It seems to be a good time to do some flagellation/understanding as a means of redemption, especially when one takes into account the fact that spring break is now over even though I personally did not do anything near regretful.
In an effort to make this more interesting (or more annoying, depending on one’s preference) I will be writing this following a minimalist pattern, it is up to you, the reader, to take these sentences however you would like…
I am a God-fearing atheist.
I hate being wrong.
Blood is thicker than water.
I still can’t believe it’s not butter.
Happiness is overrated but in a few years the pharmaceutical industry will have a pill to solve that as well.
I am a resentful son.
Rodents and reptiles creep me out.
I am an idealist.
I wish my band had more of a drive to succeed, myself included.
Nobody speaks for me.
I am a huge nerd.
My room is perpetually messy, even when it is in the middle of being cleaned.
Drinking is a habit that is too affordable.
I enjoy reading.
My ability to play guitar and my years of playing guitar are not correlated in the way they should be.
I am nobody’s fool but my own.
Music will never be as good as it used to be and it is constantly getting better.
I always lie.
I am me.
I hope what you just read was as fun, interesting, and thought provoking for you as it was for me. Many were contradictions and conundrums within themselves and I hope you enjoy breaking them down.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Friday, March 13, 2009
Feminism Isn’t Just for the Ladies
In completing my general education (at a Community College) I took an introductory women’s studies course and it was one of the most rewarding classes I took. It helped me to see the subconscious or implicit messages all around. The class I took did not just focus on women, but the views and portrayals of men as well. For this blog, however, I chose to narrow it down to a short critique on Disney movies and their efforts to marginalize and brainwash thousand of girls, whether they intended to or not.
The Little Mermaid
The Little Mermaid tells the story of a single father raising 7 daughters, the youngest of whom, Ariel, is the most ambitious and rambunctious. This all takes place under the sea and they are, in fact, “merpeople.”
The main character of the story, Ariel, witnesses a handsome human man on a boat. She lusts for him but her father forbids her from ever going on land. Instead, she seeks out Ursula, the evil sea witch, who makes a deal with her: if Ariel gives up her voice Ursula will grant her legs, giving her the opportunity to find this man and woo him.
What this implies to the thousands of little girls who grew up watching this is that they do not need their voice, their ability to showcase their personality and language, but should, instead, use only their “physical mannerisms and dress,” as that is all they need. Giving up her ability to speak is giving up her ability to say “I am woman; hear me roar.” Instead, Ariel is forced to say something more to the effect of, “I am woman; I hope I look okay.”
The ending of the movie does not get any better. While she does gain back her ability to speak, to be with the man she desires she has to give up all ties to her former life. Most women would find it atrocious to lose the connection to their family, even more so if the man she was with did not allow it. While this is not what the man did in this movie, it is essentially the choice Ariel had to make to be with him: the man she likes or her family, she cannot have both.
Hercules
The film Hercules commits the usual horrors in regards to its portrayal of women. The female in this story, Megara, is a lonely woman without friends who sold her soul to Hades to save the life of her ex, who paid her in kind by running off with another woman.
As her soul is now in possession of the Greek devil, Meg, as she claims her would-be friends call her, utilizes her feminine charm to lead Hercules right into Hades’ trap. This character has no individuality. She is a seductress who is no more than a pawn in Hades’ plans. Meg “sashays her hips and [wears a] dress [that] clings to her body like a second skin.”
The character of Meg is no more than an evil seductress who is turned, or saved, by the man of the story, implicitly stating that without him she would be doomed. She in no way teaches young girls to assert their individually and strength, rather, she teaches them that they cannot be saved without the help of a man.
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is Walt Disney’s “first full-length production” and a great example of Disney’s poor portrayal of women. In the story, Snow White is forced to leave the safety of the castle when an evil woman, her step-mother, believes Snow White to be the fairest in the land, with fair representing purity or virginity, beauty, and innocence, much like her last name: White. Fortunately for Snow White, she is spared from dying, thanks to a man, and makes her way into the scary woods wherein she is fortunate enough to find a small and dirty house.
After being spared by a man, Snow White cleans and washes the house of the Seven Dwarfs, who are all men who lust over and immediately take a liking to Snow White. As if she were a lost puppy, they decide to keep her, thus ensuring she is again spared by men only to end up doing all the cooking and cleaning.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Little Mermaid
The Little Mermaid tells the story of a single father raising 7 daughters, the youngest of whom, Ariel, is the most ambitious and rambunctious. This all takes place under the sea and they are, in fact, “merpeople.”
The main character of the story, Ariel, witnesses a handsome human man on a boat. She lusts for him but her father forbids her from ever going on land. Instead, she seeks out Ursula, the evil sea witch, who makes a deal with her: if Ariel gives up her voice Ursula will grant her legs, giving her the opportunity to find this man and woo him.
What this implies to the thousands of little girls who grew up watching this is that they do not need their voice, their ability to showcase their personality and language, but should, instead, use only their “physical mannerisms and dress,” as that is all they need. Giving up her ability to speak is giving up her ability to say “I am woman; hear me roar.” Instead, Ariel is forced to say something more to the effect of, “I am woman; I hope I look okay.”
The ending of the movie does not get any better. While she does gain back her ability to speak, to be with the man she desires she has to give up all ties to her former life. Most women would find it atrocious to lose the connection to their family, even more so if the man she was with did not allow it. While this is not what the man did in this movie, it is essentially the choice Ariel had to make to be with him: the man she likes or her family, she cannot have both.
Hercules
The film Hercules commits the usual horrors in regards to its portrayal of women. The female in this story, Megara, is a lonely woman without friends who sold her soul to Hades to save the life of her ex, who paid her in kind by running off with another woman.
As her soul is now in possession of the Greek devil, Meg, as she claims her would-be friends call her, utilizes her feminine charm to lead Hercules right into Hades’ trap. This character has no individuality. She is a seductress who is no more than a pawn in Hades’ plans. Meg “sashays her hips and [wears a] dress [that] clings to her body like a second skin.”
The character of Meg is no more than an evil seductress who is turned, or saved, by the man of the story, implicitly stating that without him she would be doomed. She in no way teaches young girls to assert their individually and strength, rather, she teaches them that they cannot be saved without the help of a man.
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is Walt Disney’s “first full-length production” and a great example of Disney’s poor portrayal of women. In the story, Snow White is forced to leave the safety of the castle when an evil woman, her step-mother, believes Snow White to be the fairest in the land, with fair representing purity or virginity, beauty, and innocence, much like her last name: White. Fortunately for Snow White, she is spared from dying, thanks to a man, and makes her way into the scary woods wherein she is fortunate enough to find a small and dirty house.
After being spared by a man, Snow White cleans and washes the house of the Seven Dwarfs, who are all men who lust over and immediately take a liking to Snow White. As if she were a lost puppy, they decide to keep her, thus ensuring she is again spared by men only to end up doing all the cooking and cleaning.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disney movies are filled with numerous examples of the vilification of women and all three of the previous examples attest to that; Ursula, Megara, and the Evil Step-Mother are all portrayed as having ulterior or evil motives. It appears the most equal portrayal in the movies are the ones which showcase animals, where the relationships between, say, Simba and Nala are built on friendship while the relationships of the Disney Princesses and their respective Princes are built on physical attraction, thus “relegating a view of equality to the animal kingdom” that is not reciprocated in the human one. I encourage everyone to watch movies with some of these ideas in mind; try to see what they are telling us the perfect man or perfect woman is like.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Major Legal Baseball
All of the recent talk of performance enhancers in baseball has brought up some very interesting points. What only a few seem to notice, however, is that money can be a performance enhancer as well.
With trading, contracts, and virtually no limits on a player’s movements, it seems to be that the longer one is playing major league baseball, the more likely one is to not play for one’s home team. As much as fans would hate to admit it, players have no team loyalty higher than they have loyalty to getting paid.
Using www.baseball-almanac.com, I found that, of all the players in Major League Baseball for the 2008 season, California had the highest number of players listing California as their birthplace; 225 to be exact. To simplify my further inquiries, I looked at every 15th person on the list to see what team they are currently for:
Geoff Blum – born in Redwood City, plays for the Houston Astros
Brooks Conrad – born in San Diego, plays for the Oakland Athletics
Jim Edmonds – born in Fullerton, plays for the Chicago Cubs
Kevin Frandsen – born in Los Gatos, plays for the San Francisco Giants
Eddie Guardado – born in Stockton, plays for the Minnesota Twins
Phil Hughes – born in Mission Viejo, plays for the New York Yankees
Jeff Karstens – born in San Diego, plays for the Pittsburgh Pirates
Derrek Lee – born in Sacramento, plays for the Chicago Cubs
Scott McClain – born in Simi Valley, plays for the San Francisco Giants
Xavier Nady – born in Salinas, plays for the New York Yankees
Carlos Quentin – born in Bellflower, plays for the Chicago White Sox
Kirk Saarloos – born in Long Beach, plays for the Oakland Athletics
Mike Sweeney – born in Orange, plays for the Oakland Athletics
Jered Weaver – born in Northridge, plays for the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim
Joel Zumaya – born in Chula Vista, plays for the Detroit Tigers
Of these 15, six players currently play in their home state. Looking into it, however, I found that…
Brooks Conrad has never played a season with his hometown team, the San Diego Padres, but has played his 2 seasons with a California team.
Scott McClain has played four seasons in all but only 2 with a California team.
Kirk Saarloos has only played 4 out of 7 seasons with a California team.
Mike Sweeney has only played 1 season out of 14 with a California team.
Only Jered Weaver and Kevin Frandsen have played all three of their season with their respective teams.
How much money does it take to buy loyalty?
The New York Yankees, one of the richest teams in baseball, has the top three highest paid players: Alex Rodriguez, Jason Giambi, and. Derek Jeter, in that order. However, the highest paid player, Alex Rodriguez, has stated his favorite team growing up was, in fact, the New York Mets. In all, the Yankees spend a total of $209,081,577, whereas the poorest team, the Florida Marlins, spends only about 10% of that, $21,811,500, about 6,000,000 less than the Yankees spend on Rodriguez alone (here). The second richest team, the New York Mets, only spends $137,793,376; a bit over half of what the New York Yankees are able to spend.
Money has become the performance enhancer baseball officials should be most worried about. It is no surprise that the top spending team tends to be one of the most formidable teams in baseball; and what about the best player? Well, he has recently admitted to using performance enhancers as well.
With trading, contracts, and virtually no limits on a player’s movements, it seems to be that the longer one is playing major league baseball, the more likely one is to not play for one’s home team. As much as fans would hate to admit it, players have no team loyalty higher than they have loyalty to getting paid.
Using www.baseball-almanac.com, I found that, of all the players in Major League Baseball for the 2008 season, California had the highest number of players listing California as their birthplace; 225 to be exact. To simplify my further inquiries, I looked at every 15th person on the list to see what team they are currently for:
Geoff Blum – born in Redwood City, plays for the Houston Astros
Brooks Conrad – born in San Diego, plays for the Oakland Athletics
Jim Edmonds – born in Fullerton, plays for the Chicago Cubs
Kevin Frandsen – born in Los Gatos, plays for the San Francisco Giants
Eddie Guardado – born in Stockton, plays for the Minnesota Twins
Phil Hughes – born in Mission Viejo, plays for the New York Yankees
Jeff Karstens – born in San Diego, plays for the Pittsburgh Pirates
Derrek Lee – born in Sacramento, plays for the Chicago Cubs
Scott McClain – born in Simi Valley, plays for the San Francisco Giants
Xavier Nady – born in Salinas, plays for the New York Yankees
Carlos Quentin – born in Bellflower, plays for the Chicago White Sox
Kirk Saarloos – born in Long Beach, plays for the Oakland Athletics
Mike Sweeney – born in Orange, plays for the Oakland Athletics
Jered Weaver – born in Northridge, plays for the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim
Joel Zumaya – born in Chula Vista, plays for the Detroit Tigers
Of these 15, six players currently play in their home state. Looking into it, however, I found that…
Brooks Conrad has never played a season with his hometown team, the San Diego Padres, but has played his 2 seasons with a California team.
Scott McClain has played four seasons in all but only 2 with a California team.
Kirk Saarloos has only played 4 out of 7 seasons with a California team.
Mike Sweeney has only played 1 season out of 14 with a California team.
Only Jered Weaver and Kevin Frandsen have played all three of their season with their respective teams.
How much money does it take to buy loyalty?
The New York Yankees, one of the richest teams in baseball, has the top three highest paid players: Alex Rodriguez, Jason Giambi, and. Derek Jeter, in that order. However, the highest paid player, Alex Rodriguez, has stated his favorite team growing up was, in fact, the New York Mets. In all, the Yankees spend a total of $209,081,577, whereas the poorest team, the Florida Marlins, spends only about 10% of that, $21,811,500, about 6,000,000 less than the Yankees spend on Rodriguez alone (here). The second richest team, the New York Mets, only spends $137,793,376; a bit over half of what the New York Yankees are able to spend.
Money has become the performance enhancer baseball officials should be most worried about. It is no surprise that the top spending team tends to be one of the most formidable teams in baseball; and what about the best player? Well, he has recently admitted to using performance enhancers as well.
Monday, March 2, 2009
No Offense Intended
Being one who is prone to questions involving evolution and biology, I have always been curious as to the biological imperative for homosexuality. I am no racist, sexist, or xenophobe; I merely wish to understand the answers to some questions: 1) has homosexuality always been around, much in the same way our gender is fully dependent upon how far we mature through our fetal stages and thus better represented as a spectrum?, and, if not, 2) what caused the advent of homosexuality?
There is some interesting research here, more than I could even begin to read, so instead I will post 2 theories as to what may or may not be true and let the scientists and fanatics battle it out.
Theory 1: As I said above, I believe gender to be a spectrum, liable to the path a fetus follows in its development, which is why some members of society are born and declared to be male only to desire to become females later in life, or vice versa.
From there, it should follow that sexual desires would be liable to the same spectrum. As such, it is to be believed that homosexuality or bisexuality has always been present within human society. The ancient Greeks, for example, often held relationships of male teacher/male student that would, by today’s standards are considered pederasty.
The reason for an apparent increase in homosexuality, therefore, can be linked to the increasing acceptance and decreasing homophobia in society.
Theory 2: In the era we live in, moms give birth to octuplets despite already having 6 other children, adoption agencies flourish both around the nation and internationally, and countries are being pushed to their population limits. Higher populations can sometimes lead to higher instances of famine, disease, drought, and crime, just to name a few issues.
Would it be unheard of for nature to evolve a portion of humans to a state of non-breeders (either by choice or inclination) as a means of handling overcrowding and under-supplied resources?
Theory 2 does not imply that the human race is evolving to homosexuality; evolution is not moving towards a goal or some next step. Evolution itself is a mechanism species utilize to cope with resources. What Theory 2 is suggesting is that land space, food, and water, in our current state, are quickly diminishing and nature may be coping by biologically upping the odds for homosexuality.
Personally, my beliefs land me squarely with my first theory, but Theory 2 is interesting to think about, albeit possibly upsetting to some people. Again, I mean no offense nor do I mean to suggest homosexuality is an evolved coping mechanism for the human race. It is merely interesting to entertain views different from my own.
There is some interesting research here, more than I could even begin to read, so instead I will post 2 theories as to what may or may not be true and let the scientists and fanatics battle it out.
Theory 1: As I said above, I believe gender to be a spectrum, liable to the path a fetus follows in its development, which is why some members of society are born and declared to be male only to desire to become females later in life, or vice versa.
From there, it should follow that sexual desires would be liable to the same spectrum. As such, it is to be believed that homosexuality or bisexuality has always been present within human society. The ancient Greeks, for example, often held relationships of male teacher/male student that would, by today’s standards are considered pederasty.
The reason for an apparent increase in homosexuality, therefore, can be linked to the increasing acceptance and decreasing homophobia in society.
Theory 2: In the era we live in, moms give birth to octuplets despite already having 6 other children, adoption agencies flourish both around the nation and internationally, and countries are being pushed to their population limits. Higher populations can sometimes lead to higher instances of famine, disease, drought, and crime, just to name a few issues.
Would it be unheard of for nature to evolve a portion of humans to a state of non-breeders (either by choice or inclination) as a means of handling overcrowding and under-supplied resources?
Theory 2 does not imply that the human race is evolving to homosexuality; evolution is not moving towards a goal or some next step. Evolution itself is a mechanism species utilize to cope with resources. What Theory 2 is suggesting is that land space, food, and water, in our current state, are quickly diminishing and nature may be coping by biologically upping the odds for homosexuality.
Personally, my beliefs land me squarely with my first theory, but Theory 2 is interesting to think about, albeit possibly upsetting to some people. Again, I mean no offense nor do I mean to suggest homosexuality is an evolved coping mechanism for the human race. It is merely interesting to entertain views different from my own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)