twincityhacker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
twincityhacker) wrote2008-08-16 08:48 pm
twincityhacker) wrote2008-08-16 08:48 pm
Entry tags:
(no subject)
Today was my last day at Essltate. I may miss the people, but I will not miss the bruises, paper cuts, and peeling cuticles.
At our first break, Cherrie was flipping though her People magazine and commented that Thomas and Nancy Beatle had their baby girl. The most of the room ( all seven of us, as the rest were outside smoking ) thought it was unnatural, once the whole situation was explained. Because, really, "a man gave birth to a baby girl" would give a few WTF comments if just for the "how would that even work?" angle. ( I still think it's sweet, and said so. ) Not only that, but the idea of the existence of transsexuals was also unnatural and abhorrent.
This is, obviously, not the first time I've heard this shit.
Remember the diversity talk on my floor this spring? Several of the girls when off on a homophobic tangent, how gays and lesbians act against gender roles. Specifically, how effeminate gay men were far less threatening than lesbians. I pointed out, hi, lesbian sitting right next to you, and she backpeddled and said something along the lines of "Oh, but you're not obvious about it."
Which brings me to "The Making of Me." I've still not watched it, despite my interest in both John Barrowman in pretty much anything and GLBT studies. Partly because on the science part it's not telling me anything new, partly because I've not heard a single positive review of it. And partly because of the invisible lesbian problem, which is a bit silly because it's a gay man comparing himself to others, and while straight men and straight women have at least one gender or orientation overlap, lesbain women don't have an orientation overlap. ( In orientation, I mean "attracted to men" or "attracted to women." Plus invisible bisexuals, which only has the justification "trying to explain being gay is hard enough!"
I think I'll just curl up with a book tomorrow.
At our first break, Cherrie was flipping though her People magazine and commented that Thomas and Nancy Beatle had their baby girl. The most of the room ( all seven of us, as the rest were outside smoking ) thought it was unnatural, once the whole situation was explained. Because, really, "a man gave birth to a baby girl" would give a few WTF comments if just for the "how would that even work?" angle. ( I still think it's sweet, and said so. ) Not only that, but the idea of the existence of transsexuals was also unnatural and abhorrent.
This is, obviously, not the first time I've heard this shit.
Remember the diversity talk on my floor this spring? Several of the girls when off on a homophobic tangent, how gays and lesbians act against gender roles. Specifically, how effeminate gay men were far less threatening than lesbians. I pointed out, hi, lesbian sitting right next to you, and she backpeddled and said something along the lines of "Oh, but you're not obvious about it."
Which brings me to "The Making of Me." I've still not watched it, despite my interest in both John Barrowman in pretty much anything and GLBT studies. Partly because on the science part it's not telling me anything new, partly because I've not heard a single positive review of it. And partly because of the invisible lesbian problem, which is a bit silly because it's a gay man comparing himself to others, and while straight men and straight women have at least one gender or orientation overlap, lesbain women don't have an orientation overlap. ( In orientation, I mean "attracted to men" or "attracted to women." Plus invisible bisexuals, which only has the justification "trying to explain being gay is hard enough!"
I think I'll just curl up with a book tomorrow.
no subject
Really? I guess we've been looking in different places. Well, here's one for you. :)
I thought it was extremely well done and made a bloody good job of explaining an oft-misunderstood subject to a general audience. JB is extremely popular over here, as an actor and a presenter/judge, and was an excellent choice for this as he is extremely honest and comes across as such. No, there's not much in there about anything other than gay men but, you know, the clue is in the title, where the "Me" is a gay man and, as a female bisexual, that didn't bother me for a moment. It's an hour about JB looking for his answers regarding something he considers a defining part of him, not a series about sexuality in general, nice as that might have been (the other programmes involved an athlete asking what made him particularly fast, and a violinist asking what made her musical).
So, yes, it is a good programme that does what it sets out to do. It may not do what some other people might have wanted it to do but, frankly, that's more their issue than the showmakers'. Its target audience wasn't those with an existing interest so much as a general audience who might not dream of watching anything specifically about the science of "gay stuff" but who like JB (the difference between BBC2, which would have been more scientific, and BBC1, where this was shown, which is more populist). Hopefully it educated a few people and made them look at the world a little differently. No show can be all things to everyone but this one covered its remit pretty well, I thought. Why not watch it and decide for yourself? :)
no subject
I think I'll watch it later today. It's too early in the morning to watch John Barrowman in anything right now.