From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V16 #312 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Saturday, September 1 2007 Volume 16 : Number 312 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Fwd: Fwd: [Robyn Hitchcock] I Wanna Go Backwards now available for pre-order [Rex ] yes, sir (was: Re: fucked by David Duchovny) ["Lauren Elizabeth" ] Re: yes, sir (was: Re: fucked by David Duchovny) [Jeff Dwarf Subject: Fwd: Fwd: [Robyn Hitchcock] I Wanna Go Backwards now available for pre-order > Yep Roc posted the tracklisting and you can stream the entire box. I did an analysis of the contents and, unsurprisingly, you better hold onto your Rhino editions. See the attached file. Wow. How much you wanna bet that some of the Y&O and IH tracks have new overdubs, too? Thou shalt not produce a difinitive version of the TH catalog, I suppose. Wonder what the download-only GD will contain? So weird to see IH and Y&O sort of written out of history and frappucino'ed into something new (especially since IH itself was actually reissued, and has a companion piece in Invisible Hits)... Oh, and who was it that was gonna post the saxful MWIH? Because it's time now, man... Still pretty damned excited about this. Wasn't gonna chuck those Rhino discs anyway... - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 21:34:21 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: Let's go get sushi - and not pay! On 8/31/07, Michael Sweeney wrote: > Tom Clark said: > > >Speaking of Joe [Strummer], anybody see "Let's Rock Again"? Great > >documentary that showed Joe on the road in America w/ the Mescaleros the > >year before he died. > > Yeah -- very tasty...Not to sound all Eb-ish, I touted it on the list > earlier this summer after I saw it (and got chimage on it from at least one > other Feg)... gone too soon, Joe! I just found this, containing two wonderful songs ("Burnin' Lights" and "Afro-Cuban Be-Bop" that I've been seeking since hearing them on French radio in 1991... I'm sure there are some other keepers as well... haven't listened yet... http://theultimatebootlegexperience.blogspot.com/search/label/Joe%20Strummer - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 02:49:32 -0400 From: "Lauren Elizabeth" Subject: yes, sir (was: Re: fucked by David Duchovny) 2fs says: > On 8/31/07, Lauren Elizabeth wrote: > > k > > > > and while i'm babbling, one of the things i love about BSG is how > > well-integrated the military is for males and females. they share > > bathrooms (well, at least sinks and locker spaces...not sure about > > things like urinals...) and bunk space, and the women higher-ups get > > called "sir" and there's an obliviousness to gender that i actually > > can imagine happening some day in the distant future > > I will note that the apparent "obliviousness" for some reason tends to come > with previously *masculine* titles being applied to women (see Rex's post > following yours)... that seems less like the kind of oblivious that means > your biological sex doesn't matter in situations where it's irrelevant and > more like the kind of oblivious that means act like a man if you want to get > anywhere. in the particular of BSG, it's a military structure (much of the show taking place on a vessel mirrored on an aircraft carrier.) this structure will always be historically male structure. if you want to say that you have to "act like a man" to fit in, i can't argue with that. i don't know exactly what kind of military structure you would have in mind where "[acting] like a man" isn't part of it, but until then, i'll gladly take a title such as "sir" and allow it to be a title of respect and not of gender. i personally don't care that any particular word originated from the world of men if females are treated with due respect. things aren't equal. i think that will always be true, but i don't think this means things are doomed to be unfair (well, actually i do, but i'm kind of a nihilist. but in an ideal world, i'm saying...) anyway, fuck it, aren't *i* the poor, downtrowden female. so i can reclaim the word. oh, wait, i never claimed it, so i'll have to do that before i reclaim it. also, and i don't want to sound like an ass, but i probably will even if i attempt to try to find a way not to, so i'll just go ahead typing: i confess that i would take your comments and rex's more seriously if either of you had watched the show - e.g. comparing the treatment of gender on BSG to that of "star trek" only shows how cool BSG is (with my own caveat here is that i've seen the only the regular star trek series, TNG, and most of the movies.) i really would be interested if you guys would watch an episode or two of BSG and tell me what you think then. unless i'm misremembering about who's watched the show, and apologies if i have. and btw, i'm not at all saying BSG is a model for a perfect world - just a show with a point-of-view about gender that i have a lot of respect for. as ever, lauren - -- - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 10:40:19 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: yes, sir (was: Re: fucked by David Duchovny) On 9/1/07, Lauren Elizabeth wrote: > > 2fs says: > > On 8/31/07, Lauren Elizabeth wrote: > > > k > > > > > > and while i'm babbling, one of the things i love about BSG is how > > > well-integrated the military is for males and females. they share > > > bathrooms (well, at least sinks and locker spaces...not sure about > > > things like urinals...) and bunk space, and the women higher-ups get > > > called "sir" and there's an obliviousness to gender that i actually > > > can imagine happening some day in the distant future > > > > I will note that the apparent "obliviousness" for some reason tends to > come > > with previously *masculine* titles being applied to women (see Rex's > post > > following yours)... that seems less like the kind of oblivious that > means > > your biological sex doesn't matter in situations where it's irrelevant > and > > more like the kind of oblivious that means act like a man if you want to > get > > anywhere. > > in the particular of BSG, it's a military structure (much of the show > taking place on a vessel mirrored on an aircraft carrier.) this > structure will always be historically male structure. Could be (that is, it certainly *has* been historically male, and as you go on to say, it's hard to imagine how the military could evolve in such a way as to utterly erase that historical maleness). if you want to > say that you have to "act like a man" to fit in, i can't argue with > that. i don't know exactly what kind of military structure you would > have in mind where "[acting] like a man" isn't part of it, but until > then, i'll gladly take a title such as "sir" and allow it to be a > title of respect and not of gender. It's certainly true that "sir" connotes more respect than, say, "ma'am." On the other hand, I wonder why a more neutral yet descriptive word (such as "officer" or a person's particular rank) can't be used instead. > also, and i don't want to sound like an ass, but i probably will even > if i attempt to try to find a way not to, so i'll just go ahead > typing: i confess that i would take your comments and rex's more > seriously if either of you had watched the show - e.g. comparing the > treatment of gender on BSG to that of "star trek" only shows how cool > BSG is (with my own caveat here is that i've seen the only the regular > star trek series, TNG, and most of the movies.) i really would be > interested if you guys would watch an episode or two of BSG and tell > me what you think then. I wasn't intending a criticism of the show (which, you correctly remember, I haven't watched). I was only commenting on a sort of backdoor to the show's apparent efforts to show a world in which gender roles are less rigidly defined (one it shares with, apparently, whichever Star Trek it was Rex referred to and the awful Starship Troopers*). I also certainly wasn't implying a criticism of any woman who'd take that respect as intended (and ignore that "sir" is historically masculine, just as the military is historically the male institution par excellence). Anyway: what strikes me is that pointing that out in such an obvious way (by using a title which here and now, for the most part, is applied only to men) also has the effect of pointing your attention at the issue and away from whatever's going on the plot at the time. (At least it would the first few times you see it - after awhile, I'm sure, you simply get used to it and ignore it.) It's rather like writers who pointedly use feminine pronouns to designate unnamed people ("Each student should get her ID photo taken" - at a mixed-gender college), or who switch back and forth between "his and her" and "her and his": to me, such devices forcibly pull the reader's attention away from the matter at hand and toward the writer's attempts to enact or cause gender equality through the clumsy vehicle of language. Rhetorically, I think it's a poor move for that very reason. (FWIW, my preference here is at all times to rephrase into the plural except when that's not practical. In casual speech, of course, people just use "they" as a non-gender-marked pronoun - and my guess is that in 50-100 years, that will be the accepted usage...just as "you" (which was once the second-person *plural* only) gradually supplanted "thou" as second-person singular, despite its plural origins - origins still apparent in its taking a plural noun ("you are") even when referring to one person.) * Defenders of _Starship Troopers_ seem to always say it's a parody of a viciously xenophobic, fascistic state - but it's the blankest parody I've ever seen in that case, an irony whose vehicle seems to reside entirely outside anything onscreen, which relies exclusively on assuming an audience that will not blindly worship violence and force as first, best answer to everything. Granted, it's been years since I saw it - and saw it only once - but it struck me as repulsive violence-porn then, and I've never been persuaded by the "parody" approach. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 10:14:08 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: yes, sir (was: Re: fucked by David Duchovny) On 9/1/07, 2fs wrote: > On 9/1/07, Lauren Elizabeth wrote: > > > > 2fs says: > > > On 8/31/07, Lauren Elizabeth wrote: > > > > k > > > > > > > > and while i'm babbling, one of the things i love about BSG is how > > > > well-integrated the military is for males and females. they share > > > > bathrooms (well, at least sinks and locker spaces...not sure about > > > > things like urinals...) and bunk space, and the women higher-ups get > > > > called "sir" and there's an obliviousness to gender that i actually > > > > can imagine happening some day in the distant future > > > > > > I will note that the apparent "obliviousness" for some reason tends to > > come > > > with previously *masculine* titles being applied to women (see Rex's > > post > > > following yours)... that seems less like the kind of oblivious that > > means > > > your biological sex doesn't matter in situations where it's irrelevant > > and > > > more like the kind of oblivious that means act like a man if you want to > > get > > > anywhere. > > > > in the particular of BSG, it's a military structure (much of the show > > taking place on a vessel mirrored on an aircraft carrier.) this > > structure will always be historically male structure. > > > Could be (that is, it certainly *has* been historically male, and as you go > on to say, it's hard to imagine how the military could evolve in such a way > as to utterly erase that historical maleness). > > > if you want to > > say that you have to "act like a man" to fit in, i can't argue with > > that. i don't know exactly what kind of military structure you would > > have in mind where "[acting] like a man" isn't part of it, but until > > then, i'll gladly take a title such as "sir" and allow it to be a > > title of respect and not of gender. > > > It's certainly true that "sir" connotes more respect than, say, "ma'am." On > the other hand, I wonder why a more neutral yet descriptive word (such as > "officer" or a person's particular rank) can't be used instead. > > > > also, and i don't want to sound like an ass, but i probably will even > > if i attempt to try to find a way not to, so i'll just go ahead > > typing: i confess that i would take your comments and rex's more > > seriously if either of you had watched the show - e.g. comparing the > > treatment of gender on BSG to that of "star trek" only shows how cool > > BSG is (with my own caveat here is that i've seen the only the regular > > star trek series, TNG, and most of the movies.) i really would be > > interested if you guys would watch an episode or two of BSG and tell > > me what you think then. > > > I wasn't intending a criticism of the show (which, you correctly remember, I > haven't watched). Yes, the same here. I was just musing on something generally having to do with how SF has over the years tried to predict how gender roles will shake down in the future. I didn't mean to comment on BSG now for the same reason as Jeff. However, I came *this* close to mentioning an episoded of the *original* BSG where all the men come down with some kind of virus and thus the women of the fleet have to learn how to be Viper pilots in time to defeat the Cylon menace or something... and yet, if I remember correcly, even then, Adama's daughter Athena was already an integrated military officer and kinda mentored the other women into their military roles. Damn, I'm suprised I remember it that clearly; I'm sure I got some of that wrong. I was only commenting on a sort of backdoor to the show's > apparent efforts to show a world in which gender roles are less rigidly > defined (one it shares with, apparently, whichever Star Trek it was Rex > referred to Trek is interesting in this respect because it's been around so long that it's reflected societal attitudes about gender while society itself has changed. (The same thing, as mentioned above, I guess, could be said about BSG, although nobody takes the 1978 version seriously, which does call into question why it was used as a basis for the new one at all, but that's Hollywood). Kinda sorta mildly interestingly, the original Trek, for all its casual misogyny, had some progressive tendencies for its time; in its middle age, with the films (from which the Mr. Saavik reference comes) and TNG, which some hated for its political correctness, it was basically mildly progressive and in step with the times, and in the end, although they had a female captain, it kind of devolved into having Borgs and Vulcans with huge titties in a sad bid to hold onto what they thought their core audience was (when it was actually fairly, erm, alienating). > * Defenders of _Starship Troopers_ seem to always say it's a parody of a > viciously xenophobic, fascistic state - but it's the blankest parody I've > ever seen in that case, an irony whose vehicle seems to reside entirely > outside anything onscreen, which relies exclusively on assuming an audience > that will not blindly worship violence and force as first, best answer to > everything. Granted, it's been years since I saw it - and saw it only once - > but it struck me as repulsive violence-porn then, and I've never been > persuaded by the "parody" approach. Spot on, of course, but that kind of thinking has been known to cause near-cellular eruptions around here. The first rule of Starship Troopers is: don't talk about Starship Troopers. Which I forgot... sorry! - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 10:22:45 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: yes, sir (was: Re: fucked by David Duchovny) On 8/31/07, Lauren Elizabeth wrote: > also, and i don't want to sound like an ass, but i probably will even > if i attempt to try to find a way not to, so i'll just go ahead > typing: i confess that i would take your comments and rex's more > seriously if either of you had watched the show - e.g. comparing the > treatment of gender on BSG to that of "star trek" only shows how cool > BSG is (with my own caveat here is that i've seen the only the regular > star trek series, TNG, and most of the movies.) i really would be > interested if you guys would watch an episode or two of BSG and tell > me what you think then. I also wanted to toss in the caveat that I really don't have anything against, and would in fact like, at some point, to see most of the television shows discussed on feg (including Buffy, stopping shy of Gilmore Girls), and that's why I follow the discussions. The truth is that I simple don't have to the time to devote to episodic TV. Or, I might, but that would involve taking time away from other pursuits, so I've elected for now to manage my time so that I nix the TV completely, returning a little bit of time to each of my other preoccupations (parenting, relationships, creative pursuits, music, lit) and I've found that it helps in all of those areas. Meanwhile I enjoy the vicarious TV hits from discussions like these and keep notes on what shows to enjoy in my hypothetical dotage. Just saying, maybe I am a snob, but if so, I think I've crafted a pretty nifty form of culpable deniability! - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 12:47:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Reappuccino Alfred Peet http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/01/BUEIRTFAV.DTL "Children have always enjoyed my movies. They are just not allowed to watch many of them." -- John Waters . ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase. http://farechase.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 12:01:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: yes, sir (was: Re: fucked by David Duchovny) Rex wrote: > On 9/1/07, 2fs wrote: > > * Defenders of _Starship Troopers_ seem to always say it's a > > parody of a viciously xenophobic, fascistic state - but it's > > the blankest parody I've ever seen in that case, an irony whose > > vehicle seems to reside entirely outside anything onscreen, > > which relies exclusively on assuming an audience that will not > > blindly worship violence and force as first, best answer to > > everything. Granted, it's been years since I saw it - and saw > > it only once - but it struck me as repulsive violence-porn > > then, and I've never been persuaded by the "parody" approach. > > Spot on, of course, but that kind of thinking has been known to > cause near-cellular eruptions around here. The first rule of > Starship Troopers is: don't talk about Starship Troopers. Which > I forgot...sorry! I think I fell asleep the one time I saw it....I think a lot of the parody argument proponants are just mistaking it for _RoboCop_ (if they think it's intentional) or _Showgirls_ (if they think it's an accident). "Children have always enjoyed my movies. They are just not allowed to watch many of them." -- John Waters . ____________________________________________________________________________________ Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 17:40:49 -0400 From: lep Subject: Re: yes, sir (was: Re: fucked by David Duchovny) 2fs says: > > in the particular of BSG, it's a military structure (much of the show > > taking place on a vessel mirrored on an aircraft carrier.) this > > structure will always be historically male structure. > > Could be (that is, it certainly *has* been historically male, and as you go > on to say, it's hard to imagine how the military could evolve in such a way > as to utterly erase that historical maleness). oh, jeff 2fs, dear, can't you give me at least a "probably" on that one? or at least a counterexample. there's the tibetan model of the military (which (no lie) i very much respect) but sadly the culture may not be around much longer to maintain it. > > if you want to > > say that you have to "act like a man" to fit in, i can't argue with > > that. i don't know exactly what kind of military structure you would > > have in mind where "[acting] like a man" isn't part of it, but until > > then, i'll gladly take a title such as "sir" and allow it to be a > > title of respect and not of gender. > > It's certainly true that "sir" connotes more respect than, say, "ma'am." On > the other hand, I wonder why a more neutral yet descriptive word (such as > "officer" or a person's particular rank) can't be used instead. yes, absolutely on the rank. if it's known, i believe it should be used. and it is often rank is used on BSG. but if it's unknown, i'm fine with "sir". if a new word evolves, fine. but i don't think one has to be invented to get the point across. (as a side note, i don't like it when i'm called ms. i prefer the term miss. i've (thus far) escaped entering into any seemed-like-a-good-idea-at-the-time marriages, and so give me the damn girl scout badge that says "miss." on the other, what are folks to do these days? so unless i know the person well, or it's going to be an ongoing "hi ms." every morning, i would never bother to say anything.) > > also, and i don't want to sound like an ass, but i probably will even > > if i attempt to try to find a way not to, so i'll just go ahead > > typing: i confess that i would take your comments and rex's more > > seriously if either of you had watched the show - e.g. comparing the > > treatment of gender on BSG to that of "star trek" only shows how cool > > BSG is (with my own caveat here is that i've seen the only the regular > > star trek series, TNG, and most of the movies.) i really would be > > interested if you guys would watch an episode or two of BSG and tell > > me what you think then. > > I wasn't intending a criticism of the show (which, you correctly remember, I > haven't watched). I was only commenting on a sort of backdoor to the show's > apparent efforts to show a world in which gender roles are less rigidly > defined (one it shares with, apparently, whichever Star Trek it was Rex > referred to and the awful Starship Troopers*). but i would think you'd know that rex hasn't watch the show (BSG). you do caveat with "apparent", but when including BSG in the history of e.g. science-fiction television shows, IMO, it's starting to get a bit second- or third-hand. > I also certainly wasn't implying a criticism of any woman who'd take that > respect as intended (and ignore that "sir" is historically masculine, just > as the military is historically the male institution par excellence). okay. i don't think i took it that you did, but, rumour has it, one can't be too clear in e-mail. > Anyway: what strikes me is that pointing that out in such an obvious way (by > using a title which here and now, for the most part, is applied only to men) > also has the effect of pointing your attention at the issue and away from > whatever's going on the plot at the time. (At least it would the first few > times you see it - after awhile, I'm sure, you simply get used to it and > ignore it.) It's rather like writers who pointedly use feminine pronouns to > designate unnamed people ("Each student should get her ID photo taken" - at > a mixed-gender college), or who switch back and forth between "his and her" > and "her and his": to me, such devices forcibly pull the reader's attention > away from the matter at hand and toward the writer's attempts to enact or > cause gender equality through the clumsy vehicle of language. Rhetorically, > I think it's a poor move for that very reason. (FWIW, my preference here is > at all times to rephrase into the plural except when that's not practical. > In casual speech, of course, people just use "they" as a non-gender-marked > pronoun - and my guess is that in 50-100 years, that will be the accepted > usage...just as "you" (which was once the second-person *plural* only) > gradually supplanted "thou" as second-person singular, despite its plural > origins - origins still apparent in its taking a plural noun ("you are") > even when referring to one person.) i'm with you on this. well, not about there being anyone around who cares about this stuff in 50-100 years (nihilist), but ideally, yes. i find the back-and-forth of gender pronouns not only clumsy but as you allude to, the awkwardness contributes to the problem it's "trying" (not that hard, IMO) to solve. it's a sort of "don't think of a white elephant" situation. i'm more okay with sometimes just going with "she" but that (to me) seems even more gender-specific than "he". wallace sometimes does that, and i'm kind of on the fence on it. i agree with you that the use of "they" would be the easiest - my only problem with it is i would imagine it's still grammatically incorrect (not that that would stop _me_ from using it) but, as you point out, that can change. > * Defenders of _Starship Troopers_ seem to always say it's a parody of a > viciously xenophobic, fascistic state - but it's the blankest parody I've > ever seen in that case, an irony whose vehicle seems to reside entirely > outside anything onscreen, which relies exclusively on assuming an audience > that will not blindly worship violence and force as first, best answer to > everything. Granted, it's been years since I saw it - and saw it only once - > but it struck me as repulsive violence-porn then, and I've never been > persuaded by the "parody" approach. i haven't seen it. i recall the violence being described as gory enough that i didn't want to see it. i am fairly desensitized, but don't like for violence for violence sake. the one thing that does consistently bother me is realistic depiction of cruelty and/or torture, and i will avoid movies with such scenes or if caught by surprise, just close eyes as needed (last movie i recall this happening was "the last king of scotland" - just too much for me at the end.) as ever lauren p.s. a hello to jeanne, who inspired or reminded me to change the "Lauren Elizabeth" name tag to "lep." thanks - it's way better this way. ha, ha - like she made it this far. but thanks to her, nonetheless. - -- - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 17:42:00 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: yes, sir (was: Re: fucked by David Duchovny) On 9/1/07, lep wrote: > > 2fs says: > > > in the particular of BSG, it's a military structure (much of the show > > > taking place on a vessel mirrored on an aircraft carrier.) this > > > structure will always be historically male structure. > > > > Could be (that is, it certainly *has* been historically male, and as you > go > > on to say, it's hard to imagine how the military could evolve in such a > way > > as to utterly erase that historical maleness). > > oh, jeff 2fs, dear, can't you give me at least a "probably" on that > one? or at least a counterexample. there's the tibetan model of the > military (which (no lie) i very much respect) but sadly the culture > may not be around much longer to maintain it. I'm not familiar w/the Tibetan model of the military - but even so, its exceptionality (assumed by virtue of its being implicitly different from a model you don't seem to feel the need to describe: its masculine structure taken as given) doesn't disprove my main point there. Not sure where you want that "probably": in place of "certainly"? or in the second clause? There, it would be redundant with "hard to imagine"... > yes, absolutely on the rank. if it's known, i believe it should be > used. and it is often rank is used on BSG. but if it's unknown, i'm > fine with "sir". if a new word evolves, fine. but i don't think one > has to be invented to get the point across. True - which is why I suggested the already-existing generic word "officer" to designate one of respect-deserving rank. (as a side note, i don't like it when i'm called ms. i prefer the > term miss. i've (thus far) escaped entering into any > seemed-like-a-good-idea-at-the-time marriages, and so give me the damn > girl scout badge that says "miss." Okay, Miss ;-) on the other, what are folks to do > these days? so unless i know the person well, or it's going to be an > ongoing "hi ms." every morning, i would never bother to say anything.) The point of the coinage (a rare example, btw, of a successful, generally accepted, but utterly artificial and intentional coinage) is exactly that: we cannot (and should not) assume a woman's marital status, one way or other, yet there was no title expressing a degree of respect ("Ms. Smith" being more respectful than using the first name, say) that allowed for that. You were forced either to assume singlehood or to assume marital status. And, of course in the latter case, to assume the woman had changed her name to her husband's surname. The other point is to parallel "Mr." - which is invariant with the male's marital status, and goes with the also IWTMMS surname*. * True, some men nowadays do change name at marriage - so that both partners have the same surname w/o favoring the man's - but that's pretty rare. > > > I wasn't intending a criticism of the show (which, you correctly > remember, I > > haven't watched). I was only commenting on a sort of backdoor to the > show's > > apparent efforts to show a world in which gender roles are less rigidly > > defined (one it shares with, apparently, whichever Star Trek it was Rex > > referred to and the awful Starship Troopers*). > > but i would think you'd know that rex hasn't watch the show (BSG). > you do caveat with "apparent", but when including BSG in the history > of e.g. science-fiction television shows, IMO, it's starting to get a > bit second- or third-hand. At this point, though, in this issue, we hardly need the examples of any fictitious creations, whether SF or any other genre, and whether we're familiar with them or not: i.e., I was using that discussion as a springboard to another one, which didn't really any longer need the context of the first one. > > i haven't seen [Starship Troopers]. i recall the violence being described > as gory > enough that i didn't want to see it. i am fairly desensitized, but > don't like for violence for violence sake. Actually it's not even that that bothered me: it was that the violence was pretty much actively glorified...to the extent that it felt as if the movie intentionally solicited on behalf of its audience the masochistic torturer's glee at the victim's pain, agony, and disfigurement. Not to mention that the buggy aliens were not, so far as I can remember, given any sort of point of view at all: they were just killing machines bent on conquering. That is, of course, the sort of dehumanization (hardly necessary when, you know: giant bug) classically indulged in by military propagandists - and is pretty much never the case in real-world conflict where the other side is made up of human beings whose lives share much with our own, and you know, like, the Russians love their children too. Goddammit, you made me quote Sting. I *will* have my revenge. > p.s. a hello to jeanne, who inspired or reminded me to change the > "Lauren Elizabeth" name tag to "lep." thanks - it's way better this way. Well, it does make one go "Lep, Lep, Lep, Lep, Lep-Lep-Lep-Lep Leppo and the Jooves!" in one's head every time you post. So there's that. Contact RH's publisher about receiving your share of royalties. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V16 #312 ********************************