Wonkman

This is an Electronics Project Kit. They were all the rage among geeky kids in the 1970s and early 80s, and parents loved 'em, too. By connecting those little grey nubs, the user could build a radio, play simple musical notes, set up a basic calculator, or -- with later models -- even assemble a very (very) basic binary computer.

Parents liked them because it was all the educational fun of circuit boards and diagrams without the smell or the mess or the expense of continually replenishing the basic supplies -- or the potential to burn down the house.

A detractor would point out that these aren't REALLY electronics kits, right? You don't actually build anything: all the user does is connect various wires together, usually in accordance with a series of diagrams or schematics which shipped with the kit. It's no more an electronics kit than an EZ-Bake Oven is a complete kitchen: connect point C1 with point X2; connect point V5 with point TR1; continue until you've assembled a stopwatch.

But, ideally the kit is a springboard into "freehand" electronics: start with the suggestions in the manual, then modify them, then improve them, then start building your own within this framework, then pick up a soldering iron at Radio Shack...

A lot of people who now work in computer hardware, consumer electronics, formal logic, computer programming, engineering, and other related fields, if they grew up in this period, got their start with one of these puppies. No, it's not "truly" a user-assembled computer, or a radio, or a calculator, nor is it a circuit board and a soldering gun. But if you want to get people to that stage, this is a really great way of getting them started.

And that's why it doesn't actually matter whether Ahmed Mohamed built a clock, or tore apart and re-assembled a clock, or connected a clock to a new display, or put an existing clock in a new case. These are all, to various degrees and in various ways, baby steps, and this is how future electronics engineers are made.

Conventional #elxn42 wisdom: “The Greens are splitting the vote and electing Conservatives!”

Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

The only part of the country where we’re seeing the sort of three- and four-way races which might elect a Conservatives on a split “progressive” vote are in inland and northern BC. And there’s one thing people don’t often understand about this part of the country: it’s really conservative.

This isn’t just old-school Reform/Alliance country, this is old-school Social Credit country, stretching back to the 50s and beyond. These are places which have voted for the leading Conservative party in practically every election since the Laurier administration, and which -- under Harper -- have almost uniformly voted Tory by 50% of the vote or more.

The fact that these places are competitive or in-play at all is actually pretty miraculous and represents a huge political shift. Wanna know who played a big part in that shift?

The Greens.

Wanna know why the NDP are now within 5% of winning Central Okanagan? It’s in large part because the Greens have carved 10% off the Conservatives.

Wanna know why the Liberals are now competitive in Chilliwack, which hasn’t sent a Liberal to parliament since 1949? It’s in large part because the Greens have shaved 7-8% off the Conservatives, making it more competitive than it’s been in decades.

Wanna know why Kelowna--Lake Country is now hyper-competitive, when it used to elect Conservatives and Reformers with a solid 60% of the vote? It’s in large part because the Greens are soaking up 10-15% of that Tory voting pool.

Any time you look at one of these rural-BC ridings where the Greens are supposedly “splitting” the vote, what we’re actually looking at is the opposite: a riding which has historically been untouchably Conservative, but which is now in play precisely because the Greens have come out of nowhere and helped dunk the Tories below 50% for the first time in generations.

You may not believe this: the Greens are, after all, a progressive party, right? Wouldn’t it be better for the progressive movement if they didn’t run, and everyone voting Green in Chilliwack or Okanangan or Kelowna moved over to the Liberals or NDP in order to defeat a Conservative?

Well. No. Because that’s not what would happen.

The Greens have become a party who can hack rural populism, which is what allows them to cleave votes off the Conservatives.

They’ve got the superficial stuff down: the Greens are gritty, “real”, plain-spoken, and so on. But on policy, and especially on policies which distinguish the Conservatives from the Liberals and NDP, the Greens actually have a lot to offer these voters: less restrictive gun control, emphasis on rural communities and development, protections for farmland and greenbelts, and -- above all -- a sense that the Greens aren’t a threat to the rural way of life, a sense a lot of people will not extend to the Liberals or NDP.

With that in mind, in rural areas, when someone votes Green, they actually aren’t voting “progressive”: they’re voting centre-right. And if we took away the Green option, odds are pretty good that, instead of “getting with the program” and voting Liberal or NDP, these people would just go back to the Conservatives.

That’s why I called them Tory-killers.

The Greens aren’t winning these seats. If the party really surges, they might. But right now, outside Vancouver Island and a few of the Vancouver suburbs, the Greens are not competitive.

What they are doing is softening them up. If a Green candidate can take 10 or 15 or 20% off of a Conservative candidate, this probably won’t be enough to win -- but it might be enough to allow a Liberal or NDP candidate to overtake the Conservative, even if this overtaker only posts a very marginal improvement upon their 2011 result. (If your vote holds up at 35%, while the Conservatives plummet from 50% to 30%, you’ve won the seat without earning a single additional vote.)

After all, if the Green candidate wasn’t cleaving off that vote -- if the Conservatives were still above 50% in the riding -- this whole conversation is academic. Nobody cares who splits whose vote then the seat is mathematically unwinnable.

It’s only because the Greens are around, and because the Greens are softening up so many Conservative incumbents and putting these seats in reach for non-Conservatives, that we’re having this discussion.

I’ve been reading, and thinking, about Obama’s new inclusive toilets at the White House. It’s a great thing, and a good gesture -- and that’s great.

Two problems, though:

1. When Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the roof of the White House, this was a great thing, and a good gesture, and then Ronald Reagan had them torn out. If a Republican wins in 2016, you can expect the same thing will happen to these inclusive restrooms.

2. These things have an unfortunate tendency to be less of a toilet and more of an outhouse, if you catch my (queer-lens) drift.

In situations where “Inclusive” toilets are offered, this normally involves retrofitting an existing single-toilet restroom (one toilet; one sink; one user at a time) for this purpose. And that’s bad news, because one of two things inevitably happen:

1. The washroom is so attractive to cisfolk (new fixtures, better lighting, prime location, etc.) that they rush the place, creating such a glut of demand that the constituency for whom it is intended don’t get to make much use of it. (”Well, I can get in this queue and wait for 15 minutes to get into the ‘Inclusive’ washroom, or can I run down the hall and go straight into the Ladies’ Room. And I’ve gotta pee right now, so...”) This is especially bothersome if the Inclusive washroom is the only one equipped for persons with disabilities and/or parents with young children.

2. The washroom is so unattractive to cisfolk (poor location, dingy, not maintained or cleaned as often as the other washrooms, etc.) that they avoid the place, effectively outing anyone who does use it. (Especially if it’s a situation where the “normal” washrooms are just down the hall from your desk, while the “Inclusive” washroom has been kludged into the building: go down the hall, then up two flights of stairs, then across the skybridge, then climb the rope ladder, then defeat the malevolent AI, then hire two sherpas and begin your ascent to the mountaintop, then...)

With all that in mind, yes, this is a great gesture. Hooray for that.

But if we’re serious about providing comfortable, accommodating spaces for transfolk to piss in, we need to do more: we need to implement fully gender-neutral restrooms. And, yes, that’s going to make a lot of people uncomfortable. But with good design, we can overcome a lot of those objections. (What if, instead of a row of toilet cubicles across from a row of sinks, we had a bunch of single-toilet, single-sink, single-user restrooms? You get the whole room to yourself, the door locks, you’re safe as can be...)

Re: the Russo-German artist who intends to have sex with a different man every day for the next year.

Yes, this is art. (He intends to critically examine and deconstruct norms and attitudes surrounding a behaviour -- hookup culture within the gay community -- in a way and to a depth that the community in question has not previously engaged. This project also has a clear and obvious performative and participatory component. Yep: it's art.)

No, it's not really any of your business. (He has done a battery of STI tests; they've all come back negative, and he plans on using condoms for all his encounters. With that in mind, he doesn't pose a public health risk -- so it's his body, and he gets to do whatever he likes with it.)

No, he isn't conventionally-attractive. And fuck you for bringing that up.

Yes, he's kind of chubby. And fuck you for bringing that up.

No, we really don't need to know that you think gay sex is gross.

In fact, unless you are literally about to have sex with this man, your opinions as to the subject of how much you would or would not like to have sex with this man are entirely irrelevant.

What makes you so sure he'd want to have sex with YOU?

Agatha Christie did the most incredible thing in 1950's A Murder is Announced: on the fringes of her quaint country village, filled with the usual Anglo-Indian Colonels and doddering vicars, she introduces two lady farmers. These women (Misses Hinchcliffe and Muratroyd) have cohabitated for 15 years, raising pigs and breeding dogs and enjoying each others’ company. More importantly, Hinch and Murgatroyd are portrayed as having the most healthy and fulfilling relationship in town: they bicker like schoolgirls, but there’s always a tenderness, and a mutual respect, that most of us would associate with a thriving marriage. Neither of them is predatory, nor are they victims, nor are they "settling" for one another in the absence of men: they are equally-yoked, and proud of it.

At least, that’s my interpretation. Christie never out-and-out states it, and plenty of readers are perfectly content to read Hinch and Murgatroyd as good friends. But when I cracked this book open at age 12, I was on this relationship like a drag queen on Dolly Parton. It’s not a perfect relationship -- Christie was clearly of the “I don’t care what they do so long as they shut up about it” mindset: queerness is fine so long as it stays formally in the closet -- but it’s a relationship, and a relationship in a popular-press, bestselling, mainstream novel at that. That’s a big deal.

Or, it was. In 1950.

I’m tired of appreciating subtle homoeroticism.

I’m tired of being told that Sherlock is subtly homoerotic.

I’m tired of being told that House is subtly homoerotic.

I’m tired of being told that The Giver is subtly homoerotic.

I’m tired of being told that literally any show which features two same-gender characters is subtly homoerotic.

Yes, some texts are subtly homoerotic -- but plenty just aren’t. They really, really aren’t. You can make them homoerotic, but if a reader’s willing to do the heavy ideological lifting, you can make Mein Kampf homoerotic, to say nothing about Tintin or Batman. (Batsuits with hard rubber nipples notwithstanding.)

And this bothers me for three key reasons.

Firstly, it’s shit like this that makes “No Homo” a thing. By treating any same-sex interaction (conversation, passing glances, occupying the same room, living on the same planet…) as homoerotic, we create social conditions within which people feel it necessary to telegraph their heterosexuality, or at least their lack of sexual interest, lest we get confused. Not only is this on-the-face demeaning, it makes life harder for straight and gay men: the breeders get jumpy and nervous and twitchy and weird, while the queers are alienated and pushed away from forming meaningful friendships with straightfolk. (After all, if you ride in a car with a gay man, we can safely assume he’s sucking your dick… right?)

Secondly, this is not an accurate depiction of lived queer experiences in the contemporary western world. If you live in Cairo in 2012, or in Chicago in 1950, or in London in 1930, or in Paris in 1860, then, yes, subtle homoeroticism is about as far as you’ll be allowed to go, at least in public. But to take these media at face value, one must accept that an openly-gay man, living in Portland, in 2014, has a sex life which consists entirely of longing glances, telling pauses and missed opportunities. That’s some bullshit right there. (And it only gets more ludicrous when we slip into sci-fi: she lives 2000 years in the future on a space station filled with green aliens and interspecies couples and galactic harmony, yet she has to restrict her lesbianism to the tears on her pillow?)

But finally, and most importantly, all this emphasis on “subtle homoeroticism” lets content creators off the hook. It creates a culture within which awkward glances and subtle nudges are “good enough”: “But we gave you a queer character! We even CONFIRMED her homosexuality, at a con, years after the show ended! What more do you people WANT?!”

For every woman in a chainmail bikini, there's a super-buff barbarian dude in a loincloth. Why is it okay to portray the barbarian as a sex object, but not treat a woman the same way?

Why do you think Superman is so buff?

I'll give you a hint: it's not because women demanded it. If Superman were created as a sexual fantasy for women, he wouldn't be punching out villains in comic books: he'd be making out with Wolverine in a Harlequin romance novel.

Instead, Superman is buff because men demanded it. Superman represents a male fantasy: the fantasy of being strong and dominant and muscly and virile; of beating up bad guys and getting the girl and saving the day; and so on.

In a similar way, your half-naked barbarian dude isn't a female fantasy, or a sop to women; he's a manifestation of a male fantasy. Chainmail bikini lady (mostly-naked sorceress, etc.) is a fantasy of possession, and barbarian dude is a fantasy of being, but they're still written and designed and crafted with male players and readers in mind.

Are you saying that women don't find barbarians sexy? (Are you saying that all men find naked ladies sexy?)

No. I'm sure some women are turned on by barbarians, and some men are turned off by chainmail bikinis.

But this isn't a customized product: these products are created with millions of people in mind, and it treats those people as members of a demographic, rather than individuals.

As a result, while individuals with outlying preferences may not have those preferences reflected in the product, the product was still designed with them in mind -- and it therefore remains accurate to talk about "male sexual fantasy", even if not every man is party to it.

It's unfair to expect content creators to be inclusive. We should be telling good stories, not trying to check "diversity boxes". And, anyway, making a big deal out of a character's gender or sexuality or race would be really, really boring.

Let's not pretend female characters were invented by Anita Sarkeesian in 2013: Shakespeare was writing strong, interesting, deep, non-sexualized, non-stereotypical female characters 400 years ago.

If he can coax forth the creativity and energy and artistic effort to slide intelligent, worthwhile, significant female characters into his works, you can find space in your RPG for at least one half-decent female NPC.

And if you expect women to suck it up and play along in a game which excludes them, why is it unfair of us to expect you to suck it up and write a decent woman?

Well, how about we just insert some female fantasies? You know, turn some male characters into sex objects? Won't that fix the problem?

The presence of sex objects in a non-pornographic context is the problem. You don't fix the sexualization of women by sexualizing men, too; you fix the sexualization of women by desexualizing them.

It's important to note that "desexualized" doesn't mean "unfeminine". Nobody's saying that you have to stomp out all outward signs of gender and put everyone in head-to-toe potato sacks and treat them all exactly the same.

But it does mean that the chainmail bikinis need to go. (And that adding chainmail speedos won't fix the problem.)

What's wrong with sexy characters? Are you saying that sexualized characters can't be interesting?

No. Plenty of sexy characters are interesting, and quite often the sexiness is inherent to that interest.

The issue is that, in comic books and video games in particular, when women get featured at all, their defining attribute is often sexiness. (Not femininity or femaleness; out-and-out sexiness.) Put in other terms, male characters get personalities; female characters get DD-cups and seductive glints in their eyes.

By limiting female characters to this role, they're effectively reduced to token status, which both limits storytelling possibilities and limits the extent to which women can see themselves portrayed within games. That's bad.

How do you know that Anonymous City Guard No. 4412b isn't a lesbian, or that Anonymous Blacksmith isn't gay, or whatever?

A queer character who is indistinguishable from every other character -- and indistinguishable from a straight, cisgendered character -- is not a queer character. Heteronormativity, look it up.

Don't you want queerfolk to be indistinguishable from straightfolk?

We want queerness to not limit someone's horizons. We don't want queerness smushed into a teeny tiny wee box right next to "blue eyes" and "left testicle hangs lower than the right".

Why can't you just let me enjoy my game in peace?

Complaining on the internet in no way impedes your ability to enjoy your game. Have fun!