Congratulations to President Obama.

As per request of a friend on my f-list I'm adding the word "premature".

Happy D?

It is a very prestigious award to be won indeed. Personally, I think the Nobel Peace Prize is a bit of a crock.
Too many people who shouldn't have touched it, got it.

The award is largely about vision, which Obama certainly has, but it's also about action taken. While what he's done so far appears good, a lot of it has been raising awareness; now, I'm all about raising awareness, it is a very important part when it comes to activism and social change.

The notion of a black man as President should not be taken lightly. My dad keeps telling me that this is one of the reasons America is great; only in America could a minority be voted as leader.
I mentioned Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir of Iceland and Tarja Halonen of Finland.
Those of you not in the know, both are Lesbian Women and are the Prime Ministers of their countries.

They don't count of course. Because America is great, those Scandinavian countries don't even speak English.

Whatever.

Obama's policy of dialouge still needs a lot of time to work and needs time to saturate into our minds, because the past eight years have mainly been *bam bam bam* and it takes a long time to get used to quiet.
If it even happens.

All that is to say; I like Obama, but other than do a lot on the conciousness level (which is of the good), I want to see him implement something תחלס - that is... there has to be a bottom line somewhere.

I was going to write about the Goldstone Report and how Israel, once again, managed to avoid any kind of accountability for their actions in Gaza.
This UN fact finding mission had strong words about Hamas' conduct as well, calling the firing of Qassam rockets war-crimes.
This is something that is often omitted, mainly because Goldstone puts the onus onto Israel, seeing as Israel did kill 1,500 Palestinians, the majority of them civilians.

The main conclusion I've come to in this whole affair is that the UN, once again, proved itself to be the most redundant and irrelevant organisation in the world.

So much potential UN, your execution of anything leaves much to be desired. You're good at reporting things and writing them down, but acting upon it.
Not so much.

Can't help that the US pretty much bullies you into submission time and time again when it comes to Israel.
Israel, of course, also bullied Mahmoud Abbas into deferring talks about the report, thus turning the President of the PA and head of Fatah into a collaborator.

Strong words, but that's the way he is viewed at the moment, at least, that's the only way I can think the Palestinians would view him at the moment.
There are demands that he quit. There is of course backtracking, much backtracking.
The people are feeling the leadership.
Not really, no.
I have to say, even at my most cynical, because I think the PA is as corrupt as any other government only doesn't have the power or money to cover it up, I didn't expect this.
Goldstone was the PA's golden ticket at getting something, world recognition.
Israel blew it too, by not co-operating and using the power of the all-mighty Hasbarah to discredit Justice Goldstone; our own reactionary and paranoiac response to to the fact finding mission, headed by a self-identified Zionist, a man who has headed numerous Israeli academic boards and has Israeli family, has driven the report out of Israel's (or Palestine's) control.
Because now Lybia is taking the task of holding talks about the report.

Who said Israel and Palestine deserved each other?

It is worth mentioning that this month is the anniversary of the October 2000 Events. There are currently riots in Jerusalem (I'm happy the J-Lem contingent of my family is not there at the 'mo) hence keeping out Sheikh Ra'ad Salah for the month.
September-October are always tense due to the High Holidays and the intensifying security forces around the Western Wall and the Al-Aqsa mosque.
It doesn't help that said security forces are racist and not shy about it.
That U.S Jews feel they have the right to Jerusalem more than any other religion that holds it holy, because yeah, that's what's happening at the moment too.
"It's mine!", "No, It's mine!!"
If there was going to be a massive earthquake, let it be there.

Regardless of who is to blame, this is just a taste of things to come.
The Palestinians will have Intifada vs 0.3, the IDF will once again head into the depth of the West Bank, probably "re-conquer" the Gaza Strip, while feeding us (Israelis) the tripe of "they brought on themselves", "we have no choice", etc. etc.

Same ole tune, shiny new instruments.

More on this and digression thereof in a little while. This should give you all something to chew on for a bit.

I've decided that I'm no longer going to discuss the Occupation or the Israel/Palestine conflict with my family.
Most of the time, it's fine and civil and everybody wants to smack the other upside the head and that's okay, it's even good, it's mean we're affecting each other (even if it is frustrating).

But when the discussion basically comes to the a place in which people are regurgitating (but in different words) "The Palestinians are doing it to themselves" and closing the discussion by saying "Israel made a big mistake in 1967... that we didn't push them all out into the Arab countries and make it all Arab free" (very little paraphrasing on my part).

Cue me being appalled.

"Because if you think they wouldn't have done that [ethnic cleansing] to us if we had lost, you need to educate yourself a little more" were (again paraphrased, this was last night) the parting words and the end of the discussion.

I'll no longer discuss this matter with people who have the ability to make me cry.

It is so retarded that I'm accused, again and again and again, of being brain-washed, of being an absolutist, of being "one-sided", of being naive, when talking about this matter.

It is so backwards that I need to ratify the fact that I think Hamas are fundamentalist whack-jobs with guns, who if they had any interest in actually leading the Palestinian people, their strategy wouldn't include killing people in the strip.
As for the firing Qassam rockets into Israel... you mean those three weeks back in December '08 and January '09 didn't actually help with that.
I'm shocked.
Absolutely... un-surprised.
Should have Hamas used the Disengagement plan in order to try and re-build something in Gaza and perhaps move people out of the slums of Gaza City and into the towns left by the Settlers who left them.
Probably.
Most likely.
Who ever said people had a reasonable response to a unilateral move which was viewed as a victory of terror tactics over Israel... the best way to get more results is to continue terror, obviously.
*sigh*
By the way, as far as we're aware, the trickling of Qassam rockets at the mo' come mainly from break away factions of Islamic Jihad... Hamas can control them to a degree (by killing them), though to the people of the towns surrounding Gaza, it doesn't really matter.
Nor should it.

Same as for Palestinians, an Israeli is an Occupier, even if they get them permits to cross the checkpoints, ambulances, medicine and letters and come to demonstrate against the Fence and Wall.
Being a good ally is knowing that we are a part of the Oppressive forces and not take umbrage when we're regarded as such, because it's not about us.
Though, it is also, because the violence committed in our name, the electricity and water flowing into Gaza (because Egypt doesn't want to deal with the strip, nor do any of the other Arab and/or Muslim nations want to deal with the "Palestinian Problem", because they'd much rather have a scapegoat on which to foist all their problems rather than deal with their own internal conflicts... hmmm, sound familiar... nations, like people, are so bloody similar it'd be funny if it weren't so tragic) in order to keep the population under our control and thumb (Cynical? You bet!).

Asymmetrical warfare brings about different tactics.
Would you say that 18-21 year old kids guarding an illegally constructed barrier are better or worse than 15-25 year old kids who strap on a bomb and walk into a market and blow themselves up.
Both are indiscriminate, though the soldiers have the ability to be more accurate.
Instinctively, I think, one would want to say that the bomber is worse, because of the location and the fanaticism that induces such an action.
I mean, the victims in the market or a pizza parlour were just innocent by standers, minding their own business and day.
They were.
No one plans to go out, hang out with friends and be murdered.

The people of Bil'in are subjected to nightly incursions, arrests, teenagers are taken from their homes, "interrogated" and then sent to prison, where they learn faster and better the art of guerilla fighting from their older and more experienced cousins.
Are those not acts which try and induce terror over a civilian population?

The people of Bil'in, Nia'lin, Jayous, et al, all go to the demos knowing the score (that soldiers shoot indiscriminately), the people sitting in the cafes, markets and Malls, are unsuspecting.
The people of Bil'in, Nia'lin et al can't, really, forget the terror that they're under, it is their daily reality, they are never unsuspecting that they are in danger.
Even during the worst of the bombings (that I remember), in 1996, 2000, 2003, etc we made sure to continue with our normal lives so that they would know that we continue on despite the terror and danger.

I know people who have died in bombings. If I had left my home ten minutes earlier not too many years ago, I wouldn't have just felt the tremors under foot of a bomb going off in the mall. My dad's store front shattered because of a bomb and he was nearly shot at a different time.

I'm not fucking objective.

And that's all I have to say about this at the moment.

For my next post, I may write about this, but after writing all of the above, I dunno if I have the energy.

In my previous post regarding the Lammy Awards I was very fuzzy on where I stood regarding the fact that non-queer authors were now disqualified from submitting their work for the award.

The way I roll, I think stories should be honoured first and foremost. Just this evening I was talking to my older sister and she was telling her kids how their dad was seeing the same Moon in India right now (because that's where he is) and it slipped out of my mouth "Because all times are now and all places are here. And that's why even fictional people are real" h/t rm.
My sister agreed with me whole heartedly and it began a whole discussion with my seven year old nephew about the veracity of Vampires and Werewolves.

My concern, first and foremost, is the policing of identity. We live in such fluid times, it causes problems.
I know I prefer to my Lesbian Friends and Sisters when it comes to political identification and queer social gatherings... I'm also wary of the fact that if I ever date a man (cis man specifically, whether he is queer or not), that I will be viewed as though I'm betraying some kind of identity promise.

That's a Queer concern.

So are the Lammy Awards.

When I first read about the Lammy Awards change, the people who were raising alarms and concerns were people who are openly queer.
Later on, as I read more on the issue I encountered the voices of straight authors who write same-sex romance, specifically m/m. Professional Slash authors, as they've been dubbed and like most Slash authors they are Straight.
Straight Cis authors who write LGBTQ characters, I thank you for writing awesome people with which we can fall in love, identify with and celebrate.
That doesn't mean you get to say that by taking Orientation into account you are being oppressed.
You are not, because you have straight and cis privilege.
By bringing up the fact that you're a member of another oppressed community you're derailing and playing the Oppression Olympics.

Stop it, just... no. Your entitlement and privilege blindness is showing by demanding to be recognised in an Award that is about celebrating our lives and stories. You happen to write people who could live our lives, and that's great, I love reading and knowing stories like that, that still doesn't entitle you to come into our space and trample all over what we (or the Lambda Literary Foundation, rather) built so that our status and visibility could be elevated.

I'll not be writing any more about this, but I wanted to get my piece out there. I wanted to say, this is a queer concern, about queer visibility, queer identity and queer story telling. As such, it's not about straight cis people.

The end, ces't tout.

Now I have to decide whether I'm going to write about Rape Culture, or about the fact that my Identity is flaunted as propaganda in order to deflect criticism over the human rights violations my country commits on a daily basis.

Any takers?

The Lambda Literary Foundation, for those of you who do not know, is an American LGBT Literary that works to raise the status of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender authors, who are marginalised, in the literary world.

Awesome says I.

An organisation that works to elevate the visibility and merit of LGBT(Q!) authors is good.

The Lambda Awards (hereby known as the Lammy's) though, are about the stories. Or at least, that's what I (and probably many others) thought.

However, the new guidlines contain within them a new rule, which is a source of contention:

The Lambda Literary Foundation (LLF) seeks to elevate the status of openly gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans (LGBT) people throughout society by rewarding and promoting excellence among LGBT writers who use their work to explore LGBT lives.

As such, it should be noted that the Lambda Literary Awards are based principally on the LGBT content, the gender orientation/identity of the author, and the literary merit of the work.

Let's get one thing straight (laugh it up); queers having our own space, our own awards and our own rules as to who applies, is not a bad thing.
Really, it's not.
The problem is, who decides.

The Lammy's guideline specifically states:

As to what defines LGBT? That is not up to anyone at Lambda Literary Foundation to decide. The writers and publishers are the ones who will be doing the self-identifying. Sexuality today is fluid and we welcome and cherish this freedom. We take the nomination of any book at face value: if the book is nominated as LGBT, then the author is self-identifying as part of our LGBT family of writers, and that is all that is required. There are many permutations of LGBT and they're all welcome as that LGBT term we've all adopted makes clear.

Okay, so they accept anyone who ID's as part of the LGBT(Q damnit!) family. And if that bisexual cis woman who is married to her straight cis male husband of such-and-such years submits an award. Sure, of course she's eligible.
But wait, no she doesn't, she doesn't live the "lifestyle".
An exaggeration?
Not so much, when that kind of thing happens all the time, you're not queer enough if you have het privilege.
Is it stupid? Of course it is, but whoever said marginalised groups were good with the whole acceptance thing.

Honestly, I don't think it would go that way, I'm also obviously being satirical here. I mean, it could, but I'm trying for optimism here. LGBT(Q) authors having their place and awarding those of us who wrote a story in which our portrayal brings us and the characters in the story alive is a very good thing.
Telling people that who they are may not be enough in order to be eligible for the award is not the way to go.

The main problem that came out of this whole thing is that the change in the guidelines came with such short notice.
The notice of the change came out September 25th, submission begins October 1st and ends December 1st.
Yeah, no matter how you look, that is short notice, especially when it's effective immediately.

I say my opinion is fuzzy, the "litmus" should be for people to be able to say:"I'm queer", accept that statement at face value and move on in order to read a good book or story about people who are like me (potentially). But queer isn't a visible thing, our statements of who we are, are under constant attack because we are marginalised, because we are not "normal", because if we really wanted to and tried hard enough, we wouldn't have to be marginalised, now would we.

I'm getting frustrated from all this thinking about which box we're supposed to fit into. Sexuality is fluid (not for everyone!), but it better remain in that little bowl.

Regardless of how us queers feel about the change in the guidelines, which is not clear cut at all, here is one thing I have to say about those straight authors, who are yelling at the Interwebs, about being marginalised because the Lammy's changed the rules on their gay romance.

Shut up.

No, really. Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

I've had it up to fucking here with stupid straight people appropriating my space, in order to promote an agenda that has nothing to do with actually being queer, and has everything to do with "but I want to play in this sandbox too".
Yes, well, at the moment you are peeing in it, because the attitude of entitlement is not the one members of the LGBTQ family who happen to be cis and straight should be throwing around.
You feel strongly about your portrayal of gay characters, that's good, I feel strongly about it to.
Saying that because you feel excluded from a prize, you are oppressed is irksome, irritating and shows that you are so privilege blind that you really have no fucking clue what homophobia, biphobia, transphobia, etc actually causes the psyche of a person who does deal with these prejudices and hates on a bloody daily basis.

God, am I the only one who had a flashback to the trek stupidity a couple months back.
Seriously, peeps, what the fuck?!

On that, I'm not so fuzzy headed.

A thanks to rm, kynn and vashtan; their posts really enabled me write this post in a (hopefully) semi-coherent way.
Their own opinions and fact finding skills were extremely helpful.

As I was visiting my fic communities yesterday, someone in the jackxianto community shared a quote that made 'em think of Jack and Ianto.

The quote is this:
"I Want Him To Come Up Behind Me And Wrap His Arms Around My Waist To Catch Me Off Guard And Whisper" I Love You".

I couldn't help it.
I gagged.
I back buttoned and had to read a fic in which the Jack and Ianto behaved like... well, like I think they behave on the show - I really recommend Pizza Mouth by cyus as a slice (haha) of "real life" boys hanging out together, but are also sexual with each other. It's all so very dirty.

The fic made me feel better.

That quote is so anathema to the way I perceive Jack and Ianto's relationship that I cannot imagine how anyone would consider this appropriate for their dynamic.

I think the pictures of Jack and Ianto that floated around the Interwebs in the year following the end of the second season and promoting Children of Earth gave fans the wrong idea regarding the relationship.

Is there love there? No doubt. After CoE you'd have to be utterly clueless in order to ignore the depth of feeling between the two men. The gravity between then is possibly the best ever portrayed between two men on screen - yes, more than Queer as Folk, more than Brokeback Mountain and more than the latent homoeroticism found in various war movies in which one kills people instead of making love to your fox-hole buddy.

Which brings me to my point.
( Jack and Ianto are warriors. )

Should I x-post this anywhere? I'm still a bit fandom shy at times.

I demonstrate with you.
You just don't know it.

I'm on the New Profile mailing list. Many of the emails we receive are articles regarding human rights violations, government response and opinion pieces that support the Palestinian right to self-determination, criticism of Israeli policy both in Israel proper and the Occupied Territories.

Sometimes, they're just way off the mark.

In Dafna Golan's recent Op-Ed titled "Come demonstrate with us", she commiserates and pontificates on the fact that the recent rally for solidarity with the LGBT community following the attack brought thousands of people in support of Queer rights, while the are barely any Israelis in the demonstrations against the un-ethical expulsion of Palestinian families from the Shiekh Jarrah neighbourhood in East Jerusalem.

She writes:

It's a shame Gal Uchovsky¹ is not taking part in the demonstrations in East Jerusalem's Shiekh Jarrah neighbourhood. It's always a pleasure to see him, and if he took part, he would see that, compared to the handful of Israelis who come to protest the expulsion of Palestinian families from their homes so Jews can live there, his rally in honour of the dead and wounded at the Tel Aviv gay and lesbian center was a great success. If the tens of thousands of people who gathered at Rabin Square were to march through the small neighbourhood in the heart of Jerusalem, maybe the expulsion of the Palestinian families would stop, as would the construction in that neighbourhood of a new Jewish settlement, perhaps the most dangerous of all.

Enter the Oppression Olympics.

Basically, she's criticising one minority for not doing enough for another.

Not helpful and not okay.

Instead of laying the blame on the fact that the Queer Cause got more press, why not focus on the rhetoric that enables this.

Queer people go to the demos and are anti-Occupation activists.
They just don't do it through the LGBT orgs. of which Uchovsky and Co. are a part.

The newly formed Coalition of Pink Communities, which houses under it two of the queer Palestinian orgs. and other radical queer groups, does indeed intersect the various oppressions, homophobia, racism, misogyny and capitalism, just to name a few.

Queers are not visible at the demos for the families of Shiek Jarrah or at the Separations walls in Bil'in and Nialin.

Why?

Because the Big Orgs, like the Aguda, the Jerusalem Open House etc. do not deal with Israeli policy concerning the Occupation.
They just don't.

Many queer people oppose those policies, many queers do not care because they are not knowledgeable about anti-Occupation politics or the policies that enable the continuing Occupation.

Dafna Golan is picking on the fact that one Hate Crime brought thousands into the street while her cause remains small potatoes. This should not make her go all sour grapes on the LGBT's for not doing enough when it comes to the Occupation, because really, it just comes off as petty and alienating.

I've written before on the fact that the mainstream Queer movement isn't particularly political.
The mainstream LGBT movement, true to its character, is assimilationist. While many of its visible members will speak out against racism and other things, it is not a truly liberationists movement because we are still part of the Israeli mind set.
We're the only democracy in the Middle East, we're the best place for queers in the Middle East, yadda, yadda, yadda.

The problem is narrative and Dafna Golan is falling for it; She's saying what I've been saying, the inherent connection between the various oppressive structures in Israeli society and by default the effects on Palestinian society.
No problem there. However, when she's trying to argue that this issue is more important than that she's missing the point that no, it's actually our lives and not so much the "issues".
Saying the privileged in Tel-Aviv have it easy is obnoxious and just plain untrue, as she so callously ignores the intersection of queer identity along with Palestinian identity, just as an example.
Not to mention that trying to blame the fact that there aren't enough activists on the idea that there are other issues out there just reflects the fact that privilege still abounds.

That some rights are considered more important than others is not the LGBT Organisations' fault, nor is it their responsibility. The bubble burst a long time ago. What needs to be dealt with is the hot air blowing in every direction.

This Op-Ed came onto my mailing list as a "good" piece. Too bad it perpetuates the notion that LGBT fold are a monolith of opinion and that they're too selfish to think about the rights of others.

In the meantime, I'll continue to be an Israeli-Jewish queer who is pro-Palestinian.

Uncanny how those two notions go together!

Notes:
(1)Gal Uchovsky is a Big Name Gay. Considered one of the "leaders" of GLBT community by the mainstream, for the mainstream. He's a columnist, screen play writer and over-all celeb. Just fyi.
Back to text

These many thought came about because of my slowly becoming more involved in fandom, developing ideas of my own for writing fan fiction, talking to other fans about these issues and real life events paralleling fandom events too closely in my mind.

About a year ago I wrote a post about why I'm obsessing with Torchwood.

Now I have some new thoughts.

But I think I need to write a little something that will further contextualize what I'm writing.

( A Bit About Buffy, because it's important )

Buffy and I parted ways a few years ago. It's still the best show to ever be on television; writing wise, thematically and just plain awesomeness. I have seven academic books about Buffy.

It changed my life, I'll always be grateful².

All that was a long way of saying, I take my entertainment seriously. Not only that, it takes me seriously as well.

Torchwood changed my life as well, in a vastly different way.

Not too long ago I wrote: I love Torchwood and generally speaking, Torchwood loves me..

It's obvious to me, but I suppose I should disclaim, that I'm well aware that the people on Torchwood , just like every other show, movie and book that I read, are fictional, I will not be able to go to Wales and meet any of them.
And despite a phenomenon like this, they are not real.

Except, that they are.

( Introspective Personal Thought On Texts That I Love )

When it comes down to it, the past year was hard and I really cannot imagine how I would have gotten through it were it not for my girlfriend and Torchwood (it helps that she enjoys the show as well). I had to deal with a real world that didn't go exactly like I expected.

Wake up call.

As most of you know, during July I was still pretty shook up over what happened in Torchwood: Children of Earth, you just need to browse back to see how deeply affected I was. I don't know how my GF stood me. I don't know how anyone stood me.
Then in August the real life tragedy of a Hate Crime against queer youth struck and I was shook up again.
Living in the country that I do exposes me to violence on a scale that at times is just too much.

I felt so disgusted with myself that I took the death of Ianto Jones as hard as I did.

It's gratifying knowing that I'm not alone. That I am validated and can validate others in their love of text and how it affects them.
How we affect it.

I think I'm going to be writing fic very soon.

( Notes )

Not only does he pwn his opponent - whose arguments do not even touch on the reality of what Zizek spoke about, rather the fact that in Israel there is diversity. Huh?
Zizek speaks clearly and succinctly, about the facts that go on in real life, and manages to empty out the empty moralistic justifications of "Good", "Evil" and "Just Because".

This video is awesome and should be spread as far and wide as possible.

As if a gun-fire wasn't enough the prove it, Ha'aretz News Paper put together a survey (which will be published in full on Friday and I will report about it) that shows that 46% of Israelis think gays are deviant.

I'm wondering a bit about the language and hoping the full survey shows other statistics regarding Lesbians and Bisexuals... I'm really not holding my breath for any Trans inclusion, though one never knows. I'm keeping my eyes open.

The survey uses a representative sample of 498 interviewees, you can read the break down in the actual article.

Dr. Kamil Fuchs, the statistician running this survey states:

Fuchs added that the timing of the survey- the week in which a murderous attack was carried out at a gay community center in Tel Aviv - should be taken into consideration. "It's possible that what we have here is a reaction to trauma and also that hate-filled people think this is not the moment to admit it," he said.

The survey shows that secular people are very liberal in their attitude toward homosexuals as compared to other Western states. "In other countries there are also very conservative secular people. In Israel, in contrast, those who define themselves as secular have very liberal positions," Fuchs said.

Emphasis mine.
That interesting phenomena is discussed in the Israleft blog post ...and who is Left, if you're interested.

This whole incident should act as a wake up call for the rest of the nation.
It won't though.
To see the connection between homophobia, racism, xenophobia and the relationship between Capital and Capitol can be daunting. That religion, when so intertwined with government, creates a discourse of hate and exclusion.
That there is an inherent tie between thinking gays are deviant, deporting the children of foreign workers and building a wall around a disenfranchised population isn't something we privileged people want to think about too closely.

This is a democracy!

Only for some and even for those, it is limited and gravely inadequate.

I think it's easy to see how entrenched we are in only seeing the Other and not seeing what we have in common with the Other when Yaniv Weizman (head of Tel-Aviv's gay youth organisation) is quoted as saying this:

"It comes as no surprise to me that almost half the public thinks I'm mentally ill and should be imprisoned, treated or killed. However, I feel we've made some progress. If 26 percent of the religious and 27 percent of the Arabs say we're not perverts, you can say we've achieved something."

Emphasis mine

That's a really idiotic thing to say, in my opinion. Because honestly now, we're not all a big monolith. If we were I'd be a successful, white, gay, cis man who lives in Tel-Aviv.
That's the "face" of the LGBT community and at times I find myself wanting to throw a shoe at the one who is speaking about mass Outing, which I think is a stupid tactic. Or about "saving" LGBT Arabs who live in the West Bank or Gaza.
*sigh*
No one is perfect and I'm blinded as well by my own privilege.

But seriously, systematic oppression isn't one oppression at a time.

A-la the famous 300 scream by Gerard Butler, ya know.

Education minister: More combat soldiers needed, is the title of the article, the sub-title is:
"Sa'ar visits military recruit center, promises full cooperation between education system and IDF".

Jesus fucking Christ, are they kidding!?

Because we need the IDF to venture even further into the brain washing tactics of the Israeli Education System.
The system, from kindergarten to high school, is built to prepare us for the fact that we, good Israeli citizens (so long as we're not Palestinian identified, that is) that we will serve loyally in the IDF.

Over the past few years there has been a huge moral panic regarding the "shirkers", those who through means and ways get an exemption from IDF service and usually go on to do some kind of civilian oriented national service which should (though it isn't) be considered equal to military service.
Conciousness objectors who are 18 are rare. That's why they're the ones spoken about more often than not.
The largest section of the (Jewish) population that do not serve in the military are the Yeshivah (Haredi - the people in shtreimels and black suits all year round) Boys who due to religious conviction do not serve, this is the reason Orthodox girls (not Haredi)
Backfire, is putting it mildly.
Demographically, they are also the fastest growing Jewish sector.
I feel the urge to mock and laugh, but that doesn't do much good, because the people vilified by the witch hunt committed upon the "shirkers" are the ones who do not serve either for physical health reasons or mental health reasons.

Bluntly, these are the people that the IDF, the system, rejected. Still, they continue to persecute those deemed "lesser" because serving in the IDF is the way you are "made" into a Good Israeli.
A Good Israeli is a Loyal Soldier, willing to Die for Land and Nation.

Whatever.

The State created loopholes through which people can avoid the draft, legally. Then they get their panties into a twist that people use it.

The IDF is supposed to be a defensive army, obviously it acts as a police force over a civilian population and commits as many war crimes as any other army in the world while it continues to chant: "Most Ethical Army in the World".

During my two years of service I'd never received more than a cursory skim over what constitutes an illegal order or command. I know from friends who were in combat units that they first heard of an illegal order during boot camp like everyone else and never heard those words again.
The skim is in a little pamphlet new draftees get when entering the system, reagrding the behaviour of an IDF soldier.

In the article linked above, Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar says:

"The Education Ministry regards with great significance the issue of encouraging IDF service, increasing recruits' rate and combat recruits' rate," the minister said.
[...]
"The education system welcomes a full collaboration with the IDF. I feel positively regarding the introduction of officers into schools."

Minister Sa'ar also stressed that "some of the parameters of the success of an educational establishment are matriculation eligibility, social values and dropout prevention. Military service is an important parameter. Schools in which dropout rates are low should allow a special effort for raising recruitment rates."

There you have it. Kids from low socio-economic backgrounds should be encouraged to follow a path in which they put their lives in danger for a state that would rather have cannon fodder than invest in the actual neighbourhoods.

Some of those kids may attain actual life skills that will grant them upwards social and economic mobility, but in the context of the Occupation and the destructive economy in which Capital and Capitol are more intertwined than ever, I find this a very discouraging development in what should be a civic establishment and not a pre-military education camp.

During the San Diego Comic Con Torchwood Panel (available in seven parts) lots of things came up.

It was interesting to hear the Panellists' (Russel T. Davies, John Barrowman, Euros Lynn and Julie Gardner) opinions on the characters and the epic itself, it's always nice to hear creator and performer insights into characters. What a lovely touchy-squishy medium.

A few *squeeee* worthy moments were ( This kiss )

In addition, during the panel, one of the questions pertained to John Barrowman's costumes and his clothing in the parts that he plays. In his answer he mentioned that one of his dreams would be to play ( him )

And moving on to some of the more serious content in conjunction of Fandom reaction of the past two weeks.

RTD's response to what would be considered the internet fan response and it really put things in perspective for me.

Personally, I don't care what RTD thinks about the fans, fandom or even his own creation.

He has a vision, as Julie Gardner said, and it their jobs as storytellers to execute those visions to the best of their ability, in the way that matches how they see character, plot and world they built (and consequently destroyed).

As fans, we feel propitiatory towards the characters. We love them, we know them, we read how others love them and think about them.
Those are interpretations.
That is meta.
That is how the characters, story, world relates to us, the readers, the viewers and that is no less important than those who created them, with one big difference.
We do not get a say in how the vision plays out.

We do not get a say in what should have happened.
Nor should we.
Art is not a democracy.
Art is a tricky piece of the modern market.

We are not the Patrons of Yonder Years (or the real Art Patrons and Matrons of today), the majority of us do not have enough money to be that.
We spend our money on the stuff that we like, enjoy and then create a community around that.
It's fun, I dunno who I'd be if it weren't for other obsessive geeks like me.

We are lucky that the creators chose to take more feedback from us than ratings. That kind of closeness should not be taken lightly or derided.

Not too long ago, Neil Gaiman wrote a post in his blog about entitlement issues regarding writer George R.R. Martin's accessibility to his fans:

George R.R. Martin is not your bitch.

This is a useful thing to know, perhaps a useful thing to point out when you find yourself thinking that possibly George is, indeed, your bitch, and should be out there typing what you want to read right now.

People are not machines. Writers and artists aren't machines.

You're complaining about George doing other things than writing the books you want to read as if your buying the first book in the series was a contract with him: that you would pay over your ten dollars, and George for his part would spend every waking hour until the series was done, writing the rest of the books for you.

No such contract existed. You were paying your ten dollars for the book you were reading, and I assume that you enjoyed it because you want to know what happens next.

He goes on and this is of course applicable to any writer, musician, actor and any other artist who chooses to interact with the people who consume the work.

We do not get a say. They, the people who provide us with entertainment, are not under any obligation to make feel all squishy inside and make our self-worth issues the centre of their universe.

That's my opinion as a fan who has interacted with the people who created things I love.

I'm feeling very bitter towards fandom who makes the likes of me look bad and actually have this bullshit be a part of the way we are perceived.

That is all.

It's that time of year again!

Here's the plug for ibarw week 4! This year the theme is Global, so there's a want for non-English blog posts.

Here's how to participate as per written:

- Announce the week in your blog.

- Post about race and/or racism: in media, in life, in the news, personal experiences, writing characters of color, portrayals of race in fiction, review a book on the subject, etc. (Linking back here is highly appreciated!) The optional theme this year is "global."

- Let us know by bookmarking your post on Delicious with "for:ibarw," or comment with a link to your post in one of the link collecting posts.

For inspiration, here are the previous years' IBARW posts and last year's POC in SF Carnival IBARW edition. You can also check out this post or delicioused recommended reading for further resources.

That's it!

For my own former entries just clink on the ibarw tag.

Okay.
So Kirk and Spock have been having an epic (Slash) love affair for 40 years, of this there is no doubt. They are the Slash couple. They are in fact, as far as I'm aware, the namers of the genre, named after the "/" that goes between their names: Kirk(Slash)Spock.

In canon they are the best of friends - in the New!Canon they are primed to be quite good friends with an ally of their own at their sides, Uhura backing Spock and Bones backing Kirk.

The old dynamic refurbished for the 21st century, I like it. It was refreshing see a successful relationship happening aboard the Enterprise, especially between Uhura and Spock, whose differences in manner and temperament make the whole thing so damn pretty.

My own fannisheness aside.

Star Trek as a franchise, in the 60's and to a certain extent up until the 80's was considered ahead of its time (hah!) when it came to representation of charterers and social issues. That isn't to say it wasn't or isn't flaws, we all know it is, but the ideal of Star Trek is that of the IDIC as much as it is to Boldly Go...

Now here's the pickle.
To Boldly Go... and the idea of IDIC aren't the co-optation and appropriation of Real Life issues and Human Rights in order to push a pairing a very particular and overly fethishised NON-Canon pairing in the name of Equality.

No really, it is not!

This campaign - started here and I quote:

From Gene Roddenberry: "Yes, there's certainly some of that - certainly with love overtones. Deep love. The only difference being, the Greek ideal - we never suggested in the series - physical love between the two. But it's the - we certainly had the feeling that the affection was sufficient for that, if that were the particular style of the 23rd century." Roddenberry directly stated that Kirk and Spock loved each other and that their level of love for one another was sufficient for a romantic relationship, and while he did not confirm or deny this relationship, he did mention essentially that if homosexuality was to be accepted in the 23rd century, then the relationship between the two characters would indeed be possible.

We've seen Brokeback Mountain, and we've seen other homosexual relationships on screen. However, the relationships are generally either the focus of the film, or comic relief. It would be a big step indeed to see the Captain and First Officer of the Enterprise in a relationship that is simply a normal part of life. The push is for equality in the media; for the normalization of GLBT relationships in movies and television.

See... it would have been okay, maybe, if the concern actually was LGBTQI representation in media and NOT the objectification of queer sexuality on screen.
Also, Brokwback Mountain, I've said it once, twice, three times a gentleman!
"Gay Movie for Straight People!"
Along with this little campaign which I hoped dies in obscurity into a fiery pit dowsed by torrential rain, there are people who just don't see the problem.
Like this precious quote:

Hm. I'm...Buhhh. I really like the K/S focus, to be honest. But I don't want to be stubborn and obtuse and cause unnecessary trouble by not agreeing. ._.
I really think it's a bit...silly? For people who support LGBT interests not to sign the petition or support us because they don't support the pairing. It's like if civil rights supporters decided not to support the movement because they didn't like MLK Jr.. Progress is progress, as long as we're not harming anyone, I think it's fine.
No offense to anyone, that's just my opinion.

From See Trek Love.

Crack open a book why don't you.

I'd like to add that the focus on a particular Fanon pairing and attempting to push it for Canonisation ostensibly in the name of Queer Rights is downright nauseating.
No really.
It is.

Especially since one is willing to pretty much "guilt"(?) a creator to change fictional character dynamics in the name of social change. I know that this may come off as hypocritical considering the very long debate I had not too long ago here regarding the same subject, namely Queering Kirk.
That really was just an example of how the Reboot could have been a little bit more awesome and more inclusive when it came to the Queer.

The new movie, though far from being terribly progressive, did see a huge leap for Uhura who was crucial to the plot and was not undermined by the fact that she is romantically involved with a superior officer, both of them concerned (as well they should be, I really like that they showed that concern) with the issues of Hierarchy.
That too was a little push of the envelope when it came to heteto representation and mixed-race couple representation.
Go Trek.

Again. A push for a specific same-sex pairing "in the name" of Queer Rights stinks of appropriation and an utter misunderstanding of what Queer Rights are and what media representation actually is.
You want to have more queer characters? I know I do, then campaign for THAT, not for an on-screen kiss between Chris Pine and Zack Quinto.
Seriously.

In the comments of the link at newtrekslash there are a few prime examples of cluelessness, racism and misogyny. Because Uhura is using her Nubian Wiles to keep Spock from his OTL Kirk.
Excuse me while I go vomit.

I urge you. Do Not Support this campaign. If you're going to mention it... mention that you oppose it. Please. This is just another example of the unwitting (though it really shouldn't be) homophobia found in fandom and should be not be tolerated, just like any transphobia, racism, misogyny and other forms of oppression should not be tolerated.

Ces't Tout.

Any questions?

I went out with tamara_russo to see Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince.

Yeah...

More on how it was too fucking long, too fucking boring and one again, too fucking shallow, at a later date.
It was very pretty though.

mao4269 wrote a very concise and gut-feeling review of Torchwood: Children of Earth on her LJ - It is spoilerrific.

As is what I have to say about it. ( Spoilers for TW:CoE... Don't say I didn't warn you! )

( Cut for Spoilers of TW: CoE )
Changed the poem, though it's still Thomas, this one is much more apt I think.

Next time on my Torchwood reviews and Meta: the Ladies, why this whole thing was a Bechdel!Win and possibly more talking about the themes I've already mentioned.

I've just been told by the BFF who downloaded the 3ed Season of Torchwood for me that it is burned onto a DVD and I should be getting it today.

I'm so freakin' nervous.

Torchwood, the show and the fandom, take up about the same kind of emotional and cerebral space that I thought would never be able to be shared with Buffy the Vampire Slayer and to a certain extent Harry Potter.

I've been very good about avoiding spoilers, though I watch various communities and blogs who are TW fandomy, I only got tiny details by osmosis and one big something that I hope doesn't mean what I think it means but I'm keeping my mind open to whatever happens in these five episodes.

I'll talk more at length about "Children of Earth" after I've actually viewed them, I'll even write (a) reaction post(s) before I read any other Meta and/or Fic, though I'm really, really tempted.

I think it's fairly clear that when it comes to which show I prefer, it is Torchwood and not Doctor who that stole my heart - though I love the Doctor and his Companions and will regale to anyone who will (or won't) listen about how fucking awesome New!Who is.

Torchwood however, is something else.

( Spoilers for lots of stuff (not including season 3 of TW as I have not seen it yet) )

I'm really looking forward to "Children on Earth", though I am very scared of what may happen.

Over the past two weeks I've been mainly following the situation in Iran because, well, everyone else is following it.

I have no qualms about the fact of being a part of the sheeple.

From my own little prism here, I can look at the Israeli and the feminist connection. Not much is being said about the former except with Israel itself which has been a notorious sabre rattler towards Iran for the past, I can't rightly say, but ever since 2006 and Benjamin Netanyahu's reference to Iran=Germany, Year=1938 and Ahmadenijad=Hitler, Iran has been a fairly regular Starman Boogie Man in my perception of current Israeli conciousness.

Israel has been used the same way in Ahmadenijad's rhetoric.

Peas in a pod.

I'll move on to what I actually want to talk about.

This very interesting article breaks down the dynamics of the mainstream media, what is covered, what isn't a why.

( Quotes )

Neda has become the Iranian woman who is ALL Iranian Women.

The role and portrayal of women in Iran over the past 10 (now more) days has been covered extensively.
Because it took me a couple of days to join the online "amateur" media brouhaha the first article on the subject about the portrayal of Iranian women in the protests and demonstrations was the Racialicious article So You Think You Want A Revolution (In a Loose Headscarf - I think since Christiane Amanpour the West's perception of Iranian women has been that of modern women in a heinous situation - most likely before Amanpour, but she is certainly a huge figure and symbol of Westernised Iranian woman, which is obviously a plus.
Not to mention Marjane Satrapi, Azar Nafisi and of course Zahra Rahnavard, all of whom are inspirational and modern and less-than-overtly-traditional (some of them outright secular).

And that's what we like to see.

Beautiful women fighting for their right to be free from religious oppression and tyranny.

It's also a romanticism of the violence that is going on there.
Yes, they are taking the punches and they are fierce and they are equal to the men out there in the street.

But it feels like there's an exotification game going on here.
The deaths and violence are tragic and we, watching the News, view them as a form of entertainment.

These women are being looked at. Gazed upon.

Mousavi may be a Reformer, but back in the 80's he wasn't so progressive, could he have changed perhaps, but the Ayatollah regime persists and will probably not be taken down in the near future (though no one suspected the protests and riots to go on for this long).

The mainstream media's obsession with the images of women, I think, beyond making the whole damn thing romantic, makes it beautiful. The image of Neda bloody and bruised and so beautifully mourned and grieved over is the way we should view Iran itself: bloody and beautiful.
Exotic.

That isn't to say I don't admire the women who are going out there everyday, fighting tooth and nail to be heard over the mayhem of their situation.
I do.
I can only hope I have an ounce of their courage.

I'm just saying, be wary of how they are being seen.
Because there is something beyond the headscarf and the blood on Neda's face.

More articles on the subject:
CNN: Iranian women stand up in defiance.
Slate: Woman Power; Regimes that repress the civil and human rights of half their population are inherently unstable..
Feministing: The Women Protesting in Iran.

In the beginning of June cereta wrote a post titled: On Rape and Men (Oh yes, I'm going there), in which she basically lays out what it is that men can do to prevent rape.

Because make no mistake.
Rape is not something that happens.
It is a crime committed upon a victim who is will, almost every time, be a part of a group that is less powerful in the very unequal power dynamic in which we live; that is, women of almost every intersection, queer men, people who are gender variant, children, the elderly, prisoners, etc.

I qualify the above with "almost every time", because straight cis men are also raped and women can assault and molesters as well.

However, the epidemic of Rape as it stands now, makes that a small qualifier.

The culture in which we live, which is that of under reporting of the crime and the derailment of the issue time and time again to:
#1 This is a women's issue you deal with it. (Despite it being done by men)
#2 What about those who are falsely accused of rape. (Despite the fact that it is a crime that is falsly reported no more or no less than any other crime, that is, a minuscule amount compares to the actual crime being committed).

Do not negate the fact that Rape happens.

All the time, every day, to - according to current statistics - 1 in 4 women and this is just what is reported.
As I said, this is a crime that is under reported.

One of the foci of cereta's post was the fact that we barely hear about the men who do not rape. That is, about the men who are in the presence of a woman who is in a vulnerable position and do not take advantage of this.
Those men, she says and I paraphrase, need to speak up and educate others and tell them that you do not invade another persons body, that drunken consent in not consent, that a woman walking around in a mini-skirt and a plunging neck line is not "asking for it".
That no woman is silently asking to be taken against her will.

Just as an aside: anybody who wants to mention Rape Fantasies will be smacked down. This is not what I'm talking about and has very very little do with the discussion at hand. Keep your thoughts and ideas about Rape Fantasy to an entry in which I discuss sex politics, not here, when I am talking about a crime that is too often relegated to the realm fantasy and disbelief.

The strategy that cereta suggests in her post and others in her comments is a bit of a double edged sword. And it suggests a reality which we don't really want to contemplate, because the majority of us (as in women, but people in general) do not want to consider Rape the norm and the avoidance of rape as something special.
Decent human behaviour should be the norm, mentioning how you (a guy in a position of power) were once in a position to violate a girl but didn't, in fact even did your best to make sure she wasn't harmed while she was in this state, shouldn't be an incident worth telling in ones honour.
It should be what every man in that situation would do.

Women have been told, time and time again, don't be a victim. Don't go out late at night. Don't drink too much. Don't accept rides from strangers. Don't do this, don't do that.
Basically, policing our living space in the name of our own protection.
But that's just another way of reducing our lives in general.
Boys should be told, from childhood, as girls are, don't be an aggressor, you do not have the right over someone else's body. Women's bodies are not something you are entitled to.

You get the picture.

I have a story of my own about being in a vulnerable position and was not assaulted. I no longer allow myself to be so intoxicated that I find myself waking up with hazy memories.
I don't feel the need to recount it here because this was over five years ago and it really isn't a story.
But you know, it kinds is, because I was very fortunate.
I may not be so lucky in the future.

This post is only one of many that have been inspired by cereta's post - in the comments (of which there are 22 pages) there is a thread with links to other posts on this subject.

It's awfully telling that while this is being spoken about in the feminist blogosphere a South African survey shows that 1 in 4 South African men admit to committing rape. These are just the men who admitted it.
This is very illuminating considering the fact that in March a report about the "corrective rape" of South African Lesbians was published in the Guardian.
Both these articles may be triggering.

Rape and violence are always compounded when it is committed within and upon a population is still recovering from a very long period of oppression, suppression and is basically backlashing against the history of it's own violence.

That's very academic, and is really of no consequence to the victims and survivors of the culture in which they have to live.
So moving on.

It would seem that despite feminism being around since the turn of the 20th century, not much good has been done for women who are still systematically put in the "weak" box.

But we are talking about this.
We are writing the stories and telling them.
We are owning them and trying to get the myths regarding them eradicated.

Once, the articles linked above wouldn't have been stories worth mentioning. They would have been part of that culture.
Once, anyone talking about the systemic culture of rape would have been labelled as crazy, now I think we may be slowly but surely getting somewhere.
So very slowly, but very surely.

That's all about this at this point.

What is the difference between people following a religious leader blindly and civilians following a military drill?

Why is creating a program using the LGBT community as an example for why Israel is a bitchin' place to be, problematic, when a large portion of the LGBT community do not, in fact, feel that Israel is a bitchin's place to be?

What is the difference between men (queer or not) dressing up as women and Drag Queens? Is it the same? Can it be regarded as demeaning towards "actual" women?

Your opinions are greatly appreciated.