Tagged: terok nor homegirl


I am so not going to tell you about my week.  Because it’s over, and I don’t care what Battlestar Galactica has to say about the circular nature of time.  Although I am watching DS-9 all over again …

So sit back, pour yourself a drink, and fall blissfully into Avery Brooks’ deeply intense stare.

(This post brought to you by my slight fixation on posting daily.  I haven’t dropped the ball yet, dammit!  And also I’m still on season 1 DS-9 and am craving Beardy!Sisko.)



It is a truth universally acknowledged that a feminist in the company of non-feminists must be in want of yet another argument about the word “females”.

Because inevitably some jackass is going to make their smarmy justification of the pay gap, etc, even worse by saying something like “It’s not employers’ fault if females want to have babies” or some allegedly-there-to-produce-safer-communities wanker will encourage “females” to get back in the kitchen.

While one can always point to the fact that it’s fairly widely accepted these days that, at the very least, writers and speakers should be aware of the possible demeaning implications of using “female” as a noun …

I just like to point out that it makes you sound like a Ferengi.  And that’s not a good thing.

Besides, even the Ferengi eventually saw the error of their ways …

Because moral ambivalence is way more interesting than Disneyland

I kind of like it when questions pop up in the search terms through which people have found my blog.  One of the more recent, no doubt pointing them to this post, was:

why does the moral ambivalance of “the hunger game” appeal to people

And I felt I should answer.  Despite my shiny useless English Lit degree, I don’t really have much to back the following up in the way of analysis or named-after-some-old-white-dude theories; I think it’s totally a matter of personal taste.

But I like some good moral ambivalence in my media.  I’m a Babylon 5 fan (if you’re one too, you probably noticed already).  I’m a Deep Space Nine fan, too (a revelation after a teenagehood rejecting it on the basis it was just a B5 rip-off).  I love Homeland, and Game of Thrones, The Shield, all shows with a bit of darkness, a bit of complexity, “heroes” who can be deeply un-heroic  or cling to their heroism in the face of situations which, in accordance with the writers’ needs, demand a little bending of the rules.  Or, you know, outright deceit and assassination.

There’s a classic episode of DS9 called In the Pale Moonlight (season 6 episode 19).  It’s the ultimate polarising moment of the show, evenly splitting Trekkies into “best episode of Star Trek ever” and “worst betrayal of Gene Roddenberry’s vision” camps.

Without spoiling anything, because sure it first aired in 1998 but goddammit it’s good enough not to spoil, your good guys are in a tough situation and your chief morally-ambivalent character does a bad thing to get the result.  Faced with the good guys’ righteous anger, he shrugs and says, “Well, it had to be done, you knew it had to be done, but you weren’t going to do it, and you asked for my help because deep down you knew I’d get the results you needed.”

That’s just way more interesting to me than “the bad guys are bad because they are bad, and the good guys defeat them with the love inside their hearts.”

Even Harry Potter, god-emperor of book series based around The Power Of Love, got some darkness going (and this time I am spoiling things because, seriously, people).  How do you not feel conflicted about Hermione destroying her own parents’ memory?  Yes, it was to keep them safe, and theoretically, I suppose, from their perspective nothing has happened so you could argue that no harm has been inflicted but they had no choice and now have no concept of their daughter’s existence and HOLY CRAP that’s fascinating and has huge impact and, well, I still get kinda distraught thinking about it even now.

But hey now, Hermione could’ve just tried using passive resistance against the blood-purity death-cursing evil wizards who wanted to eradicate her family.  The book would’ve been a lot shorter, at least.

Analogy fail: abortion and slavery

I came across this utter fucking gem while googling prochoice images for potential future shit-stirring:

Black text: “EVERYONE who supported slavery was free. EVERYONE who supports abortion was born.  That’s how oppression works.  “They’re not really people” – We’ve heard that before! info@smileyourmomchoselife.org

And let me tell you, people, I just spent a good five minutes staring at it in wonder.  Like, really?  This is really an analogy we’re going to make?  Ickle babby embwyos are an oppressed class of human being completely and fully analogous to [of course African-American because everyone on the internet is American, you know] slaves?

I mean, I know I just snarked Ken Orr making basically that argument a few days ago, but to have it there in wonderfully stark text bluntly stating that being born is equivalent to supporting slavery in the US … I think it broke something in my brain.

One thing is pretty fucking certain though:  the people who conceived of* and made this image?  Yeah, probably white.**

Me too.  So here’s where I shut up.

Ta-Nehisi Coates:  The Unbearable Whiteness of Pro-Lifers and Pundits and Personhood

scatx:  Equating Slavery and Abortion:  Where are the Women in this Story?


*And were lucky enough to have safe implantation and hassle-free gestation, OH SNAP

**And using the handle “Emissary”, which now means half my brain is occupied fantasizing about locking them in a room with Avery BrooksAnd Michael Dorn.