thread started by last reply
Words of Radiance Reread: Chapter 11 123 replies | 2956 views Wetlandernw
5 days 15 hours ago
travyl travyl
1 minute 20 seconds ago
Which 21st Century Comics Will Be Remembered in 50 years? 18 replies | 980 views adapalmer
17 hours 51 minutes ago
AlecAustin AlecAustin
9 minutes 35 seconds ago
“Call of the Radiant God” Sounds So Much More Pleasant, Doesn’t It: “The Temple” 14 replies | 653 views R.Emrys
13 hours 51 minutes ago
Randalator Randalator
10 minutes 43 seconds ago
Brian Froud’s Faeries’ Tales Sweepstakes! 165 replies | 797 views Sweepstakes
16 hours 21 minutes ago
Marie Gasper Burns
11 minutes 19 seconds ago
Maplecroft Sweepstakes! 54 replies | 443 views Sweepstakes
10 hours 21 minutes ago
CliftonR CliftonR
31 minutes 26 seconds ago
The Tick Creator Confirms Live-Action Reboot In the Works! 9 replies | 742 views Stubby
14 hours 41 minutes ago
Evan H.
1 hour 2 minutes ago
Feuds Sweepstakes! 48 replies | 645 views Sweepstakes
1 day 17 hours ago
DarthParadox DarthParadox
1 hour 14 minutes ago
Better Identification of Viking Corpses Reveals: Half of the Warriors Were Female 40 replies | 2684 views Stubby
13 hours 4 minutes ago
1 hour 49 minutes ago
Time Travelling Through Your Earlier Books: The Stones of Green Knowe 6 replies | 1477 views MariCats
5 days 12 hours ago
joatsbuddy joatsbuddy
2 hours 11 minutes ago
The Wheel of Time Reread Redux: Introductory Post 114 replies | 5707 views leighdb
2 weeks 14 hours ago
Avlonnic Avlonnic
2 hours 26 minutes ago
Power Corrupts? Absolutely! 13 replies | 807 views J_Heckel
14 hours 51 minutes ago
joatsbuddy joatsbuddy
2 hours 35 minutes ago
Fiction Affliction: September Releases in Science Fiction 4 replies | 2204 views SuzanneJohnson
1 week 10 hours ago
bethmitcham bethmitcham
3 hours 42 minutes ago
A More Intimate Scale: Ancillary Sword by Ann Leckie 6 replies | 900 views hawkwing-lb
18 hours 51 minutes ago
3 hours 58 minutes ago
Severus Snape Does Not Deserve Your Pity 199 replies | 62831 views EmilyAP
1 year 4 months ago
4 hours 20 minutes ago
Sleeps With Monsters: Cop-out Arguments 38 replies | 9226 views hawkwing-lb
1 year 11 months ago
6 hours 35 minutes ago
Toy Story 3: The Steadfast Plastic Cowboy 14 replies | 7196 views ElsKushner
2 years 2 months ago
6 hours 46 minutes ago
Yes, Women Want to Be Thor—So Why is the New Avengers Line-up Cause For Ire? 71 replies | 5615 views EmilyAP
1 month 4 days ago
Valaraukarsbane Valaraukarsbane
6 hours 50 minutes ago
Embodying Mercy Thompson In Person and In Paint 18 replies | 17693 views Irene
4 years 1 month ago
BrendaM53 BrendaM53
7 hours 39 minutes ago
Descend Pathfinder’s The Emerald Spire 16 replies | 1613 views mordicai
4 days 13 hours ago
hoopmanjh hoopmanjh
7 hours 48 minutes ago
Why Doesn’t Anyone Like The Lost World: Jurassic Park? 36 replies | 12866 views EmilyAP
1 year 5 months ago
7 hours 53 minutes ago
Amy Pond is Dressed as the Pink Ranger and it Gets Even Better From There 5 replies | 2587 views Stubby
5 days 13 hours ago
smaug86 smaug86
9 hours 23 minutes ago
The Wheel of Time Reread Redux: From the Two Rivers Prologue 110 replies | 3959 views leighdb
1 week 14 hours ago
Jonellin Stonebreaker
9 hours 54 minutes ago
Spoiler Thread for A Read of Ice and Fire, Part 6! 159 replies | 6686 views
1 month 1 week ago
Minstral Minstral
10 hours 7 minutes ago
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Rewatch: “Sacrifice of Angels” 67 replies | 2834 views krad
1 week 12 hours ago
Lisamarie Lisamarie
10 hours 18 minutes ago
Werewolf Mercenaries and Mentors: Shifting Shadows by Patricia Briggs 2 replies | 1355 views hawkwing-lb
4 days 18 hours ago
10 hours 19 minutes ago
15 Essential Zombie Reads 72 replies | 82807 views Stubby
1 year 9 months ago
Joseph Tremblay
11 hours 19 minutes ago
Story: Soulminder (Excerpt) 1 reply | 430 views T_Zahn
11 hours 51 minutes ago
jim162065 jim162065
11 hours 47 minutes ago
Fiction Affliction: Genre-Benders for September 2 replies | 2122 views SuzanneJohnson
6 days 10 hours ago
bethmitcham bethmitcham
12 hours 16 minutes ago
Locked in a Room With His Greatest Enemy. Doctor Who: “Into the Dalek” 48 replies | 2387 views TorChris
3 days 5 hours ago
ChristopherLBennett ChristopherLBennett
12 hours 41 minutes ago
A Read of the Dark Tower Redux: Constant Reader Tackles The Wind Through the Keyhole: “The Skin-Man (Part 1)” (First Half) 7 replies | 2069 views SuzanneJohnson
1 week 1 day ago
juanmaguerrero juanmaguerrero
13 hours 24 minutes ago
BritMandelo's shoutbox
7 recent messages | show all
MatthewB MatthewB said (1 week ago):
Have you discussed or do you plan to discuss any of Jo Clayton's books in queering or post-binary gender? I started re-reading "Wild Magic" the other day and was reminded of how eye-opening and formative it was for me as a young white cis male suburban reader back in the late 80's, early 90's.
mp2014 mp2014 said (5 months ago):
beby4oo beby4oo said (3 years ago):
Hello !! I Hope you are in good health? Dear,i wish we could be friendly in good lovely relationship , if you could be sincere and lovely, well i do cherish your profile age and distance no problem, privately send me a reply to my email address ( while i get back at you including my picture. I shall hopefully wait for your reply. Yours, REBEKAH BABY THANKS
mrjennings mrjennings said (3 years ago):
Brit, I just conducted an interview of Richard Bowes that I thought might be of interest to you and the Queering SFF series. I've posted it here:
dianeduane dianeduane said (3 years ago):
Brit, apropos of nothing -- were you looking for copies of these? They're available as ebooks now. , ,
welovetea welovetea said (4 years ago):
Hey! I love this series of Queering SFF you're doing! Keep up the good work!
Longtimefan Longtimefan said (4 years ago):
I wrote something in a ranty moment and while I do not want to impose upon your time I value your opinion and want to share my quickly formed and perhaps not well finished words with you. It is long and you can just skip from here. :) An observation that may get my "gay" card revoked. Well several. Firstly, I am tired of the term "gay". It has too many meanings for too many people and it is only common because it is easier than saying "person (or people) interested in a relationship with someone of the same gender." It is important to use the word "relationship" and not the word "sex". While physical attention on many levels including (but not always guaranteed) the most intimate is part of a "relationship" it is not every minute of a relationship. Otherwise married people would never go to work. Physical intimacy is an action not a definition of who someone is. Those actions may be repeated with the same person for a long period of time (monogamy) they may be engaged in with a few or many people of the same gender leading many people to believe that they are "straight" or "gay". They may be actions shared with people of either gender leading people to become confused because both "straight" and "gay" social groups get really irritated if they cannot slap a label on it and stick it on the shelf. Shockingly, in my philosophical view, there are no "straight" or "gay" people. Heterosexual and homosexual describe actions not nouns. Because it is a mouthful to say "I am a person in a relationship with someone of the same gender." or "....of the opposite gender" the quick and lazy way to define people is by the occasional actions they take with people who are usually not in need of knowing that label. My boyfriend does not need to know I am "gay", other people do. Not that they need to know that any more than I need to know other people are "straight". However in the course of conversation, socialization and personal actualization people refer to the person they are having a relationship with. Instead of living in the logical moment and thinking "this person is in a relationship with this other person right now." social norms have developed short hand labels that build stereotypes like walls around every thing people think until it is a maze so complex that people forget it is there and just assume that they are just walking along a garden path instead of being penned in by a labyrinth not entirely of their own design. People are not their actions but they are constantly judged by them even if they chose to change them. I have dated women, I have dated men. I am currently dating a man. This does not make me "gay", this makes me a person in a relationship with someone of the same gender. So all of that was just to get to this. There is no "gay rights" movement. There is a movement for the equalization of value on relationships with people of the same gender. It seems like way too much to say but I thought of this when I realized this... The "gay rights" movement is not like the "civil rights" movement. It is similar too but still different from the "Suffragette movement" I can see where people would balk at that comparison because it links "gays" with "women" and that is already a false parallel that is difficult to break as a negative stereotype socially. However the point I would like to make is that when women were asking (well demanding) the vote it was because they wanted a relationship with government. They were subject to the laws, they were affected by the politicians, they were smart enough to know how they felt about those things. They could not say anything about it. Well, not legally in a way that would matter. Men who said women did not need to vote were not affected by women not voting. They did not have to live with the consequences of their actions. The women did. The thing is there are a lot of men who want women to like them. In the end to keep the affections of women they had to admit that they had the intelligence to vote and therefore should be allowed to vote. Still only 35 % of Americans vote and only half of those are women. Even if all of those were women that is not all of the women in America who can vote. Just because they can do something does not mean they will do something and when they do it does not make another persons vote less valid. (I am not getting into the "one vote cancels the other" argument. It is statistical not logical) There is not, however, the majority of the voting population interested in having people who want to be in relationships with someone of the same gender liking them. Many of them do not care. Not in a callous way (although there are those) but in a "it does not affect me so if I do not do anything about it it is no big deal" way. The people who do care have not done themselves any favors. They still place it in common social terms which as I said before have way to many definitions and do not clearly state what it is people are trying to accomplish. They have even started using the term "sexual minority". I loathe that term. It is many kinds of wrong that I will not expound upon here. It is not about getting our "10% quotas" in the work force or throwing off melaninistic segregation. It is about receiving the same social value on the relationship because two people want to be together. People are in relationships with people they care about. They share intellectual pursuits and social interests and moral foundations. Women wanted their vote, their opinion, to have the same weight socially as a man's. They did not stop being mothers or wives or workers or teachers. It changed what they could do and how they were perceived not who they were as people. People in same sex relationships want their relationship to have the same social weight as anyone else. They will still have the same jobs. They will still be relatives, they will still be friends. No opinion is perfect, no relationship is perfect but they should not be dismissed out of hand because it is socially acceptable to give them no merit in the first place.