"There is a fundamental and culturally learned power imbalance between men and women, and it follows us into the workplace. The violence born of this imbalance follows us also. We would like to believe that it stops short of following us into the laboratory and into the field — but it does not. I listen to my colleagues talk endlessly about recruiting more women into STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) disciplines, and postulate what the barriers might be. Sexual assault is a pernicious and formidable barrier to women in science, partly because we have consistently gifted to it our silence. I have given it 18 years of my silence and I will not give it one day more."
- 1 hour ago
- 3 days ago
Quite possibly the most unfriendly looking behind the scenes picture ever.
I can’t find the link, but I remember reading something about Joe arguing with Mallozzi about Sheppard not knowing there was an all female SG team under his command was disrespectful to his character and that Sheppard would know who were on what teams and that it was a hit to his character all for a stupid joke. Turns out Joe F. was right because the ‘joke’ fell flat and left fans perplexed at Sheppard lack of knowledge.
I could be misremembering though, so hello world at large please feel free to correct me.
I remember reading exactly the same thing!
Reading about Atlantis is a constant reminder of how much Mallozzi and Co screwed up by ignoring Joe. This is just one example, killing Weir is probably the biggest of them…
Joe fought them over the killing off Elizabeth and Carson as well. Joe has said at conventions this was about the time that they stopped telling him things - and so probably it’s close to the end of them stopping listening to him as well. It’s frustrating because at that point Joe was a lot more invested in the show than the actual show runners who were already planning out SGU.
Another problem Flanigan had with Mallozzi around this time was the issue of behind the scenes photographs. As you can see with this one, it has the MGM watermark. The actors’ contracts clearly stated that only MGM and SciFi had permission to take BTS photos and use them for promo purposes.
Mallozzi, however, had started taking photos of his own of the cast and crew and was posting them on his personal blog without their permission, without recompense, for his own benefit and profit, and in direct violation of the actors’ contracts.
Naturally, the cast and crew were upset about Mallozzi using these photos to drive traffic to his personal blog but no one really wanted to call him on it given that Mallozzi and Paul Mullie were co-executive producers and had been since Season 2 (during Season 1, they were consulting producers with Michael Greenburg and N. John Smith as Executive producers).
So cast and crew quietly asked Flanigan to speak to Mallozzi on their behalf. Whether they asked him because he was the union shop foreman, or the show’s star, or they thought he’d be the most persuasive is open to conjecture. They asked and Flanigan spoke to Mallozzi, who didn’t take it well at all.
He did stop taking photos on set without permission — he certainly never took another photo of Joe Flanigan — but when he did, and when he posted said photos to his blog, he made a point of saying (with truculent asides) that he had permission from the actors, that he wasn’t trying to profit from them, and (I’m paraphrasing here) wasn’t it sad that some people had to spoil the fun for everyone.
It was all downhill for Flanigan and Sheppard from there.
Yes, TPTB stopped listening to Flanigan, and Sheppard was not only disrespected as a character but virtually pushed aside throughout Season 5. Not just because of Universe but because Mallozzi held a grudge. It’s all there on his blog. I read it in real time and was appalled by Mallozzi’s childish behavior.
Mallozzi violated the actors’ contracts, got called on it, and took it out on the one person who said something to him, even though Flanigan was speaking for them all. Sad.
Well, damn. I’d forgotten about that. Does it make me a bad person that I am gleeful that Mallozzi and co. have, for the most part, found zero work in the entertainment industry since SGU went off the air?
This just adds to the pissoffedness I had when I found out that Joe F. had a group of investors and was trying to negotiate with MGM to do SGA. From what I’ve pieced together it was probably around the same time that Devilin and Emmerich were in meetings for their own Stargate movie reboot - and MGM decided to go with two failed producers. (Seriously, they have more misses than hits in their catalog.)
So now we’re sitting here with a dilemma. The reboot we never wanted. The reboot we were hoping for - with someone besides the old PTB at the helm. If the movie does badly does that put a kibosh on any more Stargate for the foreseeable future? If the movie does well does that mean we’ll just get more of the movies that completely ignore 17 years worth of television canon?
Someone smarter than me, which is pretty much anyone reading this, needs to explain to me what the best course of action is for fandom in general with this. Petitions aren’t going to do shit - I know that much. We’re pretty much guaranteed that MGM didn’t give the exclusive rights to the franchise to D&E - this is one of their biggest franchises and they’re going to hold on to it tightly. But what can we do to show MGM what we really want? It needs to be a concentrated effort and not spread out to include SG-1 and SGU because that’s just too much to ask for off the bat I would think. Specifics would be best I would imagine. But at the end of the day from MGM’s POV it’s all about the bottom line. Will it make money? That’s all they really care about. How do we go about, as a fandom, engaging the studio and revitalizing the fandom?
Wow. This reblogging of a picture because I was having private conversations with someone about “Whispers” really took off in a heavy yet delightfully unexpected way.
The thing is: it doesn’t matter if an SGA reboots makes money. MGM believes it won’t. Wright and Cooper had no faith in it. Mallozzi and Pullie had no faith in it. They had no faith in the fans.
"This is not the demographic we’re looking for." — Brad Wright, as he canceled SGA to make way for SGU.
They wanted the male 18-25 demo, the emo boy gamers in Mom’s basement. What they didn’t realize, what they still don’t realize, is that Mom’s the old school sci fi reader. Mom writes the fanfic. Mom has the money.
But they don’t know how to write to our demographic. They never did. They tried to put Amanda Tapping in a push-up bra and a tank top and she refused, thank whatever gods you chose. Because that’s how they write women: for men. For adolescent men. Not for women or people of color.
So, no, they won’t listen to us. That’s why the petitions didn’t work. That’s why email campaigns won’t work. We’re not the demographic they want, even though we’re the demographic with the money to spend, with the ability to invest, and the interest to do so. Nearly two decades of time, energy, and money later, and they still don’t get that their fan base is mostly women, 25 and up.
If they aren’t willing to hire female writers, listen to professional women storytellers, why the hell would they listen to us?
Which is just…ignoring the fact that the best shows, period, appeal to everyone. What makes Star Trek enduring, to me, is that it made you feel like you could dream to be any of the crew (and I’m not counting the reboot here). When SGA killed off Weir, they killed off a lot of my interest in the show because it said they didn’t want that character at all or anyone like her.
They don’t want us, because most of that stuff about being motivated by the bottom line and profits is just a cover story. What they really want is to do something that impresses their friends — and by “friends” I mean “powerful white men they *wish* were their friends”. It’s all, *all* about performing masculinity — and because our culture has a subtractive definition of masculinity, any interest by women automatically makes a thing (activity, art, posture, emotion, whatever) less masculine. So it’s *really important* to not just appeal to young men, but to drive away women, especially older women.
I have also heard it said that the reason the advertising industry focuses so relentlessly on males, especially younger males, is that they are suckers. They are more influenced by brands and ads than women are, and more likely to impulse buy.
Women are taught to shop — by our mothers, peers, and culture. It’s a skill we’re expected to practice and hone, to become canny consumers in a consumer culture. Because shopping skills are gendered feminine, being brand-loyal and impulsive becomes gendered masculine, which makes men even more prone to be suckers as consumers. And that means ads aimed at men are more likely to pay off.
(via cimness)Source: thesmilingfish
- 1 week ago
Report: 38 men are sexually assaulted each day in the US military – wrong to assume perpetrators are gay
Figures show 38 men are sexually assaulted every single day in the US military – and it’s a myth to assume most of the perpetrators are gay – a leading clinician says.
James Asbrand, a psychologist with the Salt Lake City Veteran Affairs post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) clinical team, is seeking to challenge the false notion that sexual orientation lies behind the prevalence of male sexual assaults in the US military.
Mr Asbrand told GQ: “One of the myths is that the perpetrators identify as gay, which is by and large not the case. It’s not about the sex. It’s about power and control.
“In a hypermasculine culture, what’s the worst thing you can do to another man? Force him into what the culture perceives as a feminine role.”
An estimated 14,000 military men were assaulted in 2012, according to GQ.
Most of the victims refused to inform their superiors, many fearing repercussions detrimental to their career.
Dana Chipman, who served as a judge advocate general for the US Army from 2009 to 2013, said: “The way we socialise people probably has some effect on the incidents.
“We cut your hair, and we give you the same clothes, and we tell you that you have no more privacy, you have no more individual rights—we’re gonna take you down to your bare essence and then rebuild you in our image.”
Research reveals that military sexual trauma (MST) victims are often falsely diagnosed with personality disorders so that they can be discharged without the federal government bearing the cost of aftercare required in treating post-traumatic stress disorders (PTSD).
Mental health is a huge issue for the military.
An estimated 31,000 military personnel were involuntarily discharged for personality disorders between 2001 and 2010.
Although the US military lifted Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, a ban which prevented gay and lesbian people from serving openly in the military in 2011, many gay service personnel feel unable to be open about their sexual orientation.
Charles Bigo, a victim of sexual abuse who served in the US Army from 1966-1969, spoke of how he experienced a sense of self-blame.
“I’ve told my psychologist, ‘Maybe it’s my fault, because I’m gay.’ I was looking for friendship, companionship, some kind of emotional connection with somebody. They were predators. They knew what they saw in me that allowed them to be that way.”
He continued: “I’m terrified of men. I’m gay and I’m terrified of men. I can’t even get an erection, especially since I got sober. I isolate. I don’t go to movies, I can’t handle concerts. I have horrid nightmares.
“Last Christmas, I went to dinner with some friends, and at one point I started panicking so bad I had to get out of the restaurant. I was shaking. I never even told anybody about this until last July. Do you know what it’s like to live with this for thirty years?”
(via zooeyscigar)Source: lgbtqblogs
- 1 week ago
Charts from OKCupid, showing how straight women and men rate each other based on ages. For women, the men they find most attractive are roughly their own age. For men, the women they find most attractive are roughly the same age - 20 to 23 - regardless of the age of the man. (538)
I mean, I dated a guy much older than myself in my early-20s, but it was neither of our MOs to date with that age discrepancy. We met through friends and had shit in common.
- 2 weeks ago
This [casual sexism] is a systemic problem – it starts somewhere with little girls needing to be rescued by knights, incapable of being independent. In playgrounds and kids’ parties I often hear: ‘Wow, look at her, she’s a supermodel!’ or ‘This is daddy’s princess’ or ‘You don’t need to learn another language when you look like that!’ Or, even more common: ‘You’re gonna need to lock that one up when she becomes a teenager.’ I haven’t heard much of ‘Wow, watch out you’ve got yourself a JK Rowling there; oops, here comes another Angela Merkel, Hillary Clinton, Caitlin Moran, Paula Radcliffe, or Hilary Mantel!”’ - Natascha McElhone
(via theteratophile)Source: mulders
- 2 weeks ago
Amazingly, not The Onion:
“[W]e now have young men telling Bloomberg News that they basically view their female peers as rape bombs just waiting to explode and ruin their lives.”
“Some men feel that too much responsibility for preventing sexual assault has been put on their shoulders,” according to one of the men interviewed for the piece.
Yes, how dare we put the responsibility for rape on the shoulders of the rapists and potential rapists. How dare we.
(via saltysalmonella)Source: salon
- 3 weeks ago
"While evolutionary psychology suggests that women pass on casual sex due to an inherent lack of sexual desire, Conley says there’s an entirely different reason. She posits that women say “thanks, but no thanks” for fear of being judged. She also says that women have serious reservations about whether a one-night stand would be enjoyable with a new partner. She tries to explain to men, “The reason women are turning you down for casual sex seems to be that, for one thing, a lot of you are calling them sluts afterward.” Also, “A lot of you aren’t bothering to try to be good in bed.” Preach."
- 1 month ago
"Imagine; I used to have really long blonde hair, always wearing heels, lots of make-up. I had been someone who was highly feminised and had chosen to look that way, partly because I was 6ft 3in but also I was into that aesthetic. I knew it had to be stripped away. I knew this would be an important part, not just for my work but in terms of my own development, because I would be confronting elements of myself that I didn’t want to confront (…) To see yourself displayed as unattractive, large, masculine, it’s quite tough… But I know it’s just perspective. A social conditioning that causes us to view these traits in a woman in a negative way." — Gwendoline Christie
(via theremina)Source: iheartgot
- 1 month ago
- 1 month ago
So I went to a hyper-religious fundie camp every summer growing up—bible class and hymns all day, group prayer at meals, sermons every night, daily baptisms in the pool, all that kind of thing. When I was thirteen there was a new guest speaker from a Christian college in Tennessee; the theme of the week was sexual purity, and this dude picked five random boys and five random girls-with-long-hair out of the crowd to come up to the front.
'Now, I'm not gonna do any preamble,' he said, 'I'm just gonna ask you boys—without touching their bodies at all—to braid these young ladies’ hair, if they’re happy with that.’ One girl said she was not okay with that, so she went to sit back down and her friend went up instead. Dude said, ‘Good, consent is important. God wants you to be happy, so don’t ever let someone touch you unless you’re real happy about it.’
So these guys tried to braid hair. There was a lot of giggling, and it was mostly a disaster. At the end of the demonstration the girls turned around so the crowd could see the results.
'You can see here we have a lot of sloppy work, except for this feller on the end who sorta held it together. You have sisters, don’t you?’ The boy nodded. ‘Ladies, raise your hand if any of these boys pulled your hair too hard.’ They all raised their hands. ‘And if they touched your neck or shoulders?’ All five girls raised their hands again. ‘My point here, folks, before we get into the heavy moral stuff that I’ve got on my notecards, is that teenage boys are useless with girls. They can’t follow simple instructions. They don’t know how to braid hair, they don’t know how to even talk about periods without being grossed out or crackin’ up, they don’t understand bra sizes. They don’t listen when you say not to touch you, because they don’t understand boundaries, either. Much less complex emotions that don’t originate from their boxer shorts! And that doesn’t change when they’re men, either. Because men, I’m sorry to say, are dang fools. I know because I’m a man, and I never stopped bein’ a fool, but I did learn not to act on it. So remember, girls, if a boy pulls or pushes you where you don’t want to go, if he won’t take time to learn things that are relevant to you, you drop him like a moldy biscuit and never look back.’
He went on to talk about the importance of virginity and a lot of abstinence stuff, but the beginning of that sermon has stuck with me.
More youth education should be like this.
Holy crap. I can’t even imagine…
I wonder — I really wonder — what the currently HORRIFIC stats on the results of abstinence-only education would look like if more of it included stuff like this.
Thank you VERY much for sharing.
- 2 months ago
ESPN Films and ESPN W | Nine for IX “Branded” | for saveitlikesolo
I think without question women who aspire to be athletes, who want to play sports, are better off today than they were thirty years ago. I think it really encouraged young girls to go out there and aspire to their dreams and try to reach their goals.
But despite Title IX, women have really gained very little at the professional sports level over time.
It’s a cultural issue. It’s not just a women in sport issue. As a culture we have to look at all of the messages we send out on a daily basis about what we think is important. I think we’ve made a lot of progress. But I think we have a lot of progress to make.
(via saltysalmonella)Source: cypher2
- 2 months ago
I was recently doing some stand up at a club. After one of my sets, I walked into the bar where a friend of mine who is a comic and also happens to be a tall and pretty lady was standing with a few other people. They were having an animated discussion.
The guy at the bar – whom I had never met before – looked at me and saw my glasses, my ill fitting clothes, my bad posture, and I guess he saw in me a kindred spirit.
“Here,” he said, “this guy will get it. Dude, don’t you think hot girls have it easiest in the world?”
I answered without thinking. My words vomited up out of me.
“No, not at all,” I said. “Being a hot girl seems awful.”
“No, I’m not kidding,” I said. “Why does it suck to look like you and me? Because hot girls won’t talk to us when we’re dumb teenagers… I’d rather have that then spend my whole life with guys yelling shit at me when I walk down the street. I’d rather be lonely for a few years early on then spend every day getting creeped out by gross dudes staring at my chest when I’m just trying to go to the supermarket to buy some fucking vegetables.”
“Yeah,” he said, “but they get whatever they want all the time.”
“Do they?” I asked. “I’m sure they get into clubs I can’t get into, or get drinks served to them without waiting as long as I have to. But they also get judged for wearing the clothes they wear. Or get pressured for not putting out. Or have to worry constantly, at least a little in the back of their mind, about getting raped.”
The guy just stared at me.
“I don’t know dude,” I said. “Hot girls don’t have it easy.”
My friend who is tall and pretty looked at me and smirked and said, “Good answer.” And we walked away together.
Hot girls don’t have it easy. They don’t have it easy for all those reasons I told that guy, and so many more. But most of all, they don’t have it easy because dummies like that guy look at them and see them as “hot girls” instead of seeing them as “three dimensional human beings.”
And that’s what drives me nuts about “the good guys”.
“I’m a good guy, why don’t hot chicks like me?” Are you really a good guy when you say shit like “hot chicks”?
“I’m a nice guy, girls don’t pay any attention to me.” Are you sure you’re a nice guy? Because if your main concern is getting girls to pay attention to you for how nice you are, it sounds to me like maybe you’re not actually nice and you’re presenting yourself as nice to trick a girl you crave into thinking you’re nice. And that’s not very nice."
- 2 months ago
My most popular post has received a lot of arguments lately, so I figured I’d respond to the most common points people bring up.
to get a general gist of Queen Jamillia’s and Oola’s screen time, here are the scripts for Attack of the Clones (Jamillia is in 359 word scene) and Return of the Jedi (Oola is in scenes that add up to 275 words)
We are old enough to know we deserve more.
(via basukerotics)Source: princess-slay-ya
- 2 months ago
“We went to Kineshma, that’s in Ivanovo region, to visit his parents. I went as a heroine and I never expected someone to welcome me, a front-line girl, like that. We’ve gone through so much, we’ve saved lives, lifes of mothers, wives. And then… I heard accusations, I was bad-mouthed. Before that I’ve only ever been “dear sister”… We had tea and my husband’s mother took him aside and started crying: “Who did you marry? A front-line girl… You have two younger sisters. Who’s going to marry them now?” When I think back to that moment I feel tears welling up. Imagine: I had a record, I loved it a lot. There was a song, it said: you have the right to wear the best shoes. That was about a front-line girl. I had it playing, and [his?] elder sister came up and broke it apart, saying: you have no rights. They destroyed all my photos from the war… We, front-line girls, went through so much during hte war… and then we had another war. Another terrible war. The men left us, they didn’t cover our backs. Not like at the front.” from С.Алексеевич “У войны не женское лицо”
In Soviet Union women participating in WWII were erased from history, remaining as the occasional anecdote of a female sniper or simply as medical staff or, at best, radio specialists. The word “front-line girl” (frontovichka) became a terrible insult, synonimous to “whore”. Hundreds thousand of girls who went to war to protect their homeland with their very lives, who came back injured or disabled, with medals for valor, had to hide it to protect themselves from public scorn.
This has always happened in history: Women do something important. Then they get shamed for it (so nobody will talk about it) and it gets erased from history.
And then certain men will say: “Women suck, they’ve never done anything important.”
Look into history and learn that women have played a far greater role then douches (present and past) wanted you to know.
Hey Will (and Jack) I got you something.
So this is important. Let me tell you a story.
All the time I spend debating about women in combat, I’ve picked up on a trend that disturbs me. Supporting or attacking, people are quick to draw on biology, psychology, law, but very rarely - almost never - do I hear about the history of women in combat, and the evidence their service lends to this debate.
Hundreds of thousands of women faced combat in WW2, and on both sides, and on all fronts, and it is a history that has been almost completely erased from contemporary awareness. I have been given arguments about how women can not psychologically handle combat. And about how women in mixed-gender combat units will automatically disrupt group cohesion - the brotherhood, if you will. Both of these assertions are erasure.
Women have not lived in a protective bubble untouched by combat for all of history. Women have been killed, wounded, and captured in combat, and tortured after. We are not living a world where these are hypothetical situations women have yet to prove they can handle. Unfortunately, they have, they can, in the future, they probably will, again and again. Soviet women served as partisans, snipers, tank drivers, fighter pilots, bombers. And more.
Both British and American women served in mixed-gender AA units. I could drag you through several examples of British women performing exemplarily despite being wounded, or seeing their comrades die. The Luftwaffe did not discriminate. Between the British and the Americans, it was determined that mixed gender units actually performed much better than all male units, because of teamwork. Because women are better and certain tasks, men are better at certain tasks, and at other tasks they are comparably efficient, and in a team, hopefully, in combat, you let the best do what they are best at. For the most part, they were proud to serve together.
German propaganda never commented on the British AA units, but they thoroughly smeared the Soviet fighting woman - flitenweiber. People often argue with me that women are a threat to group cohesion because men naturally give women preferential treatment. Which certainly explains why men are more likely to survive shipwrecks. And history shows us that Germans soldiers had no chivalrous compunction when it came to shooting captured Soviet women who were armed.
We’re fed a history of war that almost exclusively features white male figures, most of whom fit into this destructive constructed myth of the soldier that is somehow both chivalrous and charmingly womanizing and who’s sense of brotherhood is unshakably dependent on the band being all man. There is no history of woman at war, none. I hear a lot about how women have no upper body strength, I hear nothing about the Front-Line Female Comrade.
THE WORD FRONTOVICHKA BECAME A TERRIBLE INSULT - are you fucking kidding me? Fuck, that made me cry. At first when I started reading I thought I was reading alernate history fiction. I’m ashamed to be ignorant about this, and full of rage and much worse bitter shame that this history is constantly repressed, suppressed, hidden. WHAT THE FUCK. D: D: D:
(via jebiwonkenobi)Source: castel-coronado
- 2 months ago
Porn for women already exists. It’s called porn.
When we talk about porn, we usually fail to adequately address agency and the complexity of human sexuality. In doing so, we prevent any real progress or sexual liberation across the gendered spectrum. The way we think about porn is wrong, and assigning blame to either men as a group or the porn industry as a whole will foster neither critical conversation nor durable solutions to issues of sexual repression, violence against women and men, or exploitation.
We need to change the conversation.