the dark knight
the dark knight rises
superman 2
captain America winter soldier
iron man
watchmen
no:
man of steel
any x man movie
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Friday, June 6, 2014
westboro baptist church & elliot rodgers.
on the subject of "nature vs nuture"
It is interesting. I often hear about how Westboro and Elliot Rodgers are mentally ill, but is that a fact of nature of nuture?
The nature argument appears to give the individual control over their own actions, and ultimately it is a free will argument. Nuture puts the responsibility of a person's actions on the hands of fate. Therefore nuture puts forth a deterministic argument of the world. A friend said Elliot Rodgers could've done it because he had a chemical imbalance. Chemical imbalances are not within his control, but he could've been born with these chemical imbalances, and they could've been corrected with drugs. Are these chemical imbalances innate?
Also, politically speaking, do we really have first amendment rights to free speech? Both Westboro and Elliot represent vastly unpopular hate speech and both have been written off as insane. If prevention was possible and Elliot Rodgers was detained, wouldn't that also detain his speech because the mental facility will probably limit his right to probably publishing options? Wouldn't locking Westboro up be limiting their speech? We hate them, but this insanity case feels like a loophole which if found could be used against "the nail that sticks out--that one leader who could have radical views that could change this country for the better silenced as insane before anyone could hear."
I end with:
What is the difference between a person who is insane and one who believes in extremely unpopular views and expresses them?
From a psychologist I asked, the difference between the ill and not-ill psychologically speaking, is the amount of stress they feel. I'm still confused because 99% protestors feel lots of stress about police, politicians, and lack of jobs while a mental person may not even understand what is going on.
It is interesting. I often hear about how Westboro and Elliot Rodgers are mentally ill, but is that a fact of nature of nuture?
The nature argument appears to give the individual control over their own actions, and ultimately it is a free will argument. Nuture puts the responsibility of a person's actions on the hands of fate. Therefore nuture puts forth a deterministic argument of the world. A friend said Elliot Rodgers could've done it because he had a chemical imbalance. Chemical imbalances are not within his control, but he could've been born with these chemical imbalances, and they could've been corrected with drugs. Are these chemical imbalances innate?
Also, politically speaking, do we really have first amendment rights to free speech? Both Westboro and Elliot represent vastly unpopular hate speech and both have been written off as insane. If prevention was possible and Elliot Rodgers was detained, wouldn't that also detain his speech because the mental facility will probably limit his right to probably publishing options? Wouldn't locking Westboro up be limiting their speech? We hate them, but this insanity case feels like a loophole which if found could be used against "the nail that sticks out--that one leader who could have radical views that could change this country for the better silenced as insane before anyone could hear."
I end with:
What is the difference between a person who is insane and one who believes in extremely unpopular views and expresses them?
From a psychologist I asked, the difference between the ill and not-ill psychologically speaking, is the amount of stress they feel. I'm still confused because 99% protestors feel lots of stress about police, politicians, and lack of jobs while a mental person may not even understand what is going on.
Grammar Nazis, I hate them, OCD Pricks, My Friends
I often get corrected by my friend, Landy. Landy "corrects" me by saying "you mean to say...[Noun]" Then, I say, "No, I really do mean...[Proper_Noun ending with s]" When I sensed she misunderstood me, I began to explain, "Downtown there is this..." Then, she'd cut me off with a "whatever" before I could finish explaining to her what I meant. She made the effort to correct me first, but when I tried to clear the misunderstanding, she pushed the subject off as though she didn't care for what I had to say to begin with.
I am privileged to have a world-wide perspective. In my youth, my parents have always allowed international students to stay in our home to take care of me while they studied English. I know quite well what it is like to live with hearing grammar mistakes on a daily basis. However, others may not.
But rarely does anyone communicate with proper grammar anyways.
We are technically not supposed to start sentences with "but" or "and," but we do.
Most of the people getting their grammar corrected are on websites with a comments section. I find that people there have a tendency to type how they speak and additionally include text speak. And in some sense, text speak adds freedom to the way we communicate. LOL isn't a complete sentence. It needs a period if it is to mean "Laugh out loud" as a command. But do grammar Nazis use text-speak? Yes! and they also wrongly use words they don't know! We will all get old. When parents use text-speak, they have the potential to be hilariously wrong! Are they dumb? No! Some of those old ladies were probably once grammar Nazis themselves and they wrongly use "LOL" and "FML."
Correcting grammar is petty and sometimes detracts from the main idea.
Why would anyone want to correct someone else's grammar? When someone corrects my grammar, I know it isn't for my sake. Otherwise, they're doing me a favor I do not want in the first place. It's like a petty attempt to put me down.
When it is justified: (for the grammar Nazis)
When you are seeing the person often, and it still annoys you.
When that person making the mistake is going to turn in a report with errors, and you know them and are concerned for them.
When that person has asked you too.
When you really don't get what is being asked.
When the professor makes a mistake (that might be on a test) and may lead to wrong interpretation.
When not to:
When the crowd gets it, (and so do you), but you have no rebuttal to the point of the argument.
Why people seem to do it:
To create what seems to them as a rebuttal when they themselves have none.
When they want to put down the person being corrected for whatever reason.
When they are justified.
My judgement on people who do it when they aren't justified:
Petty, OCD, nit picky, time wasters.
Grammar Nazis are by no means paragons for literary intelligence-- a subject in which a vast library of praised books for their profoundness purposely stretch the rules of grammar, syntax, and denotation to maybe paint a portrait or further a perspective. I think English literature is very subjective, so I stay away from it, but I still have more respect for those who would analyze "Jabberwocky" which isn't supposed to make sense rather than correct for the proper usage of "their" vs "there" vs "they're."
Saturday, May 10, 2014
feminism, racism, and gay rights
Social issues aren't all that important in my opinion.
People voted into office should focus more on income inequality, corporate regulation, climate change (keystone xl), net neutrality instead.
And this is coming from an Asian girl.
If however, a person is voted into office where his/her primary concern is job creation, but also has liberal stances on social issues. Those stances are a bonus.
However, here's what I think about these social issues:
Feminism: for the most part women have the equality they want/need and are content with it. Some fight to change social norms, and to some extent I feel we need feminists to keep the equality. However, feminists should admit outright that they do not fight for the rights of men because there seems to be little if any action on their rights in criminal/family court.
Also, I think most women do not take advantage of the power they really have--spending power, and extreme feminists seem to deny men any value as a person. Precisely the same goes for sexist men in regards to women.
Gay rights: There is freedom of religion, and you cannot ask a church that already has anti-gay written in their holy books to change their doctrine. Therefore I support a Church that is unwilling to consummate a gay marriage because it is gay. However, a Church has no influence over the law of the land, and people will maintain their right to practice whatever religion they wish. The law can and should still legalize gay marriage for financial benefits as well as a symbolic union for the couple.
Racism: It is a huge issue, but one that is immensely tied to income inequality. If income inequality and the criminal justice system is corrected, more power will be given to colored people (who have a tendency to be in lower classes anyways). More jobs=more money in the hands of the majority= more power to the majority. And, more jobs=stabler neighborhoods=less criminal activity from impoverished neighborhoods. I think that part of racism is also illegal immigration. It is a way for companies to bring extremely low paying jobs (slave-labor) right into our Country illegally, and they probably don't pay taxes for it neither. Not only is illegal employment taking jobs away from legal US citizens, illegal employment is a covert way of large-ass companies to take advantage of a commodity right in our own country and further the socioeconomic inequality for usual citizens. A reprieve should somehow be given to students and adults who've been educated in the US long enough, but otherwise deport the rest. I don't get why its done in the first place. 1) the pay for these illegal immigrants is extremely low with no benefits or safety 2) if they are staying in the US while working, their minimum to make a living will probably also be higher than their home country. 3) the constant fear of being deported if somehow revealed.
People voted into office should focus more on income inequality, corporate regulation, climate change (keystone xl), net neutrality instead.
And this is coming from an Asian girl.
If however, a person is voted into office where his/her primary concern is job creation, but also has liberal stances on social issues. Those stances are a bonus.
However, here's what I think about these social issues:
Feminism: for the most part women have the equality they want/need and are content with it. Some fight to change social norms, and to some extent I feel we need feminists to keep the equality. However, feminists should admit outright that they do not fight for the rights of men because there seems to be little if any action on their rights in criminal/family court.
Also, I think most women do not take advantage of the power they really have--spending power, and extreme feminists seem to deny men any value as a person. Precisely the same goes for sexist men in regards to women.
Gay rights: There is freedom of religion, and you cannot ask a church that already has anti-gay written in their holy books to change their doctrine. Therefore I support a Church that is unwilling to consummate a gay marriage because it is gay. However, a Church has no influence over the law of the land, and people will maintain their right to practice whatever religion they wish. The law can and should still legalize gay marriage for financial benefits as well as a symbolic union for the couple.
Racism: It is a huge issue, but one that is immensely tied to income inequality. If income inequality and the criminal justice system is corrected, more power will be given to colored people (who have a tendency to be in lower classes anyways). More jobs=more money in the hands of the majority= more power to the majority. And, more jobs=stabler neighborhoods=less criminal activity from impoverished neighborhoods. I think that part of racism is also illegal immigration. It is a way for companies to bring extremely low paying jobs (slave-labor) right into our Country illegally, and they probably don't pay taxes for it neither. Not only is illegal employment taking jobs away from legal US citizens, illegal employment is a covert way of large-ass companies to take advantage of a commodity right in our own country and further the socioeconomic inequality for usual citizens. A reprieve should somehow be given to students and adults who've been educated in the US long enough, but otherwise deport the rest. I don't get why its done in the first place. 1) the pay for these illegal immigrants is extremely low with no benefits or safety 2) if they are staying in the US while working, their minimum to make a living will probably also be higher than their home country. 3) the constant fear of being deported if somehow revealed.
Friday, May 2, 2014
problems and solutions
Rape charges ---> therapy and jail sentencing
murderers ---> therapy a mandatory jail sentencing
--no death penalty because could kill wrong person.
and improve support after jail time.
Drug charges ---> esp if selling them, confiscate all drugs, give them a fine equal to their earnings, put them on probation, no jail.
--marijuana: high fine.
internet piracy-fine them.
child mortality in third world countries are high: help the countries develop their gov, sex ed, condoms, decrease world population growth at same time, but improvement in child mortality rates.
climate change: decrease emissions.
-don't support keystone XL. they say it's safe, but BP thinks shipping oil is safe too.
-building the pipeline creates a higher demand for oil than was pre-existing.
middle class disappearing:
-don't raise the min wage, many jobs have already gone to china.
-don't take away min wage otherwise we will become like china.
-create more jobs and less mcjobs.
-and regulate the 1% at the same time so as to create a bigger middle class.
---explanation: if you raise the minimum wage, the companies will move their jobs to China. to prevent this, tax companies for their foreign work (as example). they'll still find a way around this.
-defund the government, make them actual public servants.
-penalize companies for illegal employment.
education:
--you don't need to educate people better if the number of educated jobs remains the same.
--don't focus on emproving education through retention until you improve the job outlook.
illegal immigration:
--make it easier for students to become citizens if they have stayed in the country longer than 4 years illegally.
--don't make it permanent until 4 years later, just give them residential status, so that incase they do something illegal as selling weed, deport them immediately.
--deport all adults. IF they've been with the student who lived in america for 4+ years, put them under-probation (not super often), give a long term fine, and find them a legal job. If they leave before paying their fine, blacklist them from coming back.
--if the parent is doing something illegal, then deport them both.
---reasoning: from a practical perspective we spent a resource in educating an illegal student, so we best keep them. However, illegal actions cannot be done with impunity(hence a fine and probation for parents). The result will be paying the once-illegal parents more through legal work, but also having them pay taxes for being a legal member of society.
--besides the students and their parents of 4 at least years, deport everyone else.
murderers ---> therapy a mandatory jail sentencing
--no death penalty because could kill wrong person.
and improve support after jail time.
Drug charges ---> esp if selling them, confiscate all drugs, give them a fine equal to their earnings, put them on probation, no jail.
--marijuana: high fine.
internet piracy-fine them.
child mortality in third world countries are high: help the countries develop their gov, sex ed, condoms, decrease world population growth at same time, but improvement in child mortality rates.
climate change: decrease emissions.
-don't support keystone XL. they say it's safe, but BP thinks shipping oil is safe too.
-building the pipeline creates a higher demand for oil than was pre-existing.
middle class disappearing:
-don't raise the min wage, many jobs have already gone to china.
-don't take away min wage otherwise we will become like china.
-create more jobs and less mcjobs.
-and regulate the 1% at the same time so as to create a bigger middle class.
---explanation: if you raise the minimum wage, the companies will move their jobs to China. to prevent this, tax companies for their foreign work (as example). they'll still find a way around this.
-defund the government, make them actual public servants.
-penalize companies for illegal employment.
education:
--you don't need to educate people better if the number of educated jobs remains the same.
--don't focus on emproving education through retention until you improve the job outlook.
illegal immigration:
--make it easier for students to become citizens if they have stayed in the country longer than 4 years illegally.
--don't make it permanent until 4 years later, just give them residential status, so that incase they do something illegal as selling weed, deport them immediately.
--deport all adults. IF they've been with the student who lived in america for 4+ years, put them under-probation (not super often), give a long term fine, and find them a legal job. If they leave before paying their fine, blacklist them from coming back.
--if the parent is doing something illegal, then deport them both.
---reasoning: from a practical perspective we spent a resource in educating an illegal student, so we best keep them. However, illegal actions cannot be done with impunity(hence a fine and probation for parents). The result will be paying the once-illegal parents more through legal work, but also having them pay taxes for being a legal member of society.
--besides the students and their parents of 4 at least years, deport everyone else.
Friday, March 28, 2014
mother fucking mother (rant)
Life is not fair, I've accepted that fact, but that doesn't mean I can't bitch about it. Here I bitch to relieve some stress without expecting anything to be done about it. Got it?
I hate my mother.
Sure I have everything in the world to thank for her. My upbringing, my birth, and my livelihood, but she's a good for nothing with every control over my finances.
I'm too busy to work, but I'll still try this summer. It's not nearly enough for a living though let a lone my own tuition. Not by a looong shot, fortunately, my mom won't force me into the medical profession like the rest of the Asian families though she did insist I go in that direction.
For us, every little scrapple in which I was completely justified in being mad ended up with her mad at me. Why? because it all comes down to how "I'm paying for your tuition." For instance, we had a plane to catch at 10 pm back home. We left at 7:30 knowing that it takes at least an hour to get to the airport. Previously we planned to leave at 6 pm, but she had to pack her 3 suitcases filled with useless crap where one had to have a $50 overweight charge on it. She also had tons of carry-on's which she passed to me without asking me to carry it for her. The item was heavy, and since she was late, she rushed me, and all the shit we had to take with us was a product of her shopping addiction.
I wasn't even feeling that good that day because I received some shit news. Earlier, instead of being comforted, she COMPLETELY ignored what I said and went on to discuss what she still had left to buy. I had good reason to sulk, but she bitched about my sulking after I told her my bad news. Then she bitched about my sulking when we arrived at the airport late, we were forced to rush. Therefore we didn't have enough time to buy food because the plane gate closed early, and I continued to sulk because I was hungry because there was no time to buy food. After every repercussion of her lateness, and every step of the way, instead of remotely showing any sign of guilt, she bitched about my sulking. Then, I told her to not be late next time. Then she told me she had to take everything. Then this, then that lead to "Fine, I don't want to pay for your fucking tuition."
Since money determines all arguments, its impossible but to be dependent and be needy. What's more, if I don't respond to her "angry" questions, she'll get mad. If I don't respond to her demands, she'll get mad. Silent treatment is therefore not an option. Taking away the option of distancing myself from her, the situation left such that both of us are passive aggressive towards each other. The word "vengeance" has been given a bad name and I'm talking to those who believe it so. But I believe in vengeance. It's called our justice system. Being vengenceful, I'll remind myself to not invite that fucking bitch to anything I pay for in the future. Additionally, I refuse to be her retirement plan.
Most people grow up thinking that they owe their parents something. Why should you? The power in society is lead by the older generation that brought the younger one up without asking it too. Since society is lead by the older people, the older people lead the younger people to think a certain way, namely to respect your elders. But why should anyone respect their elders? My parents have taught me to hate. My mom does it all the time, and so through her fault and mine, I hate profusely and I stress. I wouldn't hate if I was never born, I don't believe in heaven or hell, and I also believe one's soul is bound to one's current life if there is such a thing. If I wasn't born, I wouldn't regret. Why should I be thankful for being born?
Not to mention, she has too much financial control over the household. When she threatened to get rid of cable T.V. some years back, both dad and I had to beg not to. Why? because she pays for it all. Dad spends hours at the shop while my mom shops, but everything is under mom's name. And if she did get rid of cable, she'd still have her T.V. through VCR because her entertainment didn't come through cable anyways. But dad refuses to gain his own control because 1) He's a pussy. and 2) He's lazy.
I hate my mother.
Sure I have everything in the world to thank for her. My upbringing, my birth, and my livelihood, but she's a good for nothing with every control over my finances.
I'm too busy to work, but I'll still try this summer. It's not nearly enough for a living though let a lone my own tuition. Not by a looong shot, fortunately, my mom won't force me into the medical profession like the rest of the Asian families though she did insist I go in that direction.
For us, every little scrapple in which I was completely justified in being mad ended up with her mad at me. Why? because it all comes down to how "I'm paying for your tuition." For instance, we had a plane to catch at 10 pm back home. We left at 7:30 knowing that it takes at least an hour to get to the airport. Previously we planned to leave at 6 pm, but she had to pack her 3 suitcases filled with useless crap where one had to have a $50 overweight charge on it. She also had tons of carry-on's which she passed to me without asking me to carry it for her. The item was heavy, and since she was late, she rushed me, and all the shit we had to take with us was a product of her shopping addiction.
I wasn't even feeling that good that day because I received some shit news. Earlier, instead of being comforted, she COMPLETELY ignored what I said and went on to discuss what she still had left to buy. I had good reason to sulk, but she bitched about my sulking after I told her my bad news. Then she bitched about my sulking when we arrived at the airport late, we were forced to rush. Therefore we didn't have enough time to buy food because the plane gate closed early, and I continued to sulk because I was hungry because there was no time to buy food. After every repercussion of her lateness, and every step of the way, instead of remotely showing any sign of guilt, she bitched about my sulking. Then, I told her to not be late next time. Then she told me she had to take everything. Then this, then that lead to "Fine, I don't want to pay for your fucking tuition."
Since money determines all arguments, its impossible but to be dependent and be needy. What's more, if I don't respond to her "angry" questions, she'll get mad. If I don't respond to her demands, she'll get mad. Silent treatment is therefore not an option. Taking away the option of distancing myself from her, the situation left such that both of us are passive aggressive towards each other. The word "vengeance" has been given a bad name and I'm talking to those who believe it so. But I believe in vengeance. It's called our justice system. Being vengenceful, I'll remind myself to not invite that fucking bitch to anything I pay for in the future. Additionally, I refuse to be her retirement plan.
Most people grow up thinking that they owe their parents something. Why should you? The power in society is lead by the older generation that brought the younger one up without asking it too. Since society is lead by the older people, the older people lead the younger people to think a certain way, namely to respect your elders. But why should anyone respect their elders? My parents have taught me to hate. My mom does it all the time, and so through her fault and mine, I hate profusely and I stress. I wouldn't hate if I was never born, I don't believe in heaven or hell, and I also believe one's soul is bound to one's current life if there is such a thing. If I wasn't born, I wouldn't regret. Why should I be thankful for being born?
Not to mention, she has too much financial control over the household. When she threatened to get rid of cable T.V. some years back, both dad and I had to beg not to. Why? because she pays for it all. Dad spends hours at the shop while my mom shops, but everything is under mom's name. And if she did get rid of cable, she'd still have her T.V. through VCR because her entertainment didn't come through cable anyways. But dad refuses to gain his own control because 1) He's a pussy. and 2) He's lazy.
Monday, February 17, 2014
bechdel test.
Feminism
wikipedia says it all..This test asks the question
- are there at least two women in the movie?
- do the women talk to each other?
- although a character is not the main protagonist and therefore her lines are unimportant in an individual movie, this question speaks for the movie industry as a whole. It is more obvious to see this point when you think about the reverse application of the Bechdel test. In "the Professional", Leon talks to his higher-ups about the "target." In many movies, the man is talking to another man about something other than a woman unless it's a love story. Even in "50/50," Adam talks to his friend about cancer while there is the side romance. Obviously, it is because that is the plot. If Adam was a woman, she would be talking about her cancer. But where are the female protagonists?
- Why is it easy to predict that the main character will be a man?
- If you disagree...
- then try this "game" with a friend (I'd bet, but I don't know where you are.)
- go through a list of movies (like imdb or movies that came out within the past year)
- then choose a position. If you claim there are as many female protagonists as male, then pick the "female" side.
- then check, if the main lead is listed as female or male. For dual leads, no one wins.
- for every movie that takes the female side get a quarter, for every movie that has a male lead, pay a quarter.
- did you make or lose money?
- is it about something besides a man?
- Women who talk about a man only promote his position in the story. Aside from romance which is only about "men-women" and each other (men-men, female-female also). Many times a woman's existence in the story is completely dependent on the male main lead's i.e. "the (scientist's, producer's, assassin's, king's,...) (wife, girlfriend, SO)"
- What about women who move the story along. i.e. the wanderer, the friend, the actual scientist, a warrior enemy, the empress, the colleague, the daughter, the captain, the captain's first mate, the sorceress, etc... a woman who talks to the bus driver about the bus fare?
- For that last question, I would revise this condition so that women have more than 2 lines back and forth, so movies don't pass this test with a mere "hi" and a return "hi."
- It's amazing how many movies still fail this.
- I would also revise this point to allow a "pass" to include men in group conversation with at least 2 women where the women say at least two lines in the entire conversation about something other than men and at least one line back and forth to each other, so that would eliminate a situation were the man is the teacher and the girls respond to only him.
- women can exist in the background as waitresses, bartenders, janitors, and faces in the crowd, but does this give realistic insight into the interactions of the main protagonist?
- if this story is considered "realistic" to you then you must 1) not be "getting any (for heterosexuals)" or 2) must be living your life in a sausage fest.
Bechdel test for racism:
I haven't actually watched "the help" but I hear that it barely passes the Bechdel test. As an Asian watching cinema, I rarely EVER see an Asian woman in american film most particularly not as lead. It might have something to do with the fact that America itself is only 5% Asian, but I'm willing to believe that not even that percentage is represented in movie leads. I accept that because it appears money comes from white people watching white movies. While an Asian like me ignores media. (My own opinion of my own race). It's still a little narrow minded when in "international" or "world-related" movies (not space) present the white male as the lead when 60.3% of the world population is Asian and probably about half the world is still female.Even in Africa, the lead is white. He/or she is the white savior to a dying society most likely, and without this white lead, the story crumbles. The African American population % in America is greater than I thought, and rightly so, they are better represented in films. However, Hispanic/Latino populations are greater than the African American population as of Feb 2014 on Wikipedia when I checked. They are SERIOUSLY under-represented.
IDK about mixed races though. I think most people consider Obama "black" when he is multiracial. Similarly, many might think of Keanu Reeves (from "the matrix") white. This is all based on how a person looks rather than what he/she is. The problem also goes out to gender-less societies for the original Bechdel test and for silent movies, and for movies without too many people (i.e "Gravity") How do you characterize these?
Romantic Comedies
Romantic Comedies usually fail the Bechdel test and the "reverse" Bechdel test, so they should be omitted from evaluating the movie industry as a whole. The story promoted in "rom-coms" are relationship between the two halves of the relationship usually in a heterosexual one.Why the failure?
Many who direct and produce film are men, so they write stories that they can relate to with themselves as the protagonist. Understandable... George R.R. Martin is unique in that he can write a good story with female major characters. But since, Catching Fire, Black Swan, and Pan's Labyrinith were also pretty good too a good movie can have a good female lead. I'm sure most of us knew that. I 'm just stating this for the special few.This leads directly into a second point. Since the protagonist is male, most of the movie will take on is point of view(POV). In his POV, most of his conversations are with men. Even in political situations, labs (even bio labs (where there are lots of women)!!!), hospitals (as doctors and not as male nurses), on stage, and every where else, his primary business is to talk to another man. Since it's his POV, and he is the protagonist. He will, for most conversations that goes on in his movie, will always be at least 1 man in the conversation. But in my opinion, there is real sexism with the Bechdel test. One of the reason for the deficiency of female representation in movies is because male producers do not think to place any women in professional positions even in the background. The sexism beyond Bechdel is when the main male lead is predictably in a higher position than the woman. I.e. receptionists are SO OFTEN played by women, and men NEVER play nurses.
Friendships are never a problem though. i.e. 50/50 -That'll be like talking to your bro. For this, the problem if it fails any form of feminist Bechdel tests will only be because the protagonist was a man and because most of the story follows his conversation with individuals.
A good deal of the problem with female representation is also because story telling in movies is very often times linear in perspective. There are no multiple view points. There sequences where evil-doers discuss their conversations and then cuts right into a romance scene with the hero and wife, but not too often are we given the same perspective in her life as the hero's. There more often times a definite hierarchy of roles in non-romantic movies. I.e. if there was a movie about a ship about to sink, it could be interesting to know the perspectives of a mother looking for her kids, an international teen who was touring, a European food critic whose job it was to evaluate the ship's food, the engineer aboard the ship struggling to fix ship, etc. all in one movie.
A word on Racial Bechdel:
Of the top 21 movies, 19 of them have white male leads. The 20th is "Seventh Samurai" and the 21st is "City of God." (I'm too lazy to go through the rest, but the 22nd's lead is white male Se7en as of Feb 2014 & the 25th movie is the first female lead). These are disappointing quick statistics. Combine "Female" and "coloured" and you will probably get an even more disappointing statistic. How often do you see a Hispanic as lead? How about a Hispanic woman? How many different Hispanic women have been leads as there have been many different white men as leads? With these stats why should anyone of color even bother to go into acting. Minorities and women who don't want to be stuck in secondary roles are probably better off boycotting the mainstream media to develop a popularized diversified film industry.---
good* - 8 or above on IMDB.
lead's race- first name on top bill.
Saturday, February 15, 2014
Not upsidedown
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South-up_map_orientation
It gives you a different perspective of the world. Doesn't it?
Because gravity is what gives us our perception of up an down, and because there is no uniform gravity field in all space (especially one that is noticeable to us), the south-up map is just as correct as the north-up. I think that in order to challenge the idea of "correctness" to your history professors or teachers, we should draw out any assignments dealing with a map in terms of the south-up map which isn't any more wrong than the north-up. I can see that the north-up map is used for standardizing geography education, but it may come to influence our view of the world by giving us this false complacency in the back of our minds that to go to the north pole, you go "up" and it will cause us to forget that there exists more than one correct answer.As wiki says: here's the "Blue Marble"
Monday, February 3, 2014
gay the Word for One Direction
Many people these days have been calling the members of one direction gay. Why? because they explain, they sing gay. "What happened?" they say "to the singers of the masculine singers of the past?" The answer I want to give is a question: "what singers are you referring to?" "Gay" has been given a negative connotation for music, but there have been singers in the past described as "masculine" such as Queen, the leader of whom was actually gay (and actually good). LGBT rights activists have pointed out what it means to joke around with the term "gay." They ask: "How would you feel if you were to identify with a word that everyone else consider negatively?" Some progress has been made in changing the connotation of this term "gay," as being mere identity like "boy," "girl," "young," "old," "white," "asian," or "black" rather than emotionally charged like "fucking bad" or "terrible" which often was the case, but with One Direction, there has been a resurgence of the usage of "gay" to refer to the band members in an emotionally charged way irregardless of the band members' actual sexual orientation.
so please, call them "fucking terrible" or "douche-bags" instead.
so please, call them "fucking terrible" or "douche-bags" instead.
Sunday, January 12, 2014
People who call themselves interesting.
are not really interesting at all.
In fact, they're the most boring people in the world.
Here I am a pessimist.
Calling yourself interesting sets the listener up to expect something.
But what is interesting in another person is really what you find interesting that you have in common with them.
People who call themselves unique,
are as common place as people with pianos in their homes.
Not all people have homes.
Not all people have pianos.
Fewer people have pianos in homes, but
there are nonetheless many people that have pianos in their home.
If we talk about the a person in its entirety (down to dna), it is unique, but what we judge is
personality, body language, image, interests.
Personality/body language: few people know what it truly means to be "unique" in this respect. There is a normal curve in psychology statistics for a reason. The ones who are deviants are the ones who are often shunned. I.E. the man who doesn't talk to anyone at all. When he's with a person he stares and says nothing. His sociability on the curve would be standard deviations from the mean.
Image: if you bought it from a store or made it from a guide its not unique. Plain and simple. If you made it yourself then, someone else in billions of people have also thought of it. Plageurism isn't intentional sometimes. It's inevitable. There has got to be an equation describing # of Plageurisms as a function of time in decades that turnitin or related catches.
Interests: if you saw it on t.v. and liked it someone else probably also liked it. What could you be interested in that is so different from the rest of the other 7 billion people and still be likeable while calling yourself "unique?"
you can call yourself an AC/DC fan or an award wining novelist if you are one, but don't introduce yourself as "unique" or "interesting." I think these are lame-o, ironic ways of introducing yourself.
In fact, they're the most boring people in the world.
Here I am a pessimist.
Calling yourself interesting sets the listener up to expect something.
But what is interesting in another person is really what you find interesting that you have in common with them.
People who call themselves unique,
are as common place as people with pianos in their homes.
Not all people have homes.
Not all people have pianos.
Fewer people have pianos in homes, but
there are nonetheless many people that have pianos in their home.
If we talk about the a person in its entirety (down to dna), it is unique, but what we judge is
personality, body language, image, interests.
Personality/body language: few people know what it truly means to be "unique" in this respect. There is a normal curve in psychology statistics for a reason. The ones who are deviants are the ones who are often shunned. I.E. the man who doesn't talk to anyone at all. When he's with a person he stares and says nothing. His sociability on the curve would be standard deviations from the mean.
Image: if you bought it from a store or made it from a guide its not unique. Plain and simple. If you made it yourself then, someone else in billions of people have also thought of it. Plageurism isn't intentional sometimes. It's inevitable. There has got to be an equation describing # of Plageurisms as a function of time in decades that turnitin or related catches.
Interests: if you saw it on t.v. and liked it someone else probably also liked it. What could you be interested in that is so different from the rest of the other 7 billion people and still be likeable while calling yourself "unique?"
you can call yourself an AC/DC fan or an award wining novelist if you are one, but don't introduce yourself as "unique" or "interesting." I think these are lame-o, ironic ways of introducing yourself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)