Tactical

I have a strong disdain for anything marketed as “tactical”.  Here’s why:  tactical = meant for harming people = not meant for anything reasonably practical that you might actually use the item for.  Are you really prepping for the inevitable murder, or just making too much money that drugs and hookers aren’t doing it for you anymore?  Here’s some tactical examples:

Tactical firearm = AR-15.  Not practical because you can’t hunt with it (and you sure as hell shouldn’t).  A .223 is good for shooting people and some varmints, and if you hunt the latter, be a little more sporting and get a bolt action rifle.

Tactical knife = anything with serrations or an aptly-named tactical point.  Good for stabbing people and opening field rations.  Not effective at skinning animals or carving wood.

Tactical flashlight = overpowered and strobe function.  Too bright to maintain night vision and extraneous modes not useful for anything beyond blinding people.  And my favorite–the hard nub on the butt meant for bashing skulls.  I can’t even stretch my imagination on that one.

So, is there any reason to actually buy something tactical, if you’re not military/police?  I will tell you: probably not.  To do so is to believe that a weapon’s primary function should be to shoot people, presumably under the belief that doing so will become necessary under a societal collapse, and that roving bands of raiders will come to take your food.  I argue, however, that you’d be much better off buying a weapon whose primary function is to shoot animals (you know, to acquire food), with the understanding that it can still be effective for defense situations (are you really going to get off 12 shotgun rounds?), and can even be modified for that purpose were the need to arise (swap barrels/magazines).  See?  Survival first requires you to feed yourself, and a tactical weapon therefore will be of much less value.  If you don’t have any food to steal in the first place, no one’s going to come gunning for you.  And if they do and you shoot them, you still don’t have any fresh meat (cannibalism aside).  Sure, you might now point out that all your prepping supplies preclude the need to hunt, and you might be right, at least for the short-term.  But thinking long-term, you still need to hunt.  And thinking short-term, you’re not going to be able to defend yourself against a band of much younger men with more guns just because you bought the tactical variant.

Although, if you plan to be one of the roving raiders yourself, tactical weapons make more sense.  Then by all means, buy tactical, you sociopath.

I’m guessing we have video games to thank for the tactical obsession, because for a lot of people that’s their first encounter with a gun, albeit virtual, and so don’t know otherwise; and the fact that most shooting in games is of the people variety; and modding guns in games with tactical loadouts is just plain fun, too.

Google “tacticool” for more examples.  Yes, there’s an internet community of people laughing at you and your gun.

Okay, I had to get that out of the way.  Thanks for listening.  Now for the real post: I bought a gun.

Specifically, I bought a Remington 870 Express Ultramag.  12 gauge, wooden stock (no tacticool synthetic).

They grow up so fast

Why did I buy this?  Well, because I hunt.  The old single shot break action 20 ga. that dad bought me when I was 16 has certainly bagged its share of woodland creatures, but it did have some limitations.  Range was one of the bigger ones (I’ve been know to sprint across open clearings to make a shot).  Using anything smaller than #6 was pretty ineffective beyond 10 yards, and steel shot was nigh impossible.  #7 1/2 works for skeet, but squirrels don’t shatter if you accidentally drop them.  I also considered trying some waterfowl this year too.  So in order to be effective as well as humane, I wanted something more powerful.

I also wanted Remington over Mossberg.  Personal reasons there.  I won’t get into that flame war (I don’t care if the US military uses Mossbergs.  I’m not shooting people, remember?  Also, the military’s decision to use a particular weapon design doesn’t necessarily equate to reliability.  See the early deployments of M-16s in Vietnam, for instance.)

But I admit, I did mod it.  I didn’t tacticalize it, but I did make some additions.  Hunting-related additions, not tactical additions, to be clear.

Buttstock shell holder
Rifle glow sights
.715 vented choke

And tacticality aside, I keep it stored with 00 buck, so I can still shoot roving raiders if needed.

–Simon

Mediterranean Sausage Bake

Contrary to what my gardening habits might imply, I don’t really like squash.  At best it’s a filler that absorbs more palatable flavors, and at worst it’s a slimy earthy sludge.  For example, squash cooked with apples tastes good–like apples.  Squash cooked with butter tastes like butter.  Squash cooked as-is tastes like…sludge.

Case in point: Mediterranean Sausage Bake.  This abomination, a recipe of my mother’s, involved baking zucchini with eggplant and onions, with some cheese and sausage for flavor.  It was disgusting, but a favorite of dad’s, so each Father’s Day we lived the nightmare.

So anyway, back to present, I have a lot of squash.  Ronde de Nice, specifically.  And dad was visiting.  It presented an opportunity to unload some of it.  The plan was to cook him the sausage bake while we ordered a pizza.  And yet…

…look at that!

Okay, so I used a lot more cheese, but still.  It warranted a taste.  And it was…reasonably acceptable.

Maybe I used better sausage.  Maybe the Ronde de Nice was better than standard zucchini.  Maybe I sweated the onions better.  Whatever the case, it was edible, and a way to use up some garden produce.

And it made the old man happy.

–Simon

Unintended Consequences

More cucurbitas.  Though not the ones I intended.

When I planted the squash patch, I selected seed for each mound.  Then I thew compost on each mound.  Then I discovered somewhat later that the compost contained cucurbita seeds.  These were supposed to be my pie pumpkins:

They are not.

But at least we’re getting a lot of fall decorations–arguably a better purpose for cucurbitas anyway.

–Simon

Femme Credibilius

In these contemporary times it often feels as though I’m being force-fed feminism.  It is, understandably, a product of modern social/economic/technological circumstances coming into conflict with our stubbornness to change, and is, within reason, a required means to achieve true egalitarianism.  To this there is little argument.  But why then do I find it frequently so off-putting?  I am a modern man, a Millennial in fact, with rather liberal views.

To resolve the internal conflict, I decided to meditate heavily on the subject, and I believe that the anxiety is not a result of the goals themselves, but rather the execution.  I will explain via corollary, specifically through the means by which one of my generation explores our present culture: TV and video games.

Firstly though, I’ll cite the Bechdel Test, as it’s both appropriate for this topic as well as a very straightforward method by which to analyze the relevance of female characters in media.

In summary, a movie doesn’t represent women in any meaningful way unless [paraphrasing mine]:

  • The movie has to have at least two women in it,
  • who talk to each other,
  • about something other than a man.

I’ll use this as the foundation to my own test (Moorhead Test?), because in response to a sudden desire to pass the Bechdel, women are being cast at an exponential rate, many times inappropriately, with the results often patronizing if not downright jarring and unbelievable.  So I will attempt to assist the entertainment industry with their shortcomings.  Here’s my test:

A female character isn’t believable unless:

  • Her behavior is in line with the authority that the position she occupies would normally require of a man,
  • who also is in an age-appropriate position,
  • who realistically possesses the skills required for said position,
  • and whose dialog is not intentionally condescending to male characters and male viewers.

I will elaborate on these points, then provide a good and bad example for each, to show where we have succeeded and where we have horribly failed (with the assumption that you, the reader, have similar media tastes and are familiar with the referenced characters):

  • If a female character doesn’t behave in a manner that the position she occupies would require of a male counterpoint, then the question is: why is she in that position?  If we wouldn’t believe a man in that same position would act similarly, then the female casting hints at motives other than including a qualified female candidate.
  • If a female character is too young for the position she’s playing, then the casting indicates sexual motives.
  • Drawing from the first two criteria, if a female character does not or could not possess the skills normally required for the casted position, then the casting is patronizing.
  • Regarding condescending dialog–this appears, like, a lot.  I assume it’s there to stroke female viewers’ egos, they way they loved to do in 90s sitcoms.  Or, again, it’s just downright patronizing, the way we used to use the term “homemaker” to imply being a stay-at-home wife was just as rewarding as having a career and women didn’t need to pursue the latter.

Hopefully you’re following me and not looking for reasons to be angry.  The point is that properly casted female characters don’t generally even raise an eyebrow amongst the intelligentsia, but too often they are indeed miscast for what I’m assuming is simply an attempt to increase female audience size or show how “progressive” the creators are trying to be.

Here’s my examples:

Category: TV

Good

Show: The Expanse
Character: Chrisjen Avasarala
Actor: Shohreh Aghdashloo
Role: UN Deputy Undersecretary, later UN Secretary General

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bad

Show: Star Trek: The Next Generation
Character: Diana Troy
Actor: Marina Sirtis
Role: Counselor

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Failure reason: Acts annoyingly flirtatious and dresses inappropriately for a professional (despite what the above image might indicate, she spent most of the series not in a Starfleet uniform!).  Makes several amused comments about the silliness of male honor codes.

Category: Movie

Good

Movie: Terminator 2: Judgement Day
Character: Sarah Connor
Actor: Linda Hamilton
Role: Mother of John Connor/Terminator Survivor/Cyberdyne Destroyer

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bad

Move: X-Men
Character: Storm
Actor: Halle Berry
Role: X-man/teacher

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Failure reason: Acts juvenile with her short temper, and what is she teaching at that school exactly?  Why did Xavier leave her in charge?  Also: bad delivery of poorly-written dialog.

Category: Video Game

Good

Game: Halo Series
Character: Dr. Halsey
Actor: Jennifer Taylor
Role: Forerunner Tech Scientist, ONI (creator of Cortana and SPARTAN program)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bad

Game: Mass Effect
Character: Ashley Williams
Actor: Kimberly Brooks
Role: Gunnery Chief

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Failure reason: Lengthy banal backstory with no value, a clear insert for a love interest, tells stories of her sister’s bad experiences with men and her beating them up.  Alien racist, but no clear interest as to why.

I ask you then, oh content creators, can we not please consistently create believable female characters?  Ones that are professionals in their fields, and not just walking curves/love interests/man haters?  Give us a reason to believe their existence is justified in the roles they’ve been cast, and then work on their personalities and backstories?

Perhaps your problem is that you lack women on your writing staff?  Maybe hire some, but make sure they pass the Moorhead Test first.

–Simon