Making and Sipping Lemonade

As I start this post, there's a glass of Turkey Hill lemonade beside me. Yum. But of course, there's more to the metaphor than that.

I knew the first time my roommie had to stay in PA for personal reasons that it wouldn't go well. Not for her, as in I thought whatever was messed up would get worse. But for me, because I'm a people person. I remembered living in a single room in a dorm as a junior in high college, and even that was hard, so I was certain it'd be rough when she had to go home.

And it was. I was at my peek in depression and ickiness then, and it's coming back now that I'm in my fourth month living without her again.

And Chelsea, I'm not writing this to make you feel bad, dear. You know me- there will be a positive message, so hang on and don't think I'm falling apart... yet. ;)

But really. It hits me hard sometimes.

It hit me really hard when I was leaving the grocery store last week, and keeps hitting me each time I go back*. It was raining that day, and I saw two gals that  had been shopping together while inside working as a team to get their groceries in their car- one was holding an umbrella over the head of the other, the former using a hoodie to keep her hair dry as the latter, hoodless, was moving groceries from the cart to their trunk. And I thought, "God, that's exactly what Chels and I would do, I think we even did that more than once." So I stared at them like a creeper, getting all wet as it rained on me and they laughed and joked with each other, squealing and being girls together.

Me**

And it's kind of depressing coming home to an almost empty apartment.

But  that's where it starts to get better. I mean, don't get me wrong, there are times I'd give anything to just knock on her door and have her come watch something on Netflix with me, or just babble about this or that together.

But I'm not entirely alone. I have this little goofball:

Taken literally just now

It helps to have to immediately run to open her cage and let her out to do her thing every time I get home. And there's usually some rope-tugging for a few minutes, too. And now that it's finally not freezing cold outside, we're going on nice walks around this park near the apartment, and I lose myself in how adorable she gets chasing bugs and sniffing around like a tracker (hah, right).

So that's good.

And I'll have to admit, I'm not the "strut around naked" type, but not having to put on pants right after taking a shower is kind of convenient (I still put on everything else, just not pants, because my legs never dry right and the pants stick to my legs if I don't air dry at first, and there's also lotion to consider...) (no, I don't protest too much...). 

Also, free reign over the kitchen means all sorts of yummy meals and experiments in baking I would have been less apt to do because of fear of hogging the space when my roommie needed it.

And while it's not like I ever had to ask permission to go anywhere or do anything from Chels, now I just flit around like the little social butterfly I am without having to consult anyone.

And I guess this brings me to being single. Because you knew that was going to happen, too, right? Well, yeah, so sue me.

I do want "someone" special, but I'm not entirely miserable without "someone" to hold and be held by. I make do with what I have. I spend time with friends whenever I can, running from work to letting River out to hang to River to hanging again. And at the end of the hanging, she rests her head on my lap and snuggles and I feel warm and safe, because I know she's never going to hurt me- and it goes beyond her not really being capable; I like to think it's because she'd never want to, as well.

And there are even some friends I feel safe enough to admit, "Hey, I'm lonely tonight, can we hang out?" Like recently, I admitted to a friend I was feeling lonely, and  then spent a lovely evening at his place with his fiance. I very much love both with all my heart, and we had a splendid time chatting, then watching a movie and eating cheesecake, then talking about their wedding invites. And it didn't make me feel lonelier, helping them with that- I was happy to be there for idea bouncing and giving my opinion and stuff. I like being  there for my friends, after all, and turning my needy moments into ones where I can help them is one of my ways of getting out of my funks. Maybe it's selfish, but everybody wins, so is it really so bad? Lemonade, right?

And being single means I can invest more in these friendships, too. I'd need a special guy to put up with the lengths I'll go for others. Last week, a friend needed me at about 1:00am, and if I had been next to someone else in bed, it would have been a problem  if he had wanted  me to stay home instead of drive to that friend's aid. Because I won't leave  a friend that needs me hanging. Of course, same would go for a SO, and it wouldn't ever actually be like I was choosing them over him, but still. I could see my giving, mama-bear nature being a problem, if the dude didn't get that about me fully.

But I'm not naive,  either. This lemonade-thing isn't entirely sustainable. That's why when I move to Seattle, I'll have two amazing housemates, friends from undergrad that are just as nerdy, fun, and open-minded as me. We'll have tons of fun together, playing board games and D&D and playing with the animals (River will need to learn to get along with felines... that'll be interesting).

There are some people that do okay living on their own. I don't, and I have the strength to admit that. So housemates it is. Now does this also mean I'll go running with suitcases to the first dude that offers? No, not unless I honestly believe I can see a life with him, if it feels like the step I want with him. Not because it seems like the next step, per se. I may sound desperate, but I have standards, and I'm going to try my hardest to resist jumping  head-first into something I haven't thought about enough. 

Still, I do get stabbed sometimes by the universe- seeing the car of someone that hurt me go by with the guy at the wheel, a woman by his side... that hurts. Being told, "You'll hear from me," then nothing, that cuts me. Getting the, "You're great, but..." speech, it's like a slit across my arm. That "f"-word that some dudes don't realize women hear all the ruddy time, too, so it's not like we don't get hurt by  being told we're "a good friend," ourselves... It burns, burns to the bone. And I can't not feel that.

So I gather up those lemons and let them sit for a few minutes, but then I squeeze all the juices out, add some sugar, and enjoy it. Because I know, once I've calmed down a little, and not even always before I stop crying, that any pain is making me a better person, a more loving  friend and considerate partner. I take damn good care of my friends (and my dog), and I'll take damn good care of whoever is lucky enough to see me for what I'm worth. And when that comes, we'll sip lemonade together and watch the sunset, knowing the next day carries the possibility of something even more amazing. 

*I'm terrible at getting all the stuff I need in one go nowadays, too... not sure if it's related to being alone or not, tbh. If it does, then I think it has to do with me calling people to try NOT to be lonely while there, and getting distracted.

**Not really. ;p

Being Cool vs. Being Awesome During "Autism Awareness" Month

So one of the online "communities" with which I identify is that of Nerdfighteria and the Nerdfighters the group of fans formulate(d) around the brothers John and Hank Green. Not to brag, but I was one of the first subscribers to their online social networking site, the Ning (link to the right), and really enjoyed "hanging out" there for a while, even had a dude admit he was in "Nerdfighterlike" with  me after  a while.* But like with any online group, the more members it got, the worse it became- trolls invaded, and I honestly can't remember the last time I looked at the site, let alone logged into my account. Somehow, I can't remember how long ago, I found out about a Facebook group called "Adult Nerdfighters," and I once again became an early-on member of that group. I rarely scroll through the page or do much engagement with "discussions" there nowadays (if I post stuff, it's funny gifs or videos) because, once again, a bunch of assholes have sort of ruined it.

I'm in two offshoots of Adult Nerdfighters, though. Nerdfighteria Kitchen, where people just talk about cooking and food. That one doesn't get controversial or mean, and it's still relatively small (I even posted a picture of myself in my Batman apron and got lots of positive response, while I know the trolls in the AN group would have called me fat or something). And on a whim at the beginning of the month, I joined another group called "Single Adult Nerdfighters,"  which is also fairly small and, so far, hasn't been too bad**. 

But leave it to a discussion about disability to piss me off and feel like I'm back to the same old situation, where a person that refuses to listen but insists on "discussing" pisses me off. I'm hoping it was a fluke, but there is reason to stay, and I'll get into that now.

So a thread about velociraptors  (because of this video) started to become about how we, as nerds, often make ourselves look, um, silly, and get made fun of. And one of the people in the group said this in the thread:

"Yes, it's hard to be cool. It's so much easier to be awesome."

And I was like, 

YES!

That's exactly what I love. The Nerdfighters I can relate to, the ones I think  really get it (because if the Brothers Green knew about the trolls as individuals, they wouldn't like  them, I'm certain), are like that. They're encouraging, supportive, empathetic, kind, and open-minded. They care if someone is hurt, and if they think they caused the hurt, they go back and apologize.

So in the bad thread I mentioned, a few people were spouting ableist dogma about how ASD needs to be cured, how it means there's "something wrong" with the brain of the person with the diagnosis, and some of them were buying into the myths of savants and crap like Rainman. There was a lot of "supposed to" and "wrong" in the language- very ableist, no doubt about it. And they were talking about how great Autism Speaks is. 

That made me want to vomit. Autism Speaks is one of the most guilty parties when it comes to the spread of negative stereotypes and discourses about ASD specifically, and disability more generally. I hate that stupid blue puzzle piece- it implies there's something missing from the person with ASD, or the lives of their family. That's not true. Not true at all.

I should know. My brother has ASD.

Now okay, I'm not saying every person with ASD or their family should agree with me. But Autism Speaks focuses too much on the grief aspect when it comes to families, and not enough on practical support or acceptance.

And they have a close bedfellow in the National Autism Association- both discuss the "epidemic" of autism in their literature, have videos and ads that look like horror flicks (tell me this isn't creepy), and don't actually provide direct support for families like they profess they do. Oh, they'll take your money for a toolkit (say one like this ), but how about this to sort of get the gears going:

I get really sick of organizations like Autism Speaks and the National Autism Association because they spread the message of fear and make it seem like all happiness is forever lost out of your life if you have a kid diagnosed with ASD. They perpetuate the scientifically unfounded myth that autism is linked to vaccines, as well as that it's "on the rise" because of some external factor leading to more people having it.

Autism isn't "spreading." People are just testing for it more, and specialists are better at recognizing it. What used to be just "awkward" is now in the DSM as "Asperger's."

This negative treatment of ASD is what disability scholars refer to as the "medical" model of disability. It focuses on diagnosis and finding a "cause" and "cure" for the respective anomaly; it frames disability as a tragedy that the caregivers have to deal with; it relies on the "expert" opinion of someone without the disability, and thus it doesn't really acknowledge the person with the disability theirself very much. Any reference to them is abstract and indirect. If you've ever seen a doctor do the recording for an autopsy in a movie or on a TV show, it feels like that- disconnected, observing as opposed to actually participating and giving two shits on a personal level. (For my take on some other models, see my piece about Iron Man 3.)

So I hate it when I see crap from these people, and I hate shopping during April because stores sometimes join the bandwagon and have clerks ask me if I want to donate to AS or NAA. I went off on a defenseless young woman at TJ-Maxx last year over it (I did go back into the store and apologize to her, explaining myself, and she actually seemed to listen, though, so maybe it helped?).

Imagine my frustration when I saw an email from the NAA about a Chili's event (I'm on their email list because of some research I still have in the pipeline, if I ever finish my Ph.D.). Fortunately, I didn't get the chance to do much, because I was about to start our seasonal group meeting at the store I work at. Instead, I deleted it really quickly, intent on sending a counter-message via Twitter and Facebook about how people should AVOID Chili's on that day because reasons. So then imagine my haughty satisfaction when I got home from said meeting to see a retraction email, the content being:

"Please disregard our previous email. We are very sorry to report that Chili's has cancelled tomorrow's event."

I'd like to think it's because enough people gave Chili's negative feedback, but I'm sure there were other reasons. Reasons related to things like "logistics" and "profit," rather than discourses and hegemony and stigma and acceptance and accessibility. 

So what does this have to do with Nerdfighteria?

Well, this is how I'm awesome, not cool. This, right here.

I mean this blog, for one thing. I know it's just a blog, but if at least one person sees this and reconsiders their approach to disability, autism, or ANYthing because of what I'm writing, then job well done, self.

I also mean in general. I'm a mama bear, and I stand up for people that can't do it for themselves. I send counter-messages whenever I can.

So here's my counter-message vis a vis AS and NAA:

Autism Acceptance. 

"Awareness" implies danger. It implies caution and fear. It comes out of the mouths of non-ASD persons.

"Acceptance" implies inclusion. It implies warmth and  happiness. And it comes out of the mouths of persons with ASD.

Sure, we're more "aware" of autism, which is exactly why more people are getting diagnosed with ASD each year. It has nothing to do with diet, with vaccines. Not directly, at least. I'm willing to say that maaaaaaybe there's some abstract link, like  if the kid's genetic makeup already has these zillion other things, it makes ASD more likely- but direct cause, no.

Here's the thing. The people that buy into groups with messages like AS and  NAA, they're grieving. And that's fine. Because of ableist paradigms embedded in our norms and institutions, discovering your kid  has a disability today is a shock, a blow, and yeah, can feel pretty tragic.

But the next step is acceptance. If an organization wants to help families,  it needs to help them with actual support. With teaching them how to adapt so that they and their kid can live the fullest, and, here's the key, HAPPIEST, lives possible. Will it be easy? Probably not. But acting like all bets are off will never give that family the chance to embrace any joy that comes their way, or will taint said joy with the ominous clouds of disability and autism.

So in April, I try to remind people that we only  think there's something  "wrong" with ASD people because society places a higher normative value on a specific set of behaviors, one that excludes behaviors associated with ASD. "Wrong" is the wrong word to use. It should be "different." Or "atypical."

In April, I promote full inclusion. Meaning being understanding if a person doesn't quite interact like everybody else, not calling them a jerk or something. I do my best to try to encourage others to be understanding and open-minded.

In April, I remind people that you can't "catch" autism, and you certainly can't "cure" it. That disability is natural, and we shouldn't  decide how salient a person's disability is when it comes to their identity- that the salience of said disability should be  up to them and them alone.

Brief example.

So I usually use People-First Language, but some persons with disabilities self-advocate differently. They will say "autistic" instead of "with autism," and that's their right. Out of general respect, as a person without a diagnosis, I try to use PFL when talking about specific diagnoses; I do, however, say "disabled" when talking gernally, as that's what I've come to realize is acceptable both in academia and the real world. If I ever write a dissertation, I could do a huge chunk on that very topic. But my point is, I let the anomalous individuals decide how I refer to them. That thread I mentioned had a lot of non-pfl, and it irked me. I didn't see the "c" word, but I did see "handicapped" once.

::shudder::

So to get back to that ableist thread. I did my best to point out the problems I saw in the diction and assumptions being made, backing down when it seemed a few people were just not listening. But just before I stopped notifications on the thread, a gal that had already declared herself ASD in the thread (and that had also been going at it with the meatheads) posted this:

"[Name] thanks for posting about problematic language. I've been told implicitly and explicitly all my life that my natural way of being is Wrong--and this is coming from someone who studied and mimiced [sic.] and practiced in the mirror so much as a very young person that I didn't get diagnosed until I was 32. Most people would never guess I'm on the spectrum, because I learned so well to hide the parts of me that are "wrong." It breaks my heart to think of all the millions of people who have fought and are fighting so hard every day to be Not Themselves because they've been assured that their brains are Wrong. We aren't Wrong, we're Different."

She desires acceptance, not awareness-she wants to be who she is and not hide. I felt pretty good about that- I had reached her, even if she wasn't the target of my contribution to the discussion. I helped her feel like there are people that do care and would accept her for who she is, which is a wonderful, caring, amazing Nerdfighter. It took a lot more guts to "out" herself than it did for me to get all jargony, I'll say that now.

So. I call on you, for the rest of the month, I ask you to consider donating to groups like Autism Acceptance, or the ones listed in the infographic; to counter someone talking about "awareness" with a message of "acceptance." You'd be doing something really positive, and believe it or not, at least for a moment, fighting back against ableist paradigms and institutions. Try not to forget that, and also, 

*Obviously that went nowhere. Turns out,  he was a closet MRA and anti-feminist. I shudder at the memory. He unfriended me on Facebook because I wouldn't say he was right, I think about rape culture...? I don't even remember, douche.

**I'm still contemplating it- I see more stuff about dates and relationships that are current and ongoing here than I did in the other group, and the whole point of joining was to commiserate with fellow singles about, you know, being single, not congratulate people that aren't for their accomplishment(s). Sigh. We'll see...

Kitty Pryde and Sexism in Marvel Movies

Disclaimer: I haven't read any X-Men comics, but I hang out on enough nerdy sites and read webpages explaining and deconstructing storylines and such that I have a decent background and understanding  of the mythos. It comes up enough that I was able to name most of the characters in the uber-excessive character-dropping of The Last Stand. And as I've said before, I have nothing to prove, so if you think I have no credibility, then, well, fuck you- you're prolly the type that wouldn't think what I'm about to say is of value even if I've read some.   

I've said here and  here that I'm not as impressed with the female representations in the Marvel movies as some people seem to think I should be (obviously, these people don't know me well enough, but still). Well, let me tell you something, I've now become pretty frustrated and huffy over something about the upcoming X-Men: Days of Future Past. 

Whilst I was watching that preview and literally flapping my hands in delight, I was reckless enough to swipe the mousepad and make the screen scroll down. This meant I accidentally was faced with nigh but a wall of... the COMMENTS.

Right? Scary-ass shit, you'd think. Well, actually, it wasn't, for the most part. Mostly fanboys  gushing about how excited they were. But before I could stop myself, I noticed a comment that had the name "Kitty Pryde" in it. Intrigued, and recalling this is the character played by Ellen Page (whose X-name is Shadowcat) in the second and third movies in the first run, I decided to read the comment in its entirety to see why they'd bring her up (other than the fact that she's in a few seconds of this trailer, while she was in zero if the first). Now, her character didn't really do too much in those other movies, so here's a visual refresher: 

And then I came out. Fuck you.

Now first, let me rant  a little about how she was characterized in those two films. Her only real purpose in them was to create romantic/dramatic tension between Anna-Marie/Rogue and Bobby/Iceman. She didn't really do much  else. I mean okay, she helped some little boy get out of a room or something like that in The Last Stand, but she only had like ten lines of dialogue the whole movie, and I'm pretty sure even fewer in the one prior. She spent more time looking either scared about what was going on around her or making doe-eyes at Bobby than she did actually doing anything. I was disappointed- because while, as admitted, I haven't read any X-Men comics, my uncle has told me Kitty is one of his favorite characters and  has a long rant as to why. He's an UBERnerd (he DMd my first ever D&D experience), so I trust his judgment. And I hiiiiiighly doubt he'd pick her as a favorite character for any gushy love triangles. Yet she was reduced to an extra source of conflict for Bobby and Rogue's relationship (aside from Rogue's whole sucking-your-powers-when-we-make-out thing). 

And by the way, Rogue? Yeah, all of her storylines were about her attraction to Logan/Wolverine or her romantic entanglement with Bobby. And I don't even need to hear rants from my uncle to know that's total bullshit and reductive treatment of one of the most recognizable characters in the canon. I mean, God, I knew this chick when I was like five was Rogue from X-Men, before I even knew who Poison Ivy is:

Sigh. Please excuse the TERRIBLE
anatomy, there, but it's extremely
difficult finding un-boob pictures of
females in comics. Here is a great link
about that (and the next post is the result
of the SHITSTORM of hate she received).

I didn't even touch the watering-down of Kitty and Anna-Marie before, but... well... ugh.

So anyhoo, the comment I saw. I focused in on it, and it was in two parts, the first another gushy I CAN'T WAIT FOR THIS MOVIE wanking-fest. The second part, though, went basically like this: "I guess my only complaint  is that the original storyline had Kitty Pryde as the one going back in time. Other than that, looks amazing!"

My  reaction was, of course:

And I read a little more, and a number of people said, "Oh yeah, you're right!" and, "Huh, that's kinda interesting," and a few said they didn't mind that much, that they were mainly annoyed about it because they're sick of Wolverine being the main character.

This, of course, was entirely unsurprising for me to see out of them. I did my research to be doubly-quadruple-ee sure, and lo, 'tis true. Kitty Pryde was, indeed, the featured character in that arc when it was published in 1981. And for this film, the featured character is Wolverine.

Now, I get the fanboys' anger. Because yeah, this makes the seventh X-Men movie, and there's only one that didn't have Logan as the central figure, X-Men: First Class. And they're right, there are a zillion other characters to choose from, and Wolverine is, despite what the films would lead a body to believe, often a side-character and even, gasp, not on missions with the others. 

Yes, actually, I do.

I mean, when The Dark Knight Rises was still in production, I was really hoping Nolan would bring in some lesser-utilized members of Batman's Rogues Gallery that would fit into his "gritty-realism" take, ones like the Mad Hatter or the Calendar Man or either version of the Ventriloquist (and this isn't even entertaining  the theories that the Big Bad in TDKR would be Hugo Strange or Alberto Falcone- both of which I would have totally been behind). Anyhoo, my point is, I get being sick of seeing the same characters over and over in a series based on a mythos with so many more from which to choose. 

But those fanboys  complaining about Wolverine getting another movie are missing a big problem: Generally speaking, this coming movie takes what was previously a story-line centered around the actions of a woman, and making that character a man. And more specific to these movies, they're taking the opportunity to give a female her first lead while simultaneously redeeming the bullshit from her previous movies, and instead giving us a sixth movie with the same dude as the central character.

I'll work backwards. Because this argument is closer to the one the fanboys were expressing. Yeah, I'm kind of sick of Wolverine, too. I mean, I love me some Hugh Jackman...

Yes, please.

... but I'm getting sick of this character. How many times can the same dude have the exact same character arc, people? "I'm not a team player... yes I am." I mean, jeez. They're going with him because he's familiar to non-comic people. And because yeah, Jackman is fucking gorgeous and a good actor (I mean, even though the script for the first solo-film was atrocious, he did well in the scenes he was given- and  he's been amazing in so many other things). The X-Men universe has soooo many other characters that could hold their own as the main character in a movie- like how about Storm? Oh wait, ovaries.

I digress. 

My point is,  yeah, Wolverine is old. So if nothing else, it was ridiculous to make him the person going back in time, over every single other character in the X-Men cannon. And especially given how crummy Kitty was in the other movies she had a part in, it's a ruddy shame they didn't take the opportunity to redeem themselves for that and write a story in which she kicks major ass and saves the day.

Now, the more feminist critique of this switcheroo.

I'll start out by emphasizing the genders in the first, basic complaint. An underused and underserved female character is being replaced by an overused and overserved male character. See? SEE?

And more generally speaking, as I've said, the excuses for not having women at the helm of superhero movies are all grounded in sexism. I can just picture the meeting.

Dude in Suit 1: So it's settled, we're going with the  Days of Future Past storyline, great!

Dude in Suit 2: But we still haven't addressed the big pink elephant in the room.

Dude in Suit 3: Yes, it's very serious, we have to be frank about this. We can't possibly have a woman as the lead character, so we can't use that story, women don't star in successful comic book movies!

Dude in Suit 2: Yeah, look at Catwoman!

Dude in Suit 3: Catwoman? What about Elektra?! That was our fault, for actually thinking a comic movie starring a woman would make us money!

Dude in Suit 4: But what else can we do? We aren't creative enough to come up with our own storyline! Are you inSANE?

Dude in Suit 1: Gentlemen, gentlemen, please, calm down. Don't get your panties in a twist.

[The other men scoff]

Dude in Suit 2: So what do you propose?

Dude in Suit 1: Wolverine.

[Silence]

Dude in Suit 1: Let me repeat. Wolverine.

Dude in Suit 4: Jackman has agreed to do the next Wolverine movie, that was item One on the agenda, remember?

Dude in Suit 1: Nonono, I mean we switch Ghostcat with Wolverine. Everybody loves Wolverine. People that don't know the comics think he's the best, and those virginal comic nerds still living with their mothers will flock to the movie no matter who is the lead, so long as it's not a woman. Switch Ghostcat with Wolverine, and we have a winner. Guaranteed goldmine. 

[Pause]

Dude in Suit 2: You mean SHADOWcat, right?
Dude in Suit 1: Whatever, she has a pussy, and we don't want that.

[They all laugh]

Right?

Look, even if the dudes that wrote this script and everybody that okayed it along the way wasn't thinking like that, that a woman couldn't be the lead, the fact that nobody thought a woman's part going to a man is problematic is, in fact, problematic in itself. I don't know if you've heard of the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media, but, well, if you peruse the site, as well as links to other sites from there, you'll find facts like "[o]nly 32.6 percent of speaking characters from 2007 to 2010 were female, which translates into an on-screen ration of 2.1 males to every one female."

How is that okay? How is that excusable? Women make up more than half the world's population, yet they're not even 1/3 of the speaking roles in movies? I hate to see the stats on leading roles, it'd just prolly turn me into a ball of rage. 

So yes. It's problematic that these dudes (and yes, dudes) in charge of the media keep making men the main characters. And it's also problematic that fanboys don't really notice. Because like I said, the comments on the trailer were mostly, "Meh, I'm sick of Wolverine," and not, "Can't it be a woman?" And most of the comic/movie sites I found by fans were along those lines, too (and more general news-type sites were even less biased, just, "the old story was that and now it's this and here's the reason given"). The only site with a hint at the sexism involved was my beloved Mary Sue (and HOW I missed this piece when they first wrote it, I don't know, to be honest). 

If you read that MS piece, you'll see the writer is making it out to be a logistical thing because Kitty wasn't born yet. Well, that's just a load of crap, as far as I'm concerned, it's an excuse rooted in sexism. They could have figured something out- have Kitty possess someone else while there, another mutant (it'd be REALLY interesting if she possessed, say, her own mom (I could see them making that how she gets her powers and/or having it be her so that she'd have them), and met her dad in that state, holy poop). I mean, fuck, just transplant her with a time machine, they've already got astronomically advanced tech bullshit in this film series. Or send both back, so that she's at least around more!

Because here's another thing. I can't find a source, but I saw someone, somewhere when I first put two-and-two together a few weeks ago that Kinberg and Brian Singer were "going to great lengths" to make sure Kitty is a "central driving force" for the movie.

Well, how come when I saw Captain America: The Winter Soldier* today and saw that above trailer and I made the effort to count the times Kitty was on-screen, I only got three? And how come she doesn't say a damn word in any of those shots? And how come one of them is of a pan-shot of her with the other kids she was at Xavier's school with in X2 and the center of the shot was gorram Collossus? "Driving force" my fat, Native American  ass.

And here's one last nugget to munch on, kids. When it was announced that Idris Elba, a Black man, would be playing Heimdall in the Thor movies, the fanboys  got all up-in-arms because it "messes with cannon." Because yes, Heimdall is white in the comics. And somehow, changing the skin color of a character with like five lines in the movie was going to destroy the whole thing.

Yet, it's all been pretty tepid over Kitty. 

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I think changing the skin color of a character is a LOT less of a "cannon" change than changing which character is doing a thing entirely. And yet any fanboy reaction over the Kitty/Logan switch is very much a "meh" and not the damn firestorm over Heimdall changing races.

And I highly doubt I need to point out that it is not the same thing to change a white character to a POC as it is the other way around, and likewise when a male character is swapped to a female. This blog does a wonderful job explaining it with chocolate covered raisins. It applies to the Heimdall case just as much as it does the Kitty Pryde case. There are so few women in lead roles as it is, and the only two in comic were both utter disappointments (Catwoman and Elektra, of course). Taking away another opportunity for a woman to helm any movie, let alone a comic movie, perpetuates the marginalization of women. And it's noticeable. Tangible.

And it speaks volumes when the fanboys get their panties in a twist when a white guy is changed to a Black one, but don't really care too much when a woman is changed to a man.

We'll never be able to teach our daughters they can be leaders if we can't show them examples to admire and aspire toward. And it's unfair that it's cool for girls to "relate" to male characters, but if boys do the same with female ones, it's taboo. And since our market is used to women adapting and settling, it caters to men. Movie execs know women will go to the movies whether or not the lead is a female, but they assume men won't if it is. So, it isn't. 

Now, does this mean I won't see Days of Future Past? Fuck no. But it does mean I'm going to go in with compartmentalized sections of my brain. One will just be sitting back and enjoying, prolly fist-pumping and growling when appropriate. But another will be taking stock of how Kitty Pryde is portrayed- how the other characters treat and react to her, how much she does versus how much happens to her. And I'm more than skeptical.

*OH MY FUCKING GOD SEE THIS MOVIE NOW. I liked  the first Cap movie, but this one was way better. Certainly better than both Thor flicks, and the latter two Iron Man ones. I'd need to see the first Iron Man movie to decide which I like more now. Hm, I guess I know what I'll be doing before bed.  

The Bait-and-Switch: Discourses of Oppression and Self-Aggrandizement

Alright, as promised, my obligatory piece responding to Daniel Snyder's letter about retaining the current name for the NFL team from Washington. I've written about this a bit before in a different context, but this? This is a game-changer. So, well, let's do this.

Get ready for an onslaught of hot-headed opinions and
jargony ranting about the same ol' same ol' from me.

Ooookay. So there's a lot to unpack from this dude's letter. Like, way a lot. Essentially, if I was to come up with a "thesis," I'd say that Snyder is pulling another one out of Schopenhauer's strategems (29), that is, the bait-and-switch; this line of argumentation, basically, "How can you be concerned with sports teams when there are people in abject poverty on reservations? When indigenous women are three times more likely to experience sexual assault than white women?" And  he's doing it in order to stubbornly dig his heels in because he basically masturbates to his own reflection.

But first, I want to talk about how he's using a "selective agreement" strategy I've talked about before; that is, he's using the opinions of indigenous persons that jive with his own as evidence for why he's "right" and ignoring the opinions of indigenous persons that disagree with him. I'm going to take  this one further, though. He professes in his letter that he gave a survey to some tribes, and they picked the poverty and  stuff as the most pressing or whatever. As a pseudo-scientist, I'd like to see the survey instrument he used, because I have a stinky smell under my nose, and think it's the questions. My guess is, they were worded in such a way to manipulate respondents into providing answers supporting his assertion that indigenous people care "the most" about aid to reservations. Even without the survey or data in front of me, I'm sure it's not that the respondents don't care at all about whether the R-word is used as DC's name, but rather that they are concerned immediately about the poverty because, well, they're living it, and so emphasize that more in their answers.

Think of it this way. They're basically in a state of duress when answering the survey, and the questions are phrased in a way making them believe they have to choose between food or changing the football team's name. If their fucking stomach hurts because they haven't had a square meal in days, of course they're going to pick something that could alleviate that real pain. Duh. No-brainer. (Note: I keep talking about food, but  make  no  mistake, there are a slew of inhumane conditions on reservations. That's just a quick example.)

Also, again, as a pseudo-scientist, I doubt that sample was really representative of indigenous persons across the country- there's a reason he picked the tribes and peoples he picked, and I have a sneaking suspicion he knew the people he was asking would be more likely to share views closer to his. In other words, my gut tells me he picked people that exemplify those atrocious conditions, because he knew they would care more about aid to reservations than anything else the indigenous populations in the US are struggling with. 

But even if not all the people taking the survey are experiencing the worst of the reservation system, again, I'd bet my boots that the question wording led them right to where Snyder would want them to go. 

That being said, even if the survey was entirely coercion-free and objective, and even if the sample was representative, there's still the fact that there are lots of people that think the R-word has no place as a sports franchise name. And it's one thing to do something like keep on making  a remake of an old franchise, despite lots of fan reaction in the negative*; it's another to keep on doing something people find offensive and hurtful, just because not everybody does. When something is hurtful, it's more cowardly to side with those that aren't hurt- because those that aren't are in agreement with those in power. They pose no threat, present no challenge to the status quo. Not that their feelings are invalid, but their opinions ultimately serve the majority, rather than the oppressed.

Here's the thing. As I said before, I bet some of the questions made it seem like an either-or, feed indigenous children or change the mascot. But I think presenting it that way is just poppy-cock. It doesn't have to be an "either-or," it's only an "either-or" because white people want to relieve their white guilt while still retaining their hegemonic power and control.

Because notice what he's doing in that letter. He spews all sorts of (valid) stats about some of the troubling conditions indigenous persons in the US experience every day. In doing so, he's distracting people reading from the original topic, his team's name. Rather than discussing why so many indigenous people think the team's name is racist, he starts a pity-party about indigenous people, as if that's the only thing we should care about. I get frustrated whenever this bait-and-switch strategy gets used during any discussion, but it's particularly dirty in situations where the topic is this very one or the closely related one of appropriated indigenous iconography (meant to "honor" indigenous cultures, be it mascots, slogans, costumes, or hipster fashions) because of how frequently it's used as basically a cop-out. Not only does it serve to move the conversation away from its original subject matter, but it also works as an implicit ad hominem in any situation, but in ones on this particular subject, it's as if to say the individual(s) arguing for the removal of racist iconography in any way are being selfish or insensitive because they're deliberately ignoring the poverty, violence, etc. on reservations. That the people saying something is racist are willfully ignorant of those struggles; that they're selfish, bleeding-heart liberal elitists that are hypersensitive and overly politically correct at the expense of other indigenous persons  that are suffering right now; that they care more about their pseudo-intellectual pontifications about symbols and metaphor than  the real world tragedies every day that need fixing; that they "have no idea" what's "really going on" and are ungrateful that they aren't also living in squalor. 

It's an attempt to guilt anyone in disagreement for that disagreement by convincing them the other issue is of a greater moral concern, that the original problem is petty, at best, while the new one is concrete and terrible. 

He goes even further, though. Because for a good chunk of the letter, he's portraying his foundation as a stand-in for Mighty Whitey that takes on the White Man's Burden- the white charity will help those poor, defenseless, uneducated injuns! He went to investigate whether it's racist or not (by hitting up the Torrez-Martinez Cahuilla tribe in California), "discovered" the poverty, and knew he had to take action, GOD BLESS HIM! Ugh. And we should think he's a saint because he's (supposedly) going to let indigenous people run the show- what an innovator, he's letting indigenous people make their own decisions! He takes the valid claim that the logo is racist, makes it irrelevant, then turns the discussion into one about how wonderful and awesome he is for starting this foundation because he's going to help and save so many poor, unfortunate souls.

Call me stubborn, but I don't really want to join this guy in his circle-jerk. It's misguided at best, entirely corrupt at worst. 

And it seems entirely shallow and hollow to me. Like he's just trying to buy off any naysayers. You see this a lot from people with money, they think it can get them out of trouble any and every time- they throw money at the problem, and it goes away. Because, let's face it, often times, it does get them out of trouble, the problem does go away. It's fucked up, but it's true. But of course, Snyder isn't stupid- he's an asshole. So instead of just giving a lump sum and more overtly throwing money at what he's now declared the real problem (because remember, bait-and-switch), he's packaging it  as an ongoing  thing through this foundation. Now, do I think  the foundation in itself is bad? Heavens, no- it's a great thing, a fabulous idea. But I don't like the context in which it's being formulated, and it feels more like blood money than genuine aid. And it feels hollow- if Snyder was to really put his money where his mouth is, he'd change the franchise name and create a foundation to provide aid to indigenous communities. Because in order for white people to believe indigenous people can handle a real infrastructure and improve socioeconomic conditions on the reservations they've been forced to live, white people need to respect indigenous people- and they won't do that if they have a jersey with a gorram racial epithet in their closet. I'm not saying the change to the franchise needs to come first, but it would help foster the respect necessary to reduce the pity and objectification preventing indigenous autonomy- since the r-word is in itself a form of objectification, after all. But no, I don't like blood money. Nor do my own people- that's why the Lakota Sioux have on numerous occasions refused money awarded them in lawsuits over the Black Hills- federal courts acknowledge that the seizure of the lands was illegal, yet the lands themselves aren't offered, just money. So the Lakota Sioux refuse to take monetary compensation in lieu of what the US government has promised and the lands they deem sacred- and it's not like the choice has ever been easy. And here's the rub: It's noble when a white person in a movie or on TV (or in history, yeah) refuses to be bought off, but Native Americans are criticized and demonized for doing it. Fuck that. (Of course, I'm not saying the tribes the money from Snyder's foundation may end up going to should say no- I can't make that call, for myriad reasons. I'm just saying, this whole, "let me donate money to placate you so I can keep what I want and by the way I'm a hero" thing is fucked up.)

And here's another rub: I have another hunch that if there was a national poll  done, or if every single person in the US that has an opinion on this (non-opinions don't count, here, since another strategy to uphold the status quo is say, "Well, nobody cares except you.") was asked, the vast majority of people that want it to stay the same would be white, and  yeah, there would be a majority in favor of keeping the r-word. And that means money. It'd cost lots of money to change the name and merchandise. And if Snyder went ahead and had them do that, he'd run the risk of losing some of that audience. And while one  would think that'd be fine (because if people decided to change teams over removal of a racial epithet, then, well, those people would prolly belong with these folks), when it comes to capitalism, that's just plain bad news. Creating a foundation that won't take any of the team's money? That runs absolutely no risk whatsoever.

Along those lines, I had someone ask me, "What if part of the  team's profits every year went to the foundation?" I'll admit, that'd prolly be less icky-feeling, because that's guaranteed revenue. But.. I actually think it'd be worse. It'd be as if the team itself was paying indigenous peoples directly to use the name, and it would more closely mean tacit approval of the r-word mascot than a foundation based off of donations. A foundation run by indigenous people can, in time, become its own entity; one tied monetarily to a white-run franchise wouldn't. But regardless, Snyder wouldn't do that, anyway. The letter isn't clear on where the money will come from, but I highly  doubt it'll be direct from the franchise, because that's just bad business, from an entirely monetary perspective. Even if the startup funds have come from the team, my guess is they'll come up with some bullshit "transition plan" wherein it'll turn over to the outside donations page, and then, you know, die.

Although, I dunno, if Snyder was concerned about safe monetary practices, perhaps he should have picked a different person to be the CEO of the foundation. 

A sort-of sidenote: I had already written the above paragraph about paying things off (I've done a LOT of editing of this essay, so things have been moving around- but that was actually the first paragraph I wrote, days ago) when I saw this article from the Native Appropriations FB feed. (Native Appropriations is also where I found out about Snyder's letter from in the first place, to be entirely honest.) I kind of want to go toe-to-toe with this guy, because I think there's a HUGE difference between schools on reservations, whose student bodies are made up mostly of native students, that are run by native Americans... it's a HUGE difference between THOSE mascots having indigenous iconography and schools off-res doing it- a boy whose grand-dad very well could have been the model for the  mascot wearing it on his basketball jersey is fine, but a boy whose grand-dad could have killed the model... And I'd point him to stuff like this study, and emphasize that it doesn't have to be an either-or thing- that making it as such is exactly what people like Snyder want us to do. 

Plus, and maybe this is a stretch, and prolly a controversial stand to take, but... well... if Snyder is only surveying people on-res, he's surveying natives that are the majority in their area. I know it's kind of selfish, but native Americans that are living on reservations aren't surrounded by white people all the time, white people that don't "get it," that are constantly appropriating iconography and imagery that an indigenous person in their midst may find sacred, or at least whose ancestors did; that don't care whether something they're doing is hurtful. On-res people have it hard, but so do people off-res- it's a difference in kind, not validity. I'd remind Gyasi Ross that claiming the concerns of off-res indigenous peoples are invalid and moot is the "divide" part of "divide and conquer." And I'm sick of my people being conquered over and over again. He's doing indigenous persons like myself and my relatives (some who do live on-res, I might add) an extreme disservice by assuming we don't care about the poor socioeconomic conditions for our on-res cousins, and, frankly, he sounds like an asshole because of it. (Okay, I prolly wouldn't say the "asshole" part, but yeah.)

Because if I haven't made this clear enough already, let me do it now. We shouldn't have to choose between aid and respect. The fact that Snyder is making people do that is disgusting and colonialist. Giving aid is a way of avoiding giving autonomy. It's not that I don't care about the reservation system, it's that I ALSO care about representations and discourses. The Indigenous peoples of the US will not be able to stay out of poverty until we're thought of as equal citizens, Americans, and human-fucking-beings. As long  as a racial epithet against us is on billboards and jerseys and hats, as long as people still go, "Bobobobobo!" waving plastic tomahawks, as long as "Indian princesses" jiggle around  parties, we won't have equal rights and access to the economic and educative systems necessary to sustain a quality of life that's above devastating. 

So just to wrap this up, yes,  I'm glad there's a foundation now; I'm sad it came at the expense (or, more accurately, the money-saving) of keeping the  r-word as the name of D.C.'s team. I wish all the recipients of any of the monies given well, and I hope that somebody somewhere  will be able to knock some sense into this self-loving douchebag that is Dan Snyder. Either that, or he croaks soon and the person that takes over has more of a heart for others and less of a hard-on for theirself.

Over and out. 

*I have to point out something related: So Mr. Bay decided to nix the "alien" bullshit he had let leak at first, okay, fine. But  he also white-washed Shredder by making him this guy. And while sure, while I've never seen Mr. Fitcher do badly in a movie (nay, he's pretty awesome in everything), it's kind of sad Bay would go with original story for fanboys but mess things up for... racial hegemony. 

Liebster Award

So while I would totally be a professional blogger, I don't really have the chops for it yet, nor the content (I don't think, anyway). Still, I have a few friends that also blog, and one in particular is becoming more and more of a Thing (she's been on panels for ACTUAL cons, has her own domain name now, and she even has a funding website). This friend of mine, Amanda, recently received a nifty blogging award, called a Liebster Award. And she shared the love with me. Look, I get a prize!

I've done some digging, and I can't seem to find an "official" Liebster page, and thus like eighty billion versions of the rules. So first, I'll sum this up a little.

What is a Liebster Award? It seems to me that it's an entirely online thing, for bloggers, by bloggers, as a means of promoting blogs that don't have huge-ass followings yet, but that are fun/entertaining/that the person bestowing it believes merit more followers. I'm also suspecting some of them have been used as a benevolent form of coercion to get the recipient to write again, heh. It can help people discover new blogs, too, if they bother to look at the other blogs nominated alongside their own.

What are the rules? If you accept the nomination, you give some sort of shout-out to the person that nominated you, answer the questions they ask you, then nominate more people whilst coming up with your own questions- and all of this involves a lot of hyperlinks and tagging and whatnot. ;) The number of questions seems rather solid at eleven, but the number of people to nominate fluctuates from five to twenty (in increments of five), and there always seems to be a goal of having a limit on the number of subscribers they have prior to nomination. You don't have to accept, of course. Also, it appears that at least one of the questions has to be about blogging. 

So, well, okay, I guess this just  makes for a good excuse to write a blog post. So here we go, first I'll answer the questions.

1) If you were trapped in a video game for the rest of your life, which game would you want it to be? Hands down, Journey. The ability to float around like that? And communicate by singing? And the potential for such wonderful camaraderie through music? Oy. I may get kind of lonely* in that world, but there are all the tapestries that come to life (when you sing at them!) for company, and again, other travelers you come across.  

2) Which spaceship would you like to explore the universe in? Oh gosh... So this is going to sound like it's coming out of nowhere, but I still remember both iterations of the theme song from this show... and it's the first show where Jewel Staite was a member of a rag-tag team of space explorers... I'm going to say The Christie from the show Space Cases. 

She's organic and at least  partially sentient, provides what the crew needs, and can friggin' fix herself. And  she also has some badass weaponry (in case some baddies show up). And I like the idea of "bonding" with the ship I'd spend so much time in, as if we'd be sorta friends. I'm sentimental like that.

3) What do you know now that you wish you knew when you started your blog? I wish I knew how important tagging is. I didn't do it before, but apparently because of that, my blog is hard to find, and the Thing to use to follow blogs now can't find blogs similar to mine (or, well, it could also be because I'm kind of a nobody, but meh). Also, as I was going through and trying to tag my posts, I effed something up and made an oooold post move to the top and don't know how to fix it and I'm grumpy about it. Poo. 

4) If you could have any mythical animal as a friend/pet/companion, what would it be and why? So there was a time when I would have screamed, "WINGED UNICORN!" But I've been through so much, that innocence is long-gone. I actually think my favorite mythological creature is (and has been for quite some time) the gryphon:

Originally, they had the back-end of a lion and the front-end (including talons) of an eagle. The types have evolved to combinations involving owls, hawks, and falcons on the front and pretty much any wild, hunting cat on the back. I'd probably stick with the original, although I'd prefer a golden eagle over a bald eagle. I'd want a gryphon because they're badass and I could ride one around like this, but, assuming this whole "friend" part is solid, I imagine it'd be as fiercely loyal and protective as I am. And, frankly, I could use a protector, because I'm always so busy taking care of everyone else, I don't take care of myself until it reaches hospital-worthy proportions (true story). I sometimes get so caught up in trying to help someone else, I end up shooting myself in the foot and pushing them away- and a companion like a gryphon would be able to tell me when I'm starting to act kind of crazy, and maybe keep me from getting hurt again. I'm also going to assume that my gryphon would be able to sniff out the assholes and douchebags before they get a chance to hurt me, too- I'm so easily duped, it's pathetic. And I also suspect that, despite the huge muscle and sort of rough exterior, they're also really soft and warm- talons aside, cuddling with one seems like it'd be rather lovely because I'd actually feel safe for a change, and I'd come closer to that innocent little girl that loved unicorns so much when I was little.  

As a sidenote, my favorite Magic: The Gathering deck I own is one I constructed myself in 2007, comprised of some older "griffin" cards and things related (like one that gives another creature flying and then TURNS INTO A GRIFFIN when/if that creature dies). When I made it, griffins were just getting started as a Thing in Magic, so the deck isn't the best: older griffins cost a LOT of mana to get out, so it's usually really slow-going, and sometimes I don't even get a single griffin out before having my ass handed to me when playing with this deck. But it's still my favorite, because the creatures are mostly griffins (and some angels, like this one, my favorite angel that I own**). I have a friend with some newer griffins he's let me look at before, and I'm kind of tempted to do some selective online purchasing at some point and revamping the deck to make it work better, because the deck has that sentimental aspect to it- and while I'll prolly never deconstruct it, I'd be totes cool with improving it. But. Then I think, But how often would I be able to use it? And I decide not to, because the answer is, Prolly not enough to merit the cost. I have more important things to spend the money on, like my car, or my dog, or my health. Making adult decisions sucks, folks. Ugh. 

5) What fictional world is your home away from home? The DC Universe, specifically Gotham City. If only because of all of the settings in which my dreams take place, Gotham is the setting with the highest proportion of occurrence. Even when not dreaming about Bruce Wayne or (Dick Greyson- I left a recurring dream about him out of that post, since it was already way long), I find myself regularly dreaming about living in Gotham City in some capacity and being a do-gooder, again, in some capacity- reporter, non-profit advocate, mayor, lawyer, teacher. I'm always doing something good for the people in my city, and I'm my own, non-violent version of Batman each time. In those dreams, I feel strong, capable, confident, and beautiful, and I wish to God I could feel that way in my actual life, when awake, but I can't, try as I may. I come close sometimes, I do, but things always get in the way and the feeling in the real world gets ripped from me by the next wad of shit the universe decides to throw in my eyes. But as I've said before, I don't want to give up, I choose not to, and I'll keep fighting, and Gotham kind of symbolizes that in my head, just as much as Batman himself. 

6) If you could be any fictional character for a day, who would it be? This one  had me hung up for a while, but I finally figured it out. Catherine Winslow from the movie The Winslow Boy, based on the play of the same name (to my shame, I haven't read the play, but as there are extra scenes involving Catherine in the movie, I'm sticking with my guns, here). She's a suffragette and progressive, smart as Hell, and tough as nails. She has a lot to do with getting her brother out of the pickle forming the basis for the story, and she even gets the dashing lawyer in the end. 

7) What daily (or semi-daily) activity/chore do you wish you could get by without doing? Doing my hair. I hate my hair, it never cooperates, and it's just getting uglier and uglier as I get older. And I have grey hairs, and I'm only 28. Sigh.

8) What is your number one pet peeve? Empty words. I hate it when people are fake with me, or say something because they think it'd be easier for me to hear that, rather than the truth. Or when people are unable to follow through because they promised something they couldn't give. I'm so sick of people letting me down, and it all comes back to false promises and useless niceties. Just be real with me, don't bullshit me because you don't want to hurt me then-and-there- it hurts more when it's dragged out and I'm given reason to hope, only to have said hope crushed later on. Crap like this has been happening to me my entire life, and I hate it. 

9) If you had to pick an apocalypse, which one would you pick? This is kinda cheating, but...

10) What job did you want as a kid? What job would you want if you didn't have to worry about making money? I just wanted to teach English and history. Then some people told me I was "too smart" for that and needed to get a Ph.D. Ugh. Why  did I listen? Sigh. Anyhoo, now, if money wasn't an issue, and I'm also adding if I could do it instantly (because I am SO DONE WITH BEING IN SCHOOL), I'd say special ed. teacher. And yeah, as I said above, I'd also be a professional blogger, too- I'd go around and give TED talks and discuss how the media and pop culture can both reinforce and break down hegemonic discourses, can be a tool of oppression but also a source for liberation, etc. Yeah. 

11) What is your favorite color, and what is your favorite nerdy thing corresponding to that color? Silver. I love silver. And it's hard to find nice clothes that come in silver that don't look tacky, let me tell you- grey is usually pretty casual, but a good silver piece of clothing can be really sexy. My favorite blouse is a silver halter with beading at the top, goes great under this new blazer I got from work that's black with black roses embroidered all over it... Ahem, where was I? Oh yeah, so nerdy thing corresponding to that color... A friend of mine gave me a silver bracelet with the word "Dracarys" engraved on it for my birthday. I love it. And in case you don't know what I mean, this...

...is  always followed by this:

So I feel a little badass when I wear it. I don't really have anything else that's nerdy and silver, and meh, I associate my favorite comic book and video game characters with more traditional colors, like red and black and yellow and blue. And I took the question literal, as in something I own. And I'm sticking with the bracelet as such. But if we're going for the "fictional thing of that color" interpretation, then it'd be Anduril, the sword Aragorn gets in The Return of the King. 

So that's my story. Now the problem is, nominating other blogs. I can't re-nominate my roommie (but I can TOTALLY PLUG HER ANYWAY) (also, I am ENTIRELY UNSURPRISED you posted your own Liebster entry before me, Chels), and uh... I don't really follow many small-time blogs, so let's give this a try. Now I did think  hard about this, so if I'm tagging you for it, it means I either want to help motivate you into writing more, or I think you write enough and am just giving you props.

No One is Paying Me for This

Thumbz and Logik

Episcopalian "in" Planet Earth

John E.K. Carter

Glowy Stones

So, now, your questions, lovelies:

1) If you could have coffee with an historical figure, alive or dead, where would you take them, what would you order, and, of course, who would it be? 

2) Is your blog today what it was when you started? If not, how has it changed, and do you like those changes?

3) If you were going to guest-appear on Dancing with the Stars, what celebrity would you want to be paired with?

4) Is there a dish you've never made and want to try your hands at someday (and what is it, if that's a yes)?

5) What is your favorite (fictional) uniform?

6) If all cars suddenly disappeared, but you had the power to replace them with some alternate means of transportation (real or fictional), what would you choose? 

7) How long does it usually take you to write a blog post?

8) If you could be (or could have been) an extra on the set of any movie or tv show, what movie or show would it be, and what purpose would you serve? What shenanigans would you get into on-set?

9) If you had to die by the hand of a fictional character, who would you choose as your executioner and what would be their method?

10) If you could listen to the thoughts of one species of animal, what would that be?

11) If you were sucked into a vortex and spat out into a fictional world, what genre would you most want to be caught in?

And I guess that's it. Kinda anti-climactic. But yeah, fellow bloggers, go forth and do things!

This is actually Amanda.

*Actually, I'd prolly get reeeally gorram lonely sometimes. Sigh. I'm like that IRL, though, so meh. Same song, different verse. HAH! Get it? Because of all the music?

**I know a lot of people have angel decks, but I never acquired enough angels to make one of my own when I was still buying cards frequently. I play every so often still, but I haven't bought new Magic cards since 2009. Alas.