I’m not going to take long. Read this first.

I’d like to think most of us would like a media system that either doesn’t take sides as perfectly as possible - that is objective regardless of the pressure of the situation - or takes the side of fairness, justice, and equality every single time.

The above link cites examples of neither.

What we need to get accustomed to, I think, is that the media is not aware of their role as upholders of the status quo. They do not know. They may know what rape culture is, but they’re not in the business of dismantling it, especially when the bottom line is at stake.

So I think the most revolutionary thing to do is not to ask them to apologize. They probably won’t, and I’m sure in less high-profile cases that have been broadcast they did the exact same thing.

The most revolutionary thing to do is to identify the media houses that are part of the rape culture superstructure and call them out on their bullshit early and often - or, if it’s all of them, never back down from calling them all out on their bullshit.

Let people know that we watch the watchmen, and we won’t stop. So when people need to know, ‘was that newscast problematic?’ they can know.

Because if they don’t apologize, then we know that this isn’t something they plan on fixing, only falling neatly into.

pensandperil:

       Dear Journal,

I have no words for how yesterday was.

Read More

This is the kind of thing that bullshit like yesterday does and threatens to do under the guise of your ‘love of Jesus’. It actually literally wrecked me to even try writing this. Really. Patricia is in pain, and so am I.

I wish I could make it up to her.

A lot of the opposition on the fan side comes down to this weird Manichean machine we’re trapped in. We’re all about the either/or in America, no matter how asinine the argument. Republicans vs Democrats, right vs left… black vs white. Which makes people think that everything is a zero-sum game. Either you get yours or she gets hers, so you better gets yours and hang onto it for dear life, yeah?

It’s stupid. No reasonable person who is talking about diversity in games wants to take anything away from anyone else. You can even make Grand Wizard Theft Auto if you wanted. Who cares? We just want more. We want to add to the experience, not take away from it. We want a wider variety of stories, casts, and developers, not to kick out all the straight white dudes and colonize their Halos and Call of Dutys. It’s not us vs them. It’s (take a breath, you knew this was coming) just us (pow!). We’re all in this together. We grew up playing the same video games, and frankly, we probably grew up playing with and against each other, too. Increasing diversity benefits everyone. Anyone who says otherwise hasn’t thought it through yet.

Wise words.

This is a good thing. Having big publishers actually be ready to dialogue about how LGBT people are represented both in games and in their industry is ideal and necessary. Good on EA.

The right set piece makes of breaks a game, in much the same way that the right shot or moving sequence can a film. Proper execution leads to evocative storytelling and emotive depth; shoddy execution makes it look like it was done for show, and often doesn’t even succeed as spectacle.

Which means, perhaps, that in the conversation about how first-person shooters influence gamers’ views on violence and current events, the set piece - how one swings the axe - is a serious consideration.

I am here to talk about a mission that I think does all the things we want it to do - make us seriously consider the position we are in as gun-wielding player, how we factor into a bigger-picture current events context, and become both meaningful message and evocative art.

And that comes from Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2.

Read More

It being Oscar season and all, I came across this article from the Huffington Post, which reminds me of this post I made back in the summer of 2011.

That is all.

On CNN this morning, a member of the Southern Baptist Convention (possibly its leader Frank Page, but I’m not sure), argued that voting to allow gays into the Boy Scouts - a vote that was supposed to be happening today, and has just been postponed until May - is a mater of discriminating against those who hold firm to a faith.

I don’t think something so silly has frustrated me so much, and I am not even American.

The Boy Scouts of America not only want it to seriously be a matter of popular vote wither or not one young boy should have the opportunity to experience the same kind of formative-years character-building as another young boy simply because of who he likes.

Which I would imagine is not the business of the BSA in the first place.

And to Richard Land, whose big appeal to fear is that the BSA will suddenly become dens of pederasty if they don’t tighten the reins: really? Because if that’s what you’re worried about, then it means the BSA has all sorts of other problems, and still none of them are gay Scouts. Also, you have problems. Also, gay Scouts still aren’t one.

It’s hard, if you can remember your childhood in particular, to be given a chance to be a part of a community of peers learning subtly to be better young people - and therefore even better adults. I mean, what is the Boy Scouts about if not character building? And gays have character too.

What young LGBT persons want and need is not only the same chances to be powerful young people, but chances to be reminded that nothing is wrong with them and that they don’t deserve to be treated like shit from society. The BSA could very well be that space, and should be.

I would hate to think, after all, that the solution is to create competition for the BSA - people who actually stand up for their mission statement - all of it, not just the God part; or are the irreligious cast out as well? - instead of bowing to religious pressure.

In fact, what if we were to imagine competition for the BSA - I don’t really care what we call it, but give them something powerful, something that inspires its members to stand up for themselves and others, like The Young Guards or something, I’m terrible at naming. Let it take anyone and everyone. Let it be open to LGBT persons - and let us definitely not forget the T, please. Let it be not pinned down by one religion or another, be accepting of kids of all faiths - and none - and make concessions for them all. Let their Law also say “A Guard is Accepting. A Guard is Respectful. A Guard is Considerate.”

Because if the BSA won’t be, maybe it’s not the place you want to send your son to learn life lessons anyway.

Maybe we can just make this happen instead?