Showing posts with label Social Stuff. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Stuff. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
no image


Today, many of the world's leaders made their way to South Africa to celebrate the life of Nelson Mandela. The coverage of the event, as you might expect, flooded the internet, television, and other traditional mediums. President Obama gave a moving, forceful speech that, admittedly, wasn't without tinges of hypocrisy or irony, but overall, gave the impression it needed to.

In the true fashion of 21st century media, however, it's not the life of Nelson Mandela, unarguably one of the world's great leaders, that's being talked about. It's not his achievements. It's not even President Obama's speech being picked apart; that might almost be understandable given his own policies and things said in his speech. Instead, it's a "selfie" the president took with British PM David Cameron and Danish PM Helle Thorning-Schmidt. I get that snapping a "selfie"--and please, note my distaste for using that pseudo-language--in this context is strange, but people of the world, kindly shut up about it.

Focus on Nelson Mandela
Does snapping a picture truly constitute something more important than the life of a human being who spent his short existence trying to make the world better? I hesitate to ask the question as, ostensibly, more people expressed their sadness over the death of actor Paul Walker via Facebook and Twitter than even bothered to make a mention of somebody who literally changed the fate of millions of people. How about some priorities? How about some perspective?

Realize the Nature of the Event
This wonderful peace from The Blaze is not unique in its coverage of the whole affair. "How dare he take a picture at a funeral?" they ask, disbelief drooling from their maws. The comments are a whole other story. The "selfie"--god, I hate that word-- is being linked to pathological lying, chronic narcissism, and everything else. Granted, those traits may or may not be there, but it's not too hard to see that correlations are being drawn where there are none.

I'd wager that a large percentage of the people flaming, fuming, guffawing, and other verbs at this whole situation are completely unfamiliar with the tone, the overall mood, of the Mandela celebrations. People were dancing, singing, clapping, and shouting. Why? Because they were celebrating the life of a great person. The mood was of revelry, not sadness. This wasn't a funeral; it was a party meant to see beyond the pain and rejoice in a person's accomplishments. So, please, save the indignation for when it's warranted.

Speaking of...
My biggest gripe with the situation is that we're ignoring all the bigger issues to talk about something which, at the end of the day, doesn't matter. Say, for the sake of argument, this photograph is in any way reprehensible. Even if that is the case, how does it affect any of us? Is that photo a government entity spying on everything you do? Is it helping or hurting the cause of gender and sexual equality in the country? How about the income gap; is it fixing that huge economic blight?

It doesn't matter.

In the end, it's a fool who looks for a fight, a problem, where there is none. Believe me; I've been that fool many times. Undoubtedly, the POTUS has some things to be criticized over, but overshadowing a day meant for celebrating a singular individual and sweeping the real dirt under the rug for the sake of political indignation is an insult and a waste of time.


Read more
Monday, December 9, 2013
no image


I had the great fortune of stumbling across Amanda Hess' article, "It Was Like a Pile of Kleenex...", over on Slate this afternoon. I say great fortune because it was a super interesting article about female authors' inability to connect with literature that is widely considered to be part of the Western literary canon; Jack Kerouac, Charles Bukowski, and others were all discussed by a panel of female writers. If you've read some of the so-called great works of these authors, maybe you have a guess as to why their writing makes women feel the way they do.

The second part of this "great fortune" is in the impact these same works are said to have had on young men. Hess recounts Elif Baufman's anecdote about reading Henry Miller for the first time, only to find that the guy she was dating at the time had lifted his stories up onto a pedestal, internalizing the narrative and becoming much of what she hated about Miller's works. That idea stopped me.

I began to wonder just how much influence a book can have on the formation of identity. Could it truly be the case that a narrative, a foreign perspective can be taken so far as to mold a person? If so, what sort of implications does this have on my beliefs about the impact of video games and other media on personality, actions, etc.?

As it turns out, realizing the truth required little thought. As soon as I began to dissect the idea, having originally thought it ludicrous, my mind was pulled to a rather dark summer over a decade ago. At the height of my hero worship, I was consuming classical epics, comic books, Harry Potter, and more at something of a breakneck pace. I began to envision myself swinging on a strand of silken web toward someone bleating for my help. Naturally, in my dreams, I saved her or him.

The problem, of course, isn't with the dream. At one point or another, we all fly or do something fantastic while we recover from the world. The trouble starts when the line is blurred. Say, for example, you start to map out a costume, a vehicle, and an ideology. Say, just for example, that you begin to build that costume. What if the only thing that stopped you from doing something stupid was a suspicious mother and her ability to convince you of your foolishness?

I still have those costume plans in a box somewhere.

Having grown up digesting fiction and historical literature, I built who I am today. I've long since abandoned my notions of costumed crime-fighting and Hogwarts, but I certainly still dream of it. That mentality, the hero complex as a former love called it, bleeds into everything. It informs my personal, professional, and emotional choices. All of it is founded in the words of someone struggling to spread their own perspective, their own story.

Imagine, then, what it means for young men to grow up reading the misogynist manifestos that are increasingly rare, yet present, these days but were a dime a dozen in the past. Imagine what it means when young men grow up dreaming about objectifying and ruling. I doubt you have to work to hard to see the results. I'm not sure those fantasies end with drawing a costume.



Read more
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
no image


I'm pleased to report that my first true interaction with the Affordable Care Act (Re: Obamacare, A Love Story Worse Than Twilight, the Worst Thing Ever to Happen to the United States, Socialist Retooling, etc.) has ended with gleaming success. In that, I can't help but feel a humongous weight has been lifted from my shoulders; I'm not even considering the 1% income penalty I would've been responsible for had I not gotten insurance by Jan. 1st. I don't care that selecting the most basic of insurance would have cost me marginally more had I gone that route. I care that for the first time in nine months my basic health needs can be met. I care that for the first time since I graduated from college in 2010, I can go to the dentist. On this side of the equation, perhaps, I see the whole issue of Obamacare more clearly than I ever did.

First, I want to say that I don't believe Obamacare is a panacea for the health crisis this country faces; it's not. I'm also not going to go into some highly-partisan diatribe, tinged with red or dipped in blue, that espouses all the supposed failings and successes of American healthcare reform. I understand that the system, as it stands now, is ineffably lackluster, a winged bird that can't yet take to the sky. And yes, I understand the failings of the current administration. 

With all that being said, with the many catalysts for blood-boiling and irrational party politicking, I tell you that the system is a good thing. It's a good thing for two important reasons:

  • I Can Afford to Care for Myself-There's a very real problem when you live in a society that doesn't value your right to live, especially when it's one that proclaims itself the Land of the Free. Forcing people to accept being sick over being well is the very definition of slavery because you take away any sense of choice. Interestingly, talking with my insurance rep today, I found that the most basic care plans marginally increased in price over similar plans last year. On average, they increased by a little over a dollar. The so-called "platinum plan", the creme de la creme, became more affordable, year over year. To put it simply, if I were making the same amount in December of 2012 as I am now, then I wouldn't have been able to afford the same level of care at that time.

  • Life Doesn't Have to Be a Constant Risk Assessment-One of the strangest, most disheartening things I found about living uninsured was that I viewed everything as though I were a pencil-pusher at a risk assessment firm. "Well, I can't really go hiking because if I break my leg, how can I take care of that?" I'd asked myself. Of course, I don't plan on heading out to challenge a karate master or free-climb Kilimanjaro, but that's not the point. Life, from this side of the apocalyptic measures called Obamacare, is decidedly better, and I've known about this change for less than 25 minutes.

So, What's the Point?
The debate before this meant anything to me, at least in an experiential way, was based around abstracts; it was based around what could be and increasingly inane politics. Having been granted something that a huge portion of the industrial world has enjoyed for a long time now, even if my costs will remain markedly higher than other first-world nations' for some time, feels more like freedom than any other occurrence in my adult life.

It's not an issue of political tilt. Were I Republican instead of more Democratic in my views, that wouldn't change the impact. You can debate all you want about the ethics, the costs, the fundamentally anti-American nature that the ACA exhibits, but let me tell you first-hand, until you've been on the other side, until you've tasted something fundamental that was previously denied, your experience, and thereby your authority, is truly limited.


Read more
Sunday, November 10, 2013
The Bechdel Test: Useful but Ultimately Ineffective

This week, Sweden began implementing a "Bechdel" rating system for all movies released in the country. By implementing a Bechdel-based rating system into all films released for the silver screen, Sweden hopes to bring gender equality to its film industry. While the attempt at pushing gender equality into film is laudable, at least in my opinion, it won't amount to much.

Source:http://bit.ly/1aMR6O1
What is the Bechdel Test?
The Bechdel test, according to Feminist Frequency, was invented by Allison Bechdel in 1985, when she featured the concept in her comic strip Dykes to Look Out For. The concept is simple; in order to meet standards of gender equality, each piece, be it film, novels, etc., must meet three criteria. First, the work must have at least two named women. Simple enough, right? Next, those women must, at some point in the narrative, talk with each other. Lastly, when they talk, it has to be about something other than a man.

Now, as I've said, the Bechdel standards are something that everyone should keep in mind. The fact is that an overwhelming majority of popular films, American and international, utterly fail this test. Strangely enough, Gone with the Wind, a film that features so many anti-equality themes, passes the test with flying colors.

Useful but Ultimately Ineffective
Saying that the Bechdel test is important would be an understatement, in so far as it can be used to open our eyes to the lack of good female-driven stories out there. The problem, especially with the recent decision by Sweden, is that it addresses a symptom instead of the cause. The fact is nobody is going to start writing gender-equal or female-centric pieces until they understand that those are interesting, important stories to tell.

It can't be, or shouldn't be, any surprise to see the staggering statistics around women's issues that are rooted in a fundamentally patriarchal upbringing. The Huffington Post reports that women still make 77 cents for every dollar their male counterparts make. Statistics from the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers show that a shocking 18.3% of the United States Congress, an average between the House's 17.9% and the Senate's 20%, are women. 18.3%! Pages of statistics and anecdotes could be drummed up here in support of the point, but the main idea is this: so long as fundamentally backward ideas and situations affecting the lives of women remain unchanged, no test for equality, Bechdel or otherwise, will mean a thing.

So, Where Do We Start?
The Bechdel test can be used as a social thermometer, a marker of how far things have come and where they are going, but if we want to actually make a change in the representations of women on the big screen, then we need to start educating people from childhood on what equality actually means. Teach little girls that it is perfectly fine to love their Disney Princesses but that life can't be lived waiting for prince charming to come and sweep you away. Teach our little boys that there is more to masculinity than being the guy kicking the door down, lightsaber in hand as they rush to save the princess. In general, show our children that, regardless of their role, e.g. gender, parent, wife, husband, that everyone deserves to have their voice heard; more specifically, we need to teach them that everybody has a story to tell. In doing so, we can improve real-world representations and opinions as well as those represented on screen.

What impact do you think the Bechdel test and the ratings systems it inspires can have?



Read more
Monday, November 4, 2013
The Good and the Bad of What Our Children Will Call "Normal"

In light of recent events, I've begun thinking, worrying in some instances, about what my children will grow up thinking is normal. I think, really, this applies to anybody ages 16 and under who are being exposed to these radical changes, both good and bad, that will redefine the way people of the world think about essential, crucially important things.
Source: http://kuwaitiful.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Confused_baby.jpg

Gun Violence is Just How It Is
This one is likely the most troublesome. As the Huffington Post points out, in the 10 months following the December 2012 school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, 78 mass shootings took place across the United States. As these shootings continue to happen on (at least) a monthly basis, with ever decreasing outcry from the American public, I'm left to wonder if we've come to accept these shootings as commonplace.

Most worrying, however, is what that means to the development of current teenagers and future children. If it becomes the case that our children see mass violence as a natural consequence of disgruntled human beings, does that result in a population which thinks that's the way to solve things?

The Political System is a Waste of Time
It's no stretch to say that people my age and older are disenchanted with the political system; this applies to people on both sides of the aisle, and really why shouldn't people feel that way? American politics is stuck in this cycle of foolishness, authoring its own destruction. If we think that our government is a useless exercise in corruption, how can those coming after us think it any better?

Genetically Modified Food is Delicious and Healthy
With the United States continuing to battle over whether or not Americans have a right to know their food was created in a lab like Frankenstein, mega-corporations, like Monsanto, continue to consolidate their grasp over the agricultural industry. Apparently, allowing the company responsible for Agent Orange to taint the very things we rely on for our survival seems like a great idea.

If the trend continues down its current path, then you will have two camps. The minority will be pocket groups of people who grow their own food; well, at least until Monsanto finds a way to make that a theft of intellectual property. The majority will be eating flavorless tomatoes, modified with fish genes for some reason or another. Unfortunately, most people will grow up without the real taste of nature on their lips.

The Only Good: Social Equality is a Moral Imperative
If there can be anything positive said about our future societal norms, then it has to be said about equality. Don't get me wrong; I don't see women suddenly filling up the White House, rape culture disappearing, or anyone without an ivory complexion  suddenly being free of the prejudice tossed on their backs by the narrow views of history.

What I do see is progress, however. I see children who understand that love is love, regardless of the couple makeup. I see children who can put a woman into the highest office of the land; that's assuming my earlier precognition of governmental disinterest doesn't coming true. Whatever form it takes, I think equality will be the single thing that changes for the better for the new class.

~

What do you think the future will be like for the young folk?  Am I being too cynical?


Read more
Thursday, October 24, 2013
no image

Just in case you didn't catch it, Monday saw yet another school shooting in the United States. A 12 year old boy --yes, 12 years old-- walked into his school, wounded two students, and killed a teacher with a gun. All of this before turning his weapon on himself, ending his life. It was yet another proud moment in America's gun-sick history.

I would certainly like to express my outrage, my shock, my unrivaled dismay; yet I find myself somehow unable to. I remember Aurora and Sandy Hook. I remember Tulsa, Wilmington,Minneapolis, and the 11 other mass shootings that took place in the United States in 2012.  Each of them disgusts, enrages, and does its part to render the country even more hopeless and disenchanted.

Yet, to me, the shooting outside of Reno seems different. If social media commentary, non-sarcastically a great thermometer for what people actually care about, can be believed, then very few people took notice, or cared, about yet another shooting in the United States. I'm left wondering what that says for the land of my birth.

Most worrying, I feel that this could be an indication of our increasingly desensitized society.  Don't get me wrong; I'm not one of those who point the finger at video games, movies, and other aggressive media as the bastions of American societal evil. Instead, I point my finger at the war-mongering, hate speech, and continued violence in the real world that has become so common place that it barely seems to register on our radar.

The fact is people continue to die. 28 people died at Sandy Hook, 12 at Aurora, and only 1 at this most recent event in Nevada. Is it the size that makes it less important to talk about? Is the death of one innocent man less tragic than the death of innocent children? I'd like to argue that, no, pointless death is exactly that no matter who the victim or in what amount blood is spilled.

So, why, then, is this not being talked about more often? Where is the outrage from all Americans across Facebook, Twitter, and other forums that are so readily filled with this type of thing? Where are the left-wingers or, at least, the anti-violence activists calling for sensible gun reform? Where are the Second Amendment die-hards rebutting the left-wing conspiracy to destroy American sensibilities?

I think I'd prefer the sometimes violent, disgusting language of social media debates than the silence that so typically illustrates apathy. After all, if this isn't enough to get our blood going and conversation started, what is?


Read more
Friday, October 18, 2013
no image

You know, I make a pretty good effort to talk about various issues of equality. I haven't had the opportunity yet on GFP, but if you were one of my groupies over on They Call Me An Egg, there is a good possibility you saw some posts arguing for the rights for classically oppressed people; namely for women and homosexuals.

So, perhaps, you'd image that I would argue just as vehemently for "men's rights". After all, I'm a man. Why shouldn't I argue for the rights of my people? Why shouldn't I react with thinly veiled bitterness and hatred as the world changes beneath my feet?

Well, perhaps I've jumped too far ahead of myself. Men's rights activists are exactly what they sound like. They're men arguing for the rights of men. Here's the problem though: generally speaking, rights for men come at the expense of the rights of others. Here's one of my favorite examples from one of the lovely dirtbags activists on the Reddits :

"Sure, living with injustice is so much better than fixing it."- a Redditor discussing the need to make sure both men and women are made to pay alimony when the situation necessitates it.

What's that you say? That doesn't seem like such a crazy concept? Why, no, it doesn't. Essentially what's being argued here is that both men and women need to be held to the same standards under the same situations. That is equality, right?

The problem with the men's rights movement is that it isn't about equality. Just as radical feminism, radical secularism, and radical religion aim only to suppress and oppress others for their own benefits, so, too, does the men's rights movement, seemingly made up only of radicals, aim to retake their place as the rulers of the world. Here is a quote that is far more representative of the thinking of the MRM:

"'Women are marginalized.' Does anyone seriously believe this when it's so obviously untrue?"

And that's the issue. Men's rights activists are not arguing for equality. They're arguing against common sense in a desperate grasp to remain the majority, the iron fist that continues to oppress everyone else. I absolutely hate when members of any marginalized group point their finger at me, saying how "you do this" and "men do that". Admittedly, a lot of the times they are not wrong. Many times, however, they are overgeneralizing and arguing for reforms that, if carried to their conclusions, would just wind up with reverse discrimination.

Like so many other groups fighting for "equality", men's rights activists simply want a shift in their favor that ensures they can be the ones pulling the strings. However, unlike so many others, I'm not sure these guys really have a leg to stand on...unless you count the one built out of hatred and fear of an equal society.


So, what are your thoughts on the Men's Rights Movement?
Read more
Monday, October 14, 2013
Women in Comic Books: Why Not?

I remember being 5 years old and sitting, doe-eyed, at my grandparents house every Saturday morning. I wasn't there for breakfast. I'm sure in my parents mind I was there to visit and have family time. I knew, even at five years old, that I was there for the X-men.

Marvel's bunch of mutants from the Xavier school had recently enthralled me. I loved the smooth talking Cajun Gambit. The punchy, take-no-prisoners attitude of Wolverine appealed to me even then. I loved the near naked, strangely sexualized Jean Grey and Rogue.

And I think that's where the problem starts for most young comic book fans.
Seriously, how do those proportions even work?
Source: http://bit.ly/1en5ESX
When I was a kid, what I wanted out of my comic books could be boiled down to two things; boobs and battles. I wanted to see my male favorites kicking the teeth out of bad guys like Venom, Carnage, Magneto, and Juggernaut. I wanted my female favorites to stand there looking pretty in outfits that I could have no conception of just how impractical they were to female warriors. Admittedly, I was a kid, and, as all kids do, I eventually grew up. For me, the days of boobs and battles, whether we're talking in comics, classical literature, films, music, or otherwise, are long over.

I took a 12 year break from comic books. I just didn't have the money when I was fourteen, and my dad had grown out of the hobby; no more freebies. In August 2013, I made my way back to the books that had defined my conceptions of heroes as a child. Spider-man, the X-men, Batman, and more began filling up boxes that had only been collecting dust for a decade.

Yet, as I spent and read, I found that things haven't changed all that much. Female characters, for the most part, are still relegated to the role of love interests, catalysts through death, and eye-candy. Progressive, popular females like Batwoman and Captain Marvel have their books rebooted and their creative teams gouged. In the case of Batwoman, her being a strong, lesbian female who wanted to get married was too much for the comic world, inciting her AAA writer to leave the book when DC refused to let her commit to the woman she loved.

I admit, there was a time when I let myself shrug these problems off with a "that's just comics" attitude. Then I started doing some research.

It only makes sense in any business to play to what your customers want. With comic books, it seems only natural to assume, then, that big businesses DC and Marvel should be writing stories about buxom bimbos without brains; right? As it turns out, the majority of comic book readers are not teenage boys. In fact, most comic book readers are mid-twenties to their mid-to-late 40's. Yes, we are still mostly male, but recent statistics show that women represent as much as 25% of comic book readership.

With that being the case, why is it so damn hard to get an interesting female character? Why is it so tricky to write a woman that can be pretty or not, can be smart or not, yet compelling enough to get people to pick up her book week after week? Ostensibly, it's all about the cycle.

As I was told recently at my local comic shop, women simply don't make for interesting storytelling. As if looking into a darkened reflection, someone my age, someone who grew up reading comics for the same reason I did was telling me that women do not make interesting, compelling characters, and that, my friends, points to the issue.

The big two, Marvel and DC, continue to push out AAA titles that feature lame-brained, eye-candy that gives rise to this backward idea. A lot of men grow up and realize that poorly written female characters are simply that; a product of poor writing. However, too many more think it is symptomatic of the gender. The big two, just like any other form of role model--make no mistake; their characters are role models--has a responsibility to craft an open worldview for young men, old men, and women to draw from. We rag on Miley Cyrus for acting like trash yet its okay for one of the most popular mediums in modern entertainment to train readers to think that's how women act, should act-as a rule?

It's especially frustrating to me in the case of Marvel. The X-men were originally conceived as social commentary against bigotry and oppression. That team, black, white, blue, male, female, were all in it together. Spider-man was written to be this every-man; anyone who ever felt the sting of poverty and the pain of lost love, male or female, could connect with the Web-slinger. Unfortunately, Marvel has since betrayed the essence of those characters, both in their writing and in the company's inability or lack of interest in encompassing real characters of both genders.
Image's Rocket Girl features a female lead that A)looks like a real person and B)is a bad ass time-cop
Source:http://bit.ly/1ebv3yW
Look, I'm not going to make the change by myself. Me dropping a chunk of my weekly contribution is not going to topple Marvel or DC. Having said that, I hope taking my money to companies like Image, Dark Horse, and IDW at least helps keep their female lead books afloat.

Are you a comics fan? What do you think about the state of female characters in the big two's books?
Read more
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)