grinning_soul: (Spock (laughing))
OMG, I have GOT to stop reading Moffat interviews. On being accused of sexism (re: A Scandal in Belgravia):

"In the original, Irene Adler's victory over Sherlock Holmes was to move house and run away with her husband. That's not a feminist victory." He says he found [Jane Clare] Jones's argument "deeply offensive". "Everyone else gets it that Irene wins. When Sherlock turns up to save her at the end it's like Eliza Dolittle [sic] coming back to Henry Higgins in My Fair Lady [my italics]: 'OK, I like you, now let me hack up these terrorists with a big sword.'"

HAHAHA! Dig yourself in deeper, darling! That stupid, tacked-on ending manages to RUIN Shaw's play by being horribly, well, sexist! ('OK, I like you, now let me get you your slippers.') By Moffat's logic, Henry Higgins is 'winning' / has 'beaten' Eliza.
grinning_soul: (pathetic)

Another textbook example of racism-cum-sexism, this time by conservative radio host Gordon Libby can be found here.

"Let’s hope that the key conferences aren’t when she’s menstruating or something, or just before she’s going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then."

Really? REALLY?

And, of course, anyone who talks about race is racist themselves. Sure. Could somebody please point these people to the RaceFail discussions?

ETA: The stupid just keeps coming.

"On ethnicity, Sotomayor herself has recognized — and contributed to — the dichotomy. She proudly highlights her Puerto Rican roots but hasn’t always liked it when others have. She once took issue with a prospective employer who singled her out as a Latina with questions she viewed as offensive yet has shown a keen ethnic consciousness herself." (Sharon Thiemer)

Because you should always gracefully accept racist behaviour. More here.
grinning_soul: (Maleficent)

The Daily Show's comment on sexism in media coverage of Hillary Clinton. WIN!



Via Feministing.
grinning_soul: (Daily Prophet)

I won a bet - and I wish I hadn't.
My most recent hobby: following the US presidential primaries. I find it absolutely fascinating, if infuriating at times. A few days ago I talked to my mum about the exaggerated media coverage of Hillary Clinton's 'emotional meltdown', i.e. the fact that although she didn't actually cry but only sounded a little husky for about 10 seconds in a Q&A session, most headlines used the words 'tears' or 'crying' to portray her as cracking under pressure and being all weak and mushy. (This is true for European newspapers as well.) And I predicted that now that the former frigid Snow Queen (damned if you do, damned if you don't) has been outed as being 'feminine' after all (i.e. overly sensitive, prone to public displays of emotions), the old 'women menstruate = they can't be leaders because hormones make them go crazy once a month' argument would be popping up again soon, never mind that it's a) bullshit and b) highly probable that Clinton is menopausal by now (but that's just me trying to be rational - I know, silly). Soooo, check out this cartoon published in the Washington Post (via Pandagon). She cries, she bleeds - even though she didn't and she doesn't. (Or is she just a stand-in for all women?) This is the kind of wildly irrational sexist thinking which really drives me up the wall. And what is it with the obsession about bodily fluids (in this case, blood and tears) when it comes to  denigrating women? Argh!

Profile

grinning_soul: (Default)
grinning_soul

March 2012

S M T W T F S
    123
45 678910
11121314151617
18192021 222324
25262728293031

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags