Apr. 13th, 2009

jadedmusings: (Default)
I haven't listened to Enya in three years, and I'm wondering why I stopped.

"How Can I Keep From Singing?"
Enya

My life goes on in endless song
above earth's lamentations,
I hear the real, though far-off hymn
that hails a new creation.

Through all the tumult and the strife
I hear it's music ringing,
It sounds an echo in my soul.
How can I keep from singing?

While though the tempest loudly roars,
I hear the truth, it liveth.
And though the darkness 'round me close,
songs in the night it giveth.

No storm can shake my inmost calm,
while to that rock I'm clinging.
Since love is lord of heaven and earth
how can I keep from singing?

When tyrants tremble in their fear
and hear their death knell ringing,
when friends rejoice both far and near
how can I keep from singing?

In prison cell and dungeon vile
our thoughts to them are winging,
when friends by shame are undefiled
how can I keep from singing?
jadedmusings: (Default)
Why Amazon Can't Just Call Gay Blacklist a 'Glitch' - The online bookseller now needs to explain why a temporary glitch "recently" discovered has been affecting gay-themed novels going back to at least early February, when (as we noted previously) former gay stripper Craig Seymour saw the sales ranking on his memoir disappear even as Diablo Cody's stripper memoir retained its sales rank. Seymour complained at the time and eventually resolved the issue, so it's not like Amazon didn't have warnings of the problem before this weekend.

#AmazonFail: A Personal Perspective - Seriously, look at the image from the writer's twitter. He's right.

[livejournal.com profile] tehdely poses an interesting conspiracy theory, but I'm not sure I really buy that.

A "glitch"? Really? I tried something I read about last night in [livejournal.com profile] shangy_feminism (that particular post is f-locked, or it was last night - I'll check again). I went to Amazon and entered the term "homosexuality" in the search field. The first thing I pulled up? A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality. The third search item? You Don't Have to Be Gay: Hope and Freedom for Males Struggling With Homosexuality or for Those Who Know of Someone Who Is. Most of the books on the first page are Christian in origin, though not all of them appear to be about curing "teh gay." Wouldn't the "glitch" get those too as it seems to be targeting specific terms?

For lulz, I did a search for "sex" (both of these were general searches, not looking for books). The first link I get? The Complete Idiot's Guide to Amazing Sex, Third Edition. It appears to be a heterosexual couple on the cover. Then, there's a link to vibrators and other things, then there's some movies listed (at a glance, it appears to be comedies, or dramas targeting heterosexual audiences). I narrowed the search down to books and I get plenty of how-to manuals, and most seem to be heterocentric in nature, though a few could go either way based on the title alone. However, the question remains: Why can I find these things in general searches, but the GLBT books that were targeted are considered adult per Amazon's apparently long-standing policy regarding adult material?

Sorry, I'm not ready to dismiss this as a glitch or human error. It comes across as far too specific, and all the "right" books were hit, while others have been allowed to keep their sales ranking (i.e. Ron Jeremy's autobiography).

ETA: Jezebel is als on top of things, with a list of books affected and not. (Heather Has Two Mommies was stripped of its salesranking, but I can get the misgogynistic pile of crap that is Belligerence and Debauchery: The Tucker Max Stories? When did I enter Bizarro world?)

This Is Not A Glitch - quoting this one here:

This does not wash for two reasons. One, a customer service rep admitted in writing this was “policy”. Saying it is a “glitch” or “not a new policy” is both disingenuous and outright patronizing.

Second, and more compelling reason: A “glitch” would have taken out other books–like, say, Mein Kampf or the disgusting “how to cure homosexuality” screeds. Instead, what we have is a specific targeted campaign, albeit a clumsy and not-very-well-thought-out one.

Now, if Amazon would have stuck to small-press GLBT and incrementally inched toward getting even Lady Chatterley off their search rankings, consumers might have been led further down the primrose path. As it is, between the admission of policy and the fact of the removal of search rankings to cut down the sales of “certain” titles, what we have here is not a glitch but a poorly-executed bit of fuckery that was in no way UNintentional. The only reason this hit big is because of the degree of fuckeration over a short period of time.
jadedmusings: (Default)
An admission of lulz guilt?

Yeah, I'm not buying it because of the aforementioned fact that this "glitch" was happening in February. If it is a troll, I'll admit it's leagues better than rickrolling Shea Stadium, but one person to pull that off? Nah, it's just someone waving around the mighty e-peen.
jadedmusings: (Default)
Dear Author has posed the theory that Amazon was using "category metadata" to filter out books that were specifically listed as gay and lesbian.

At the suggestion of someone I looked up the category meta data provided by the publisher to Amazon. I looked up over 40 books that had been deranked and filtered out of search engines. It appears that all the content that was filtered out had either “gay”, ”lesbian”, ”transgender”, “erotic” or “sex” metadata categories. Playboy Centerfold books were categorized as “nude” and “erotic photography”, both categories that apparently weren’t included in the filter. According to one source, the category metadata is filled in part by the publisher and in part by Amazon.

Heather with Two Mommies included this category metadata:

Books > Subjects > Gay & Lesbian > Literature & Fiction > Fiction > General
Books > Subjects > Gay & Lesbian > Literature & Fiction > Fiction > General AAS
Books > Subjects > Gay & Lesbian > Parenting & Families
Books > Subjects > Gay & Lesbian > General AAS
Books > Subjects > Teens > Social Issues > Homosexuality > Fiction

A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality had this category metadata (note the lack of any reference to gay & lesbian categories):

Books > Specialty Stores > Custom Stores > Qualifying Textbooks > General AAS
Books > Subjects > Nonfiction > Social Sciences > Sociology > Culture
Books > Subjects > Nonfiction > Social Sciences > Sociology > Marriage & Family
Books > Subjects > Parenting & Families > Parenting > General
Books > Subjects > Parenting & Families > Parenting > General AAS
Books > Subjects > Religion & Spirituality > Christianity > General
Books > Subjects > Religion & Spirituality > Christianity > General AAS
Books > Subjects > Religion & Spirituality > General
Books > Subjects > Religion & Spirituality > General AAS
Books > Refinements > Binding (binding) > Paperback
Books > Refinements > Format (feature_browse-bin) > Printed Books

OK, so it was a programming glitch, but not in the way Amazon is trying to play it off as. They targeted what they deemed adult content, but in doing so they made the mistake of using the terms "gay and lesbian" to find the content.

You see, the road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions. You get it in your head to protect the innocent children/pearl clutchers from "adult" material, so you create this handy little code or program that does just that because there's no way a small number of people are going to go through and tag millions of products. Over a holiday weekend, you find out you screwed up, and then you learn further that what makes something "adult" is subjective, and then you tell people it was "policy" only to flip back and say "Glitch! Dear Freud, I meant to say glitch!" By that point you and Satan are in the boardroom discussing what went wrong over a cup of joe, and the only thing you can say is "Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time."

Amazon fucked up, and they fucked up big. You may think LiveJournal was spanked by Fandom over Strikethrough, but we just witnessed Amazon feel the hard backhand of the entire internet, and they haven't even started yet. This clusterfuck of programming to customer service to PR is going to leave Amazon looking bad for a long time to come. As it is, it's going to take a long time to repair, so once the stars clear from Amazon's eyes, they need to get on the horn and start aplogizing to everyone. There needs to be full dislcosure. Tell me what went wrong, and be honest about it. Admit you targeted terms like "gay and lesbian," and admit you now know it was a mistake. Make me, well, not, make the authors who trusted you to sell their books believe that you will endeavor to never do something so stupid again without first thinking of the possible consequences.

I think Neil Gaiman has said it best:

...Amazon describing it to the AP as "a glitch" isn't as reassuring as they might perhaps have hoped. Something's obviously wrong, and it's something that Amazon should not ever have touched with a ten-foot bargepole. But who made it happen, and whether it was stupid or evil, and how long it's going to take to fix, and whether they're going to apologise, all remain to be seen. (NB. If you're an Amazon spokesentity and you're reading this, trust me, the whole apology thing would be a really smart idea.)

Like I said, you start targeting material for "adult," and you're going to wind up in hell with thousands of rabid Twitterers sending up hashmarks disparaging your company with every tweet.
jadedmusings: (Default)
Full disclosure: I'm going to be a humorless feminist here. If you are thinking of commenting with "Well, yeah, but it's not rape if..." stop yourself. If you are going to say, "Wait, that actually sounds funny," don't even bother clicking post. I will delete your comment. I don't care. This post is a safe space, and I will not deal with rape apologists or anyone who wants to come down on me and tell me I'm being unreasonable. I don't like rape. I hate rape. What constitutes rape is not up for debate here. Take it elsewhere, but don't expect me to get involved. This post is triggering.

I'm going to lay it on the line here: If a person is not capable of consenting to sex, and you engage in any form of sexual activity with hir, you are raping that person.

If your date has had too much to drink, or has been drugged and her judgement is severely impaired, it's rape if you try to have sex. If she said she would have sex with you two hours ago, but is passed out and barely able to string two words together before passing out again, and you put your penis in her, it's called rape.

When it comes to sex, the word yes is the one that matters. It's not "I'll get this over with," and it's not, "Since you wore me down and badgered me." Consent should mean an enthusiastic, "Yes, let's do this." Just because she didn't say no, doesn't mean it's not rape. She has to say yes for it to count as consent.

I bring all this up because I've been reading many posts about the movie Observe & Report. In the movie there is a scene where Brandi (Anna Faris) is seen passed out on a pillow with vomit while Ronnie (Seth Rogen) is grinding away on top of her. At one point he stops to look at her and she wakes up enough to drunkenly say, "Who told you to stop, motherfucker?"

See? That right there is supposed to be consent, nevermind by legal definition she is incapable of giving it. Nevermind that she's too drunk (and drugged) to realize she's covered in her own vomit. Nevermind that the man has been pounding away at her for who knows how long while she's passed out this way. Yeah, it's still rape.

What's worse is that writer/director Jody Hill knew he had to put two versions of that scene (one with the line and one without). He says so himself:

I would have been happy without any dialogue in that scene. I wanted to show them just having sex and her passed out, and I thought that would have been funnier. But I think I have a darker sense of humor than most people. So at the end, [Faris’ character] is okay with it. [Laughs.] And that was like, “I’ll shoot it both ways.” So I actually shot it both ways. I just kept the camera rolling.. I think if you’re really pushing the envelope, you have to not include everybody, if that makes sense. Or else it’s not really pushing the envelope.

In other words, the whole joke is the rape.

Tiger Beatdown says it better than I ever could:

I mean, I get the "joke" of the scene in Observe and Report. The joke is that it's not rape because she wants to be fucked while drugged and unconscious and unable to move or to take bodily pleasure in the act. (Or, in Jody Hill's Very Special Edgy-Pushing-the-Envelope Director's Cut, the joke is that it is rape, which is hilarious in and of itself.) The problem is that this is a joke you can't make unless you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of sexual consent, or the nature of rape. Anyone who does understand it knows that a single phrase blurted out by a semi-conscious, incoherent, out-of-her-mind high character who can't really even know what's going on, let alone respond to it in a way that is "full and informed," does not mitigate the fact that the male character in the scene is raping her. Anyone who doesn't understand that is capable of getting rape and consent confused - and, for that reason, may be entirely capable of committing rape. This joke doesn't just rely on our misunderstandings of rape; it actively promulgates them. That's the problem. That's why I'm not laughing. [Emphasis added]

Lindsay Beyerstein has posted a review of the movie itself (yes, she saw it). Her description of how Ronnie goes about convincing Brandi to go on a date with him in the first place is rather disturbing in and of itself.

After dark, Ronnie catches up to Brandi in the mall parking lot. He scares the hell out of her in the process of offering her a ride on his golf cart, but he won't take no for an answer, so she gets in. Instead of letting her off at her car, he keeps driving, joking that his brakes have failed. He asks her out on a date, making it clear that the only acceptable answer is "yes." She grudgingly agrees to go out with him.

Even the date itself can't be classed as given enthusiastic consent. I was further disturbed by what happens at the end of the movie:
...He gets his job back. He gets the good girl--that self-described born again virgin from the food court, whose boss he assaulted.

In the final scene Ronnie regales a TV news team with his professional and personal triumphs. Pointing to his now-girlfriend he explains that she has made a promise not to have sex with him, but that he intends to make her break it. [Emphasis added]

Keep in mind this is after he essentially tells Brandi she's a good for nothing slut for going on to have consensual sex with Ronnie's rival Detective Harrisson (Ray Liotta). He's admitting that he intends to go against his new girlfriend's wishes and have sex with her, when she has said she does not want to. This is supposed to be a funny moment, but hey, at least he's not a rapist, folks!

Yes, I get that it's supposed to be a dark comedy (though the trailer I saw when I viewed Watchmen sure could have fooled me), but it fails in this regard. Amanda Marcotte tackles this aspect as well:
...I have no problem with putting rape in a movie, or even using it for dark comedy, which could, in theory, be done well. I’ve often strained against feminists who claim there’s entire categories of things that can’t be joked about. But if you’re going to put rape in your movie, put rape in your movie. Don’t put a rape in your movie, and then create a faux “out” so that the sexist idiots who see your movie can tell themselves it wasn’t really rape. And don’t pretend it’s edgy to slap every stereotype imaginable about women who deserve to be raped, either.

And you wonder why feminist go on about rape culture. You wonder why women don't find rape funny. It's because we're told this is how it is. It's not rape if we got drunk, even if we never said yes. It's not rape if we wore a short skirt, or walked into the wrong part of town. If we like to party, we're asking for something like this, and there's no one to blame but ourselves. We're here to be fucked, and it doesn't matter if we're into it, or if we're lying there in our own vomit. As long as we can fire off a witty one-liner, it's ok and it completely absolves the guy of being a complete and total douchebag.

If you want us to stop complaining, start listening and take a different approach to make a statement about rape that doesn't turn it into a joke.

Profile

jadedmusings: (Default)
Wrathful and Unrepentant Jade

December 2013

S M T W T F S
1234567
8910 11121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930 31    

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 7th, 2025 01:10 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios