Viva Forever

Life
Not much has been going on, gave in my huge assignments. My Intellectual Property assignment was left to the last minute AGAIN, and even staying up all night, it turned out all shitty anyway. Tim said it’s not bad when he helped proof read it for me, but we all know he’s just trying to make me feel better. :3 I need to get my Gardasil booster and maybe a blood test too, the perpetual tiredness is still bugging me.

Watched
On the night before my Corporate Law assignment was due, rather than working on it, I instead watched the documentary The Dying Room that’s basically an undercover report on orphanages in China. It’s well worth watching, though incredibly depressing. All the children in the orphanages were girls (except for a small number of handicapped boys). The living conditions in the state orphanages were absolutely appalling, with toddlers being literally tied to chairs to keep them from moving around. The looks of lifeless boredom in many of their eyes as they rock back and forth was absolutely horrible.

One of the commentators interviewed blamed the One Child policy for the huge numbers of baby girls being left in the streets because their families don’t want them. While the policy no doubt exacerbated the problem, the real problem is 1) the cultural disregard for the sacredness of human life and 2) the treatment of women as second class citizens. My mother once said that the more people there are, the more expendable they are. When we’re dealing with more than a billion of people, I guess it is easier and easier to think of people as just a number.

In regard to sexism, it’s kinda weird. In modern times, every since the Cultural Revolution, it at least seems that there is more of an equality between genders. I’ve seen a number of women in parliament in China, and women are encouraged to work as much as men. But watching that documentary, female children are despised whereas male children are infinitely more desirable. This can’t be just an anomalous finding as generally speaking, there’s already way too many men in China because of people’s persistent desire to have male children over female. It frustrates me beyond words that there’s no movement in China to counter the mind-numbingly stupid cultural traditions of how women ought to be viewed and treated. It’s probably better now in the city areas of China at least but it is problematic that the idea that women are not as good as men are allowed to be trickle through.

Oh and yesterday I watched Moulin Rouge. I’ve never seen it before, and wow, talk about disappointing! :P I first heard the soundtrack from a friend when it was released and I quite like the songs on it. But watching it was excruciating at parts, the acting was bad and the choice of song was at times just bizarre (”Smells Like Teen Spirit”? Really, Baz Luhrmann, was that necessary?). And this is coming from someone who generally like musicals.

I finished watching xxxHOLiC, I have a review of it up. I watched the beginning of the first episode of Code Geass, but so far, the story hasn’t really sucked me in. I’m really not very into political conflict type anime. But yay, CLAMP artwork.

Games
I watched Tim play Portal (well the beginning and end, I fell asleep halfway through). It’s an awesome game to even watch. The finale was one of the most memorable I’ve ever seen, just in how funny GLaDOS is. I love the taunts she’d throw at you, oh and her ending song is just fabulous. More games should put emphasis on their scripts! The game itself looked fun to play, but given how un-coordinated and crappy at spatial tasks I am, I think I’m a little too intimidated to play it.

Site stuff

I finished this a little while ago. Mwaha, yay the Pucca fanlisting is finally mine! :D Heh, I love that little broad. Yeah, the layout isn’t very good, but I was in a hurry and I had a huge brain freeze. Why is it that I use image rollovers whenever I make bad layouts? Spin has also finally gotten an update after 11 months of no activity. I’ve got a bunch of other site updates that I need to make as well.

Right now, what I should be doing are my Uni readings though. Bah.

Ack sorry for the lack of blogging, but recently my life has revolved around:
- Doing assignments
- Worrying about assignments
- Anime (more below)
- Procrastinating from assignments

Not exactly something that’s worth recounting in detail, never mind having to read it.

I have a question, what can one do about coarse hair tips? My hair is getting relatively longish; and about the bottom inch of it feels very rough. I don’t get tangles and I don’t use conditioner (that stuff is expensive!). Most of my hair feels okay, but for some reason the tips feel all bristly. Is it the lack of conditioning? Stress? Diet? Gah I should just cut it all off. Just in time for summer too, perhaps.

As for anime, I’ve been watching Blood+ (I have all of it now, yay!) and xxxHOLiC. I’ve been struggling to retain interest in the former, I think more drawn-out, serious/political/army-related anime isn’t quite to my taste. Maybe it’ll get better. The latter, however, I’ve enjoyed quite a bit. I shall put up a review of it after I’m done, I’m about 16 episodes into this 24 episode anime.

Currently visiting: A Feminist Critique of Animation - Yay two interesting topics in crossed together: animation and feminism. I just started reading some of the articles (I wish they wouldn’t go in pop ups though). There goes the next hour, most likely.

P.S. Who remembers layouts/sites with the section called “omake” being the miscellaneous section? That used to be huge a few years ago, but I just noticed that it’s just about all been phased out.

I do NOT have a history of reading comics. I’ve read a lot of manga in my life, but not comics that are produced in the US, for example, by the likes of Marvel and DC. The only comic I’ve read is the three volumes of Spider-man Loves Mary Jane which so freaking awesome and adorable. The only other contact I have with comics is via movie adaptations such as the Spider-man trilogy, The Fantastic Four etc. However, lately I’ve been lurking extensively in the wonderful world of comic fandom and then invariably feminist discussions, thanks to two fandom kerfluffles that have occurred (months ago actually, but I’ve had this typed up partially for a while now and have only just completed it). Hopefully I can use these two examples to illustrate the importance of choice when it comes to deeming things as misogynistic or not.

#1 - Mary Jane Statue
On your left is a statue produced (and subsequently sold very well) by Marvel, of Mary Jane from Spider-man. I first saw this image linked from fandom wank and even without reading the comments, I definitely winced. Many outraged comments from both communities echoed my sentiments. There she was, impossibly bent over, g-strings showing, bending very provocatively over a washing basin. It just seemed to scream “objectification! misogyny!!” While Mary Jane from the movies was by no means a strong woman, she seemed independent in her angst/teary way. And here she was, portrayed as some sort of oversexualised, out of character and completely one dimensional object.

However, further perusal of the comments revealed a small but persuasive camp, mainly people who’ve read the comics. I found out that comic book Mary Jane is nothing like movie Mary Jane. Doing a bit of research I found that comic book Mary Jane was a brash, confident woman who was an actress, a model and a go-go dancer. This camp of people argued that in such a context, it’s not so surprising that this Mary Jane would dress provocatively. She’s a woman who’s in control of her sexuality and circumstance. I could see that the statue representing a woman who may flirtatiously says to Peter Parker “face it, Tiger… you just hit the jackpot!” while pretending to be washing his costume. It’s plausible that the statue’s sultry looks is implicitly a well-practiced one, and the scenario suggests something kinky rather than servitude.

The key to all this is choice. Is it believable that movie Mary Jane would dress up like that? Not really. She’s an aspiring actress, trying to “discover herself” I suppose, who is still unsure of herself whilst struggling for independence (and stardom). Interpreted in such a way the statue is a failed forcing of superficial sexuality on a character whom do not have these traits at all. There stems the idea that women, no matter what their personality or approaches to relations with others, would love to dress up as a barefooted housewife in a g-string, mechanically grinning while doing household chores to please her husband. There is no realm for choice. This would be pure sexism and infuriating misogyny.

However, the context proves to be vital in this case. This is a statue of comic book Mary Jane. She’s a go-go dancer and model with a confidence of her sexuality to boot. Being in revealing clothing and a g-string would be something she could be comfortable with. Giving Marvel the benefit of the doubt, it’s much easier to conclude that such a pose could be something that comic book Mary Jane chose to do. The statue has the smirk that alludes to confidence. The more plausible presence of choice here makes claims of sexism much weaker.

I firmly believe that if women want to be go-go dancers, or if they want to dress up as housewives (or even be housewives), or conversely, that they strive for total independence etc, they damn well should. Feminism is not and should not be about women HAVING to be the opposite of what they were traditionally seen, that they HAVE to appeal to traditionally “masculine” traits. As Simone de Beauvoir proposed, women aren’t “abnormal” creatures that need to strive to be more “normal” like men, but that women are capable of choice and hence capable of choosing their own brand of freedom, whatever that may be (note, I admit, beyond wiki I don’t really know much more about de Beauvoir, though I would like to get to know more about her philosophy).

Does this mean comic book Mary Jane HAS to dress and act like that just because she has modeling and go-go dancing as professions? Absolutely not. But it’s to my knowledge that she CHOSE those careers and her personality would suggest that she could very well do something as cheeky as that which the statue implies. Does it mean that movie Mary Jane isn’t capable of doing something kinky? Also no, but it’s just implausible from how the character is portrayed so far. Every step of the way, we need to keep in mind the choices of people based on who they are as a person, not what gender they are. While the comic book industry isn’t known for their enlightened feminism, knowing the context, I don’t think this particular artifact is as sexist and objectifying as many people claim it is.

#2 - Heroes for Hire Cover
Also first seen on Fandom Wank. Thought it was sexist on first view and still do. How is this different from the above case? Well firstly, all the women (all superheroes by the way) are tied up yet drawn incredibly provocatively. For some reason their suits are zipped halfway down, they appear to be in weak distress (facial expressions) and their wrists are limp. A much better analysis is found here.

But heroes get into risky situations all the time, you might say. But this is the COVER, the selling point of the comic. Sure comic covers use images of heroes in danger to evoke curiosity all the time. However, I don’t think that the comic artist was merely evoking “curiosity” in the viewer of the heroines’ fate, it’s not difficult to conclude that the heaving, half-exposed bosoms and all the other signs point to the other obvious aim of the cover; to titillate. To sell their wares, Marvel have sexualised an image of women being potentially assaulted.

I would have less of a problem if the women were looking more fierce or actively distressed. Rather, they look defeated and weak WHILE looking highly sexualised. If they chose to look like this (e.g. some sort of consensual bondage activity; this is highly unlikely) and contextually they were like that then I would have less of a problem with it. However, they’re not. They are heroines, not models or porn stars. They save people, they are supposed to be role models. Yet this cover has made a mockery of all that, swept it away and instead Marvel had decided that objectification via sexy strung up women is a better message to send out than heroes in trouble who just happened to be women. The cover says that no matter what traits or personalities you have, if you’re a woman, you’re there to titillate. It doesn’t even matter if you want to save the world or help people, or don’t want to rely on your appearance and sexuality at all, you’re really only good to look at. You don’t really have a choice at all.

Of course, not all comics are that bad. But that particular cover… I don’t see how its redeemable unless there’s some completely different context that I’m unaware of. Incidentally, the artist of the cover is a woman. However, I don’t think women are necessarily any more or less sexist than men could be, so I think that’s a moot point.

I find it sad that some women out there would call themselves “feminists” while insisting that women SHOULD be a certain way. There are “feminists” out there that insist that if a woman is anything but a completely independent, corporate-ladder climbing person that they are somehow worse than those that are like that. The opposite also exists. There are some feminists that insist that women should indulge in their sexuality whereas others say that that self-respect come from dressing and behaving more conservatively. When are we going to reach that middle ground that happiness and proper freedom from gender-shackles come from choice? That whatever a woman wants to be, whether to be a housewife or a CEO or a model or a superhero, they should have the freedom to choose without backlash? That if they don’t want to dress skimpily that they aren’t considered some sort of “prude” or if they want to dress/act more explicitly sexuality that they aren’t negatively branded as a “slut” or a “ho”? It’s amazing how many people still think women “should” be a certain way (in a traditional or more modern sense) just because they are female and any derivation to their standards is some sort of terrible flaw. And I guess more generally, why do people cast judgment on people who do things that make them happy, just because they behave in a way that is different from your own?

My research into feminism and my own thoughts on it are still somewhat in its infancy. I’m learning (and thinking!) more every day about this fascinating topic. And yet, in a different sense though, gender really isn’t as important as it currently is held to be yet.

But anyway, I’m getting off-topic. Here’s the last bit of gender related tidbit that I thought was interesting; Men are just as chatty as women.

The Gist of It: Fanworks are technically illegal. However not only do I think it shouldn’t be but the problems in itself is just ONE example of the law’s inability to deal with the concept of “information” as separate from its notions about physical property.

And now for the Too Long; Didn’t Read part.

Context and Definitions
I’ve never been one to heavily participate in any fandom; netwise, while I grew up around anime shrines and collectives I’ve never much been involved with it. I don’t write fanfiction, I don’t draw fanart. The closest is me maintaining a fanfic archive. However, I’ve always been a firm believer in there being something not quite right about making fanwork illegal, and for the longest time I thought it was legal (under some sort of “fair use” principle). But I’m wrong and hence this entry. Along the way, it helped that I had many an offline discussion with Tim on the matter (and related issues) as well as participating in similar discussions with Snark members.

When I mention “fanworks” in this entry, I mean media produced by fans of an existing genre of anything. This usually means fan ficition and fan art of existing movies, books, comics, etc etc. By “non-profit” I mean people who create fanworks and do not have them published to get money, i.e. entirely non-commerical. I am not talking about illegally downloading copyrighted materials such as music and movies. I think my arguments probably extends to, say, use of copyright images that get appropriated into layouts and web graphics, but to keep things tight, I’ll just be talking about fanworks here.

Further disclaimer: I barely known enough Australian law to get by as a law student, I know even less American law. Furthermore, very little proper jurisprudential research has been done by me, these are really just preliminary thoughts at best. Don’t be a moron and take the following as legal advice in any way.

Legalities
Fanworks are technically illegal. For an indepth reason this details why fanfiction is technically illegal in America. To sum up it seems that not only is fanworks most probably not considered “parody” and “fair use” but it’ll most likely contravene trademark laws too. For example, a fanfic on Harry Potter is illegal as it uses both copyrighted and trademarked characters without permission from the author. I believe such sentiments would probably be reflected in other Western jurisdictions too.

Of note, is that there hasn’t been a case where someone has sued another for publishing (non-profit or otherwise) fanworks. There’s been authors who publicbly denounce fanfiction, for example, like Anne Rice and threaten to sue. There’s also been a number of cease and desist letters sent to writers and fansites (a database of them is available at Chilling Effects) that threaten legal action. However, these fans would most likely be terrified of recieving such notices and fanworks would be removed and the matter settled. Therefore, without any case law to clarify and make certain the status of fanworks, I’m optimistic fanworks are only illegal in the strictest sense.

I would think it’s also arguably a very important factor when we’re dealing with NON-PROFIT, NON-COMMERICAL fanwork. Copyright/trademark owners do not lose anything, including profits, when someone writes fanfiction or draws fanart. The courts are generally reluctant to treat cases where there has been no commercial damage as a commercial case, but without any case law involving fanworks as precedent, this is also very unclear. For more information about fandom legalities, do visit my current favourite community, Fandom Lawyers.

Information =/= Physical Property
The problem is, currently, the law is trying to treat information as physical property. By physical property I mean tangible stuff, like houses, cars, paintings etc, things you can pick up and take away. If you pick up someone’s wallet and take off with it, you’ve deprived that person of their wallet. But information doesn’t work that way! This idea is best summed by George Bernard Shaw, who said:

“If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.”

To again take Harry Potter as an example, after reading the book, I have the information about Potterness in my head. Yet I haven’t inadvertently deprived anyone of their Potter information. If I were to use the Potter information in my head to fabricate a picture or piece of writing, who has been harmed?

Some people would argue that the harm exists in the USE of the original media, which I suppose would mean even the very THOUGHT of Harry Potter one might have technically belongs to JK Rowling. Even if you didn’t write or draw anything, even if you were to say, talk to your friends about Harry Potter, aren’t you technically using a trademarked character/plot without Rowling’s permission? See the absurdity? It’s absurd to even consider information as a form of property because it information is NOT a physical object.

Circularity: Copyright Laws Are Justified because Copyright Laws Says So
Some people have argued that even outside the realms of legality, you shouldn’t use something that someone else has created. Original characters, stories, artwork etc are okay, but fanworks are not because you’re just taking someone else’s ideas and calling them your own. I’d say that’s a rather superficial distinction.

If I were to write a poem about a pretty sunflower, most would agree that that’s a pretty original piece of work. But isn’t that poem just a fanwork about a sunflower? Is there a difference between me having written a poem about a sunflower I own or a sunflower I saw in someone’s garden? If it’s the latter case am I “stealing” the information about the “sunflowerness”? If I were to draw a picture inspired by a bespectacled boy walking down the street, is that really somehow more original than if I were to draw a picture inspired by Harry Potter?

And therein lies the circularity of it. If we’re dealing with concepts outside of legalities it is roundabout to say that some things are original while others are not if you’re using legal definitions. That’s kind of like saying, “fine, if we’re not going to talk about the law, it’s still unethical to use existing media because the law says that media has a protected status”. It doesn’t sit right to say works about boys and sunflowers are okay because no one owns them; but works regarding Harry Potter and Stargate are not okay because the law says they’ve been tagged by someone already. Copyrights and trademarks are just identifiers of who got to the copyright/trademark office first, it does not have a significance beyond that. We live in an age of postmodernism when new ideas are built upon old ones. How is it fair to accuse certain works to be unethical and unoriginal if they use existing works as inspiration, while existing works are themselves based off older story themes (e.g. wizards, spaceships, vampires etc)?

Summing Up
If we’re not talking about making money, to illegalise and possibly punish those who make creative works based on existing media is ludicrous. The above arguments is still valid to cover appropriation of graphics and such that’s used on non-profit, non-commerical fan sites too. It is however a different matter if we’re talking about making money though. The market comes into play and I feel that’s where trademarks and copyright may still have validation; i.e. to protect economic interests. This is why there’s been quite a bit of kerfluffle over a new commerical fanfiction archive, fanlib.com. A great summary is available here and more about it in the Life Without Fanlib community. But that’s beyond today’s entry. Otherwise… fanworks all the way! Whoo! :D

Tim bought me Sims 2 Holiday Edition *and* an expansion pack bundle which includes Nightlife, University, Family Stuff and Open For Business for my birthday. Needless to say, I’m absolutely OVER THE MOON about it. There might be less of me online as I indulge in tinkling around with the game. Woot! Mods and hacks, here I come! :D

Anyway, I received an email from ReviewMe today informing me that someone actually requested for me to review them, for pay. I had forgotten that I had signed up for it. My first thought was to ignore it because, well, I don’t like reading forced blog posts about fake interest in this or that product and I assume others wouldn’t want to read it on mine either. However, out of curiosity I checked out the request anyway, and apparently it was for a cosplay costume site.

I was actually typing out a review for the site but deleted because I can’t get it to flow naturally with what I wanted to say. So I cancelled the review! No US$30 for me. :P But I just want to mention that I do love cosplay. I don’t have the magical sewing skills that some people have (nor the magical coffers of gold that is required to buy custom costumes) however, in my spare time I like look at what some people have come up with.

Some people are just mind-blowingly good with their costumes. For example, take this cosplay of Belle from Beauty and the Beast. OMFG. Not only does it show how ridiculous some costumes in cartoons look in real life, but also how awesomely some people pull it off. Said cosplayer also does an incredibly convincing Aeris from Final Fantasy VII (love the hair). Can’t mention FFVII without throwing in the ever popular Sepiroth impersonators. Man, the hair is so hard to do well. I note that this is just scraping the top of the icebergs, the internet is full of jaw-droppingly amazing costumers, many of them from Japan and China. I’ve seen many in my days but I don’t have links on me at the moment.

What’s also fun, for different reasons, are the really bad costumes. Here’s a nice archive (NOTE YOU WOULDN’T WANT TO BE LOOKING AT THESE LINKS AT WORK. Potentially eye-gouging) and here’s what looks to be an ongoing collection. While I do really admire these cosplayers (and any cosplayers really) for having the courage to go out in public wearing very outlandish garb… for those that have quite terrible costumes, I really wonder what they were thinking?