So, I've been successfully dual-booting Windows 8 and Ubuntu 12.10 for a while now... till windows decided suddenly not to boot anymore. Didn't bother me at first, until I wanted to try a program in it that didn't work on my emulator. So, I tried a few things, nothing worked. Decided to create a recovery disk with my dad's win 8 laptop.
That didn't work either, but it DID destroy some vital grub2 files on my linux partition BECAUSE WINDOWS REFUSES TO PLAY NICE WITH ANYONE. So all I get when I try to boot into my linux partition is grey text on a black screen: "unrecognized operating system" and a blinking cursor.
Tried to manually boot into linux but none of the listed partitions were recognized by grub rescue. And, to top it all off, the windows recovery disk was stuck in my slot-loader DVD-drive, which requires an OS to eject the fucking disc, ignoring the very real possibility that users like me might need to manually eject it, lest our computers be bricked!
I just loaded ubuntu via a bootable USB stick, thankfully. ...To find out that my 870 gigabyte ubuntu partiton has been WIPED CLEAN BY THE FUCKING RECOVERY DISK INSTEAD OF THE WINDOWS PARTITION IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE FIXING.
So all my data is simply gone now. I'm pretty paranoid about backing things up, so I haven't lost anything *too* important. But this will be the 3rd time I've set up this new computer to the parameters I like and installed the programs I want in it. The first time when I bought the damn thing, the second when I decided to switch from 32- to 64-bit. Can I get a GRR ARGH.
Okay. I just finished re-installing Ubuntu 12.10 (64-bit) over the ENTIRE hard-drive this time, wiping Windows from my life forever. I am not above pirating a copy of windows 8 to use via virtualbox: I had a legitimate copy, but microsoft's systems are broken and stupid, so I refuse to play by their rules, putting the health and safety of my barely-used windows partition above that of my linux one.
So. Frustrating. I'm usually a pretty laid back person, but if my computer is ever down or not working I'm on edge for the whole day, till I can get back to it and get it fixed. Just knowing it'll be broken when I return to it makes me tense.
The recovery disk that wiped my HD is now in shiny pieces on my desk.
Anyway. This is why--if any of you were wondering--I haven't done anything useful or creative today.
Pax.
22 January 2013
01 January 2013
Gender roles in Kate & Leopold
So, I was watching the chick-flick Kate & Leopold the other day when I was PMSing and lonely and apparently in the mood to fulfill ALL THE STEREOTYPES by eating pudding (made from almondmilk: warm, wintertime alternative to ice cream) while curled up in front of the space heater and ready to cry at the drop of a hat.
Those of you who know me know I'm very feminist, present as butch (short haircut, unshaven legs, typically masculine clothing choices), and hate gender roles. But despite all this, I love this movie. Why? I'm not quite sure I understand it myself, but I've been doing a lot of thinking about it.
First of all: Hugh Jackman is probably one of the most attractive Hollywood actormen out there. So there's that.
First, tho', the problematic aspects of the movie. It presents chivalry and the 1800s as impossibly romanticised ideals, whereas pretty much every century was terrible for women--most especially poor ones. Chivalry as an *ideal* respects all women, but in *practice* reinforces the madonna/whore dichotomy and presents only very specific women as desirable, worth pursuit, and the others as dirty and subhuman. Chivalry also doesn't play much into the idea of consent or enthusiastic consent. Women are (theoretically; again, not in practice necessarily) presented the opportunity to say "no" to a proposal, but must endure expressions of affection from all potential suitors until given a proposal to say "no" to--and, of course, she could never initiate a relationship or propose to someone herself. Not to mention of course that back in those days women were bartered and traded as property between fathers and suitors for favors, riches, political ties, and maintenance/improvement of class or status. The women in the beginning of this movie, hoping for Duke Leopold's proposal, don't love him or even know him, but he's encouraged to marry one anyway, for the money. While I appreciate that the movie disapproves of this and seems to be holding up love--consensual relationships based on mutual affection--as the ideal, they play it alongside chivalry while ignoring the fact that chivalry CREATED the conditions under which Leopold is originally expected to operate.
Okay, so he's transported to the modern days via time-rift-plot-device and meets Kate. Leopold is seen as desirable because he treats Kate "like a lady," standing when she enters or leaves, writing her pretty notes, saving her purse from a thief while on horseback, making her romantic meals, and "defending her honor" from a sleazy boss trying to get into her pants. He's intelligent, super good looking, and kind. He also speaks in pretty, archaic phrases and seems particularly innocent, due to his childlike wonder at the world of the future.
I don't find Kate particularly attractive, so I don't understand his attraction to her. She's your typical sarcastic, white, beanpole Hollywood starlet--not my type, but I'm not judging anyone who likes that. I appreciate that she's competent and independent, working a demanding job and taking charge when she needs to. Her relationship with Leopold is *supposed* to throw her dissatisfaction with her rat-race life into relief, but I feel like this wasn't terribly clear... it seemed to me she liked and WANTED her job, especially the promotion her boss dangled in front of her. Yes, he wanted to sleep with her and was using the promotion as leverage, but I thought she was (rightfully) upset and frustrated at his sexism and horribleness rather than upset and frustrated at the job itself. When she went back to the 19th century to be with Leopold, I was like, but...! you won't be able to work anymore! WHAT ARE YOU DOING I THOUGHT YOU WERE FEMINIST?
Not to mention, they only know each other for a MAX of one week (because he has to go back thru the rift "on Monday" before it closes, not "next Monday" or anything like that), and it seems clear to me that the inherent misogyny of the 19th century will cause future strife for them, despite not being obvious right away. He says very gender-essentialist things and does stuff like insist on a chaperone for her boss-date or say women wearing trousers are "plain." While it *looks* like he's getting over it as he gets to know Kate, when they're firmly back in the 19th century and surrounded by the misogynistic cultural pressure, will he really present as an anachronistic feminist? I doubt it. She will become his property. Beloved property, but property nonetheless.
I feel like the movie is trying to say to women, "look! Wouldn't it be so nice to just be taken care of rather than busting your ass to take care of yourself? Wouldn't it be nice to marry a sweet, gorgeous gentleman who will protect and defend you so you can just wear pretty dresses and entertain all day? How romantic! *swoon*"
And, okay, this is a legitimate (if unrealistically romanticised and problematic) fantasy, but... This isn't me at all. Why do I love this movie then? I don't want to be in Kate's place--and most women watching chick flicks like this, they want to be in the woman's place, getting the guy, being taken care of and protected. That's the fantasy. Then I realized... I want to be in Leopold's place.
I want to wear the awesome clothes he's wearing. I want to write the pretty notes, know the meanings of all the flowers, cook beautiful meals to nourish my beloved. I want to swoop in for the rescue, defend m'lady's honor and expose sexist, womanizing creeps for what they are. I don't want to treat women as property (obviously) or romantically pursue someone who isn't likewise pursuing me, but... I have to say, some gender roles seem lovely. In my case, however, those gender roles I want are firmly masculine. So, does that still make it a gender role?
It's confusing. I'm both attracted to Leopold physically while wanting *his* place in the romantic equation, not the place opposite him. I don't want to defend and pursue *Kate* tho'. Just, someone. Someday.
Gender roles are such an interesting problem. I'd like to code them, rather than male or female, as feminine and masculine. I wish women were free to be masculine without reproach, and men to be feminine. It's *different* to want masculine gender roles and to want to be a man (which I unequivocally DO NOT want).
I don't know. Romance is a funny thing. What do you guys think?
Those of you who know me know I'm very feminist, present as butch (short haircut, unshaven legs, typically masculine clothing choices), and hate gender roles. But despite all this, I love this movie. Why? I'm not quite sure I understand it myself, but I've been doing a lot of thinking about it.
First of all: Hugh Jackman is probably one of the most attractive Hollywood actormen out there. So there's that.
First, tho', the problematic aspects of the movie. It presents chivalry and the 1800s as impossibly romanticised ideals, whereas pretty much every century was terrible for women--most especially poor ones. Chivalry as an *ideal* respects all women, but in *practice* reinforces the madonna/whore dichotomy and presents only very specific women as desirable, worth pursuit, and the others as dirty and subhuman. Chivalry also doesn't play much into the idea of consent or enthusiastic consent. Women are (theoretically; again, not in practice necessarily) presented the opportunity to say "no" to a proposal, but must endure expressions of affection from all potential suitors until given a proposal to say "no" to--and, of course, she could never initiate a relationship or propose to someone herself. Not to mention of course that back in those days women were bartered and traded as property between fathers and suitors for favors, riches, political ties, and maintenance/improvement of class or status. The women in the beginning of this movie, hoping for Duke Leopold's proposal, don't love him or even know him, but he's encouraged to marry one anyway, for the money. While I appreciate that the movie disapproves of this and seems to be holding up love--consensual relationships based on mutual affection--as the ideal, they play it alongside chivalry while ignoring the fact that chivalry CREATED the conditions under which Leopold is originally expected to operate.
Okay, so he's transported to the modern days via time-rift-plot-device and meets Kate. Leopold is seen as desirable because he treats Kate "like a lady," standing when she enters or leaves, writing her pretty notes, saving her purse from a thief while on horseback, making her romantic meals, and "defending her honor" from a sleazy boss trying to get into her pants. He's intelligent, super good looking, and kind. He also speaks in pretty, archaic phrases and seems particularly innocent, due to his childlike wonder at the world of the future.
I don't find Kate particularly attractive, so I don't understand his attraction to her. She's your typical sarcastic, white, beanpole Hollywood starlet--not my type, but I'm not judging anyone who likes that. I appreciate that she's competent and independent, working a demanding job and taking charge when she needs to. Her relationship with Leopold is *supposed* to throw her dissatisfaction with her rat-race life into relief, but I feel like this wasn't terribly clear... it seemed to me she liked and WANTED her job, especially the promotion her boss dangled in front of her. Yes, he wanted to sleep with her and was using the promotion as leverage, but I thought she was (rightfully) upset and frustrated at his sexism and horribleness rather than upset and frustrated at the job itself. When she went back to the 19th century to be with Leopold, I was like, but...! you won't be able to work anymore! WHAT ARE YOU DOING I THOUGHT YOU WERE FEMINIST?
Not to mention, they only know each other for a MAX of one week (because he has to go back thru the rift "on Monday" before it closes, not "next Monday" or anything like that), and it seems clear to me that the inherent misogyny of the 19th century will cause future strife for them, despite not being obvious right away. He says very gender-essentialist things and does stuff like insist on a chaperone for her boss-date or say women wearing trousers are "plain." While it *looks* like he's getting over it as he gets to know Kate, when they're firmly back in the 19th century and surrounded by the misogynistic cultural pressure, will he really present as an anachronistic feminist? I doubt it. She will become his property. Beloved property, but property nonetheless.
I feel like the movie is trying to say to women, "look! Wouldn't it be so nice to just be taken care of rather than busting your ass to take care of yourself? Wouldn't it be nice to marry a sweet, gorgeous gentleman who will protect and defend you so you can just wear pretty dresses and entertain all day? How romantic! *swoon*"
And, okay, this is a legitimate (if unrealistically romanticised and problematic) fantasy, but... This isn't me at all. Why do I love this movie then? I don't want to be in Kate's place--and most women watching chick flicks like this, they want to be in the woman's place, getting the guy, being taken care of and protected. That's the fantasy. Then I realized... I want to be in Leopold's place.
I want to wear the awesome clothes he's wearing. I want to write the pretty notes, know the meanings of all the flowers, cook beautiful meals to nourish my beloved. I want to swoop in for the rescue, defend m'lady's honor and expose sexist, womanizing creeps for what they are. I don't want to treat women as property (obviously) or romantically pursue someone who isn't likewise pursuing me, but... I have to say, some gender roles seem lovely. In my case, however, those gender roles I want are firmly masculine. So, does that still make it a gender role?
It's confusing. I'm both attracted to Leopold physically while wanting *his* place in the romantic equation, not the place opposite him. I don't want to defend and pursue *Kate* tho'. Just, someone. Someday.
Gender roles are such an interesting problem. I'd like to code them, rather than male or female, as feminine and masculine. I wish women were free to be masculine without reproach, and men to be feminine. It's *different* to want masculine gender roles and to want to be a man (which I unequivocally DO NOT want).
I don't know. Romance is a funny thing. What do you guys think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)