thread started by last reply
A New-New Hope: Star Wars: Rebels Had a Pretty Great First Season 12 replies | 312 views ryancbritt
4 hours 15 minutes ago
34 seconds ago
Star Trek: The Next Generation Rewatch: “Parallels” 101 replies | 13012 views krad
2 years 3 weeks ago
krad krad
8 minutes 42 seconds ago
We’re Getting a Neill Blomkamp Alien Sequel After All! 5 replies | 2535 views Stubby
2 weeks 9 hours ago
10 minutes 6 seconds ago
Star Trek The Original Series Rewatch: “The Cage” 66 replies | 1369 views krad
1 day 6 hours ago
krad krad
14 minutes 32 seconds ago
Women SFF Artists Redesign Female Characters and the Results Are Fantastic 5 replies | 495 views Stubby
5 hours 30 minutes ago
madisonwoods madisonwoods
22 minutes 31 seconds ago
Don’t Look Back in Anger. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: “Aftershocks” 35 replies | 1181 views TorChris
1 day 5 hours ago
April Brown
25 minutes 4 seconds ago
The Harry Potter Reread: The Goblet of Fire, Chapters 28 and 29 15 replies | 474 views EmilyAP
6 hours 5 minutes ago
wiredog wiredog
27 minutes 42 seconds ago
Five Books with Snarky Sidekicks 24 replies | 1731 views F_Steinmetz
3 days 8 hours ago
sps49 sps49
40 minutes 34 seconds ago
A Read of Ice and Fire: A Dance with Dragons, Part 13 54 replies | 765 views leighdb
7 hours 15 minutes ago
RobMRobM RobMRobM
41 minutes 46 seconds ago
A Ranking of 1980s Fantasy That Would Please Crom Himself! 207 replies | 4747 views Cloudyvision
3 days 11 hours ago
46 minutes 54 seconds ago
Writing Women Characters as Human Beings 41 replies | 2091 views KateElliott
1 day 9 hours ago
54 minutes 21 seconds ago
To Catch a Cop: Gotham, “Everyone Has a Cobblepot” 3 replies | 436 views ThomDunn
8 hours 45 minutes ago
lerris lerris
59 minutes 47 seconds ago
Spoiler Thread for A Read of Ice and Fire, Part 7! 369 replies | 13017 views
2 months 4 weeks ago
RobMRobM RobMRobM
1 hour 41 minutes ago
Lock In and the Vacuum That Gender Creates 26 replies | 7533 views TorChris
5 months 1 week ago
2 hours 4 minutes ago
Star Trek Re-watch: “Dagger of the Mind” 19 replies | 12265 views ecmyers
5 years 9 months ago
2 hours 14 minutes ago
Words of Radiance Reread: Chapter 31 19 replies | 631 views Wetlandernw
8 hours 15 minutes ago
Ways Ways
2 hours 19 minutes ago
Star Trek Re-watch: “A Taste of Armageddon” 36 replies | 13612 views Torie
5 years 8 months ago
Tom Donaldson
2 hours 26 minutes ago
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Rewatch: Seventh Season Overview 31 replies | 1975 views krad
6 days 3 hours ago
Lisamarie Lisamarie
2 hours 41 minutes ago
Story: Amicae Aeternum 1 reply | 411 views Ellen_Klages
11 hours 15 minutes ago
Xena Catolica
2 hours 51 minutes ago
A Spoiled Princess in an Unspoiled Desert: Sandwriter 1 reply | 264 views MariCats
5 hours 15 minutes ago
3 hours 34 minutes ago
Star Trek: The Next Generation Rewatch: “Masks” 48 replies | 9236 views krad
2 years 3 days ago
3 hours 40 minutes ago
Rereading Melanie Rawn: The Star Scroll, Chapters 29 and 30 10 replies | 617 views capriole
1 day 7 hours ago
capriole capriole
3 hours 49 minutes ago
Animorphs: Why the Series Rocked and Why You Should Still Care 29 replies | 9601 views Sam_Riedel
6 months 1 week ago
M Haynes
3 hours 55 minutes ago
Five Books About Indelible Cityscapes 15 replies | 2591 views D_Polansky
1 week 6 hours ago
Sarah D
3 hours 59 minutes ago
Hear The Lamentations Of The Audience: Conan The Barbarian 16 replies | 7512 views DannyBowes
3 years 6 months ago
4 hours 3 seconds ago
Not NEARLY Enough Puppies: Once Upon a Time, Darkness on the Edge of Town 11 replies | 1325 views MariCats
3 days 9 hours ago
dlairman dlairman
4 hours 24 seconds ago
Chicagoland Vampire Series Sweepstakes! 109 replies | 1110 views Sweepstakes
2 days 9 hours ago
4 hours 31 minutes ago
We Want Mecha Wombats! Our Pop Quiz Interview with Catherynne M. Valente 2 replies | 464 views
9 hours 15 minutes ago
4 hours 34 minutes ago
What You Can Do Without Limits: The Magic of Weta Workshop 3 replies | 463 views EmilyAP
7 hours 45 minutes ago
crzydroid crzydroid
4 hours 54 minutes ago
Lovecraft’s Most Bigoted Story, No Really: “The Horror at Red Hook” 36 replies | 1554 views R.Emrys
2 days 8 hours ago
DemetriosX DemetriosX
4 hours 58 minutes ago
BritMandelo's shoutbox
8 recent messages | show all
ryanpat ryanpat said (1 week ago):
I would just like to thank you for writing the Queering SFF. It's given me some valuable little morsels as I begin exploring the creation of my own series, filled with characters exploring sexuality and queerness in a fantasy environment.
MatthewB MatthewB said (6 months 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 (11 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 (4 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 (4 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.