An in-depth analysis of the conflicting thoughts in a geeky brain forced to choose between gaming and social life. Lucy, I don't think you read my blog, but if you happen upon this post, please don't read it, it is embarrassing to me.
So I was faced with a dilemma last night that probably shouldn't have been as difficult as I made it. Two of my girl friends were going to be playing some songs in an open band at a dance party kind of event. I will refer to them "the tall friend" and "the short friend" (the short friend is not very short, but the tall friend is 6 feet). To give you some perspective, I'm pretty close with the short friend, since we've been housemates since last September, while the tall friend is someone I'm less close with--we enjoy our conversations when we run into each other at work, she gave me a ride to Philadelphia once, and I've been to her house a couple times. Anyway, they asked me to come with them to the party; at the point of the invitation, our only friends going were these two and the tall friend's boyfriend. Their reasons for me to come were reasonable and obvious: 1) It would be fun. 2) They wanted a friend to be in the audience to hear them "make fools of themselves" (their own words) playing in the band. 3) The short friend was worried about being the tall friend and the tall friend's boyfriend's "third wheel", a problem that my attendance would solve. So this was a no-brainer, right? I should go with them.
Not a no-brainer. At 4:30 pm yesterday, when I was being asked to come to the party, I was happily playing a computer game online with my brother. I didn't tell either of my friends this, since they wouldn't have understood the appeal of this activity and probably would have been offended that I considered this a reason to reject their invitation. But there were a number of reasons running through my geeky brain of why I should stay home and play my computer game. 1) The party might be fun, but it would not be as much fun as playing online with my brother. Sorry, that's just how I, and probably many other gaming geeks, feel. I don't always feel this way, but the game we were playing is new to my brother and me, so the excitement of just getting into the game and learning the ropes has not worn off. This fun-factor was really the primary reason for my inclination to stay home, and the rest followed as further rationalizations to support it: 2) My brother lives in a different time zone, so the best time for us to play is usually Saturday in the late afternoon and evening. Going to the party would be giving up this ideal time slot in our schedules. 3) If the two other girls were playing in the band, that would leave me alone to entertain the tall girl's boyfriend. That might be awkward, since I had only briefly met him once, and he's significantly (12 years) older than I am. 4) It was kind of a wet and dreary day yesterday, and I was feeling particularly lazy and didn't want to go out at all. 5) I didn't know what to wear. 6) I hadn't eaten dinner yet. 7) My foot still hurts a little from when I strained it the other day, so dancing may not be the best activity for it. I probably came up with other reasons at the time, but that gives you an idea of my mind's capacity for excuses when geeky activity is at stake.
At 4:30 yesterday afternoon, it was the short friend who was standing in my doorway telling me to come to the party. I stalled longer than was probably comfortable, hesitating to make a decision. At some point in my stalling conversation (where we discussed things like how long it was likely to go, where the party was going to be, etc.), she exclaimed, "Hesitation is lame!" I almost rejected her right there. What she didn't realize was that I wasn't hesitating to agree to come, I was hesitating to tell her I didn't want to come. The hesitation was for her benefit, in favor of her cause. But I resisted the urge to turn her down on the spot, instead allowing the non-geek rationalizations to seep in. 1) It seems that I was caught with a moral obligation to attend. Two friends were performing. They asked me to come. One was pleading to save her from being a third wheel. End of story. 2) I can play computer games with my brother any Saturday. This may be my only chance to hear these friends playing together in an open band. 3) Staying home from parties to play computer games is lame. It may be fun, but I am not so blind to social norms that I do not realize that normal people agree that going out is better.
Ultimately, I agreed to go to the party (as I should have all along). And I had fun. It was a little awkward with the tall friend's boyfriend, and I wasn't entirely pleased with my choice of outfit, but there were refreshments to munch on and my foot didn't hurt me. And my friends were happy and the dancing was fun. I don't know whether I had more or less fun than I would have on the computer, but I had a good time and was pleased with my decision. And this is the important geek lesson: Gaming may seem more fun than a party. You may have more total fun staying home and playing a game than you would going out to be an audience to a couple friends. But you will be happier overall if you vary your activities, act like a loyal friend, and maintain some version of a normal social life. That's just how this world works.
...Plus, maybe now I can guilt the short friend into watching the BSG pilot with me. I have the DVDs, and I'm always looking to spread the joy.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Farewell to Battlestar Galactica
Holy. Frak.
After waiting eight days for it to show up on Hulu, I have finally seen the series finale of Battlestar Galactica. I don't know what anyone else thought about it (now that I've seen it, I can finally go talk to people and read commentaries, etc.), but I loved it. Loved it. I've loved this show all along, and while I'm kind of on a series finale high right now, there's a sadness about it being over that's starting to creep in on the edges.
Now for an embarrassing peek into my mind: Sometime a year or two ago, in a situation that really wasn't life threatening at all but my mind was just running and being totally over dramatic, I remember thinking that if I were to die that day, my greatest regret would be that I would never see how Battlestar Galactica ends. Pretty sad, I know, but you know how random thoughts sometimes flit across your brain and then seconds later you go, Why on Earth did I think that? Anyway... Yeah, I guess I'm clear now. Do your worst. Nothing left to regret. Just kidding. Mostly. Gods, I can't believe I just said that.
Watching the finale, there were definitely some tears in my eyes. Sure at the end when it's wrapping up everyone's storylines, but also when all the stations were checking in before the big assault. Somehow seeing all those familiar faces full of resolve and ready to meet their end got me all choked up. And that wasn't the worst of it. I was really glad I was watching alone, because it would have been very unpleasant to watch it with me. During the battle sequence, I kept talking at the screen, much like sports fans do when watching a game, blurting out things like, "Hurry up!" and "Get out of there!!!" But mostly, all I could manage was a whimper. Yes, I was actually whimpering throughout the battle scenes. I could hardly bear to watch. As it turns out, the important person death count was not nearly as bad as it could have been, but of course, I didn't know that at the time.
I was satisfied with how they tied everything up. Given a little more time to think about it, I might come up with any number of things to be bitter about in terms of how they handled various storylines and characters, but for the moment I'm happy with it all. Particularly with Baltar and Caprica--and uh, Head Six and Head Baltar; I thought that ending scene with the blatant Ron Moore cameo was pretty crazy. In a good way. The only thing I thought was a bit of a stretch was what the fleet society chose to do at the end there, but I'm willing to go with it. Because the way the show worked out was all just so cool.
Sorry that this post isn't totally coherent or insightful or anything. I'm kind of beside myself right now. All jittery. I don't know what to think. I need to go eat lunch and regain my right mind. But for now, all I've got is
That was pretty frakkin' sweet.
After waiting eight days for it to show up on Hulu, I have finally seen the series finale of Battlestar Galactica. I don't know what anyone else thought about it (now that I've seen it, I can finally go talk to people and read commentaries, etc.), but I loved it. Loved it. I've loved this show all along, and while I'm kind of on a series finale high right now, there's a sadness about it being over that's starting to creep in on the edges.
Now for an embarrassing peek into my mind: Sometime a year or two ago, in a situation that really wasn't life threatening at all but my mind was just running and being totally over dramatic, I remember thinking that if I were to die that day, my greatest regret would be that I would never see how Battlestar Galactica ends. Pretty sad, I know, but you know how random thoughts sometimes flit across your brain and then seconds later you go, Why on Earth did I think that? Anyway... Yeah, I guess I'm clear now. Do your worst. Nothing left to regret. Just kidding. Mostly. Gods, I can't believe I just said that.
Watching the finale, there were definitely some tears in my eyes. Sure at the end when it's wrapping up everyone's storylines, but also when all the stations were checking in before the big assault. Somehow seeing all those familiar faces full of resolve and ready to meet their end got me all choked up. And that wasn't the worst of it. I was really glad I was watching alone, because it would have been very unpleasant to watch it with me. During the battle sequence, I kept talking at the screen, much like sports fans do when watching a game, blurting out things like, "Hurry up!" and "Get out of there!!!" But mostly, all I could manage was a whimper. Yes, I was actually whimpering throughout the battle scenes. I could hardly bear to watch. As it turns out, the important person death count was not nearly as bad as it could have been, but of course, I didn't know that at the time.
I was satisfied with how they tied everything up. Given a little more time to think about it, I might come up with any number of things to be bitter about in terms of how they handled various storylines and characters, but for the moment I'm happy with it all. Particularly with Baltar and Caprica--and uh, Head Six and Head Baltar; I thought that ending scene with the blatant Ron Moore cameo was pretty crazy. In a good way. The only thing I thought was a bit of a stretch was what the fleet society chose to do at the end there, but I'm willing to go with it. Because the way the show worked out was all just so cool.
Sorry that this post isn't totally coherent or insightful or anything. I'm kind of beside myself right now. All jittery. I don't know what to think. I need to go eat lunch and regain my right mind. But for now, all I've got is
That was pretty frakkin' sweet.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
IDOLS-13, new Star Wars and Star Trek TV shows, etc.
Getting back into the regular swing of things after my series of posts about my Hawaii visit, it's time to catch up with some recent entertainment news that has caught my eye...
Matt Damon is lined up to star in The Investment Bureau, which has been described as a contemporary romance with sci-fi overtones (Variety). The script was written by Bourne Ultimatum co-writer George Nolfi, who will also direct. Damon will play a congressman who meets a beautiful ballet dancer but finds "strange circumstances" keeping the two apart. I am intrigued. I'm a Matt Damon fan--he tends to choose interesting projects, and he delivers consistently good performances--and Nolfi's The Bourne Ultimatum was great, so this movie could be pretty cool.
Considering that in past years the call-in numbers to vote for American Idol contestants have been 1-866-IDOLS-01 through 1-866-IDOLS-12, it seemed logical that for this year, in which there were thirteen finalists, they would simply add the number 1-866-IDOLS-13 for the 13th contestant. The number for the thirteenth contestant, however, was 1-866-IDOLS-36. Why? Apparently, 1-866-IDOLS-13 is a phone-sex hotline (IMDb). I didn't watch the show, but I hope Ryan Seacrest made the tricky thirteenth phone number very clear, or else a lot of teens would find their call answered by a woman's voice saying "Hey there, sexy guy. Welcome to an exciting new way to go live, one-on-one, with hot horny girls waiting right now to talk to you." Picture the scarred children. So wrong. But hilarious.
Scarlett Johansson is confirmed to have signed on to play villain Black Widow in Iron Man 2 (IMDb). Emily Blunt had been forced to step down from the role last month due to scheduling conflicts. Let's hope Johansson can do the role justice; her previous comic book movie experience was in The Spirit. Also, Mickey Rourke has officially agreed to play Whiplash in the sequel. He has already begun his research, touring Butryka prison in Moscow to start to get into the head of his Russian supervillain (IMDb).
George Lucas is looking for actors to star in his upcoming live action Star Wars TV series (IMDb). If he's casting... it sounds like he's really going to make this show happen. There have been so many Star Wars disappointments in recent years. Please, oh please, George Lucas, don't mess it up any more.
The Sci Fi Channel is changing its name to SyFy (IMDb). Apparently, this will make it seem hipper to the 18 to 34-year-old demographic. I can't say it's working for me. I'm just confused. So... what does SyFy stand for?
Pushing Daisies creator Bryan Fuller is hoping to use the (expected) success of the upcoming J.J. Abrams Star Trek prequel to start up a new Star Trek TV series (IMDb). The more recent Star Trek TV series were getting a bit tired, but Fuller envisions the new series more in the fun spirit of the original. He says it would take place in the same era as the J.J. Abrams movie but on a different ship with its own adventures. I've never been a true Star Trek fan, having watched TNG only sporadically when I was a kid, but I'm excited about the new movie and if Bryan Fuller is planning a new TV series (I absolutely adored Pushing Daisies--I'm still sore over its cancellation), my interest is definitely piqued.
Warner Bros. and a number of video game makers are backing a video-game-on-demand service called OnLive Game Service (Variety). OnLive, which is being shown off at this week's San Francisco Game Developers Conference and is expected to go live this winter, allows users with a broadband internet connection to play games instantly without downloading, giving the PC the convenience of a console system. This has the potential to seriously affect the gaming competition between consoles and PCs, and it should help the video game developers by reducing their reliance on the consoles. As a PC gamer, I'm excited at the prospect of PC gaming gaining influence, but I'll have to see what kind of games show up on the service before I get excited. I guess I'm a traditionalist; I like to do the full install once and take the game around with me, even if I'm not connected to the internet.
That's all for now!
Matt Damon is lined up to star in The Investment Bureau, which has been described as a contemporary romance with sci-fi overtones (Variety). The script was written by Bourne Ultimatum co-writer George Nolfi, who will also direct. Damon will play a congressman who meets a beautiful ballet dancer but finds "strange circumstances" keeping the two apart. I am intrigued. I'm a Matt Damon fan--he tends to choose interesting projects, and he delivers consistently good performances--and Nolfi's The Bourne Ultimatum was great, so this movie could be pretty cool.
Considering that in past years the call-in numbers to vote for American Idol contestants have been 1-866-IDOLS-01 through 1-866-IDOLS-12, it seemed logical that for this year, in which there were thirteen finalists, they would simply add the number 1-866-IDOLS-13 for the 13th contestant. The number for the thirteenth contestant, however, was 1-866-IDOLS-36. Why? Apparently, 1-866-IDOLS-13 is a phone-sex hotline (IMDb). I didn't watch the show, but I hope Ryan Seacrest made the tricky thirteenth phone number very clear, or else a lot of teens would find their call answered by a woman's voice saying "Hey there, sexy guy. Welcome to an exciting new way to go live, one-on-one, with hot horny girls waiting right now to talk to you." Picture the scarred children. So wrong. But hilarious.
Scarlett Johansson is confirmed to have signed on to play villain Black Widow in Iron Man 2 (IMDb). Emily Blunt had been forced to step down from the role last month due to scheduling conflicts. Let's hope Johansson can do the role justice; her previous comic book movie experience was in The Spirit. Also, Mickey Rourke has officially agreed to play Whiplash in the sequel. He has already begun his research, touring Butryka prison in Moscow to start to get into the head of his Russian supervillain (IMDb).
George Lucas is looking for actors to star in his upcoming live action Star Wars TV series (IMDb). If he's casting... it sounds like he's really going to make this show happen. There have been so many Star Wars disappointments in recent years. Please, oh please, George Lucas, don't mess it up any more.
The Sci Fi Channel is changing its name to SyFy (IMDb). Apparently, this will make it seem hipper to the 18 to 34-year-old demographic. I can't say it's working for me. I'm just confused. So... what does SyFy stand for?
Pushing Daisies creator Bryan Fuller is hoping to use the (expected) success of the upcoming J.J. Abrams Star Trek prequel to start up a new Star Trek TV series (IMDb). The more recent Star Trek TV series were getting a bit tired, but Fuller envisions the new series more in the fun spirit of the original. He says it would take place in the same era as the J.J. Abrams movie but on a different ship with its own adventures. I've never been a true Star Trek fan, having watched TNG only sporadically when I was a kid, but I'm excited about the new movie and if Bryan Fuller is planning a new TV series (I absolutely adored Pushing Daisies--I'm still sore over its cancellation), my interest is definitely piqued.
Warner Bros. and a number of video game makers are backing a video-game-on-demand service called OnLive Game Service (Variety). OnLive, which is being shown off at this week's San Francisco Game Developers Conference and is expected to go live this winter, allows users with a broadband internet connection to play games instantly without downloading, giving the PC the convenience of a console system. This has the potential to seriously affect the gaming competition between consoles and PCs, and it should help the video game developers by reducing their reliance on the consoles. As a PC gamer, I'm excited at the prospect of PC gaming gaining influence, but I'll have to see what kind of games show up on the service before I get excited. I guess I'm a traditionalist; I like to do the full install once and take the game around with me, even if I'm not connected to the internet.
That's all for now!
Monday, March 23, 2009
Look out, here comes... Susan
At last. With the anticipated release of Monsters vs. Aliens on March 27th, DreamWorks Animation has beaten Pixar in the race to become the first of the two studios to release a computer animated feature film starring... a female. That's right: since Pixar's Toy Story in 1995 and DreamWorks' Antz in 1998, the two reigning producers of computer animated movies have yet to deliver a feature with a female main character. Hard to believe? Here are the lists:
CG feature films (and main character):
Pixar
1. Toy Story (Woody)
2. A Bug's Life (Flik)
3. Toy Story 2 (Woody)
4. Monsters, Inc. (Sulley)
5. Finding Nemo (Marlin)
6. The Incredibles (Mr. Incredible)
7. Cars (Lightning McQueen)
8. Ratatoille (Remy)
9. Wall-E (Wall-E)
Next in line:
10. Up (Carl Fredricksen)
DreamWorks Animation
1. Antz (Z)
2. Shrek (Shrek)
3. Shrek 2 (Shrek)
4. Shark Tale (Oscar)
5. Madagascar (Alex)
6. Over the Hedge (RJ)
7. Flushed Away (Roddy)
8. Shrek the Third (Shrek)
9. Bee Movie (Barry)
10. Kung Fu Panda (Po)
11. Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa (Alex)
Next in line:
12. Monsters vs. Aliens (Susan, a.k.a. Ginormica)
It's not that these movies haven't had any respectable female characters; many of them have prominently featured strong, smart, and dynamic ladies. But they aren't leading ladies. There's no "Fiona", "Fiona 2", or "Fiona the Third" movie. It's Shrek's story, thus relegating Fiona to the role of an accessory--"Shrek's princess", atypical princess though she may be. And Fiona is not alone. The same is true in all of the two studios' computer animated features: a male leads, and females support. I suppose I might argue that the main character of Bee Movie was actually female. Though Barry B. Benson was referred to in the movie as a "he" and looked a bit and sounded a lot like Jerry Seinfeld, the fact that Barry was able to collect pollen and make honey and had a stinger means that in every honeybee-related way, Barry was clearly a female bee. But I doubt kids (and most normal people who haven't studied honeybees in biology) saw it that way. And that is the relevant point.
As the leaders in computer animated movies, Pixar and DreamWorks Animation are leaders in entertainment for young children. Kids are impressionable. That is part of the reason why parents fret so much about what their children are exposed to when they watch movies and TV. Parents worry about language and depictions of violence and sex, as well they should. But subtle things that may not be harmful on a case by case basis can add up to subliminal messages that shape the way children view the world. So what is the message being delivered here? Boys should be brave heroes. Girls should support them. This message and what it says about kids movies today is shameful. Where are the role models for today's little girls?
Now, I grew up with Disney's hand-drawn features from the 1990s, from The Little Mermaid (which actually debuted late 1989) and Beauty and the Beast to Mulan. While I wouldn't say that Ariel was an ideal role model for little girls, she was the lead role. Sure, she fell in love with a man she hadn't met and didn't defeat the villain herself, but she was an independent thinker who successfully followed her dreams. Belle also may not have been a physical match for her adversary, Gaston, but she was an intelligent, fair, and strong-willed protagonist. And Mulan is a heroine who certainly qualifies as a strong role model. Of course, the '90s had its share of questionable gender messages. I mean, what is the deal with The Lion King? Sure, Nala can do that fancy move and pin Simba in a one-on-one match, but a dozen lionesses had to submit helplessly to Scar and watch him destroy their home until the one true king came to save them. Really? This is what we're teaching little children? You can't do anything, girls, wait for the boys to come. If you want to argue that The Lion King was upholding some sort of ecological truth in lion pride structure, then I want to see Wanda Sykes replace Jerry Seinfeld as Barry B. Benson, pronto!
Lion King rant aside, there is a tradition of gender bias in kids' movies that Pixar and DreamWorks Animation have thus far exhibited prominently. Why, in a supposedly progressive society, would this be the case? The problem seems to be this: If the main character in a children's movie is a girl, the movie will generally be branded a "girl movie", and boys will be less likely to want to see it. A movie with a boy main character, on the other hand, is... just a movie, giving it a better chance at a wide audience. And this doesn't stop at children's movies. Practically any movie that has a female lead who is not an action hero is automatically labeled a chick flick (yes, I am making a lot of sweeping generalizations here, and all generalizations are false, of course, but stick with me here). Guy flicks are much harder to come by; they don't carry the same stigma that chick flicks do, and they tend not to skew as far toward their "target" gender as the chick flicks. It seems women are not as opposed to watching a guy buddy movie as men are to seeing a movie about a group of girl friends. Why would that be?
The best reason I can think of for men being unwilling to see female-centric movies is that they simply can't relate to them. Women are willing to see guy movies because they can relate to them. From childhood to adulthood, girls seem to be better at relating to boys than boys are at relating to girls. Is this an innate inability in boys, or has society developed in such a way that boys aren't taught to relate to girls in the same way girls are taught to relate to boys? I don't have an answer. I'm not a psychologist or sociologist; I don't know if anything I've said is flat-out wrong or already confirmed. I'm just a girl who likes movies and wants to see a few more women up on screen.
It's hard to say what the movie business can do about the gender bias in movies. The movie business is just that--a business--and as such they have to make money. If movies about male characters tend to make more money than movies about female characters because more people are willing to see them, then they have to make more movies about male characters (and then express extreme shock when a chick flick makes huge sums at the box office). But maybe it's a chicken-and-the-egg issue. Do they not make as many female-centered movies because guys won't like them, or do guys not like them because they don't make enough of them. Young boys do not become accustomed to seeing female heroines in movies, so they don't need to learn to relate to them, and they never come to see female heroines in the same light as they see male heroes. So throughout their lives, they show a strong preference towards male protagonists. Young girls, on the other hand, become accustomed from the very start to relating to male heroes, and thus they don't have such a strong preference for whether movie protagonists are male or female. If this is the case, it's not any weakness on the boys' part. Someone just needs to break the cycle.
I've never considered myself any kind of raging feminist, and I don't usually like to get into such touchy subjects. But it is clear that movies and the movie business, like many other businesses of course, lack gender equality in many ways (I'm not even going to touch the business demographics). If I had any say in Hollywood--which I don't, beyond the single ticket that I might buy for Monsters vs. Aliens if it gets good reviews--I would challenge it to confront these inequalities and fix whatever ones it can. Pixar, everything you touch turns to gold. DreamWorks, the kids eat up everything you serve them. Take more risks, and show a little faith in both girls in the movies and boys in the audience.
CG feature films (and main character):
Pixar
1. Toy Story (Woody)
2. A Bug's Life (Flik)
3. Toy Story 2 (Woody)
4. Monsters, Inc. (Sulley)
5. Finding Nemo (Marlin)
6. The Incredibles (Mr. Incredible)
7. Cars (Lightning McQueen)
8. Ratatoille (Remy)
9. Wall-E (Wall-E)
Next in line:
10. Up (Carl Fredricksen)
DreamWorks Animation
1. Antz (Z)
2. Shrek (Shrek)
3. Shrek 2 (Shrek)
4. Shark Tale (Oscar)
5. Madagascar (Alex)
6. Over the Hedge (RJ)
7. Flushed Away (Roddy)
8. Shrek the Third (Shrek)
9. Bee Movie (Barry)
10. Kung Fu Panda (Po)
11. Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa (Alex)
Next in line:
12. Monsters vs. Aliens (Susan, a.k.a. Ginormica)
It's not that these movies haven't had any respectable female characters; many of them have prominently featured strong, smart, and dynamic ladies. But they aren't leading ladies. There's no "Fiona", "Fiona 2", or "Fiona the Third" movie. It's Shrek's story, thus relegating Fiona to the role of an accessory--"Shrek's princess", atypical princess though she may be. And Fiona is not alone. The same is true in all of the two studios' computer animated features: a male leads, and females support. I suppose I might argue that the main character of Bee Movie was actually female. Though Barry B. Benson was referred to in the movie as a "he" and looked a bit and sounded a lot like Jerry Seinfeld, the fact that Barry was able to collect pollen and make honey and had a stinger means that in every honeybee-related way, Barry was clearly a female bee. But I doubt kids (and most normal people who haven't studied honeybees in biology) saw it that way. And that is the relevant point.
As the leaders in computer animated movies, Pixar and DreamWorks Animation are leaders in entertainment for young children. Kids are impressionable. That is part of the reason why parents fret so much about what their children are exposed to when they watch movies and TV. Parents worry about language and depictions of violence and sex, as well they should. But subtle things that may not be harmful on a case by case basis can add up to subliminal messages that shape the way children view the world. So what is the message being delivered here? Boys should be brave heroes. Girls should support them. This message and what it says about kids movies today is shameful. Where are the role models for today's little girls?
Now, I grew up with Disney's hand-drawn features from the 1990s, from The Little Mermaid (which actually debuted late 1989) and Beauty and the Beast to Mulan. While I wouldn't say that Ariel was an ideal role model for little girls, she was the lead role. Sure, she fell in love with a man she hadn't met and didn't defeat the villain herself, but she was an independent thinker who successfully followed her dreams. Belle also may not have been a physical match for her adversary, Gaston, but she was an intelligent, fair, and strong-willed protagonist. And Mulan is a heroine who certainly qualifies as a strong role model. Of course, the '90s had its share of questionable gender messages. I mean, what is the deal with The Lion King? Sure, Nala can do that fancy move and pin Simba in a one-on-one match, but a dozen lionesses had to submit helplessly to Scar and watch him destroy their home until the one true king came to save them. Really? This is what we're teaching little children? You can't do anything, girls, wait for the boys to come. If you want to argue that The Lion King was upholding some sort of ecological truth in lion pride structure, then I want to see Wanda Sykes replace Jerry Seinfeld as Barry B. Benson, pronto!
Lion King rant aside, there is a tradition of gender bias in kids' movies that Pixar and DreamWorks Animation have thus far exhibited prominently. Why, in a supposedly progressive society, would this be the case? The problem seems to be this: If the main character in a children's movie is a girl, the movie will generally be branded a "girl movie", and boys will be less likely to want to see it. A movie with a boy main character, on the other hand, is... just a movie, giving it a better chance at a wide audience. And this doesn't stop at children's movies. Practically any movie that has a female lead who is not an action hero is automatically labeled a chick flick (yes, I am making a lot of sweeping generalizations here, and all generalizations are false, of course, but stick with me here). Guy flicks are much harder to come by; they don't carry the same stigma that chick flicks do, and they tend not to skew as far toward their "target" gender as the chick flicks. It seems women are not as opposed to watching a guy buddy movie as men are to seeing a movie about a group of girl friends. Why would that be?
The best reason I can think of for men being unwilling to see female-centric movies is that they simply can't relate to them. Women are willing to see guy movies because they can relate to them. From childhood to adulthood, girls seem to be better at relating to boys than boys are at relating to girls. Is this an innate inability in boys, or has society developed in such a way that boys aren't taught to relate to girls in the same way girls are taught to relate to boys? I don't have an answer. I'm not a psychologist or sociologist; I don't know if anything I've said is flat-out wrong or already confirmed. I'm just a girl who likes movies and wants to see a few more women up on screen.
It's hard to say what the movie business can do about the gender bias in movies. The movie business is just that--a business--and as such they have to make money. If movies about male characters tend to make more money than movies about female characters because more people are willing to see them, then they have to make more movies about male characters (and then express extreme shock when a chick flick makes huge sums at the box office). But maybe it's a chicken-and-the-egg issue. Do they not make as many female-centered movies because guys won't like them, or do guys not like them because they don't make enough of them. Young boys do not become accustomed to seeing female heroines in movies, so they don't need to learn to relate to them, and they never come to see female heroines in the same light as they see male heroes. So throughout their lives, they show a strong preference towards male protagonists. Young girls, on the other hand, become accustomed from the very start to relating to male heroes, and thus they don't have such a strong preference for whether movie protagonists are male or female. If this is the case, it's not any weakness on the boys' part. Someone just needs to break the cycle.
I've never considered myself any kind of raging feminist, and I don't usually like to get into such touchy subjects. But it is clear that movies and the movie business, like many other businesses of course, lack gender equality in many ways (I'm not even going to touch the business demographics). If I had any say in Hollywood--which I don't, beyond the single ticket that I might buy for Monsters vs. Aliens if it gets good reviews--I would challenge it to confront these inequalities and fix whatever ones it can. Pixar, everything you touch turns to gold. DreamWorks, the kids eat up everything you serve them. Take more risks, and show a little faith in both girls in the movies and boys in the audience.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Response to Sebastian's discussion of monotheism
Religion is not a topic I've really discussed in my blog before. It's a hairy issue that I usually don't feel like bringing up but am generally willing to debate if the topic arises. This post is solely a reply to a post that Sebastian made in his blog that presents a respectful criticism of religion, particularly monotheism (read it here). I was going to respond simply in a comment on the post, but when I passed the 1000 words mark, I thought I'd keep it out of the otherwise concise comments and just make a response post here. It's really only a response and not an essay itself, though. I didn't format it in a logical way or provide full explanations of what I'm talking about, so you have to read his post to understand some of what I'm arguing.
Response to Sebastian's "One God to rule them all… and in the darkness bind them":
Oh boy. You couldn't pick a simple topic, could you? Let me start by saying that I'm agnostic, so the only thing I feel strongly about in regards to religion is that we don't know anything. When someone makes an argument either way, my tendency is to play devil's advocate... or, I guess, God's (or gods'... I won't be exclusive) advocate. So this response is supposed to be a scholarly criticism of your arguments, not an attack on your ideas. That said, I have not studied religion or history very extensively (I'm a scientist by trade), so in some cases I may question but not know enough to criticize your argument.
You said that our urge to attribute *everything* to some higher power makes us susceptible to religion in general, and monotheism in particular. Why monotheism in particular? I'd think that it would be easier to explain *everything* by having different gods to explain *everything*. For example, if there's a god of peace, why would that god allow wars to happen? Well, because there's an opposing goddess of war who sometimes dominates. A god of everything--including both war and peace--seems awfully fickle. Now, you can probably produce an argument to explain why monotheism explains *everything* better than polytheism does, but it is not so obvious that you should lightly make that claim without a defense.
So I'm guessing that you assume that lions don't believe in a higher power (though they do believe that the great kings of the past look down from the stars), and thus they don't feel the need to be humble. You ask if lions don't, why must humans? There are a lot of things that humans think about and feel that lions don't. The intelligence and emotions of various animals themselves spawn heated debates, and I don't want to get into it, but let's just say for the sake of this argument that empathy, true altruism, planning for the future, communicating history, and morality are uniquely human (I don't really believe all of that, but there are some that do). Why then is it so strange that humility would be another uniquely human trait? Perhaps pride is a virtue in lion... uh... prides (sorry, I had to do it), but humility I think serves a valuable function in the large cooperative societies that humans live in. I mean, how much do people hate a braggart? We have trouble working together when a member of our group is really full of themselves. No, we don't necessarily have to attribute things to God, but if that helps us be humble and thus get along together, then it's not all bad or unreasonable.
"It might be argued that religion has killed more people over the past 2000 years than it has saved."
1) You're picking on Christianity there (at least, it's the only major religion I know of that started around 2000 years ago). Why? Did religion not kill people before that?
2) "It might be argued" is pretty weak language. How might this be argued? Are there people who have made this argument with a comprehensive presentation of convincing numbers? Maybe there is. Maybe you should provide references. Without references, I'm doubtful. While there are a number of prominent wars and mass killings that can be blamed on religion, they might have been committed for other reasons if religion hadn't existed, plus it is hard to measure the many small instances where people have been saved because of religion (e.g., a poor person not starving thanks to donations from the church).
Here my lack of historical knowledge fails me, but was monotheism really necessary for trading? Did they really not trade during ancient Greek and Roman times? And did China have to take up Christianity before the West would trade with them? I don't remember this from history class. You imply that somehow it makes sense that people had an easier time trusting traders who believed in their vengeful, monotheistic god. But why couldn't people just all swear on some god of trade or commerce, like Waukeen--uh, I mean, Hermes?
Furthermore, was polytheism really just about explaining things? And was only monotheism about controlling people? There are many types of polytheism and monotheism, of course, so it's hard to make generalizations (all generalizations are false). Maybe there are some brands of polytheism that are just "god of trees makes the trees grow" etc., and some kinds of monotheism that are just about telling people how to act. But though my knowledge of religion is pretty weak, I think there are polytheistic religions that tell people how to live their lives. Maybe Hinduism and its link to the caste system? I don't really know enough to give a good example, but I'm sure one exists. So maybe Hinduism and Greek and Roman polytheism didn't have the definitive texts that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have. But is it just a kind of coincidence that Judaism started out with a prominent text of comprehensive laws, and Christianity and Islam, which built upon Judaism, followed suit with their own texts? If the only three monotheistic religions we know enough about to bring into our discussion (that is, unless you're considering other unrelated monotheistic religions as well?) are related to each other, can we really attribute any trend to monotheism? Do you think there is something about polytheism that makes it less suited to controlling people than monotheism?
Basically, you're singling out monotheism here, but I'm not sure I've seen enough evidence to support you. Was polytheism really less dangerous than monotheism?
You talk about how humans wrote religious doctrines, trying to pass their ideas off as God's. I'm totally with you there. Drives me crazy when people trust "God's word" without question. That said, not everyone who believes in god or considers themselves to be religious blindly follows religious doctrine. You know this, obviously, but it's important to acknowledge the limited applicability of some of your statements.
A couple things not in your actual post, but in the comments that followed...
On prayer: Ambles already beat me to most of this, but... If a loved one dies, chocolate may not cut it. You might need to talk to someone about it. Therapists make tons of money for asking, "And why do you feel that way?" with the assumption that just talking about your worries and thinking about their sources can help. Maybe prayer is a kind of therapy, a way to talk and think about your problems or priorities. And God doesn't charge by the hour. There are different definitions of meditation, but assuming it means self-psychotherapy, then sure, this could also serve the same function. But sometimes, some people just need someone to talk to, whether it be a therapist, God, or... a girlfriend. And going along these lines, can you really fault someone who has just lost a loved one for hoping that there is some way that they might talk with that person again, or see them again in an afterlife?
If looking to a higher power is "programmed into us genetically," is it really irrational? If God programmed us, then sure it could be, but if we evolved it, maybe it served some function and isn't totally irrational. I guess a virus could have inserted the religion gene it into our ancient ancestors' DNA or something.
I'll just conclude my extensive comment with a question. When did we stop needing religion? I think you implied in your argument, and I tend to agree, that in past times, religion was a benefit to society. But today, you argue (I may agree but am kind of neutral on this--it's complicated) that we don't need religion. When did this change occur? And why? I guess in the past, people needed religion to teach them moral living. When did we develop morals for the sake of morals rather than for the sake of not angering the gods? Did we just wake up one day? Or were there always some people who didn't need religion to act morally (and the definition of "moral" is of course ambiguous and another entire debate), and some time in the last century or something we crossed some critical threshold (like, 75%) of people who fit this description, so we don't need religion anymore? Just a thought.
Sorry I've said so much. You make an interesting case, much of which I agree with, contrary to how it might appear. It's just a debate that I enjoy, unless it stops being scholarly and turns mean and winds up hurting people as it does in some venues, but I don't expect it to on your blog (or mine, for that matter). Now... discuss.
Response to Sebastian's "One God to rule them all… and in the darkness bind them":
Oh boy. You couldn't pick a simple topic, could you? Let me start by saying that I'm agnostic, so the only thing I feel strongly about in regards to religion is that we don't know anything. When someone makes an argument either way, my tendency is to play devil's advocate... or, I guess, God's (or gods'... I won't be exclusive) advocate. So this response is supposed to be a scholarly criticism of your arguments, not an attack on your ideas. That said, I have not studied religion or history very extensively (I'm a scientist by trade), so in some cases I may question but not know enough to criticize your argument.
You said that our urge to attribute *everything* to some higher power makes us susceptible to religion in general, and monotheism in particular. Why monotheism in particular? I'd think that it would be easier to explain *everything* by having different gods to explain *everything*. For example, if there's a god of peace, why would that god allow wars to happen? Well, because there's an opposing goddess of war who sometimes dominates. A god of everything--including both war and peace--seems awfully fickle. Now, you can probably produce an argument to explain why monotheism explains *everything* better than polytheism does, but it is not so obvious that you should lightly make that claim without a defense.
So I'm guessing that you assume that lions don't believe in a higher power (though they do believe that the great kings of the past look down from the stars), and thus they don't feel the need to be humble. You ask if lions don't, why must humans? There are a lot of things that humans think about and feel that lions don't. The intelligence and emotions of various animals themselves spawn heated debates, and I don't want to get into it, but let's just say for the sake of this argument that empathy, true altruism, planning for the future, communicating history, and morality are uniquely human (I don't really believe all of that, but there are some that do). Why then is it so strange that humility would be another uniquely human trait? Perhaps pride is a virtue in lion... uh... prides (sorry, I had to do it), but humility I think serves a valuable function in the large cooperative societies that humans live in. I mean, how much do people hate a braggart? We have trouble working together when a member of our group is really full of themselves. No, we don't necessarily have to attribute things to God, but if that helps us be humble and thus get along together, then it's not all bad or unreasonable.
"It might be argued that religion has killed more people over the past 2000 years than it has saved."
1) You're picking on Christianity there (at least, it's the only major religion I know of that started around 2000 years ago). Why? Did religion not kill people before that?
2) "It might be argued" is pretty weak language. How might this be argued? Are there people who have made this argument with a comprehensive presentation of convincing numbers? Maybe there is. Maybe you should provide references. Without references, I'm doubtful. While there are a number of prominent wars and mass killings that can be blamed on religion, they might have been committed for other reasons if religion hadn't existed, plus it is hard to measure the many small instances where people have been saved because of religion (e.g., a poor person not starving thanks to donations from the church).
Here my lack of historical knowledge fails me, but was monotheism really necessary for trading? Did they really not trade during ancient Greek and Roman times? And did China have to take up Christianity before the West would trade with them? I don't remember this from history class. You imply that somehow it makes sense that people had an easier time trusting traders who believed in their vengeful, monotheistic god. But why couldn't people just all swear on some god of trade or commerce, like Waukeen--uh, I mean, Hermes?
Furthermore, was polytheism really just about explaining things? And was only monotheism about controlling people? There are many types of polytheism and monotheism, of course, so it's hard to make generalizations (all generalizations are false). Maybe there are some brands of polytheism that are just "god of trees makes the trees grow" etc., and some kinds of monotheism that are just about telling people how to act. But though my knowledge of religion is pretty weak, I think there are polytheistic religions that tell people how to live their lives. Maybe Hinduism and its link to the caste system? I don't really know enough to give a good example, but I'm sure one exists. So maybe Hinduism and Greek and Roman polytheism didn't have the definitive texts that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have. But is it just a kind of coincidence that Judaism started out with a prominent text of comprehensive laws, and Christianity and Islam, which built upon Judaism, followed suit with their own texts? If the only three monotheistic religions we know enough about to bring into our discussion (that is, unless you're considering other unrelated monotheistic religions as well?) are related to each other, can we really attribute any trend to monotheism? Do you think there is something about polytheism that makes it less suited to controlling people than monotheism?
Basically, you're singling out monotheism here, but I'm not sure I've seen enough evidence to support you. Was polytheism really less dangerous than monotheism?
You talk about how humans wrote religious doctrines, trying to pass their ideas off as God's. I'm totally with you there. Drives me crazy when people trust "God's word" without question. That said, not everyone who believes in god or considers themselves to be religious blindly follows religious doctrine. You know this, obviously, but it's important to acknowledge the limited applicability of some of your statements.
A couple things not in your actual post, but in the comments that followed...
On prayer: Ambles already beat me to most of this, but... If a loved one dies, chocolate may not cut it. You might need to talk to someone about it. Therapists make tons of money for asking, "And why do you feel that way?" with the assumption that just talking about your worries and thinking about their sources can help. Maybe prayer is a kind of therapy, a way to talk and think about your problems or priorities. And God doesn't charge by the hour. There are different definitions of meditation, but assuming it means self-psychotherapy, then sure, this could also serve the same function. But sometimes, some people just need someone to talk to, whether it be a therapist, God, or... a girlfriend. And going along these lines, can you really fault someone who has just lost a loved one for hoping that there is some way that they might talk with that person again, or see them again in an afterlife?
If looking to a higher power is "programmed into us genetically," is it really irrational? If God programmed us, then sure it could be, but if we evolved it, maybe it served some function and isn't totally irrational. I guess a virus could have inserted the religion gene it into our ancient ancestors' DNA or something.
I'll just conclude my extensive comment with a question. When did we stop needing religion? I think you implied in your argument, and I tend to agree, that in past times, religion was a benefit to society. But today, you argue (I may agree but am kind of neutral on this--it's complicated) that we don't need religion. When did this change occur? And why? I guess in the past, people needed religion to teach them moral living. When did we develop morals for the sake of morals rather than for the sake of not angering the gods? Did we just wake up one day? Or were there always some people who didn't need religion to act morally (and the definition of "moral" is of course ambiguous and another entire debate), and some time in the last century or something we crossed some critical threshold (like, 75%) of people who fit this description, so we don't need religion anymore? Just a thought.
Sorry I've said so much. You make an interesting case, much of which I agree with, contrary to how it might appear. It's just a debate that I enjoy, unless it stops being scholarly and turns mean and winds up hurting people as it does in some venues, but I don't expect it to on your blog (or mine, for that matter). Now... discuss.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Conclusion of my Hawaii visit
Well, I'm back from Hawaii now. I had a great time, but it was an atypical Hawaiian vacation. It was really less like a Hawaii vacation and more like a visit to a potential grad school followed by a visit with my grandparents. Well, that's what it was.
Basically, I didn't get to the beach. At all. I did walk along the beach one night, but I was wearing rolled up jeans so didn't go in past my knees, and it was night, so I wasn't exactly in danger of being sunburned (though I may have been in danger of stepping on broken glass or being mugged--my mother has trained me well). What I did do in Hawaii was eat. A lot. Of the ten meals I shared with my grandparents, only one of them was NOT all-you-can-eat, and that meal was dim sum, and I have never had a light dim sum in my life. Between dim sum and Chinese buffet and Hawaiian buffet restaurants and the retirement home's dining room buffet, I came in contact with quite a lot of food. And my grandparents, always making sure that I got my money's worth, kept telling me to go back and get more food. My grandfather would even order things for me ("You want the Belgian waffles?" "No, Gung-Gung, I'm full." "Okay, I'll order you the Belgian waffles." "No--." "Excuse me, can you get her some Belgian waffles?" "How many?" "Two."). And I of course was not about to disappoint them. So in short, on my visit to Hawaii, I didn't get tan, I just got fat.
I did get to see some movies I'd been meaning to see, thanks to the library with free DVD rentals at the retirement home. Well, one movie I wanted to see but for the sake of my grandparents' sensibilities refrained from renting was Borat (I was somehow amused that their library had two copies of it). But in addition to No Country for Old Men and Gone Baby Gone which I mentioned in an earlier post, I got to see Vicky Cristina Barcelona and The Lives of Others. I loved both of them, and while neither were exactly fairy tales, they were considerably happier than the previous two. Javier Bardem is so much cuter without that awful haircut. And when he's not murdering people. I remember being a little bitter when The Lives of Others beat Pan's Labyrinth for the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar, since I had seen Pan's and liked it a lot. But The Lives of Others was beautiful in many ways and I think it deserved to win (and Pan's got some other Oscars, anyway).
About an hour before I caught the taxi to the airport, I received an email saying that I could expect two different professors at the University of Hawaii to give me offers to work with them. Both have funding for a grad student (which is a must for me). So I will be choosing between three grad school options, after all. I really liked my visit at UH, and I feel fairly certain that I want to go there instead of work with the professor I've been working for here for the past two years. Even though I live on the mainland now and can drive to a big city in a couple hours and in several hours could get to any number of cities, I still feel more isolated out here in what sometimes feels like the middle of a wasteland. Hawaii is truly isolated, in the middle of the ocean, but there is a lot going on in Honolulu, and I feel its isolation makes it a special place. And of course, if my goal is to study the ocean, Hawaii isn't isolated--it's in the middle of everything! Still, I'll have to decide which professor to work with. There are many factors to take into account: the professor, the project, technicians and other students (there is a chance that one of these professors will also be mentoring landlocked-Germany girl... I'll try my best not to let that be a factor). It's hard to make this decision after just a two day visit; I only talked with one of the professors for half an hour. This is the next 6+ years of my life we're talking about. I'm a little overwhelmed at the moment. And of course my mom already wants to know what date I'll be moving out there. Ack!
Well, that about sums up my visit to Hawaii. It is likely that next time I go there, it won't be a "visit." Kind of crazy to think about. I'm excited. Almost as excited as my grandparents.
Basically, I didn't get to the beach. At all. I did walk along the beach one night, but I was wearing rolled up jeans so didn't go in past my knees, and it was night, so I wasn't exactly in danger of being sunburned (though I may have been in danger of stepping on broken glass or being mugged--my mother has trained me well). What I did do in Hawaii was eat. A lot. Of the ten meals I shared with my grandparents, only one of them was NOT all-you-can-eat, and that meal was dim sum, and I have never had a light dim sum in my life. Between dim sum and Chinese buffet and Hawaiian buffet restaurants and the retirement home's dining room buffet, I came in contact with quite a lot of food. And my grandparents, always making sure that I got my money's worth, kept telling me to go back and get more food. My grandfather would even order things for me ("You want the Belgian waffles?" "No, Gung-Gung, I'm full." "Okay, I'll order you the Belgian waffles." "No--." "Excuse me, can you get her some Belgian waffles?" "How many?" "Two."). And I of course was not about to disappoint them. So in short, on my visit to Hawaii, I didn't get tan, I just got fat.
I did get to see some movies I'd been meaning to see, thanks to the library with free DVD rentals at the retirement home. Well, one movie I wanted to see but for the sake of my grandparents' sensibilities refrained from renting was Borat (I was somehow amused that their library had two copies of it). But in addition to No Country for Old Men and Gone Baby Gone which I mentioned in an earlier post, I got to see Vicky Cristina Barcelona and The Lives of Others. I loved both of them, and while neither were exactly fairy tales, they were considerably happier than the previous two. Javier Bardem is so much cuter without that awful haircut. And when he's not murdering people. I remember being a little bitter when The Lives of Others beat Pan's Labyrinth for the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar, since I had seen Pan's and liked it a lot. But The Lives of Others was beautiful in many ways and I think it deserved to win (and Pan's got some other Oscars, anyway).
About an hour before I caught the taxi to the airport, I received an email saying that I could expect two different professors at the University of Hawaii to give me offers to work with them. Both have funding for a grad student (which is a must for me). So I will be choosing between three grad school options, after all. I really liked my visit at UH, and I feel fairly certain that I want to go there instead of work with the professor I've been working for here for the past two years. Even though I live on the mainland now and can drive to a big city in a couple hours and in several hours could get to any number of cities, I still feel more isolated out here in what sometimes feels like the middle of a wasteland. Hawaii is truly isolated, in the middle of the ocean, but there is a lot going on in Honolulu, and I feel its isolation makes it a special place. And of course, if my goal is to study the ocean, Hawaii isn't isolated--it's in the middle of everything! Still, I'll have to decide which professor to work with. There are many factors to take into account: the professor, the project, technicians and other students (there is a chance that one of these professors will also be mentoring landlocked-Germany girl... I'll try my best not to let that be a factor). It's hard to make this decision after just a two day visit; I only talked with one of the professors for half an hour. This is the next 6+ years of my life we're talking about. I'm a little overwhelmed at the moment. And of course my mom already wants to know what date I'll be moving out there. Ack!
Well, that about sums up my visit to Hawaii. It is likely that next time I go there, it won't be a "visit." Kind of crazy to think about. I'm excited. Almost as excited as my grandparents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)