OK, so I aw 2012 with my husband last night, and since he doesn't like it when I go into a feminist bitch fest after a movie I will do so here. Basically, the movie was ridiculous, but I was expecting that. Just lay back and be amused by the mass destruction. An yes, the mass destruction was massive fun. But one thing bothered me. All of the movers and shakers in the movie were men.

The president? A black man. That's fine. They could have been new and original and had a black woman as president, but they didn't. Vice president? Referred to as a man. Fine. But when they referred to the Speaker of the House as a man? When we currently have a woman in the position, not to mention one who shattered one hell of a glass ceiling to get there, well I got a little annoyed.

Because all of the scientists were men, too. Everyone informing policy decision? Men. With the exception of the president's daughter who helped to preserve precious pieces of art (even though she didn't know the true reason why she was preserving art. She was doing as she was told by a man), all of the women were just there. Events were just happening to them and they were just reacting to them or following the command of some man.

I cringed when, on a plane flight, whenever the pilots saw something amazing they called the MEN up to the cockpit, but decided the little ladies could stay in the back with the children.

Let's tally up the people who were in the movie for more than one scene.

Men: President, plastic surgeon/co-pilot, pilot, business man determined to survive, writer determined to survive, conspiracy theorist who blows the lid on the operation, scientist, scientist, corrupt politician, monk, wielder who smuggles people aboard the ark...

Women: Art person. Err...mother? Never did find out what she did aside from care for the kids and berate her ex-husband. And bimbo girlfriend of the business man, a grandmother, wife of a scientist who can't cook, and oh, the sole female politician from Germany who really didn't do much. Because it's the American politicians who have a say in policy after all.

Even the little boy in the movie does something constructive in the end and helped to save humanity (really, he did) while the little girl...er...she just looked cute and got put into danger and had to be rescued.

But then, this from the same producer/director who brought us the horrible American version of "Godzilla" which had some of the worst female characters I have ever seen (only to be knocked out of place this year by "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen", but that's a whole different rant).

Really, when most disaster movies at least throw a female scientist into the mix, this was disappointing.

Those who know me know I love Broadway. So it's no big surprise that I was watching a documentary on the making of The Phantom of the Opera. Unfortunately I do not remember the title of the documentary, but that's neither here nor there. I learned a lot of interesting things. I sort of knew, for instance, that the casting of Sarah Brightman as Christine Daae was controversial because she was married to Andrew Llyod Weber (the composer of the musical) at the time, but I did not realize how angry people were about it and how badly some wanted her to fail.

What really ticked me off was one of the people they interviewed, some sort of critic, saying that among the reasons she was not good for the part was because she was not really pretty. Now he did criticize her singing, but was the comment on her looks really necessary? Her looks don't affect her singing voice at all, nor her ability or lack thereof to act and dance. And to be honest, if you've ever been to a Broadway or West End show (for you British folks) then you know you really can't see the people on the stage well, unless you're rich enough to afford front row tickets. When seeing a Broadway show, all I don't really care how the performer looks. What I want is an amazing performance.

And in the end, Sarah Brightman did not fail. In fact, the Phantom helped launch her career in which she had won many awards.

So she might now be uber pretty. What the hell does that have to do with anything? So I decided to create this post as a shout out to successful women in show biz who didn't meet the conventional standards of beauty but succeeded anyway. Feel free to leave your own favorites in the comments.

And for you Phantom fans, here's a music video featuring Brightman with the original lyrics of "The Phantom of the Opera." Let me say, thank goodness they found a better lyricist and thank goodness they cast Michael Crawford as the Phantom, because this dude nearly got it instead.

Anyway, here are a few of my other favorites, and I'm sure I'll think of more. Janeane Garofalo, Fanny Brice (going WAY far back, I don't know if anyone else will know who she is!), Ellen Degeneres, and Aisha Hinds.

It's been a little over a week since I finished watching Battlestar Galactica, and the show is still very much with me. In fact, a week later I'm still processing it. ( More random musings below the cut. )

I don't know why I did it exactly. Perhaps it was because I had finished watching "Battlestar Galactica" yesterday and felt like I had lost an old friend and wanted something to fill the void. Or may be it was the interview with Charisma Carpenter that I just watched. Or my husband's pesky questions while I was watching the interview about what happened in "Angel," questions that I could not answer. Or may be it was all three. ( Whatever it was, I finally broke down and watched the first episode of 'Angel.' )

What does it say when the two female protagonists of Joss Whedon's shows seems to be unpopular characters, while the supporting characters sore in popularity? I've heard some speculation that with "Dollhouse" it is because of Eliza Dushku's acting, but you can't say the same for Sarah Michelle Gellar, who was phenomenal as Buffy. Yet when you have a show with characters who play a different person each week, I can see why ED's one trick pony acting would get tiresome, especially when compared to Dichen Lachman and Enver Gjokai. Yet I guess it doesn't bother me so much.

( More thoughts that I hope are somewhat coherent below the cut. )

Boy, are we women in a pickle! For a long time I knew that by virtue of my goodness and purity, I could turn a bad man good, lead him on the path of salvation through my innocence. Or I could lead him to his doom, release my inner femme fatale and through vice and seduction turn a good man bad. But I did not know I could turn a nice guy into an asshole just by dating everyone else BUT him! Wow! Look at all this power I have over these hapless men who cannot think or make moral decisions on their own!

( OK, getting fed up with the BS? I know I am. )

I had the bad fortune to become ill with a throat infection over the weekend, so of course that meant that I sat on my ass all weekend, watching whatever junk was on tv. One of the gems was "America's Most Haunted Places" on the Travel Channel. Now, I don't believe in ghosts, but I do like a good ghost story. As usual, this type of show fails to deliver the chills for me, just a lot of anecdotes and pictures of some not so scary orbs. ( Yet the final segment caught my attention, and not because of the ghosts. )

Sometime last week, 2maggie2 asked a good question about whether or not a person has the right to give up their liberties and become a slave. In other words, consensual slavery. When she first brought up the question my gut reaction was "Why the hell would someone do that!?" that I had a hard time composing a reply. But now, after some research and much thought, I have finally composed one (heh, let's see if anyone dares to ask a question that gets me thinking again!)

( Cut due to length. )

Just a brief follow up on the poll in my previous entry, because numbers are fun.

163 people voted. Unfortunately, only 10 were male, meaning the results are skewed. Of the women who voted, 128 (83.7%) voted yes. 9 men (90.0%) voted yes. I also isolated the first 10 women who voted so that I could have a sample size similar to the male one to compare. Interestingly, 8 (80%) voted yes, which is the exact opposite of what I predicted.

I will say, this blows a major hole in my hypothesis. As a whole, the vast majority of people would find someone using their body for sex even if they had no memory of it and suffered no physical harm from it disturbing (89.5%). Even though the sample was skewed due to lack of male input, I will say it indicates that all people regardless of gender wants to have control over what happens to their body.

This past week, there was a discussion on stormwreath journal that got me wondering about gender differences with regard to how being a doll are played out. To me, the concept of someone removing my being, replacing it with someone else who then goes and has sex with my body is very disturbing, even if I don't remember what took place and suffered no physical harm as a result. stormwreath did not find the concept as disturbing, and I started to wonder if it was a gender difference. Hence I created the poll below. If you are a woman, only answer the first question. If you are a man, only answer the second question.

Poll #1392702 Gender Differences
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 206

WOMEN ONLY: Would you feel uncomfortable if someone erased your personality, imprinted another personality in your body who then had sex with someone, and when your personality was restored in your body you had no memory of the event and did not contract an STD or beome pregnant?

MEN ONLY: Would you be uncomfortable if someone erased your personality, imprinted another personality in your body who then had sex with someone, and when your personality was restored in your body you had no memory of the event and did not contract an STD or get someone pregnant?

( See more about my thoughts below the cut. )

I just got motivated to do my first poll! It's rather simple. Below is a list of women, just check the box if you have heard of her. If not, leave it blank.

Poll #1379900 Have You Heard of These Women?
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 13

Click if you have heard of this woman. If not, keep the box blank.

( Find out what this is about below the cut. )

I am so happy with the latest episode because Joss has finally come through and not let me down with the concept. ( Major spoilers for episode 8! )

Just a post to get people thinking about the personalities implanted unto the Dolls. ( Beware, there are spoilers based on stuff learned in episode 7. )

Some of the comments I received in my previous post lead me to believe I should do a follow up post about what consent is and is not and the implications that has for Dollhouse. ( More plus spoilers for episodes 1 through 6 below the cut! )

Be forewarned, below the cut are spoilers for Dollhouse episode 6, Man on the Street. ( You have been warned. )

A lot of stuff has already been written on Willow's "magic addiction" during season 6. I personally hated the fact that the show turned her well crafted need to control everything around her into an addiction that she had no control over. Recently I started thinking about magic in the context of Willow and Taras' relationship.

Basically in season 6, Tara becomes upset that Willow is using magic too much, so Willow casts a spell on Tara to make her forget about it, but Tara finds out anyway and requests that Willow stop using magic for a few days. Willow says she'll stop, but instead tries to wipe Tara's memory again and ends up giving the Scooby gang a case of amnesia that nearly gets them killed. When Tara remembers, she breaks off the relationship, and Willow sinks into a dark "magic addiction", hits rock bottom, and then stops using magic altogether. Tara sees that Willow has stopped using magic and decides to forgive her and get back together.

What's missing here?

At first I didn't have any qualms with Tara going back to Willow. Yet when I started to think about I came to the realization that she went back to Willow for the wrong reasons. The problem in their relationship was not that Willow had a "magic addiction" but that Willow was using magic to abuse Tara.

Yes, I do consider altering another person's memory so that they cannot remember a fight abuse. Knowledge is the best source of power we have, and by taking away Tara's knowledge of what was truly going on in the relationship Willow was robbing Tara of the ability to make informed choices about their relationship. It does not leave broken bones or bruises, but its impact goes deeper. Someone who is battered can remember that he or she was battered and decide whether or not he or she wants to leave based on that information. Someone who can't remember the wrongs done to him or her is robbed of that choice.

In a nutshell, leaving an abusive relationship is hard when your mental facilities are intact. When your very memory is spotty, it is next to impossible.

By violating Tara's memory Willow was starting a dangerous precedent. She didn't learn that what she did was wrong the first time and had no qualms whatsoever about doing it again. And I strongly feel that the reason she didn't mess with Tara's memory after "Tabula Rasa" was because the rest of the Scoobies knew what was going on then and would have been suspicious had Tara been back at the house the next day completely unaware of events for the past few days. In "Smashed" Willow even mopes about how Tara left her for no good reason.

The mind wipes occurred before Willow went on her crazy magic binges. In no way did the magic jump out of her and force her to violate Tara's mind. Willow did that of her own volition. Therefore, in my mind, the magic was not the problem. Willow's need to control things around her was.

And that doesn't cure itself by abstaining from magic for however many days.

The fact that Willow never admits that wiping Tara's memories was abusive or even just wrong is troubling. Instead it's, "Hey look at me, I'm magic free! Let's get back together." And the fact that Tara does get back together with Willow simply because she's stopped using magic is even more disturbing because the root issue has not been addressed.

In my mind, the magic was never their problem. It was their scapegoat.

"Law & Order: SVU" is definitely a rarity in my TV schedule, seeing as I tend to prefer science fiction and fantasy. But I do appreciate their sensitive handling of delicate subject matter. For too long rape and abuse has been a tabboo subject that has been swept under the rug. It is through awareness of a problem that we can work towards ending that problem.

Yet lately I have been disturbed by a trend I've seen. It started in the 5th season when ADA Alexandra Cabot was shot when prosecuting a case against a drug ring in the episode "Loss." Shortly after she was shot, she was whisked away by the Witness Protection Program so that the drug ring would no longer harm her.

This one incidence in and of itself didn't bother me. Sadly, police officers, lawyers, social workers, and others who fight crime often get caught in the cross fire and end up being victimized themselves. What has bothered me is that in the show two more acts of extreme violence have been used against two of the three regular female cast members: ADA Casey Novak and Detective Olivia Benson. On the show thus far, none of the male characters have been subjected to extreme violence specifically targeted against him. The message that is starting to form is that women are victims, even if they are tough detectives who carry guns or strong lawyers who prosecute criminals while men are protected from the hazards of working with a dangerous population.

In Novak's case, in the episode "Night" she was investiagting the rape of women who were illegal immigrants when the brother of one became upset and brutally attacked Novak to regain his family honor. Novak woke up in the hospital, her face heavily bruised and was later shown using crutches. In "Undercover" Detective Benson goes undercover in a prison to investigate allegations that a male cop was raping prisoners there. During her time there, she is nearly raped by the guard, rescued just in the nick of time by a male detective who had been placed there to make sure she was safe.

Let me make clear what I am taking issue with. I don't mind the fact that they got hurt in the line of duty. Det Stabler, a male, was once thrown through a window while restraining another man high on PCP. Det Benson had her throat slashed while pursuing a suspect who had abducted two children. These were events that happened during the heat of the moment without anyone being targeted. In Cabot, Novak, and during Benson's jail case, they were specifically targeted to get shot, beaten, or raped. These were planned events on the part of the perpetrator. Instead, a woman believed to have Dissociate Identity Disorder holds Detective Stabler's pregnant wife hostage, hurting him through a female member of his family. Thus, the man himself can only be hurt through female family members.

In my mind, Benson's near rape was the most disturbing in my mind. In addition to the fact that she has been stalked by a man she unjustly put in jail who later went and murdered other victims she helped in "Wrath" and that she was targeted by a psychopath in season 1 in "Stalked," the sole female detective on the show (with the exception of Jeffries who only lasted one season) is put in the place of victim much more than her male counterparts. Detectives Stabler, Munch, and Tutuola and their boss, Craggin, never seem to run into those problems.

Benson is held hostage twice. Once in "Authority" and again in "Escape." I cannot remember any incidence where any of the male detectives were held hostage.

So I was already aware of the trend of Benson being the "victim" in the group of detectives. The attemtped rape pushed that label to such extremes that I was left wondering why they even included it in the show. Yes, women get raped in prisons and nothing is done about it. But men also get raped in prisons, and even less is done about that. Why not have one of the male detectives go undercover and nearly get raped instead of placing Benson in the victim seat once again if their intent was to highlight the issue?

Benson was already the detective who emphasized well with the victims, so the attempted rape was not necessary to help her relate to them better. All I can think of was that they did it to add more drama, which is a pathetic excuse in my mind. Capitalizing on the sole female detective's sexual assault to raise ratings. That should not be what the show is about.

The trend is starting to get disturbing. As of season 9 (I've not seen season 10), three of the five women whose names have appeared on the credits have been assaulted during the course of the show. None of the six men have. Do the men possess an innate field of security due to their gender that the female workers lack? Or do the crazies all go through the men's female family members, like what happened to Stabler?

Is the message that SVU wants to pass onto its viewers that if you're a female crime fighter you're going to become a vitcim at some point? I surely hope not. And I surely hope that they wake up to the message they are speaking.

Well, I just happened to write this yesterday not knowing I would have an LJ page today, so here's something to adorn it with until I can do something with regards to fandom.

I must say, Nadya Suleman's timing could not have been worse.

In the face of the worse economic depression in my lifetime that was born from financial irresponsibility on the part of the government and the banks, Nadya Suleman went and had octuplets. Nevermind the fact that she has no income and six other children at home, she went and forked out thousands of dollars for in vitro so she could have one more child. The rest is history.

Yes, her decision was irresponsible and selfish. Her family was facing bankruptcy and was on food stamps and disability for three of her children. There is no justification whatsoever for her to go out and have more children than she could afford. But it's too late to change the fact that she did.

I understand peoples' anger with her. I've read comments from people who wanted larger families but kept theirs' small do to economic necessity. I've read comments from people who are struggling in California's devastated economy and are upset over the possibility of her getting a free lunch ticket do to her selfishness. She has in many ways come to personify the fiscal irresponsibility that has plagued the US as of late.

Therefor I understand why people don't want their tax dollars going to support Nadya Suleman and her oversized family. I also understand why they don't want her to cash in on her notoriety through books, movie, and t.v. deals. Why should she profit from her mistakes when many in the nation are already paying for the mistakes of the government and the banks?

What people tend to forget is that none of Suleman's 14 children asked to be brought into this world. And then there are her parents, who obviously do not want to abandon their grandchildren, but seem tired from helping her raise her children and are broke and going into bankruptcy to help her support them. Yes, they are enabling their daughter by helping her, but who can blame them when the welfare of their grandchildren are at stake? Unfortunately by punishing Suleman it is her children who will suffer the most.

There is no easy solution for this mess that Suleman has made. A lot of people have been calling for CPS to take her children away. They cite a lot of good arguments. There's no way that Suleman and her mother will be able to care for eight premature newborns on their own, especially when you throw the six older kids into the mix, one of whom has autism. Their house is small and a mess, and Suleman does not seem mentally stable.

Yet the foster care system is over crowded. The siblings would undoubtedly be separated from each other, and the older ones would witness the break up of their home and experience the grief of the loss of their family. The grandparents would loose their grandchildren whom they have tried their best to raise. Three of the children have disabilities, making permanent placement difficult for them, and all eight of the preemies are at risk for disabilities. It is an option, and may be it is even the best option, but it is not the perfect recourse offered by so many.

Angels in Waiting recently made an enticing offer to Suleman to provide one nurse for each octuplet and a house where Suleman and her older children can stay with them. Angels in Waiting is a nonprofit that provides nursing care to preemies. Surprisingly, Suleman has not responded to this life line and may not accept it. And if she does, residents of California are quick to point out that the nurses get reimbursed for their time through Medi-Cal, California's medicaid system. Meaning that tax payer dollars will go to the care of her infants, making this an unattractive option as well.

But folks, there is more than Suleman's life at stake. The lives of her 14 children are on the table as well. Yes, it was unfair of her to put them in that position, but as they are here we can't ignore their needs. Our taxpayer dollars are going to be spent on them. Even if they are placed in foster care our tax payer dollars will still support them.

There are simply no good solutions. The damage has been done. Punishing Suleman will not help her children. We need to move beyond our anger and try to determine what would be the best course of action for the welfare of her children.