s the icky fact that society just can’t seem to face. This whole GPS idea is another way to not face that unpalatable fact.
What we’re doing is dodging the real conversation that needs to happen about what to do with sex offenders. Since obviously I know that the string them up by the balls idea isn’t actually a viable option, what is? I’m voting for lifetime sentences for serious offenders – and I mean for the actual lifetime of the person, not 8-10 years.
We also need to take a serious look at how sex crimes are classified in general. Putting flashers in the same category as rapists doesn’t make much sense, though I still think that flashers need to be caught and to basically have the crap scared out of them badly enough that they think twice before doing it again. Actual, bone-fide rapists need to go to jail for life, and there need to be a lot fewer legal loopholes that allow them to escape punishment. Our age of consent laws are a mess of confusing and conflicting regulations, and they need a serious overhaul. Prosecutions for statutory rape when the participants are only a couple of years apart are absurd. Sentences for actual child abuse, with an adult abuser, need to be much, much heavier. The fact that the law treats gay sex differently to hetero sex is a disgrace.
There’s a lot of work to be done, and applying silly technological band-aids isn’t helping.

The God question

I saw an interesting book reading on MSNBC or some such on Sunday which got me thinking about the whole issue of religion and how it fits into society - or doesn't.
The person reading was Richard Dawkins (lefty British intellectual known for his dislike of religion). His reading was plenty interesting, of course - witty and clever in the way that British intellectuals are so very good at. That wasn't really what got me thinking, though. What got me thinking was the Q&A afterwards.
There were several people in the audience from Liberty University (ridiculous institution that it is). One of them asked Dawkins the usual smug religious person question - I'm paraphrasing here, but basically the gist was, if you abandon God how can you hope to have any kind of morality?
Smug religious types always ask this question in one form or another. It's kind of funny really - they seem to honestly believe that this question is the way to bring all discussion of atheism to a halt, that it conclusively proves the rightness of their position.
What a bunch of bullshit. Some of the most deeply ethical people throughout history have been nonbelievers. Would you call Siddharta/Buddha an unethical person? The real question is, if a person thinks that nobody would have any sense of right and wrong without a book to tell them what to do (which is after all what the question implies), what does that say about the person asking the question? Nothing good, in my opinion. Does anyone really need the Bible/Torah/Koran to tell them that murder, rape and child abuse are Very Bad Things? Doesn't their own conscience tell them that?
See, I think that at it's core morality is really a very simple thing. All you have to do is, in any given situation, ask yourself if what you are about to do is going to cause harm to anyone else. If the action is completely harmless, go ahead and do it. If it is clearly harmful in a way that could be avoided, don't do it. If you find yourself in a grey area, think about it some more and the answer will soon become clear.
I know I'm simplifying here, but the basic principle holds true. Any truly authentic morality is always going to be based on a desire to help rather than harm. It's honestly not that complicated, when you get right down to it.
Unless you're a fundamentalist. I don't really care which religion we're talking about because the Big 3 are basically all the same. Instead of a careful examination of one's conscience and decisions made based on the desire not to do harm they substitute a kind of slavish devotion to a heavenly rulebook. It's the morality of a 5 year old - don't do that or Mommy and Daddy will be mad! Adults are supposed to learn a more nuanced way of looking at things (check out Piaget's theory of child development if you don't believe me).
It's a strange thing, the way religion is evolving in America. It seems to be moving more and more rapidly in the direction of a kind of primitive, knee-jerk fundamentalism at exactly the same time that the rest of the First World is moving in precisely the opposite direction. It's peculiar - why is America going in so different a direction? If anyone asked Dawkins a question like that in Europe the rest of the audience would probably laugh at them. Why is it so different here? And what can we do to fix it?
The other interesting question that was asked at the Q&A was about the issue of comfort. Again I'm paraphrasing, but basically the question was, if people find comfort in their religion, who are you to take that away from them?
That's an interesting question. I personally don't understand why people find the belief in something that is manifestly not true to be comforting, but they do. To me, believing in god is rather like believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. It might have made sense when you were a child, but as a rational adult surely it's obvious that the very idea is ridiculous? The wierd thing is, I've had lots of believers ask me variations of this question, and whenever they do there's always something nervous and insecure about their tone. It's as if they desperately want me to agree with them, but already know that I won't. They expect to be laughed at. The guy who asked Dawkins the question expected to be laughed at - it was written all over him. Why then do they keep asking the question?
It's a thorny question for the largely non-religious left. Whether we as individuals identify as Marxists, feminists, Greens or whatever, one thing that most of us share is a lack of religiosity. Most of the population in this country does not agree with us. What are we supposed to do about that? Tell the truth about how we feel, or just keep quiet and let others assume that we're believers just like them.
It's clear that fundamentalists are the enemy, but what about the "Jesus is my blankie" people? How are we supposed to relate to them? We don't understand them, and they don't understand us. How do we handle that?

Just musing, but if anyone else has any ideas I'd love to hear them.

Ding dong, the witch is dead!

Can I just take a minute to celebrate the Repugs getting their self-righteous asses kicked to the curb? Because seriously, it couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of guys...
I must say that this restores some of my faith in the intelligence of the American people. Not all, not even much, but some. Of course they say that nearly half of the public still believes that Saddam Hussien had something to do with 9/11, so clearly the few brain cells in our collective cranium must be feeling a bit lonely, but some is better than none, I suppose.
I know it's a bit petty of me, but I have to admit that the thing I'm finding funniest about all this is the way that all the talking heads are now babbling about the Republicans needing a "moderate" (by which they mean anyone to the left of Jesse Helms, I assume), when just a few months ago they were calling "I love the war, yes I do!" John McCain a raving hippy. What happened to your faith in the godlike Bushie administration, guys? And what about "values"? And to think that these people accuse Kerry of flip-flopping...
The other funny thing is that the nation at large seems to be celebrating. Both of the last two nights I've been out on the town and every single place I've been has been swamped with happy drunk people, far more so than is normally the case. Or maybe it's just the Bay Area? My working theory at this point is that they're assuming that the Dems in the House will fix the economy (say by, oh I don't know, maybe not spending billions funding the Halliburton retirement plan?). And if only that were true...still, the Dems can't possibly do any worse than the last lot did, so the only way to go is up!
Hmm, not sure that martinis and blogging are a good mix. I'll stop for now. More later! Sorry about another extended absence, I'm definately back on a more permanent basis this time.


And about the witch (as in wicked and of the West), that could be any one of a number of people, but my personal vote goes to Rick Santorum. The only scary thought is that now he might actually be forced to practise medicine again, and seriously, nobody wants that.

I'm back, conflict between one's personal preferences and one's political commitments rears it's head again, and some follow-up on an earlier post.
(I REALLY need to think of snappier titles)
Hello again to all and sorry for the prolonged absence. I've been in a crappy mood (suffering from a severe case of the work-related blues). However, my mood is now much improved, not least because I'm going to see my favourite band tomorrow. I honestly thought that I would never get the chance to see these guys live, which sucks since they're a notoriously great live band, so to say that I'm happy about this would be an understatement (but then I am a Brit and understatement is one of the things we do best). This is the band that I didn't get to see back in March, as a result of which my friends had to listen to me whining for months. So, I'm a happy girl, right? Just one problem. This means I have to spend the whole day with a bunch of American metal dudes.
See what I mean about the conflict? This seems to be an ongoing issue with me, and I can't help but wonder how many other people are in the same position. See, I love a lot of really loud, obnoxious music. When this means punk it's not too much of a problem, as other than the ever-present danger of getting crushed in the mosh pit most punk crowds are actually quite politically savvy and female friendly, or at least smart enought to know that being openly misogynistic is not kosher. Metal crowds are another matter entirely. The show I'm going to tomorrow is headlined by Korn. Oh dear.
I hate most American metal fans. I'm sorry, but I do. I once nearly punched someone at a Metallica show in Biloxi because he thought that it was cute to grab my breasts from behind me and squeeze in the middle of the show. I was barely 15 at the time, he was probably mid-twenties. The only reason I didn't hit him was because it occured to me that there was a very good chance he might actually punch me back. Little, 5ft2, 15 year old me. Aren't metal guys great?
So, tomorrow I get to see what is in my opinion the best band in the world right now, but the payoff is that I have to spend the day with a bunch of guys so unevolved that one often wonders if many of them were repeatedly dropped on their heads as infants. I've already seen footage of the earlier part of this tour taken by one of the minor bands, and it's a metal crowd alright - big fat hairy dudes in ancient tour shirts, drunk frat boys galore, and slutty-looking girls flashing their boobs at the bands. See how aggravated this makes me? I am normally the last person to ever use a word like "slutty", but in this case how else do you put it? I have never understood why women feel the need to flash at concerts. I can honestly say that I have never felt the slightest urge to show my breasts to either the band I'm watching or the crowd of random drunk dudes around me. Why do people do this, exactly? To me, watching them do it, it looks like an obeiscence, as if rather than waiting to be put in their place they're actually doing it to themselves. Why would anyone do that?
Then there's the CD signing, meet and greet part. I'd love to get some of my stuff signed, particularly given how rarely these guys (the band is Dir En Grey, in case anyone wonders what the hell I'm talking about. I'll put links at the bottom of the post) are in the US. However, because of the ever-present groupie phenomenon at metal shows, the atmosphere at meet and greets tends to be a bit wierd for a woman, particularly an attractive woman. In this case it's even wierder than usual as this is a very pretty band, with a huge female following back in Japan, so take the usual wierdness and add the fact that most women there are going to instinctively respond to the guys in the band in a flirtatious way, not because they're groupies, but because these are guys who you'd be flirting with if they were serving you coffee or fixing your car. I'm not quite sure how the metal dudes who're there to see Korn etc are going to respond to that, but I'm willing to bet it will be nasty. I'm almost tempted to wear the unsexiest thing I can find just to minimise the wierdness, but the show's in Sacramento, outdoors, and it's August - it's going to be hot as hell. So, either I have to just live with the wierdness and go to the meet and greet anyway, or I have to miss out on what is after all a fairly significant part of the whole going-to-see-a-band experience just because metal people in general are sexist idiots. This is something that has always annoyed me about going to shows, and I know I'm not the only one. Any other women come up with a good way to deal with this? Because I usually just end up quietly seething. Good thing there's going to be some loud, aggressive music there to get all that frustration out of my system!
It's wierd how often I run into this. All the things I love in a cultural sense (music, fashion, sports etc) seem to bring me into direct contact with people whom, in a political sense, I disagree with on almost every level. My love for these things also puts me in conflict with my natural political allies - seriously, can you imagine what would be said if I proclaimed my adoration for some loud, aggressive, creepy video-making, formerly cross-dressing Japanese metal band over at IBTP? It would make the BSDM debacle seem like a friendly conversation between dear friends. And I get this feeling all the time.
I guess I'm just musing/venting because this really is an ongoing thing where I feel like I'm constantly torn between the things that I naturally gravitate towards and what my political allies seem to expect of me. I'm not torn on a personal level - as far as I'm concerned I just like what I like, I'm wired to be drawn towards dark, disturbing things (talk to me about horror movies some time), and that's just the way I am. The conflict is between what I'm "supposed" to enjoy versus what I actually enjoy. I'm just not an Indigo Girls listening, baggy hemp clothes wearing kind of person, you know? The stuff I'm "supposed" to like bores me to death. Anyone else running into the same phenomenon? How are you dealing with it?

Dir En Grey Links follow...
Pics of show in Denver, Family Values Tour with Korn, Deftones etc (these pics are DEG only)
First page is the singer only for some reason, rest of the band are on the other pages
http://s24.photobucket.com/albums/c46/jl_toshee/Dir%20en%20grey-Denver-06/

Umbrella mp3
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=418JYXNL

Hydra mp3
file password is hydra - just enter "hydra" in space prompted and hit Enter key
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=76CTITI3

R to the Core mp3
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U84I1HO9

Embryo
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=6P52JRXC

Increase Blue
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=YKMJK3ZI

Akuro No Oka
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=N1EPUCWN

OK, now on to the serious stuff...
Somehow I seem to have managed to get myself into a fight over at I Blame The Patriarchy. This does not make me happy, as I like and admire Twisty very much, and I generally agree with almost everything she has to say.
I think she's dead wrong about this, though. I am referring of course to the great feminist BSDM debate, which seems to flare up on a regular basis over there. I will freely admit that I have been guilty of starting conversations on this subject myself, but I'm beginning to really wish that I hadn't and that everyone would just shut up about it before we all rip each other's throats out.
Here's the thing - feminists have been arguing about this since the seventies. None of that arguing has ever produced anything even vaguely resembling a consensus. Both sides of the debate are quite firmly entrenched in their views, and neither side is likely to budge or change their opinions at this point. Despite the tendency on both sides to assume that the other side just doesn't know what they're talking about the fact is that most people who hold strong opinions on this subject hold them for a reason, and as such they are unlikely to be swayed by any arguments the other side has to offer. Why then are we still arguing about it?
For the record, I think that BSDM is like most other things - it has the potential to be either good or bad, and how it plays out in practise depends greatly on the ethics and motivations of the people involved. I've met some people who've had horrible experiences with BSDM, and others who have stepped in, had a great time and stepped out again when they got bored with no harm done. I have also met a smaller but stastically significant number of people for whom BSDM is simply part and parcel of who they are - they don't enjoy vanilla sex, and seem to simply be wired in such as way that they will always feel the need to play out power issues in the bedroom. I just don't see what purpose is served by telling these people that they are failing the feminist cause and not living up to their ideals every time they pick up a flogger or put on a corset. I also see no reason why those who are anti-BSDM continue to insist that all BSDM is male dom/female sub or that the only real female doms are the pros, who are not really doms since they are only doing what they do at the sufference of their male partners, who could withdraw that sufference at any time.
See, it's not that I don't understand the point that the anti's are trying to make. I just don't agree with them. It's kind of ironic that I'm even involved with this conversation, given that I've been out of the scene for over 10 years (I was one of the ones who had a good time while it lasted but eventually got bored with the ritualistic aspect of things, in case anyone is wondering).
I could go on about the many ways in which I think the anti side are misunderstanding what BSDM is really all about (I could start with the fact that not all female doms are pro's and/or paid for their time, a particularly annoying assumption since it essentially implies that all female doms are prostitutes, not a nice thing for one feminist to be implying to another). That would however clearly be a waste of my time, as the point has been made before without it doing anything to resolve the debate. As has just about every other point that could conveivably be made about this issue.
That's the purpose of this little rant, and what keeps prompting me to get involved in this conversation. As feminists we need to realise that we are a small movement with lots of enemies. Between the religious wack-jobs and the crazy money-grubbing Republicans and your basic garden variety sexists we have plenty of actual opponents to do battle with, real opponents who really do want to do us harm and reverse every gain that we've made in the past hundred years. Why the hell are we wasting our time fighting each other? Given the country's current rapid drift towards a Handmaiden's Tale-like nightmare with no legal abortion and a crappy economy and the dismantling of Social Security, can we really not find something more important to worry about than policing the way that other people fuck? When you stop to think about it it's actually kind of absurd - we're facing some of the greatest actual threats to the feminist project in years and we're busy arguing amongst ourselves about what is and is not an acceptable way for a feminist to get her rocks off. Simone De Beavoir must be rolling in her grave.
So please, people, rather than spending our time attacking each other over what are after all rather private matters can we not all just agree to disagree and get on with the actual business at hand, namely taking our country back from the dangerous lunatics who are currently attempting to drag us all back to the Stone Age?

This really sucks...
Just found out that one of my favourite bands (Dir En Grey), a band which never plays live in the US, is going to be at the SXSW festival in Austin on 3/17. The reason this sucks is that I can't go. Firstly because I don't have a festival pass and really object to paying $600 for a full pass when I only want to see one band, secondly because apparently every hotel within a 10 mile radius of downtown Austin is already fully booked (well, I suppose all those bands have to sleep somewhere), and thirdly because I didn't realise they were playing until now and thus did not book plane tickets. Have you ever tried to book plane tickets on short notice? It's hellaciously expensive. I did a quick calculation and figured out that I would have to spend over $1000 dollars just to get there, find a place to stay and arrange transportation to the appropriate venue and back. As much as I love Diru, that seems a bit ridiculous. There's also the fact that since I don't have a festival pass I would be at the bottom of the line to get into events, making it likely that I might not be able to get into the gig even if I showed up.
Damn, I'm bummed out about this. I suppose the only positive thing to take away is that Diru now have official US distribution, which is why they're at SXSW in the first place, so maybe this will lead to a real tour. Take notice, music biz people - Diru have literally thousands of fans in the US who quite happily shell out major cash for import CDs all the time. If anyone was smart enough to put a real tour together it would sell out no problem. The audience is here, but we can't all go to Japan just to see a gig - can't someone at that nice new US distribution level find a way to bring the mountain to us?

PS Anyone who is going to be at SXSW (lucky bastards) NEEDS to go see Dir En Grey. Seriously, if you like heavy rock/industrial music this is without a doubt the best band in the world right now. They wipe the floor with Ministry...they make Nine Inch Nails sound like the Backstreet Boys. This band is simply astonishing. Go see them. I only wish I could come with you...

Octavia Butler, RIP

I just heard the news that pioneering feminist African American science fiction author Octavia Butler died over the weekend. Apparently she fell and suffered a head injury. She died on Saturday.
Yet another talent lost far too soon. Butler was only 58 years old. She was hugely talented, and one of the most openly political of modern sf writers. She once stated that she started writing sci fi because she had been reading it for a while and had noticed that "apparently there are no black people in the future".
She will be very much missed.

More random musings about tastes, kinks and identity

Since my recent re-immersion in music began I've been thinking a lot about the question of how identity is contructed. Specifically, I've been thinking about how one's involvement in a particular subculture affects one's sense of identity.
I had a wierd conversation with a co-worker about my fondness for the Japanese visual kei scene. For those who have no idea what I'm talking about, "visual kei" is a catchall term for a bunch of bands most of whom are broadly at the heavier end of the rock/punk/industrial spectrum (though there seem to be more and more annoyingly poppy ones recently) and who also tend to place a very heavy emphasis on their visual style. There are a lot of goth influences,frequent hints of BSDM, an abundance of eyeliner, very tight leather pants, and frequent cross-dressing. One of the biggest stars of the scene has literally never been seen in public not dressed as a woman as far as I can tell (and he makes a rather pretty girl in an ice-queen kind of way), which is a bit disconcerting given his deep and noticeably masculine voice. There's also a great deal of homoerotic imagery, though most of the musicians say that they're straight.
I have always had a deep affection for the visual kei scene. There are a few bands who I don't like at all, and some whom I adore, but my fascination for the scene in general has remained constant for many years. The strange thing for me about the conversation I had with the co-worker was the fact that she kept using the word "exotic" to describe the scene, and my interest in it. The reason this struck me as odd was that the scene is so appealing to me not because it's exotic, but because it feels utterly familiar. I grew up in the goth and punk scenes in the UK, and my entire adolescence was spent hanging out with pretty, androgynous boys in eyeliner. Nothing could be more familiar to me. I've always felt most at home with the people who the mainstream regards as kind of freaky - skinny punk boys with tattoos and piercings are extremely sexy to me, and the classic All American Boy may as well not exist from a sexual point of view as far as I'm concerned. That's the wierd thing about the visual kei scene - it doesn't feel strange, foreign or "exotic" to me, it feels like home.
This got me thinking about the way in which we all contruct our identities. I think that those of us who feel strongly drawn to a particular subculture identitfy much more strongly with those who share that affiliation than with others whom we may superficially appear to have more in common with. It's a particularly thorny issue for those of us who also have strong political affiliations. In a conflict between feminists and BSMD people, which side am I on? Do I have to pick a side?
I've also been thinking about how much, for me at least, sexual orientation plays a part in the subcultures that I'm drawn to. I'm leaning towards saying that BSDM, or kinky in a more general sense, should actually be regarded as a separate sexual orientation just like being straight, gay or bi is. If I'm honest with myself, I have to admit that nearly every subculture I've ever become involved with, I was initially drawn into by an encounter with a person who I was attracted to. In the case of the visual kei scene, it was a Japanese girl who I used to know in London and whom I most definately had the hots for. She introduced me to her friends, all of whom were art school/visual kei kids, and thus an obsession was born...
I've also been thinking about how easy it is for people who do have a particular kink, for lack of a better word, to identify each other. I've always been able to spot another person with a strong sense of kink at 1000 paces, and subs are even easier for me to identify. I'm just not quite sure why. Is there some sort of gaydar equivalent for kinky people? What would we call such a thing? Any suggestions?
I'm curious to hear if any of the other strongly subculture-identified people on here have experienced the same thing as far as being able to spot other members of one's own in-group. Thomas? Arwen?

Cool new technology for music fans, and my recent absence.

So I've been neglecting my blog again. My bad. The reason for my recent spate of benign neglect is that I've been going through one of my periodic phases of not being interested in anything except music. This happens on a fairly regular basis, and it's one of the reasons why I make a lousy activist. The reality is, I eat, sleep, and breathe music. When I'm writing fiction I always have a song or an album in my head that goes along with the mood of what I'm writing. I'm a music junkie, in that I actually use music as a mood-altering substance the same way other people use booze or dope. I like to think that my way is healthier, for my body if not for my bank account.
(Right now I'm listening to The Charlatans - The Only One I Know, by the way. It's good upbeat blogging music. See what I mean?)
Given my music addiction I was very interested to hear about a new online application called Pandora that claims to be able to analyse music by its components, which it refers to as "DNA", and use that information to make recommendations. This is an intriguing idea. Most people give up listening to a lot of music once they leave college, and according to the people behind Pandora the most frequent reason given is that they can't find any new music to listen to once they aren't immersed in a culture where other people are giving them suggestions any more. This has not been an issue for me, as I go out of my way to seek out new music all the time, but it would seem to offer a potential cure for the music blah's for the general listener. I was interested to see how well the engine works and if it would make suggestions that would actually work for me, so I checked it out.
The way it works is that you enter the name of an artist, album or song and it creates a "radio station" that plays music that shares the "DNA" of the artist or song you chose - in other words it searches for music with strong structural similarities. It also tells you what the "DNA signatures" of the artist/song you entered are.
(Now we're on to Ministry - Stigmata. MUCH faster, kind of industrial meets speed metal, but with a catchy, hooky chorus.)
I cannot praise this tool highly enough. Even for a music geek like me it brought up stuff that I liked and would probably never have found otherwise, so I can only imagine how much of a revelation it might be for those who don't do as much active exploration as I do.
(Now I'm listening to Dir En Grey - Increase Blue. Metal, more or less, with yet another catchy chorus - I seem to be particularly fond of bands who can take heavy stuff and make it catchy. Also worth noting the rather kinky lyrical edge to both of the last 2.)
I entered a bunch of different stuff into Pandora, and apparently there are some distinct patterns to the music I like. This is particularly interesting in light of the fact that I deliberately entered a number of artists who would not typically be considered as belonging to the same genre or musical movement. There may well be something to this DNA idea.
(Now I'm listening to The Manic Street Preachers - From Despair to Where. Much less heavy and more melodic, with complex harmonies and gloomy but darkly ironic lyrics, and strings in the background. Weird but it works.)
Apparently I really like mild syncopation, complex vocal harmonies, a mix of electric and acoustic elements, prominent guitars, and complex instrumentation.
(Now listening to Kaggra - Yousai. This one is much less "rock" and much wierder than the last few songs but, now that I think about it, it does indeed have syncopated beats, complex harmonies and instrumentation - this song must be a bitch to play live - and a mixture of electric and acoustic elements.)
I feel like a kid with a new toy. If you're at all interested in music this is way too much fun not to share. Check it out - I'm curious to see how well it does at predicting what other people will like.

Finally, a modern American female celebrity who I don't want to smack in the head with a chair...
I'm talking about Felicity Huffman. If any of you get the chance to catch her 60 Minutes interview I highly recommend it. The interviewer/ patriatrchy-worshipping bimbo asks her if her 2 kids are the most important thing in her life, and she says "No! And I resent the question".
I wanted to kiss her. She goes on to explain exactly why that's such an offensive question, starting with the fact that anyone who says no is assumed to be a bad mother and a bad person in general. TV bimbo also asked her how she could have possibly empathised with the character she plays in "Transamerica"'s sense of not being at home in her own skin and deep emotional angst, and she said "Doesn't everyone?".
It's wierd how rare it is to see anyone being honest on American TV. We're all so used to hearing the officially mandated bland platitudes that it's quite startling to see someone saying anything real, or answering a question like a normal human being. How depressing.

Why I have no intention of going to see "Memoirs of a Geisha"

As the usual pre-Oscar marketing blitz takes hold I am increasingly being subjected to queries about when I'm planning to go see "Memoirs of a Geisha". The simple answer is, some time after hell freezes over.
In a way I suppose I know why people are asking what to me seems like a completely asinine question to be asking a feminist married to an Asian man. My interest in Japanese pop culture is fairly well known at work, mostly due to the fact that I have little badges of one of my favourite bands (L'arc En Ciel, in case anyone was wondering) decorating the bag I take to work (and yes, I know having badges on my bag is kind of juvenile - so shoot me). Since the badges are of cute little cartoon figures of the band, this tends to lead to people asking me what they're all about, hence my fondness for the Japanese rock scene being fairly well known to my co-workers.
Why this should lead anyone to assume that I would want to see a crappy Hollywood blockbuster about a faux-Japanese woman being forced into sexual slavery by a rigidly patriarchal culture that hardly even exists and more is, however, a little difficult to understand.
Why do I despise the very idea of this movie? Oh, let me count the ways. Firstly, the book on which the movie is based is in turn loosely (and I mean VERY loosely) based on the memoirs of an actual former geisha. The woman in question is on record stating that she is not at all happy with what the (sexist, racist, clearly not too bright) American author did with her memoirs. Indeed, Mr Golden should consider himself lucky that the woman in question's very Japanese good manners have thus far prevented her from giving him the taking down that he so richly deserves for his very silly book.
Secondly, memo for racist Hollywood executives - I hate to break it to you but, despite what you seem to believe, all Asian people do not in fact look alike. Japanese and Chinese people in particular do not look alike at all. Over Christmas the subject of this movie came up while I was having dinner with my in laws (note - I was the only non-Asian person in the room). The first comment made by each and every person was "but she looks so Chinese!". This is in no way intended as an insult,by the way - Zhang Ziyi is a very beautiful woman. What she is quite clearly not, however, is Japanese. And why, pray tell, does her character in this movie have blue eyes? She's not supposed to be hapa - were the creators of this movie under the impression that colored contacts were in common use in Kyoto during the 1930s?
So, all the main female roles in the movie (with one exception which is a fairly minor role) are played by Chinese actresses, none of whom look remotely Japanese. The wierdness of this is even more emphasised by the fact that all of the leading actors are Japanese, which leads to a rather odd visual effect - in what strange country inhabited only by Chinese women with wierd fake-looking blue eyes and Japanese men is this story supposed to be set?
Secondly, why did they film most of the movie in California? Golden Gate Park is very pretty, but it doesn't exactly bear an overwhelming resemblence to the traditional gardens of Kyoto. To anyone who's ever seen the real Kyoto, even in pictures, the scenery is downright distracting. The trees and flowers are all wrong. You keep expecting a couple of Deadheads to come ambling out of the bushes and offer Sayuri a hit off their bong.
Thirdly, why are some of the characters speaking with strange faux-Japanese accents? Either English or Japanese would be fine, but pick a language and stick with it. The dialect in this film is verging on Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's levels of offensiveness in some of the clips I've seen. Was there really any need for that?
Fourthly, could you find a more offensive stereotype of the passive, compliant Asian woman than the geisha? No wonder the white male racists who run the movie business love the idea of this movie. They'll be eating it up in Peoria, mark my words. Our MRA friends will be in heaven.
Fifthly, why does American pop culture persist in painting Japan as a country trapped in amber, as if wandering ronin still walked the land? From Shogun to Lost In Translation to this, I've yet to see an American movie dealing with Japan that didn't make me want to either throw something at the screen or curl up in embarrasment while apologising profusely for the stupidity of my countrymen.
And speaking of Lost in Translation, Chris Doyle (fabulous Aussie born, HK based cinematographer) had a great rant about that movie and what it says about Western racism and cultural arrogance. I'd love to see what he has to say about this steaming pile of stereotypes.
Lastly, if they really had to make this stupid movie, couldn't they have at least have noticed that the lot of the geisha was not a happy one, and I don't mean in a faux-romantic/tragic way but in a quite genuine sexual slavery and being required to kiss ass for a living really sucks kind of way? And I know I'm going on about this, but could they really not find a Japanese actress to play the lead? If one was making a blockbuster with a Japanese female lead who is required to sing, dance and play musical instruments wouldn't you think that they logical person to cast would be, say, Ayumi Hamasaki (who not only used to be an actress but can actually sing)? Of course, Ms Hamasaki would have probably had enough common sense and general self respect to refuse to have anything to do with this pile of crap.
Finally - have the producers of this movie never heard the phrase "comfort women"? To make a movie about Japan featuring a cast of Chinese actresses and have them play, of all things, glorified prostitutes...the mind boggles.
Please don't misunderstand me - I like Zhang Ziyi, and I LOVE Gong Li, who is one of the most talented actresses working today and who deserves far better than this exploitative nonsense. It's just that the whole idea of this project pretty much stinks from start to finish. What the hell were any of the people involved thinking? And are American audiences really stupid enough to think that the life of a geisha was "romantic", and to be unable to tell the difference between a Chinese and a Japanese woman? Sadly, I suspect that the answer to both is probably yes. How very depressing.
The SF Bay Guardian has a number of notable comments about this movie in this week's issue, including one that called in a slap in the face to all Asian Americans. Judging from the reactions it's getting from the people I know, that seems to be a not uncommon reaction. Merry fucking Christmas from Hollywood, where sexism and racism are both still very much the order of the day.

Things that really piss me off, Part 1 - The Abortion Wars

Propaganda on BART
OK, as of now I am officially pissed. What did I see as I was taking the train into work this morning that made me want to throw my coffee cup at the wall and go find the person responsible so I could kick his or her ass, you ask? Well, I’m happy to share. What I saw was an anti-abortion propaganda poster from something called the Respect for Life Ministry in Oakland. The poster featured a blurry picture of a woman clutching protectively at her belly with text saying something along the lines of “The Supreme Court made abortion legal up till 9 months. Don’t you think we’ve gone too far?”.
Firstly, respect for whose life? Certainly not mine, which was not improved in any way by having to read this crap before my morning coffee. I’m not seeing how this improves the lives of all the American citizens currently getting shot at by the Iraqi resistance, either, or all the Katrina victims who are still waiting for someone to find them a permanent place to live. There are actual crises going on where those who have a genuine desire to preserve and improve the lives of others could be a real help if they chose to, and this is what these idiots are worried about?
I’m so sick and tired of this disingenuous bullshit from the fetus-fetishists. First of all, abortion is not in fact generally legal up to 9 months. Really late-term abortions are only legal in cases of extreme fetal abnormalities or risk to the life of the mother. It is not in fact possible for a woman who is 8 and a half months pregnant to walk into a clinic and say “I’d like an abortion now, please, I just suddenly upped and changed my mind. Oopsie, silly me!”. Despite how much those who fetishise the fetus would like to believe it, most abortions do not in fact happen in the third trimester, and the few that do happen for serious medical reasons. These procedures are not done on a whim.
Secondly, who is this “we” of whom they speak? Most Americans support legalized abortion. These crass attempts at emotional manipulation are nothing more than an attempt to get around that basic fact by misleading the public into thinking that something truly shocking is happening, when in fact the reality is much more mundane.
Here’s the really creepy thing. While I’m sure that there are a few anti-abortion zealots so uneducated that they really do believe that women are randomly running out and getting abortions in the eighth month of pregnancy for completely trivial reasons, I’m also pretty sure that those are not the people who are running campaigns like this. I’m sure that most of the people who design posters like this are very well aware that the only abortions that happen really late in pregnancy happen because the fetus is so genetically abnormal that it’s life expectancy outside the womb would be very short, or because continuing with the pregnancy would place the life of the mother in danger. So, if they are aware of the reality, why send out messages that attempt to mask that reality? There are only two reasons as far as I can see. One, they are so determined to win people over to their cause that they don’t care if the have to lie to do it. Secondly, they honestly think that danger to the life of the mother just isn’t all that important. I’m betting on the second, actually.
Can we please just stop pretending that these people don’t hate women?
So, I’m officially pissed. Is it even legal for religious organizations to prosthelatise on public transport? And why, in an area as liberal as this, would the BART officials agree to sell advertising space to these lunatics? I’m thinking that this may be a great opportunity for a bit of citizen activism. This is not Kansas, folks, and this crap has no place in the Bay Area. I’m getting mighty tired of the religious right’s attempts to intrude on my personal space, and I see no reason why people should be forced to look at religious propaganda while they’re commuting to work in the morning. So, Bay Area folks, is there anything we can do about this? Start some kind of campaign to let BART know that this stuff is not acceptable in the Bay Area?

On Brokeback Mountain and how women really feel about hot guys making out

I saw a really interesting discussion over at Pandagon the other day which, due to my recent blogging hiatus, I didn't stumble across until everyone else had moved on, so I thought I'd resart the conversation here. The initial post was about the movie Brokeback Mountain and one homophobic little weenie's horrified response, in which he asserted that all American as disgusted by the very thought of anal sex, and that no-one wants to see two hot young actors going at it on the big screen, therefore the movie is destined to be a failure.
It took me a while to stop laughing for long enough to be able to type, but now that I've calmed down a bit, I wanted to address the many layers of bullshit in this idiot's argument.
First of all, no one wants to see two hot young men men making out? Is this guy smoking crack? Firstly, about 10% of the male population is gay, and an unspecified further number are bisexual/bicurious. Does this guy think that these men don't buy movie tickets? Like I said, the idea is laughable.
The more interesting thing that he's overlooking, at least to me, is a quite different phenemenon, though. Namely, that a significant percentage of the straight female population LOVES to watch hot young men make out. Tempting as it is to just mock our homophobic little friend for his sexual ignorance, I suspect that many other straight men in this country are under exactly the same illusion, and I find that interesting. A quick poll of my female friends finds that at least 50% would be VERY happy to watch a couple of hot young guys making out, although most of us are less enthusiastic about gay porn per se, the reason cited usually being that it's a bit too agressive for most of our tastes. Given that, why the disconnect between what so many women actually find sexy and men's perception of what women find sexy?
I don't really have an answer on that one, but I do have a few theories. Firstly, I think it may just be an aspect of the generalised idea floating around in our society that women are fundamentally asexual, and that our sexuality only exists as a function of what men need in order to get off. I'm sorry to be so crass, but that does seem to be a fairly common viewpoint. From that point of view, the idea that women have any desires that aren't useful to the average straight guy becomes puzzling.
The bigger thing going on here, though, is our culture's continuing insistence that men cannot and should not ever be viewed as sexual objects. Or, to put it in academic language, one of our culture's central myths is not so much that women do not have "the gaze" (although that's a part of the issue), as it is that men are not ever supposed to be the objects of the gaze.
As I've said before, I think this idea is ludicrous. I objectify men all the time. So does every other straight or bi woman I know. The fact that our culture stubbornly refuses to acknowledge that that ever happens is a source of frequent amusement to me.
This underlying cultural phenomenon becomes immediately apparent when discussing the idea that women like looking at men making out. Most men I've ever had this conversation with have looked at me with blank incomprehension, as if I had just suggested something that their brains were simply not able to process. The idea that men are never sexual objects, and that women don't have enough sexual energy of their own to feel the need to objectify others, is so prevalant that most people never even question it. Try to talk to anyone in academia about "the gaze" and you'll see what I mean.
The wierd thing about this is, this idea about who has the gaze and who does not is not universal across all societies. Example - as anyone reading this probably knows, I'm interested in Japanese pop culture. Within that pop culture, there is a positive glut of homoerotic imagery produced specifically for female consumption. You see it in manga, you see it in anime, and you see it in the music industry. In fact, one of my favourite Japanese pop stars is notorious for the fact that all of his live shows feature a great deal of homoerotic play between him and his band members. Watch a video of those live shows, and you can clearly see that the homoerotic moments are what really makes the little girls scream in Beatlemania-like ecstasy. The singer in question refers to these cleverly staged homoerotic tableaux as "fanservice", and claims that he himself is straight and is putting on a show in order to make his female fans happy (and on behalf of those female fans I say - thanks, babe, we appreciate it!).
If you're a woman who likes looking at hot guys fool around in Japan, there is an entire section of the pop culture devoted to making you happy. This is perfectly logical, as the people who produce music, movies etc are not stupid and know which side their bread is buttered on. The question is, why is there no equivalent material catering to the desire of women to watch hot boys make out in the US? Given the worship of the almighty dollar that prevails over here, you would think that someone would have identified this market segment which is so woefully underserved and come up with some product to sell women like me and my friends. Why haven't they?
Postcript : for those who are shaking their heads and wondering what the hell I'm talking about in regards to the prevalance of pretty boys fooling around in Japanese pop culture, I recommend Googling the term "bishonen". It's very illuminating, and does tend to make you wonder why our culture has failed to produce much in the way of a similar phenomenon.

PS Does anyone here know how to create trackbacks in Blogger? I feel like I should be giving Amanda credit for starting me musing on this topic.

Quick repost of something I posted at Alas. I realised that I'm carpetblogging, as Arwen puts it, again, so I thought I'd move the conversation back over here. The topic at hand - race as a component of identity. I need to go to bed soon, but I'll come back and tidy this up tomorrow.
I really do think that Americans are insane on the topic of race, by the way. A few months ago I had a fellow leftist feminist call me a racist because I said that I was attracted to Asian men. Not "I love the culture because I have some ignorant idea that it is X, Y and Z" or "I think that men from Asia have X characteristics", just that I tend to find Asian men in general more physically attractive than other demographics, although not exclusively so (I was talking about a particular group of Japanese rock stars, FYI). Only in America could that be construed as racist.
Anyway, re-post below. Thoughts?

Also, this was interesting (about the idea of in-groups)“Now, people are not necessarily naturally racist in the sense that they are hardwired to define “their own kind” in terms that are based on race; generally it is based on whom they associate with; however, for most of human history people were a lot more segregated by race than they are now, so “their own kind” was determined racially. Moreover, as the preference for “one’s own kind” is related to the biological imperative to spread one’s genes, “nature’s intent” as it were was for the preference to be racial (i.e. to benefit those in the same extended family) and race is probably the easiest category for people to develop the sense of “ones’ own kind” with.
Just look at how many “primitive” tribes’ (i.e. not integrated into modern civilization) names for themselves are “the people”? or “the true people” or something like that.”
//My comment begins here///
Here’s the thing. More and more as time goes on and mass communications, cheap and frequent travel etc become factors, what people see as signifying “one’s own kind” may be changing.Take me as an example. When I think of “my kind” race has nothing to do with it. I’m much more likely to identify people of a different race who belong to the same subcultures as me (goth, BSDM, artsy/creative) as “my kind” than people of my own race who look superficially like me but do not share my subcultural identifications. So, for example, a white Evangelical soccer mom with 3 kids who is as conventional as can be and has never left the town in Arkansas she grew up in? Not “my kind”. Someone involved in the Japanese visual kei scene with a creative job? “My kind”. Bill O’Reilly? Not “my kind”, even though we’re not only both white but both Celts who were brought up as Christians. The woman I met last week on the train who is trying to carve out a career for herself as a dancer who I spent half an hour talking leftist poltitics with, who happens to be from Brazil? “My kind”. Race is only one of the factors that make up identity.Of course I had a wierd upbringing (ex-pat/Third Culture kid) and that may have something to do with it, but I think that outside the poisonous racial politics that still prevail in much of the US, the idea of race as one’s primary marker of identity is on the wane, at least for a certain (admittedly elite) section of society. Honestly, I think that most Americans don’t realise how much more blatantly racist than most other societies their country is. I’ve never been anyplace as race-concious as the American South.Which is another relevant point. The idea of race in most societies is intimately bound up with the idea of class. The higher up the social ladder you look, the less race matters. This is true in every country I’ve ever lived in, and I’ve lived on 4 different continents.
I’m probably getting a bit off topic so I’ll quit now, but I do think it’s worth noting that the obsession with the idea of race as the one and only way to classify people, and the refusal to recognise how class is tied into that, is somewhat of a uniquely American issue.Also, I’d argue with the idea that people always historically defined “their own kind” by race. If a population was geographically isolated and had no contact with other racial groups, how would that even be possible? the idea of race is oppositional in nature - how would people define themselves that way if they had no outside group to compare themselves to?
This part in particular freaked me out.” Moreover, as the preference for “one’s own kind” is related to the biological imperative to spread one’s genes, “nature’s intent” as it were was for the preference to be racial (i.e. to benefit those in the same extended family)” If you’re suggesting what you seem to be suggesting, I can only point out that in every society in which people of differing races have co-existed, they have had sex with and had children with each other. If your idea that a “preference for one’s own kind” is related to the imperative to “spread one’s genes” was true, that wouldn’t happen, and yet it does, every time. Proving, once again, that there’s nothing inherant about racism.

My recent absence
Some of you may have noticed that I haven't been posting very much recently. Yes, I'm a bad blogger. Mea culpa and all that.
There is a reason, though. My fiction-writing muse seems to have returned, and knowing from experience that she could depart just as quickly as she arrived, I'm taking advantage of the inspiration and concentrating on my fiction for now.
Some of you may also have noticed an increasing obsession with Japanese pop culture (I'm trying to reign this in and not bore you guys to death with it too much). Again, there is a reason for this - the male lead in the piece I'm working on is Japanese. Which brings me to a favour I wanted to ask - is anyone who reads this blog at all familiar with Japanese culture? Has anyone ever lived in Japan? If so, I might want to enlist you as a beta reader at some point.
Also, since I note that we have a few sci-fi fans here, I have a hypothetical situation that I could use some input on. The story that I'm working on has somewhat of a speculative fiction slant to it. Specifically, it has a couple of lead characters who have exceptionally long lifespans and may in fact not be entirely human. I'm not talking about vampirism - frankly I think that whole vampire theme has been done to death recently, and I'm not remotely interested in going there. However, this does leave me with a bit of a problem, in that I have characters with unusually long lifespans and no easy, pat explanation for why that should be the case. So, the question is, if you as a reader were to run across that in a book would you feel the need for a pseudo-scientific explanation involving DNA,gene mutations etc? Or would you be able to accept the idea that the people themselves might not know the reason for their long lifespans? Would it really bug you if no clear explanation was given, beyond "there are a few of us who are this way, and nobody really knows why"? Or would no explanation be preferable to a crappy pseudo-scientific "explanantion" that doesn't really make any scientific sense anyway?
I'm at a point where I could probably cut out that element of the story or create some kind of work-around, but I don't really want to. I tend to think that my first instincts as far as how to structure a story are usually the right ones. It would be interesting to hear other people's input, though. So, any comments?

Sometimes I really hate my homeland...
I'm assuming that everyone has heard about the recent British survey that found that 34% of people thought that a woman who is flirtatious and is raped is partially or totally responsible for what happens to her? I'm also guessing that I'm not the only one who's mighty pissed off about this. Why must my countrymen display the emotional and intellectual development of 12 year olds? Why the persistance of the cultural myth that any man who finds himself in the presence of a woman who does not appear to be an 80 year old nun simply cannot be expected to control himself?
It's always puzzled me that more men don't object to this myth. Guys, when you see yourselves portrayed as barely civilized neanderthals ruled by your dicks don't you find that offensive? It would offend the hell out of me.
Also, about the idea that women "send messages" via their choice of clothing...can we please give this idea that burial that it so richly deserves? As someone who used to be part of a subculture which tends towards rather overtly sexy clothing, I can tell you beyond a doubt that my wearing a short skirt and thigh-high boots was NEVER intended as a message saying "I'll fuck anyone, just ask!". Quite the opposite, in fact, it was intended more to say "if you don't belong to the same subculture as I do, don't even bother talking to me, I'm not interested". Indeed, this is not an uncommon thing. To the extent that clothing is intended to communicate with others, what it is often saying is "I identify with subculture X, so if you do too then come talk to me! And if you don't, get lost". The really dumb thing about the "women's choice of clothing sends a message" idea is this - even if it really does send a message, what the hell makes you think that message is aimed at you, random guy on the street? Or that you know how to "read" that message?
Also, it's a sign of how completely fucked-up British (and American) culture is that people are incapable of comprehending the fact that flirtation does not equal an invitation to have sex, right here and right now. The complete inability of the nations of the British diaspora to grasp how the concept of flirting works is a continual dissapointment to me, and as this stupid survey shows it's also a source of danger to women.
So, I know it's been said before, but just for the record I'm going to say it again. If I'm wearing a short skirt, that doesn't give you the right to rape me. If I'm smiling and friendly, that doesn't mean that you can assume that I want to fuck you. If I'm drunk, that also does not mean that I'm looking for sex, and even if I am in fact looking for sex, that does not mean that I'm looking for sex with any guy who happens to wander past. Women do in fact possess the power of speech, and if we want to have sex with you, trust me, we'll let you know. If we don't let you know and you decide to fuck us anyway then guess what? You're a rapist. I'm tired of mincing words about this. Apparently my countrymen need a good slap in the face to acquaint them with reality, and right now I'm in the mood to provide one.
Damn, people are dumb.

Link to an article about the survey in question below.
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news/press/16618.shtml

Memento Mori

I'm feeling very sad today because I just learned that former Shonen Knife drummer Mana "China" Nishiura, who was on tour with garage rock band DMBQ, was killed in a car crash on November 3rd. China meant a lot to me because I adored Shonen Knife as a teenager. In the days before Riot Grrl, it was pretty rare to see a female band that weren't overly-sexualised fembots, and Shonen Knife were wonderful - punky and poppy and quirky and wierd and gloriously real. "Quiver" is still one of my favourite songs about love and lust from a female perspective. They were also responsible for introducing me to the world of Japanese pop culture, for which I am profoundly grateful.
It's strange how the death of someone you never even met can make you feel so sad. When I first tried to write this there was a power cut while I was writing, which seems entirely appropriate. A few moments sitting in the dark thinking back on the past seems like a good way to honor China. Of course, seeing someone being so maudlin would have probably prompted her to crack a few jokes and smack me in the head with a drum stick.
Sweet dreams, China. You will be missed.

The politics of identity

I've been thinking a lot about the idea of identity recently. Specifically, I've been pondering the notion that we all have multiple identities, that identity is a multi-faceted thing.
This all started with an argument I got into with a feminist fellow-traveller over at Twisty's blog (Thomas knows what I'm talking about). She basically accused me of being anti-feminist (pause for a moment to savour the irony there) because I objected to her labelling the practise of BSDM as inherently anti-feminist, and implying that women who participate in such activities are patriarchy-worshipping puppets. It's funny how much that pissed me off, especially since I really haven't been actively involved in the BSDM scene in over 10 years. I think that the reason it pissed me off is that, even though I'm no longer an active participant, BSDM is still an important part of my identity. It's part of how I define myself. So is goth, which the woman in question was also attempting to label as anti-feminist (without any indication that she actually had any knowledge of either scene, by the way).
So, this got me thinking about identity. Specifically, does one's devotion to a particular political ideal (in my case feminism or socialism) mean that one is required to eschew all the other parts of one's identity? The idea that it does seems to be tragically common in feminist circles, and slightly less common but still not exactly unfamiliar in socialist ones. This idea annoys the hell out of me. Firstly, there's the "it's not my revolution if I can't dance to it" element. Why should I let someone else decide for me what is and is not an acceptable part of my identity as a feminist, or a socialist? Does that not go against the whole spirit of both movements? Does anyone else see the irony in a feminist attempting to tell another feminist that an activity which she perceives as wholly positive and as something from which she derives sexual pleasure is in fact unnacceptable, and that she is deluded in thinking that she enjoys it? Is there anything more fundamentally anti-feminist than telling another woman that her actual lived experiences are not real, that her perceptions are not to be trusted? I wanted to smack her, and I don't mean that in a fun way.
Secondly, telling members of a political group that there is a standard of ideological correctness that they must adhere to, and that they are not competent to judge for themselves whether or not they are meeting that standard, is a crappy way to build a movement. It's less like inviting someone into a movement than inviting them to join a cult. Everyone's identities are multi-layered - there's gender, race, culture, class, religion, sexual orientation, pop cultural affiliations, political beliefs, and a whole host of other things. It's never as simple as "feminist" or "socialist", ESPECIALLY for those who are not white and middle class.
Thirdly, one's multiple identities, preferences and cultural affiliations are part of what makes life interesting. Indeed, it's a big part of what makes PEOPLE interesting. Have you ever met one of those people who have made one part of their identity into their sole cause for being? Since I'm into goth I meet the "vampire" version a lot, and they annoy the crap out of me. Must you really wear your fangs to the grocery store, or the DMV? Am I actually supposed to pretend that I think they're real when we're in line to get coffee? Tully's doesn't sell blood lattes, you know.
Lastly, why are my choices in terms of how I construct my identity any of anyone else's damn business? Or anyone else's choices? And why are some people so resistant to the idea that identity is multi-layered?
For myself, my identity includes the categories "feminist" and "socialist". It also includes punk, goth, BSDM, a love of anime and sci-fi, a generalised sense of intellectualism and a love of academic theory, a fascination with Japanese pop culture and Russian history, a love of swimming, and a strong sense of myself as not belonging to any particular culture, but being able to move between cultures with ease (many TCKs would recognise that feeling). All of these things are a part of my identity. Some of them are more significant than other, and which ones are most prominent is a thing that varies from one time to another, but all of them are in there. Not one of them should require abandoning any of the others. Is that really so difficult to grasp?

Monday movie blogging
I just signed up for Netflix. I've been putting off doing so for years, mainly because I didn't think they would carry anything that I actually want to see. Well, it turns out that their repetoire has expanded considerably and they now carry all the stuff (anime, Hong Kong action movies, Japanese horror) that ye olde local Blockbusters does not. So, I'll probably be babbling about movies I've seen over the next few weeks. Knowing me, I'm sure that both politics and feminism will end up in there somewhere. Such as in this, the very first movie I got from Netflix.
Sin City. I loved comics as a kid, and still love anime, so I though that this might be a good movie for me. Damn, was I ever wrong. This is, literally, the only movie I've ever turned off and refused to finish within less than half an hour. I hated it. Not only did I hate it, it left me feeling so skeeved out that I felt like I needed to take a shower and wash my mind out with soap while I was at it.
The people who made Sin City really hate women. I've noticed a bit of that in Roberto Rodriguez' movies before, but it was really obvious here. Every single plot point seems to revolve around an overly-sexualised woman being abused or killed in some way. They even start it off with a kidnapped little girl, with a voiceover gleefully telling you about how all the other little girls kidnapped by the same guy have been raped before being murdered. Now don't get me wrong - I like horror movies. Blood doesn't phase me at all. In fact, the next 2 movies on my list are the notoriously bloody Battle Royale and Audition, which is so scary that Rob Zombie said that he had to sleep with the lights on after watching it. My own fiction can be quite notably dark. It's not as if I'm afraid of confronting disturbing material, but this movie left me with a quite palpable sense of threat, and I'm having a hard time explaining why. It's as if I get the sense that the people who made this movie are actually deriving genuine sexual pleasure out of the abuse of the women (and female children) in the story. It feels like they're savouring those women's suffering like a delicious meal. It's creepy as hell. What's interesting is that the media lauded this movie as daring and controversial. Apparently open hatred of women and a blatant desire to see them hurt is considered sexy. Ick, ick, ick. When they added in the little girl they really lost me. Interestingly enough my husband felt the same way, calling it a movie for the "fledgling serial killer demographic". I get the feeling the Green River and Zodiac killers would have viewed Sin City as the best porn ever made. Like I said, creepy.
Also, the wierd visual effects are interesting for about 5 minutes and then rapidly become gimmicky and annoying. And it's got Mickey Rourke in it, which is always a pretty good sign that a movie is going to suck.
The other movie was one that I can recommend though, albeit with a few caveats. "Returner" is a Japanese sci-fi movie that throws every sci-fi premise of the last 20 years into a blender and then serves up the results in high style complete with transforming alien ships and Takeshi Kaneshiro in a leather trenchcoat. Pretty much everything is in there - little kids being kidnapped to be harvested for their organs, alien invasion, time travel, bullet time, scene-chewing villain, manipulative Triad godfather, cackling elderly Chinese lady who deals in guns while sipping tea and adorable defenceless alien baby. That plus the aformentioned pretty-boy-in-leather. It sounds like a mess, and it kind of is, but it's an exhilarating mess. It's derivative, as many critics complained, but then criticising the Japanese movie industry for being derivative after all the blatant thievery (Matrix anyone?) and outright remakes that Hollywood has come up with is a bit hypocritical. If you like action-oriented sci-fi you'll probably like this. And if you're either a straight woman or a gay man you'll definately like Kaneshiro, who is beyond a doubt one of the most beautiful people in the history of the movie industry. I could probably quite happily sit and watch him fold laundry, but seeing him scale the side of a tanker or ride a motorbike and shoot at people while wearing a fabulous suit is even better.
What I really enjoyed about "Returner" was the ways in which it deviated from the rigid gender roles that are ever-present in Hollywood action movies. Miyamato (the Kaneshiro character) is a gun-toting, ass-kicking hero but he isn't inhumanly perfect or unnaturally fearless - he gets confused, freaked out and despondant, and there's a lot of sarcastic humour in the character. When the Milly character (played by Ann Suzuki, the kid from "Snow Falling On Cedars) plants a bomb on his neck to force him to help her, he does a panicky little dance of frustration that you would never see from any American action hero. The Milly character, who travels back in time to kill the first alien invader (or not, as it later turns out), behaves like an actual teenager. She's neither a pathetic little flower needing to be rescued nor an overly-sexualised fembot, she's just a determined kid. If this were a Hollywood movie I'm sure they'd have found some way to turn this into a love story, but in "Returner" the two form more of a big brother-little sister relationship (appropriate, as Suzuki was only 14 at the time).
One point to note for those who may have read reviews of this movie - many Western reviewers babbled on about the "chemisty" between the two leads and how "sexy" Suzuki is. I don't know what kind of wierd projection was going on there, but this is in no way a romantic movie. Anyone expecting some "hot" adult man on early teenage girl action is going to be very dissapointed. The most physically intimate the relationship gets is a quick hug after he finds her when she's having somewhat of an emotional meltdown, and her resting her head on his shoulder while riding on the back of a motorbike. The fact that some of the reviewers were apparently unable to see "cute Japanese teenager" without thinking "hot sex" is rather depressing to me. I blame the porn industry.
"Returner" also got me thinking about the differences in the way men are presented in the Asian film industry and the way they're presented in the West, but that's a topic for another post. More later...

I'm back...
First off, thanks to everyone who sent me a note asking if I was OK over the past couple of weeks. I'm fine, honestly, I just got hit with a dose of the flu and wasn't feeling much like blogging. I guess it hasn't quite registered that people are actually reading this thing yet.
So, now that I'm back I do have some stuff that I've been mulling over while I was away that I think I'm ready to throw out there. Read on...