All Mirth and No Matter

Further Ways the Spearhead Article is Made of Fail

noreply@blogger.com (Mana G) — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:44:00 +0000

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.

noreply@blogger.com (Mana G) — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:32:00 +0000

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...

noreply@blogger.com (Mana G) — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:26:00 +0000

...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

noreply@blogger.com (Mana G) — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 19:46:00 +0000

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...

noreply@blogger.com (Mana G) — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:30:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Mana G) — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:45:00 +0000

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!

noreply@blogger.com (Mana G) — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:20:00 +0000

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.

Anybody Else Seen Royal Pains? Is it as Awesome as I Hope?

noreply@blogger.com (Mana G) — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:51:00 +0000

So, I only caught bits and pieces of a couple of episodes of Royal Pains, but, from what I've seen, it looks kind of awesome. I admit, thought that what most interests me is the relationship between the Concierge Doctor and his Physician's Assistant, a woman. From what I noticed, they seemed to have absolutely no sexual tension between them. This makes me happy, because I hate the idea that seems to exist in television, that every man and every woman of reasonable attractiveness must have sexual tension with each other. I did see that the Concierge Doctor appears to have a romance going on with a Hospital Doctor, (or Administrator, I couldn't tell), but I like that he can have a friendly, professional relationship with his Physician's Assistant. The Concierge Doctor, (I have yet to learn anyone's names), has an Irresponsible Brother, and although I saw an episode that put the Physician's Assistant and Irresponsible Brother together a lot, I didn't notice a lot of sexual tension between the two of them, either. (Please, tell me I'm ot supposed to.) A show where a beautiful young woman doesn't have to have a romance with one of the men? Say it is so!

Giiirrrlllyyy Blogging: Polyvore Challenge

noreply@blogger.com (Mana G) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:06:00 +0000

From a cat of impossible color, a challenge from MLF and Fleur De Lice. It's based on this question: "How do you add your personal stamp to your outfit? If I asked you to slip on a pair of jeans, a simple top, a pair of flat shoes, and any accessories you liked, what would you come up with?"
So, here we go:

This is more of an everyday, running errands-type outfit. The headband's because my son's just reached a hair-pulling phase, and so I've been pulling it back, out of the reach of his little fingers. Plus, I have all kinds of hair clips and headbands with flowers on them. I love wearing flowers in my hair. The necklace is actually similar to one I own, and I own a Target brand version of those shoes.
I made another one, too:

For good or ill, that's pretty similar to the kind of outfit I'd wear when I was at school. I'm partial to shades of blue and green, so most of the clothes I wear fit in that color scheme. This is the sort of outfit one could wear on a fall day in Louisiana. The jacket and scarf would provide extra layers for a cool morning, but they also wouldn't be too stifling when it would warm up during the afternoon. I do not own a pair of purple shoes, but they are certainly on my shopping list, and that bag is the closest thing I could find to the big brown bag that comes with me nearly everywhere.
This actually wasn't really all that much of a challenge, as I tend to prefer to wear classic pieces in neutral colors, adding a few extra details in accessories and such things to make the outfits at least a little more interesting. I also tend to wear scarves and necklaces because I prefer to attract attention to my face.

So, I've Been Watching Brisco County, Jr....

noreply@blogger.com (Mana G) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:06:00 +0000

The show's got more cheese in it than my father's lasagna, (which is a lot of cheese), but I do enjoy the show so much. A lot of it's got to do with the acting, as you can really tell that just about everybody involved is having a good time. Nobody takes the show too seriously, which is a good thing, because, honestly, it's a sci-fi western. With Bruce Campbell in the lead.
That being said, my mind has been rather occupied with an episode Mr G and I watched a couple of nights ago. I don't remember the name, (and I'm too lazy to look), but it's the one with the tank, an in this episode, Brisco, Professor Wickwire, and, eventually, Lord Bowler ended up in an all-woman town.
At first, I was cringing. Especially when the female sheriff stated that there was a gun ordinance in the town. And they showed the sign that said "No Man's Land." Man-hating, ineffectual, pacifist ladies! They clearly just need mens to help them come around, right? Thankfully, however, that wasn't really the ending that materialized. Even though the bad guys had guns, and the women didn't, and they did need the help of Brisco, Bowler, and the Professor, they weren't represented as just helpless womenfolk. Besides, the idea of a town where women can go to escape the prejudices and abuse they'd suffered was a pretty neat one. And Brisco quite clearly didn't get the girl in the end.
But, you know what my favorite thing about this episode was? The German blacksmithing women. They were very attractive, but they were also really, really muscular. They had the biggest biceps I'd ever seen on a woman that's supposed to be attractive on a TV show. They had shoulders that could actually support their really big breasts. It was a small thing in the episode, but I was quite impressed.

Giiiiiirrrrllllyyyyy Blogging: Seeking

noreply@blogger.com (Mana G) — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:13:00 +0000

Ever get it into your head that there is absolutely a certain kind of clothing item that you have to have, even if you haven't seen that particular thing anywhere? Well, I've got kind of an obsession with butterflies. (And dragonflies.) And I absolutely, desperately want a dress with butterflies on it. It's not a basic item, it's not crucial to my wardrobe, but I want one. Desperately However, most of the results that have turned up are way too ridiculously expensive for me. This has not deferred me from my search, however. Out there, some where, is a butterfly-printed dress with my name on it! And I will find it.

Movies Make Mana Angry

noreply@blogger.com (Mana G) — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:55:00 +0000

Anybody else remember the 1997 animated film Cats Don't Dance? Man, I loved that movie. Gene Kelly-choreographed dance numbers, Natalie Cole's singing voice, a surprisingly talented Scott Bakula singing...What was there not to love? My favorite part, though, was probably the credits, over which you saw various classic, (and some not-so-classic), movie posters with the characters we'd seen throughout the movie, in place of the actors we were all familiar with. At first, I found it amusing....A turtle playing Superman, two cats in Singin' in the Rain, but, I will admit, it was also the first time I'd ever bothered to ask myself, "what if?" What if the faces I had seen in films like Casablanca looked different? Would that really take me out of the movie? For Heaven's sake, I identified with friggin' anthropomorphic animals, why did people think a human being of a different race would bother me? Kids: They're not dumb. They don't have problems with characters of color. I would also like to point to the animated Jackie Chan Adventures, Juniper Lee, and friggin' Dora the Explorer. Yes, because only Hispanic/Asian kids were watching those shows. (Possibly more on Dora later, as well.)
With that in mind, we have this business, still. It just makes me angry. Granted, I look at Noah Ringer, and I think, "What a cute lil' baby face!" Frankly, the kid's precious. I hope nobody's blaming him for this. He's a kid who's good at martial arts, loves the show, and decided to try out for the movie. But, he's not Aaang. Aang is Asian, and the more times I watch the show, the more flabbergasted I am that people cannot seem to see this. And if Katara is a white girl, then I will eat my laptop. (Seeing as how I'm not wearing a hat.)
In other news, I am terribly ashamed of myself. Transformers 2 comes out next week, and I already know I'm going to have a hard time keeping myself from going to see it. I hated the first Transformers film. It was racist, sexist, and downright stupid. If they had devoted any more time to the main character's hormones, I would have lost it. Not only that, but the enormous Transformer fan in me likes to point out that there was just not enough of those giant robots for me. (Plus, they killed Jazz, and the reaction is basically, "Oh, well." Yes, that's important to me.) Still, there's that voice, (that huge Transformers fan inside me), that whispers, "Giiiiiaaaaant rooooboooots. Yooooouuu caaannoooooot reeesiiiiiiiiist....." Then, I watch the trailer again, and see Megan Fox lounging sexily across a motorcycle and remind myself: This movie's not for me. (Girls don't like giant robots, right?) Meh. Maybe it's time to go finally finish Transformers: Animated. Though the female Transformers I've seen so far have been very much background characters, Sari looks pretty impressive, at least up to the point I've seen. Oh, and look: An Indian, female main character, and she's one of the most-liked human characters in any incarnation of Transformers, from what I'm hearing. Clearly, that's just a fluke, right? After all, we all know that audiences just won't abide by a lead that isn't a white male. Grrrrr.

A Slightly More In-Depth Look at Terminator Salvation

noreply@blogger.com (Mana G) — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:03:00 +0000

....But, only slightly.
After all, I have to help you understand just why Blair is made of fail. At least, in my eyes. First of all, there's her very first "fight scene." That's in quotes because, seriously, it's really a scene of Blair getting beaten up. Then, Marcus steps in and saves the day, breaking nary a sweat. Of course this, (along with falling from impossible heights into a river and surviving), is possibly meant to show us that Marcus is no longer human, (at least, those of us that weren't spoiled by the trailer), but since perfectly human action heroes have done all that and more in other movies, I didn't find anything particularly shocking about all that. And then, the next thing Blair does is curl up on Marcus's chest, talking about what a good, strong man he is. Blegh. Then, she risks so much to help him escape, and why? What did she see him do, (other than save her, when she should have been able to save herself, if she was as awesome as she'd claimed to be), that made her think he was, indeed, more than a machine? Well, they cuddled. There was nothing in those scenes between them that made me think he could possibly be worth all that for her, but the audience was supposed to believe that she was willing to risk her life, her place in the Resistance, and all her friends for Marcus. Well, aren't women supposed to risk everything for their man?

The one thing I did like about Terminator Salvation? The way John seemed to cling to his mother's tapes. They were his guide, his comfort, his sense of direction. It gave Sarah Connor a presence in this film, despite the fact that she wasn't there. Since I didn't like the way Sarah seemed to be missing from Terminator 3, that made me feel better. A bit better.

Personal Dilemma.

noreply@blogger.com (Mana G) — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 20:10:00 +0000

Ladies and gentlemen, I am mentally divided. Confused. I find myself asking a question I've never found myself asking before, "Do I want to go back to go school?" Even more shockingly, I find that, at least in part of my mind, the answer is no.
I love being a stay at home Mom. Way more than I've ever thought I would. I thought I would find it to be mostly stifling, frustrating and boring, but, so far, I'm truly enjoying it, even though it certainly has its difficult moments. (The colic and teething spring immediately to mind.) I have always seen myself as an academic. I love being an academic. But, I truly think I enjoy being a mother more.
The thing is, I've come so far, do I really want to stop now? Plus, we certainly can't afford for me to actually be a stay at home Mom, especially with my student loans to pay off. Not to mention the fact that being in school would actually permit me to spend more time with my son than getting a job right now would.
This still leads to the question of what to do after I finish school, however. Professorships take a lot of time. Do I want to spend all that time teaching, grading papers, writing papers, and everything else? I've never, ever thought the answer to that question would be no. Yet, for part of me, at least, the desire for all of that is gone.
There's another part of me, however, that doesn't want to let go of something that's been such an important part of my identity ever since I began college. I am a student and a mother, and while I know I can be both, I'm not sure I want to be anymore. I'm not sure I still want to be a student, or that I will still want to be a teacher.

Terminator Salvation Made Me Cranky

noreply@blogger.com (Mana G) — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 03:19:00 +0000

Seriously, Blair risked everything to save some guy she just met, and why? Basically, because he was cute. Blair, you are full of fail.

See? I'm not dead.

Oh, my. It's May.

noreply@blogger.com (Mana G) — Sun, 03 May 2009 23:25:00 +0000

Would you look at that. The month of April was completely absorbed by baby -- his diapers, his feedings, his utter adorableness, his colic. (Plus, the sheer exhaustion he has often caused.) That, and my laptop seems to have died for the final time, (sorry Lazarus, no emerging from the tomb for you), and we certainly haven't got the cash flow for a new one at this point in time.
So, here's a few random thoughts to tide you over:
Thank God for gift cards. Don't ever, ever let anyone tell you they're impersonal gifts. We got a huge Toy's 'R' Us gift card from Mr G's officemates, and we've been using it for diapers and wipes. That gift card has been our salvation. I dread the day when we run out of money on it.
Battle for Terra was surprisingly good. I liked it rather a lot more than I thought I would. Mala was not the best heroine ever, but I found her pretty impressive. I always like seeing girls as inventors, as well, as I was always a bit of a tinkerer in my childhood.
My post-pregnancy body image seems to be an improvement over my pre-pregnancy body image. I had to buy a new pair of jeans a few weeks back, as nothing fit me. I was a size 12 prior to my pregnancy. I am now a 16. There was a time when this would have made me cry. (Heck, the transition from size 10 to size 12 made me cry.) Not this time. My body is what it is right now.
What exactly do people mean by "looking like a Mom?" I've received this, apparently as a compliment, several times since the baby's birth. I don't feel as if my manner of dressing has changed much, so is it something else in my appearance? Or is it simply the child I happen to be carrying in a baby sling?
I've been reading a book called Arthurian Romances to keep my brain from melting into mush. It's a translation from a text by Chretien de Troyes. Lots of stuff in there I've never heard of, such as "Erec and Enide." I have no idea whether or it truly is keeping my brain from melting, however. Any opinions on that?

Oh, Stargate...Really

noreply@blogger.com (Mana G) — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 18:11:00 +0000

Your two trailers for Stargate: Universe leave me cold. Are you trying to imitate Battlestar Galactica? Please, don't. Look, from what I've seen of Battlestar , it looks wonderful, but the people that like Stargate like it for different reasons. Even those that do like both shows, appreciate Battlestar for its seriousness and Stargate for its more light-hearted, adventurous qualities. Sure, there's angst in Stargate sometimes, but the overall feeling one gets from both shows is one of fun. Battlestar Galactica may be fascinating, but it certainly is not fun. The previews for Stargate: Universe so far have shown me pretty people who have angst. Please, that's what Battlestar Galactica has. Don't try to imitate it. For one thing, you're not likely to succeed.

A Children's Movie With an Awesome Heroine?! Wow, When's the Last Time We Saw That?!

noreply@blogger.com (Mana G) — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 19:31:00 +0000

Coming out of "Baby World" for just a moment....
Just saw Monsters Vs Aliens, and loved it! Susan was an amazing character! My favorite moment in the whole film? She was captured and seemed defeated. This is the point where her male companions come bursting in to the rescue, right? Wrong. Just as Galaxar boasts about how impenetrable her prison is, she breaks out and becomes a nigh-unstoppable force as she chases after Galaxar.
Monsters Vs Aliens was totally Susan's movie. It was, no pun intended, all about her growth. Susan does start of as a weak person, both physically and emotionally. As time goes on, however, she gains a great deal of self-respect and toughness, and that's what the movie is all about. It's Susan that gets the big moment, where she saves the day.
The film itself was, surprisingly, much smarter than I had thought it would be. It had a very Dr Strangelove-ish feel to it at times that I absolutely adored. Stephen Colbert was brilliant as the President, as well. I loved all the little running gags that kids never would have gotten. At times, it almost seemed more light a light-hearted animated film aimed more at adults than at children.
All that aside, the presence of Susan, a kick-ass heroine that seems like an actual person, (not just someone's dream girl), as the main character is very important in these days of animated films. I mean, when was the last heroine on the big screen that wasn't a princess? Mulan? I loved Susan as a character, and I'm glad to have her around. Maybe she'll act as a hint to all the other animation companies: Kids can watch girls be the main characters, too. And they'll enjoy it.

Good News!

noreply@blogger.com (Mana G) — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 18:33:00 +0000

No baby counter is up because the little fella was born on Tuesday! He's beautiful and healthy, and Mr. G and I just couldn't be happier!

'Nother Giiiiiiirrrrrllllyyy Blog Post: Travel Wear

noreply@blogger.com (Mana G) — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:16:00 +0000

I've been thinking about the concept of "travel wear" a lot lately, though I don't know why - it's not like I've had much chance to travel lately! (Or probably will for a little while.) Still, it's something that's been on my mind, what with the approach of spring, which usually means out-of-town trips for Mr G and I, (mostly for weddings), and that has me thinking about travel clothes.
"Travel clothes," to me, generally means clothing meant specifically for travelling. I think I first became fascinated with such an idea when I was in first grade. I was reading a book about a little girl and her doll that came to life. I remember little about the book other than the fact that all the doll's outfits were all described in excruciating detail. Though I paid little attention to my own manner of dressing throughout my childhood, I had a deep interest in fashion and costuming, and, the book taking place in the Victorian period, it was pretty much right up my ally. One outfit that seemed to particularly fascinate me was what was called the doll's "traveling outfit." I still remember that she wore a dark grey dress with a green plaid coat and a matching hat.
Though that was the beginning of my interest in "traveling clothes," it was certainly not the end. I developed a fondness for films from the 30's and 40's, (one that's never ended), and I noticed that, back in that time, they, too, seemed to have outfits worn specifically for travel. Reading Jane Austen books, or watching the films based upon them, and seeing Victorian-era period pieces revealed that they, too, had pieces of clothing meant often exclusively for traveling in. These viewings also caused me to come up with, over time, a set of "rules" I associate with travel clothes, though this is the first time I've ever put my (very much unwritten) rules down in any sort of order.
My "Rules" of "Travel Wear:"
1.) Travel clothes must be dark-colored, but black should be avoided. Go for dark green, grey, or navy blue. Sometimes, dark brown. I suppose this "rule" came about because, whenever I would see people in travel outfits, or read a description of them in the book, they always seemed to be clad in these particular colors. I suppose that in the time of coach or train travel, this would have made perfect sense: darker colors would hide all the soot or dirt you'd get on yourself. Though there's no dirt or soot to worry about in airplane travel, this is a rule that has become stuck in my mind, though heretofore unconsciously, as I always find myself dressing in dark grays, blues, or greens whenever I take a trip. Given my penchant for spilling things all over myself, however, it may not be a bad idea for me to wear things that'll hide stains more easily when I travel, however.
2.) Travel outfits must be worn with some kind of outerwear. All travel outfits I've noticed, from the Regency period to the 40's, seem to have coats or jackets that go on over whatever dress or skirt-blouse combination the person is wearing. My guess is that this extra layer acted as further protection against dirt, soot, and inclement weather. As it is, I almost always find myself throwing on a lightweight sweater or jacket before heading to the airport, even for summer and spring trips. (Thank goodness for 3/4-sleeve jackets!) However, lots of people suggest bringing/wearing a scarf/shawl that can double as a blanket or pillow for the trip. Since I would find a scarf-plus-jacket to be a little too much layering for the spring and summer, I might try leaving the jacket at home next time, and just bringing a scarf.
3.) Travel outfits must be fairly wrinkle-resistant. Whether you're getting to the destination by train, coach, car or airplane, travel involves an awful lot of sitting! It's important, in my mind, that the outfit not display just how much sitting I've been doing. Though I don't know exactly what the ladies of earlier periods did to keep their clothes from getting all wrinkly on long trips, but for me, this means wearing stuff in a jersey fabric or something similar.
4.) Travel clothes must look nice. While this is mostly something of a personal rule, it also seems to have applied to those travel-clothing-wearing ladies of old. After all, you will meet with lots of people, and new people, on your trip. You'll want to make a good impression. Besides, I'd feel uncomfortable having to complain to all those well-dressed airport workers if I were wearing jeans, a t-shirt and nasty tennis shoes. If I dress a little more nicely, I'll at least feel a little less intimidated. To me, this means no ratty jeans, no tennis shoes, and, certainly, no sweatpants.
5.) Travel clothes should hit at the knee or below. They also should display as little cleavage as possible. I have terrible posture. When I'm bored, tired, or uncomfortable, it tends to get worse. Therefore, I am leaning all over the place whenever I'm waiting at the airport. Lord knows what kind of an eyeful I'd give people if I didn't abide by this particular rule! Plus, airports and airplanes get cold. Traveling women of the Regency period to the 40's also seem to have used this rule, but then, they tended to be careful about just how much and how they were showing some skin. For me, this means I usually wear pants or nice jeans, though I've worn a knee-length dress on a plane.
6.) Travel clothes should be comfortable. This is definitely a personal rule, and, to my own mind, the most important. Again, traveling, however you do it, usually involves lots and lots of sitting. Anything that digs into your back, or your stomach, or is really, really itchy, should not be worn while traveling. (Or at all, to be honest!) You have to be able to breathe on the plane, (or wherever), so it's important to be comfortable. Though jeans are usually comfortable enough for me, I also like the idea of something like drawstring pants in a sturdy cotton twill. With the right top you'll still look impressive, and you can always tie it more loosely on the plane. (So long as you make sure they won't fall off when you stand up!)

My perfect outfit I think would be a pair of dark gray sturdy twill drawstring pants, a jersey fabric higher scoopnecked shirt dark green or navy blue, with a lightweight jacket or long, lightweight cardigan, and maybe a shawl worn as a scarf, with a comfortable pair of ballet flats.

Something That's Always Bugged Me About the Star Wars Prequels...

noreply@blogger.com (Mana G) — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 22:15:00 +0000

All that advanced technology, and yet, there are, apparently, no contraceptives in that galaxy?!
I mean, seriously, if they had a marriage that they needed to keep secret, wouldn't it have been a good idea to avoid getting pregnant?! And yet, there's no mention made of any efforts they might have gone through to prevent pregnancy. It's just, "Oh, hey, look! You're pregnant! What now?" Maybe, just maybe, it would've been wise to think about that before they started makin' babies. That's all I'm saying.
That, and Padme knowingly marries someone that's already admitted to being a murderous lunatic. (Not to mention, someone with an apparent penchant for slaughtering children.) Her response to that is to marry him and bear his children?! What. The. Hell.

Yes; watched Episodes II and III the other day, though not for the first time. Felt the need to vent about those two little things, and they've bugged me ever since I first saw the films.

Brief Bit of Giiirrrlllyyy Blogging

noreply@blogger.com (Mana G) — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 21:24:00 +0000

I think I'm in love with this website. Particularly, this dress:

Is it not gorgeous?
I have a deep, deep love for vintage-style dresses.

No Baby Yet

noreply@blogger.com (Mana G) — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:39:00 +0000

I know, and I told you all I'd be having him any day now. Still, he'll be coming in a week, if not before. (My doctor's decided to induce, for various health reasons.)
By the way, I've been watching Lost all this week....And I so am!

Thoughts on Various TV Shows

noreply@blogger.com (Mana G) — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 23:27:00 +0000

Psych
Well, I thought that having the serial killer "Mr. Yang" turn out to be a woman was awesome. It didn't strike me as being used for shock value, even though it was a surprise. (Well, weren't we all suspecting the creepy profiler fellow? I know I was, and I'm usually pretty good at figuring out the killer, as I all but grew up on Agatha Christie mysteries.) Having Ally Sheedy play her, however? Even more awesome. Also was excited to see Cybil Shepherd return. I love Cybil Shepherd.

Burn Notice
Oh, Burn Notice, even my love of Micheal Shanks can keep me from being disappointed in you, last week. You totally blew your chance at equal-opportunity fanservice. Micheal and Female-Sam undress at the same time, and you only give us long, lingering shots of Half-Naked Female Sam? For shame! Where were the long, lingering shots of Half-Naked Micheal? Would have made the scene more interesting in my estimation. Also, don't get me started on the "Old Girlfriend Pops up and Complicates Things for an Episode" storyline; I thought you would have been better than that, Burn Notice.

Monk
Oh, Monk, you still have me pissed-off! You could have made the big revelation in the episode all about the fact that it is very unusual for extremely pregnant women to get work, (or keep work, as a few women I have met at my OB's office can attest; they were the first to go in layoffs where they worked), which would have been a perfectly legitimate thing to notice. Instead, you had to make the pregnant woman an idiot, at least by Adrian's standards. (Am I the only one who found this woman far more sympathetic than she was probably supposed to be? She had probably had very little training in what she was supposed to do before both of her bosses disappeared; that can't be a fun situation for anyone. ) Granted, she was still presented as an obnoxious moron in a lot of ways, (pregnant women are supposed to avoid hot dogs in general, but not everybody knows that), but I couldn't help feeling bad for her, given the position she was in. She was very pregnant, and found what she thought was a good job, probably after a long and fruitless search. Then, her boss disappears, and the only other person who knows what to do goes on vacation. So, she's left alone in an office with the phones ringing off the hook, and, most likely, little to no training about what to actually do in her job. Then, to find out she was hired solely because she was pregnant? (Which would explain why she didn't know what she was doing; she wouldn't have been expected to, anyway. She probably would've been fired as soon as her boss' plan proved successful, anyway.) I think it's just a little unfair to characterize her as a "dolt", don't you? Not to mention the ickiness of the woman's plan to manipulate her married boyfriend into leaving his wife, by pretending to be pregnant. There's a storyline I think we can all do without.

I don't watch much TV, so that's pretty much it, for now!

Pregnancy and Body Image

noreply@blogger.com (Mana G) — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 20:52:00 +0000

Well, the "Baby Counter" on the side image is, most likely, going to be inaccurate. Apparently, I need to change it to "Any Freaking Day Now." This is exciting, but it also means I means I'm likely to be an even more sparse blogger than ever, at least whilst we settle in. However, this led me to do some thinkery on the subject of pregnancy, and particularly my pregnancy, and how it has changed me. I decided I'd try to get these thoughts out while I still can, though be warned, I'm likely to be even less coherent than usual.
Not only has my body changed during pregnancy, but my views about my have changed, through this pregnancy, At times, it has felt as if my body was growing stronger, (after all, it was making a brand-new person, which is awfully cool), but at other times, it felt as is my body was growing weaker. (I normally have a very strong stomach and can deal with all manner of grossness with nary a flinch, but, during the first two trimesters, I suffered from "The Morning Sickness of Doom" and could not handle the smell of my own kitchen without feeling the need to race to the toilet.) Also, it's been rather frustrating to be treated as if I were some kind of porcelain doll, especially as I'm nearing the end of my final trimester. (In fairness, I was bed-rested for two weeks. That turned out to be a scary time for me, and all my loved ones.)
My thoughts about my body changed a lot at this time, however. I have heard from women who loathe their pregnant bodies, who can't wait to have the baby and get back to their pre-pregnancy figures. They are ashamed of the weight they've gained, and feel they've "failed," somehow, as a woman. I am not one of these women.
I have struggled with body image for most of my life. I am a short, petite woman with an hourglass figure, but I grew up with an older sister whom was tall, thin, and willowy. (Honestly, she bore an eerie resemblance to Audrey Hepburn.) In Hollywood, I'd be "the best friend," the quirky girl that ends up with the quirky male sidekick, if I got anybody at all. In my eyes, this was "not good enough." I wanted to look like my sister, or like Audrey Hepburn. I was incredibly unhappy with who I was.
As time has gone on, I've learned, gradually to accept myself, and my body, as it is. After all, there wasn't too much I could do to change it. Exercise wasn't going to change my fundamental shape, and I'm far too clumsy to go tottering about in high heels all the time. I'd fall and injure myself. However, I had "accepted" my body; I never truly "appreciated" it. Until the pregnancy, that is.
Part of it probably has a lot to do with the amount of compliments I've received; possibly more compliments than I've gotten at any other time in my life. (Excepting my wedding day.) Everyone tells me I make "such a cute" pregnant woman. I assume this is because I am "carrying" the baby all in the front; I look, in other words, as if I am attempting to smuggle a beach ball under my shirt. Though I, personally, do not find myself a "cuter" pregnant woman than any of the others I've seen, I am, as most humans are, very susceptible to compliments. If others feel the need to point out how nice I look, who am I to disbelieve them?
Aside from the compliments, there is also the fact that I have been informed, time and again, that weight gain is important, and healthy, throughout my pregnancy. Granted, this weight gain is supposed to come within certain perameters, (no more than 15-20 pounds if you're already overweight, for example), but, growing up in a world where gaining weight is often portrayed as a grave sin, (thanks to TV, magazines, peers and, sadly, often influential adults in our lives), any kind of weight gain being viewed as normal was something of a revelation to me.
I can also attribute the changes in my body image to maternity fashions. There are two kinds of maternity fashions: One says you should hide your enlarging body as much as possible, and the other says you should celebrate your body, especially your belly, as it grows larger. The former lays emphasis on huge swaths of very loose fabric, and usually start from your collarbone, going on down, turning your body into one large line. The latter seems to prefer empire waists, or anything that nips in at the end of the bust, giving the clothes some actual shape and form.
Thankfully, the former styles seem to be getting phased out, so even the fashion industry seems to be saying, "Pregnant women have no need to hide their bodies!" This is a good thing. I don't like being told to hide my body. My absolute favorite maternity shirt? A tight, empire-waisted, low-cut top with a very eye-catching print. It says, "Look at my pregnant belly!" Since I don't normally choose clothes that say, "Look at me!", this is a pretty big change in my wardrobe. I like the shirt because, to me, it says that, yes, I am pregnant, and I feel no need to hide the size of my body.
The real question, I suppose, is how I will feel about my body once I have my son. Will I look at my postpartum belly and feel remorse and regret? Or, will I still feel proud of my appearance, even though I probably won't be receiving as many compliments about how "cute" I am, anymore? What about how I dress? I look through the magazines, and most of the fashions I see are far from complimentary to the shape I was before, and probably will be after, the pregnancy. (Though, I am learning what truly does compliment my figure, and intend to shop for some new "post-baby" clothes with that in mind, once I can actually afford new post-baby clothes.) I hope that this change in body image will last past the pregnancy. I'll do my best to make sure it does.