Further Ways the Spearhead Article is Made of Fail

He seems to have a problem mostly with male-male homosexual relationships, and believes that their presence in sci-fi is purely for the titillation of a show's female viewers. He doesn't seem to have a problem with lesbian relationships...Perhaps because he believes these exist solely for the titillation of a show's male viewers? (And he's OK with that kind of titillation!) These relationships may, in fact, actually be there for the representation of homosexual relationships. Because it's not actually all about the heterosexual people all the time.
Granted, many of these homosexual, (both lesbian and gay), relationships do turn out to be very flawed representations, and are more about "OMG, boys/girls kissing! How HAWT!" than about a complicated relationship between two people who happen to share a gender. Of course, the "complicated relationship" part is also, apparently, what throws this writer off. He claims they do not exist in "real sci-fi." So, the complicated dynamic between, say, McCoy and Spock, (Spock's cold logic, which often covered up violent emotions, juxtaposed against McCoy's irascible nature, which nonetheless co-existed with his devotion to the Hippocratic oath), didn't exist? Despite the fact that it was often at the heart of the issues within an episode or film? OK, then.
Now, if he has problems with badly-written relationships, particularly romantic ones, I can agree with that. I know that many of the tropes used in romantic relationships, (love triangles and unattainable beloveds, for example), that have found their way into sci-fi bother most women sci-fi fans, as well. (I'm looking at you, Stargate : SG-1. Let me tell you, nobody cared about Sam's engagement, and it took away from valuable science-fiction time.)
The other problem I have is that people in the comments keep bringing up "hard" science-fiction, but in the article,
it's all about Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, and Dr Who. None of those have ever been "hard" sci-fi. Ever. Even the original Battlestar had a lot more to do with fantasy, (but fantasy with robots), than it had to do with any actual science. Same with Dr Who, as the Doctor is really more a mythical being than anything else. Sure, writers occasionally like to throw in various theories on the nature of time and space in there, (with the end-result being that the Doctor has made many contradictory statements about space and time over the years), but there's rarely actual, physical science in there. The same is often true of Star Trek. Sure, they often get the words right, but many of the things done or said in any given episode of Star Trek are not possible. It is true that these are not "hard" sci-fi, and it is also true that these tend to lay a strong focus on relationships.
Now, it's true that hard sci-fi is rarely about relationships. It's usually about humanity in general. Or, it's about the psychology of a certain individual. Sci-fi, whether "hard" or "soft," is less about the actual science than the effects of the science on people, whether on a grand scale or a more personal one. It doesn't matter if you're watching Star Wars or Sunshine, it's the characters, and how they are affected, that is the real story. If the author of this particular article truly feels that recent endeavors has become too "soft," and focuses more on relationships, (especially romantic), to the detriment of other, "harder" forms of science fiction, well, that, I agree with. However, the article lays the blame for this at the feet of women and homosexual viewers of sci-fi, and the more I re-read the post, and read the comments, the more I see the article as merely an excuse to lay the blame on people who don't deserve it.

And now, I swear to God, I am done with it.

And there is Anger.

I'm in ur sci-fi, wreckin' ur TV shows.

Apparently.

I linked it, but, really, read it only if you'd like your head to explode. Many of the comments are just as bad, if not worse, than the article itself. (One person calls Joss Whedon a "mangina." Also, feminists are out to destroy everything. In the world. Because feminists just hate men that much. )
Mostly, I find it amusing, (and, simultaneously, disturbing), the belief in the article and most of the comments that a show is automatically feminized by the mere presence of women in the cast. Any show that features a woman in a position of power, (or any position that does not involve kitchens or bedrooms, I guess), is obviously part of the "feminist agenda." You see, all those times we complained that a show was not representing women/minorities/homosexuals very well, we were wrong. So very, very wrong. I've heard the whole "you should be grateful that they're at all" argument before, but this is way more, "the very presence of homosexuality and women ruins it forever." We're invading their sci-fi, and we need to get out of it. (Also, we're apparently ruing the internets as a male-centric "safe space" for men.)
I wish I could be more coherent on this, but the more I read it, (and most of the commentary), the more I want to call these individuals the most vile names I have in my vocabulary, some of which includes Klingon, Russian, and Goa'uld.
I do have this to say this: Nerdiness is not a solely masculine trait. (Are you that guy who came over to my house once and kept insisting that all my Asimov books actually belonged to my husband? Because "girls don't read Asimov?") Even if you define "nerdiness" as being, on occasion, an illogical, unreasonable jerkass about anything they perceive as a threat to the sci-fi and fantasy they love so much. Because that still applies to people of both genders and every manner of sexual orientation.
But women can't be nerds! Homosexual people can't be nerds! Because then, they will steal our fancy engineering and science jobs! Horrors! News flash: lots of them do not want your fancy science jobs. And if they do want those jobs, and they gwt them, that meant that were more qualified for the job. Is that what frightens you? I cannot say that women are automatically better at science or math any more than men are automatically better at it than women. But, a larger pool of interested people makes for more competition. Do you fear that you can't compete in a (slightly) more fair job pool?
Besides, I simply cannot see how boys would become less inspired to go into science/engineering jobs. All I can see is other people becoming more inspired to go into those same fields. The only reason I can see boys losing interest in science/engineering is if they suddenly decide that that kind of stuff's "just for girls." I don't recall hearing or reading anywhere that sci-fi/fantasy or science/engineering needed to be "just for girls." Most nerdy women I know just want to be included in that world without being treated like some horrible "Other." I am reading, both in the comments and in the article itself, that people are ruining sci-fi/fantasy by turning it into a "girls-only" club. If interest in sci-fi/fantasy is linked to interest in science/engineering, then whose fault would it be that boys don't want jobs in science/engineering, because that "belongs to the girls." Not me. I never said we couldn't share.
Add to that, the whole article just reeks of homophobia. Russell T. Davies ruined Dr. Who? Well, not because of Captain Jack and Torchwood. Bringing the Daileks back once every season, (after they had been "destroyed forever" for the sixth time), might have had something to do with "nu-Who" being occasionally awful, or perhaps Davies' grating writing style, and tendency towards bombastic and outrageous plots, (see: "Voyage of the Damned," panned by large swaths of Dr. Who fans), might have, you know, turned a few people off. (I, personally, like the bombastic and outrageous stuff. How can it be Dr Who if it's not overacted and underplotted?) The presence of "scary gay people" has nothing to do with it.
So, really, I pent way too much time on this guy, but his whole "women and homosexuals are ruining science fiction and fantasy for the important people, you know, straight males," thing has my blood boiling a little. (OK, a lot.)

So, I've been reading Middlemarch...

...I've never had to before. Come to think of it, in my undergrad/grad school career, I didn't have to read an awful lot of early female writers. Did do a whole class on Aphra Behn once, though. (By the way, "Oronoko" makes me angry. It's full of squicky racism, which may be excusable, given the time period it's written in, but the fact that it pretty much becomes the standard of a black man written by white people, after all these years, fills me with much anger.)
I've also had to read Wuthering Heights, and Jane Eyre, (both make me go "bleah"), not mention some Virginia Woolf and some Kate Chopin, but, up until recently, I have quite neglected George Eliot. This is sad, folks. Because George Eliot is awesome. I am truly loving Middlemarch.
My favorite character so far is Mary Garth, but I must admit to being able to see where Dorothea is coming from, sometimes. I imagine she would have done much better for herself in a place and time that would have provided her with more education. I do think, in the end, that was truly the most tempting thing about marriage to Mr. Casaubon; a new world would be opened up to her, through his learning.
Mary's still my favorite so far, though. I like how clever she is, without being too smug about it. I also like the way she stood up to Mr. Featherstone in his last moments. Sure, the results were bad for Fred, but had she burned the will, she'd have found herself in an awful lot of trouble. Plus, I think part of her just didn't want to let the old man "have his own way," one last time. After all he'd put her through, who could blame her?

9 Was Way More Compelling Than Terminator: Salvation

7 was also waaay more bad-ass than Moon Bloodgood. 9 and Terminator: Salvation had similar feels to them. Both took place in a post-apocalyptic world, both involved an already-lost, (pretty much), war with machines. But if we're comparing female characters...Moon, a living rag doll can kick more ass than you.
That is all.

Oh, Blog, I'm So Sorry I Left for So Long...

I'll probably do it again, and frequently, though.
Thing is, I just don't have as much time for you, blog. The boy takes up a good bit of my time, and I've made arrangements to continue my studies from home this semester so I can spend even more time with him. (Plus, it looks like I'll have a good chance at getting a job teaching at certain local community college, once they're actually able to start hiring again.)
Plus, I feel as if I'm a little behind the times. I almost never hear about anything until two weeks or so later. For instance, I just read two M. Night Shamylan interviews about the live-action Avatar. Apparently they've been floating around the internets for a while. My opinion about them?
Shamaylan says: "I'm going to take everything you though was interesting, different, and beautiful about Avatar, and remove it from the film. And then, I'm going to make Star Wars." Mr. Shamaylan? You suck. And why did you have to make fun of the martial arts in the show? Could it be because Sifu Kisu's been photographed holding a sign that says, "Caucasian, (or some other ethnicity)", and you just didn't like that someone involved in the cartoon is pointing out the film's racist casting? If so, that's awfully petty. Does that mean you're not going to use any actually existing martial arts styles? Or, are you just going to mash together whatever moves you think looks good, instead of giving each nation a different style, like they did in the cartoon?
You know what else sucks? District 9. Saw it with Mr. G, and boy, was it ever vile. Not only was it excessively gory, (which neither of us are all that into), but I'm not sure I've ever seen more sketchy racial stereotyping in a recent film. (Though, there's always Avatar to look forward to! Blegh.) "The Nigerians" bothered me immensely. I mean, seriously? Criminals and cannibals?(Not that having them as just one or the other would've been better, but the use of the "witch doctor" woman was so over-the-top racist, I couldn't believe it.) Not to mention "The Prawn," themselves. As an apartheid allegory the representation of the aliens is very....Skeevy. They're listless, prone to violence, and unintelligent. Except for "Christopher Johnson," the one that helps the white guy. Maybe they were trying to show the audience how badly their captivity had affected them, but when one of the aliens is unable to recognize what is and isn't his own technology, they only proceed to make the aliens, aside from "Christopher" and his precocious son, look stupid. And if you're trying to make a commentary about apartheid? Do not make your representatives of black South Africa look like dumb, violent animals. Because then, the only things that you're show are your stupid, and your racism.
See, all of that's pretty much just stuff other people have said before, and way, way better than I just did. (If I have, in any manner, seemed to have stolen from anyone, I apologize. I've done a lot of reading lately, and I've been influenced by many authors. Avalon's Willow in particular, however. But then, she always says everything better than I do.)
Well, folks, my little baby's nap has ended, and it's time for me to see to him.

I Take Back Every Bad Thing I've Ever Said About Gwen Cooper of Torchwood

Because of my deep, deep love for Doctor Who, (stemming from my childhood), I made several efforts to get interested in its spin-off, Torchwood. All of these efforts were made in the first season, as, by the time that season was over, I decided it was time I faced facts and gave up on the show. I had not enjoyed a single episode, after all. I didn't like any one of the characters, either. (Which made me sad, as I adored Jack Harkness in all his Doctor Who appearances.) I found Gwen the most disappointing. I wanted to like her, I wanted to see her as awesome and badass, but every time she gazed longingly at Jack, or fussed over her affair with Owen, or was condescending towards Tosh, I just. Wanted. To. Smack. Her.
Then, last week, when the hubsand and I were bored, we saw that some kind of special Torchwood miniseries thingy was coming on, called "Children of Men." It looked interesting, (I love stuff with scary kids), so we decided to watch it. We then got hooked, and had to finish it.
I take back every bad thing I ever said about Gwen Cooper. She was badass. She was awesome. She didn't do the things she did because of her feelings, but because of her own sense of ethics. And plus, just about every time someone tried to keep her from getting involved in the action because of her pregnancy, she simply dismissed it. Gwen Cooper, you have managed to reverse my first impressions.

But...I LIKE Alex and Toggle Together!

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, I read the newspaper comics. All of the ones that appear in my newspaper, and many online. (When I have the time to do such a thing, that is.) So, naturally, I read "Doonesbury." Even when it's boring, even when it repeats itself, even when it focuses on characters I find repulsive or irritating. (I could go my whole life an be happy without ever having to read about Zipper, Zonker, or Duke ever, ever again.) But, I like Mike's young daughter Alex.
When she was younger, I found her irritating, but her time at MIT, and her recent obsession with politics has turned her into someone I would like to know better. And, I find her budding relationship with young war veteran Toggle to be the most adorable "courtship" between any couple in newspaper comics. Toggle lives in a trailer with his mother, suffers from aphasia, and seems to have joined the military straight out of high school. Alex is the daughter of a wealthy software company guy, (it's been so long, I've forgotten exactly what Mike did), has above-average intelligence, rarely stops talking, and goes to MIT. Alex has begun to wonder, how can she be so attracted to someone who's so wrong for her? As an example, she thinks of her mother and the man she ran away with.
Toggle is not like "Uncle Stupid-head," however, and Alex is not like her mother. Sure, both Alex and her mother can get a little, (OK, very), obsessive over things, and both tend to have delusions of grandeur sometimes. But, Alex is usually capable of bringing herself back to reality, while her mother tends to prefer to live in denial. Toggle is nothing like "Uncle Stupid-Head," either. That man is a slimeball, hits on every attractive woman he sees, selfish and content to live off of JJ. Toggle is sweet, apparently devoted to Alex, and has dreams and goals of his own. He also doesn't seem to be all that bothered by the fact that Alex is a great deal more educated than he is, and is likely to make significantly more money than he ever will. To him, all of that seems to be a non-issue. They like each other, they get along well, and they find commonality, (a love of music, for one), despite their differences. I like Alex and Toggle, Mr.Trudeau. I'd like to see them stay together.