Every Time I Try To Fly, I Fall

 Posted by on Sun, 10/2 at 7:35pm  reading  No Responses »
Oct 022016
 

http://www.supermanhomepage.com/comics/comics.php?topic=articles/supes-war

In this essay, author Wallace Harrington writes about Superman’s involvement in WWII. I was already familiar a bit of the information presented in the essay, but Harrington goes into further detail. During WWII, DC Comics very rarely allowed their character to get involved in the war. Because comic books were shipped over to the troops on the front lines, and because the problems were very real, it was seen as disrespectful to have a colorfully clad hero come in and end the war while soldiers were dying on the battlefields. Instead, Superman, Batman and Robin, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, and many other DC characters served to promote the war effort. The war would be acknowledged, but never directly dealt with in stories. Superman would help the troops instead of taking down Hitler.

http://www.businessinsider.com/no-one-gets-superman-anymore-2015-7

In this article, Joshua Rivera writes about the current treatment of Superman in the movies. He questions why it is so hard for Warner Brothers and other authors to get The Man of Steel right. Rivera argues that it is because the emphasis is placed on the powers instead of the man using them. Superman doesn’t do right to avenge someone he’s lost, or to right a wrong that radically altered his life. Superman does the right thing because he was raised to do good and help whenever he could. Rivera argues that Superman shouldn’t be that hard to understand or write for, and that a “boy scout” character can still thrive in the modern world, citing Marvel’s Captain America as a prime example.

http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/03/30/superman-and-the-damage-done

Devin Faraci writes that the current films featuring Superman are damaging to the legacy of the character. According to Faraci, Zack Snyder is out to destroy The Last Son of Krypton by turning him into a mopey, nihilistic being that holds himself above both the law and the people he protects. Faraci has such disdain for Man of Steel and the recent Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. He argues that the reason Superman: The Movie worked, besides the fact that it got the character’s hopeful nature down, is that it was released at a time when America needed a symbol of hope. “Just as in 1938 and 1978 we need a bright, hopeful figure to fly in and remind us of what we can be, of who we are when we’re not weighted down by the hate and the problems. We need a Superman.” Faraci writes that with all of the problems facing us as a society, the last thing we need is a Superman that questions himself and struggles with the morality of doing the right thing.

HeForShe…but who is She? And Where?

 Posted by on Sat, 10/1 at 10:52pm  reading  No Responses »
Oct 012016
 

So, I finally decided to do some research on the UN’s involvement in Feminism and Women’s Rights in their international movement: HeForShe. Spearheaded by Emma Watson (who totally inspired my Pixie Cut, not going to lie), the movement is to get boys and men on board and have everyone working towards creating a perfectly equal society in which men and women co-exist.

I watched her speech to the UN when she accepted the position back in 2014 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-iFl4qhBsE). She’s a tremendous speaker advocating for a great cause, but there is one thing I am hung up on: the totally one-sided name. Emma Watson establishes that feminism is supposed to uplift and liberate both men and women. So, why didn’t she pick a name like HeAndShe. Or hell, SheAndHe, if the order matters.

But that’s a rather minute complaint in the span of things.

Overall, I liked her speech. I like how she mentions “inadvertent feminists,” the people who have helped her along the way and didn’t treat her any differently because she was a girl. I like that she’s getting people to talk about feminism again and to become active.

My only worry is misdirection. Because there are certain statistics and stereotypes circulating within the feminist philosophy that aren’t true (I wanted to do a whole blog post on her later, but I might as well introduce her here now: Christina Hoff Sommers and her wonderful youtube channel Factual Feminist, which in a video debunks 5 widely circulated statistics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TR_YuDFIFI).

My biggest worry is that gender equality has to be quantified when you’re dealing with it on such a large scale, as Emma Watson and the UN are. And quantifications can be easily malleable based on variables and data manipulation. That isn’t to say that I purposefully believe that they would manipulate the data, but instead, to say that success isn’t definite. It’s just a big question mark.

I went to the HeForShe website to try and look up a platform. I found that it focuses on 6 different areas: Education, Health, Identity, Work, Politics, and Violence. For each of these areas is a Project headed by an Impact Champion (either a Head of State, a Corporate Leader, or a University Dean) to create the most impact by 2020. These take place in countries all over the world, such a Rwanda, Indonesia, Romania, Britain, the US, Finland, Uruguay, and more. The leaders have provided somewhat specific action plans (I was almost disappointed that they only had summaries on the website, instead of the in-depth measures they were going to take) of how they were going to make an impact on women’s lives in their countries.

For some reason, I have mixed feelings about this. Of course I admire and applaud their efforts! I really hope they have ground-level initiators making a difference.

But that’s the key-word: ground-level.

I stumbled across this article http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/why-feminists-are-so-cagey-about-class-plan-uk/18761#.V_BuHPArLHp talking about Feminism in the UK. And I thought it was fitting, since one of the world’s largest feminism advocates is from the UK.

Basically, it dissects a study performed that ranks the quality of life for girls in different places in the UK. And, surprise, the poorer the area is, the worse the quality of life is. Of course, the study doesn’t compare girls’ quality of life to boys’ in the same area, but just girls across the board. The author of the article points out how sometimes the feminist movement ignores class and expects women from all backgrounds to be treated equally and have the same opportunity. But it’s just not true, because men from all backgrounds aren’t even treated equally and have the same opportunity!

But it just makes me feel…I don’t know, awful(?) that there are so many people suffering, not necessarily because of their gender, but just because of plain old poverty. Both girls and boys are growing up this abysmal circumstances that no organization is focusing on in the slightest. I just feel like HeForShe is at risk of glossing over the real problems that encompass gender inequality.

Basically, I feel cognitive dissonance because I feel Feminism is too narrow of a label to really help girls. I feel like the whole point of feminism is to be lifting everyone up equally. I am the first to say that there are women in Asia, the Middle East and Africa who deserve our immediate attention because they have practically no human rights incorporated into their daily lifestyle.

But for countries with not so drastic conditions, like the US, and the UK, and Japan, we shouldn’t necessarily be focusing on bettering women, but bettering everyone. Emma Watson mentions this in her speech, the feminism should help men, too. But this goes beyond gender roles. It has to do with the economy, and government, and living conditions, and the impoverished sectors of society nobody likes to look at.

I know this isn’t a complete thought, but it’s just this visceral feeling I’m still wrestling with. I don’t have a solution. And I suppose I’m being too harsh on HeForShe, because at least they’re doing something. But at the same time, I don’t trust their statistics. I don’t know if they’re actually getting the job done, if they’re actually helping and empowering women on the scale that they say they are. I don’t know what the ground-level effects are. Because if poverty is still a problem in these places, then some women just aren’t going to make the cut. So maybe these countries are solving for the wrong problem. I’m not usually this skeptical, I swear. Usually I’m the opposite: completely naive.

But for me, there’s this duality of feminist experience: immediate, and at large. I think HeForShe does a good job at addressing both. It includes questions to post on your social media to stimulate discussion about various different topics, and highlights personal stories of how people have worked to change gender norms in their area. And it also includes the aforementioned projects of the Impact Champions for the “at large” component.

And I feel like, on a personal level, my immediate experience is fine, and that’s why I have felt in the past I haven’t needed the feminism label. But then there are those who really do need that feminism label – both boys and girls -and need a helping hand, and are facing oppression because of their gender, and aren’t able to escape gender roles, and are having doors closed in their face, and I’m afraid that those people who need the label won’t be able to get it. That HeForShe won’t get to them in time, these overlooked people hidden in the masses of first-world countries, suffering from poverty and living in unimaginable conditions.

I think I’m still hung up on Sarah Jessica Parker’s comment from my first post: I’m a humanist, not a feminist.

I don’t know. Maybe I demand too much from the world. I should be happy that HeForShe is making a dent in the world’s problems and helping people! But I have to ask myself…which people? Is it mostly girls? Should it be, when men in the same area might be suffering a similar burden? And where are they? And why do we ignore the cases right under our noses?

Demythologizing Hipsters

 Posted by on Sat, 10/1 at 12:03pm  reading  No Responses »
Oct 012016
 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/656389

This article on Jstor uses Logos and Pathos arguments to analyze consumer trends and theories related to them. The article is purely academic and its intended audience is for scholarly individuals conducting research on the trends of subgroups. The article comes from the Journal of Consumer Research and was published from the Oxford University Press, so just reading the title we can assume the work has substantial credibility and reliability. The article uses several sources, studies and theories to dissect contemporary trends, mainstream products and the American image. It breaks apart the previous misconception that brands create people. Certain images are tied to certain brands and as consumers we take up those images. However, they provide an alternate theory where subgroups create certain identities and then brands exploit those identities and make them mainstream. The researches use fairly recent and well known examples of brands and fads to remain relevant throughout the article. They use examples like Jeep, Star Trek, Harley Davidson and Hipsters. They explain cultural and social trends from a sociological studies standpoint giving the reader a sense of trustworthiness. The article suggests that the hipster brand and icon may have been original, but was ultimately re purposed into a brand by branding the hipster myth and the ideas that coincide with it.

The article doesn’t mean to disrespect the hipster culture or to even defame it, rather it seems to provide insights to a social pattern that we personally ignore in a capitalists society. We may create trends for our own purposes or for a sense of identity, but they are always exploited. Where some see independence and rebellious nature, others see dollar signs. The article uses another great example of a trend that was somewhat unpopular for many. The Trekie trend of star trek enthusiast was for a long time frowned upon by many. However recently, many have exploited the ‘rebellious’ trend making it not only sexy and interesting, but mainstream. This isn’t because people suddenly came to their senses about star trek. Companies just exploited the trend and made it popular for their own financial gains.

The article suggests that many social movement have fallen victim of this financial gaze. Some see the gay movement as disgusting and unnatural. Some see it as beautiful and empowering. But investors see potential dollar signs. What brands do these gay consumers use? What are their morals and what do they identify with? They use this information and essentially exploit these ideas to create a consumer base. This article raises serious questions about the ethics of such a society. Is it moral to exploit gay rights activists, even if you are essentially empowering them and helping them achieve their goals? What if the next movement is a Neo-Nazi fear mongering group? Would such a society empower them just for financial gain? Since this article is purely academic and theoretical it doesn’t take a strong stance for either side.

Are the Candidates Head’s in the Clouds

 Posted by on Tue, 9/27 at 10:38pm  reading  No Responses »
Sep 272016
 

Words, man a lot of words were used during the presidential debate. NBC put together a word cloud for each candidate, some of Clinton’s top words were “Think”, “People”, and “Know”. While Trumps top words were “Country”, “Look” and “Going”.  This week people are analyzing the words that each one used and what that really means in the line of their campaign. An analysis for the word “think” as one of Clinton’s top words shows that she is raising a challenge to the people to really observe themselves, the word “know” also goes along that line, asking people to discover and realize the truth in what her opponent believes. Looking at Trumps selected the word “Country” makes him seem like a patriot, wanting to stand strong for our people. While the word “Look” is to give an opportunity to restate a statement made that may have not been directly what he wanted to say. However I think the best words to come from this debate were the celebrity tweets that went on during the debate. Supporters of Donald Trump like James Woods made sure to crack on every word that came from Clinton’s mouth, from her desire to help those in poverty, to the Middle East. shonda rhimes summarized the debate in her tweet saying “Hillary: “I am prepared, educated and informed.”Donald: “I had something super mean to say but I am keeping it to myself!” “.  Ann Coulter even took the opportunity to take a hit at the moderator saying, “Great that debate covered Trump’s taxes, income, father, ’72 lawsuit, remarks as a reality tv star…& didn’t waste any time on immigration”.

My question is, did anyone develop a greater aversion to Clinton or Trump during this debate? As I’ve been researching, anytime any form of communication happens, word aversion can begin to set into peoples hearts. I think a lot of people watching this debate were hoping to be able to realize a better candidate, but even Patricia Heaton said “In good conscience I can’t vote for either of these two…“. Will this ever change, will we have a definitive answer of the better candidate or will it remain to vote for the lesser of two evils.

 

 

Would the World Be Better off Without Religion?

 Posted by on Sun, 9/25 at 11:48pm  reading  No Responses »
Sep 252016
 

After doing a decent amount of research, I came across an article by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry that was particularly intersting. The beginning of the article explains how prominent the age old question of “Would the World Be Better Off Without Religion?” The question has been covered everywhere from books to interviews to televised debates by scholars and there is still no conclusive answer. The article points out that part of the problem with answering the question is the actual phrasing of the question. When asking if the world would be “better” without religion, we are entailing a judgement call and an opinion. To get to the actual question at hand, a more clear way of rephrasing it would be to ask if the world would be more humane without religion.

The author calls on the works of Daniel Dennet, an athiest philosopher, who tried to determine if the presence of religion made people more or less moral. His results were rather inconclusive and determined that no evidence to support the claim that people “who don’t believe in reward or heaven and/or punishment in hell are more likely to kill, rape, rob or break their promises than people who do. The prison population in the United States shows Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others—including those with no religious affiliation —are represented about as they are in the general population.” The review of other scholar’s data suggests that correlational data may be more useful in determining a more complete answer to such a question.

The author points out the problem with “cherry-picking” points in history in which religiosity incited violence because there are just as many points of violence and hate being promoted by non religious peoples. The author admits that “though metadata studies” conducted by various scholars, that although the data shows there is a statistically significant (albeit small) between “religious belief andand (a) decreased levels of antisocial and criminal behavior and (b) heightened levels of prosocial behavior, such findings do not and cannot demonstrate causality (Galen 2012)” as other trsits such as personality and upbringing could play a role in the data.

By the end of the article, the author concedes that while the “hypothesis that the world would be “better”—more humane—without religion is entirely reasonable… the data consistently point to a negative association between religiosity and criminal behavior and a positive association between religiosity and prosocial behavior.”

 

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/would_the_world_be_better_off_without_religion_a_skeptics_guide_to_the_deba

Snapping for “beautiful”

 Posted by on Sun, 9/25 at 10:59pm  reading  No Responses »
Sep 252016
 

 

 

 

 

mtm5mdyxnzg5otuzmzy5mtc2-1

Social media has helped us connect with friends and family. It also encourages us to share with others what is going on in our life. We share photos and videos of our children, dogs, cats, our trips, achievements, etc…Lately, I see a lot of people abusing social media,especially the women. They take way too many selfies. One reason for this may be snapchat. Snapchat offers their users a variety of filters to make their photos more fun, cute,pretty and exciting to share with others. Users can play with backgrounds and effects on their photos. These different filters, however, can also alter someone’s appearance. Snapchat has photoshop like features. For example, on snapchat there is a “pretty” filter or also called flower crown filter. This filter can alter skin, hair, nose, and eyes. In this image, you can see that the nose is skinnier. The photos are all lightened to produce a much paler result. Skin becomes a lot smoother, the face more flushed with a rosy tint, and the jaw is visibly thinner. The hair becomes shiny and lips become rosy. This filter covers blemishes, birthmarks,freckles. Also in this photo, you can see that the zipper on the after section is a little bit lower than previously. It is a very subtle discovery, but it is a significant find; showing a little more skin is part of sexualization culture. This speaks volume. Why do we have to show more skin than what we are comfortable with to appeal to men? The fact that this form of faux beautification is being considered the definition of “pretty” is problematic in itself, because nobody should have to look any particular way to feel pretty. It’s painting a picture of a very singular view of beauty to an immense platform of people, which can in turn result in a variety of self-esteem issues. The girls that use this filter stem from insecurity and feel that this filter makes them look prettier. These sort of filters encourage others to show what we think they want to see instead of who we truly are. The filter shows us, “this is what you should look like” and “you would look better if you looked like this”. Using these filters keeps telling girls that this is what is sexy and attractive; this is what guys like and what societal expectations of beauty are. I also noticed that using the flower crown filter on snapchat covers your part of your forehead. For example, if you have a big forehead or receding hairline they will cover it with a flower crown. This filter encourages girls to believe that their beauty is not good enough. By encouraging girls to use this filter, they are also letting girls lie about their appearances in fear that others will not accept the way they look like. It is a very superficial app. The point of being connected through social media is not to compete looks with other girls, but to have genuine connections with others. It is also not about accepting a cookie cutter image. Don’t hide your imperfections. That is what makes you real and truly sexy.

 

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/stop-sexualization-snapchat-filters  

http://verilymag.com/2016/06/snapchat-lenses-social-media-beauty-photoshop

I’m Only A Man In A Silly Red Sheet, Digging For Kryptonite On This One-Way Street

 Posted by on Sun, 9/25 at 9:28pm  ideas, reading  No Responses »
Sep 252016
 

I know a lot about Superman. I could tell you the Kryptonian date that he was born, read and write in his native language, recite his social security number, and even speak a few phrases in Kryptonese. But as much as I love the character, I tend to stay away from reading certain things about him. He’s my hero, and, despite how stupid this sounds, he’s been there for me when I’ve needed him the most. Why would I want to read articles in which the author either doesn’t understand or downright despises the character? With this class, I am given little option, and I think it might be for the best. I already know what the fanbase is saying about the character. I could tell you exactly how the dedicated fans are feeling about having the Post-Crisis Superman take over for the recently deceased New 52 Superman, or how the release of March 2016’s Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice has split the fanbase even greater than 2013’s Man of Steel. I’m knowledgable about what is being said within the community, but I am vaguely familiar with what is being said by detractors (aside from the lousy excuses for reasons to dislike the character) and those who have a general understanding of the character. As I’ve written elsewhere, Superman is engrained in our culture. People much smarter than I have commented that The Man of Steel and his colleagues are essentially modern day American mythology. A lot is being said about Superman. People have written essays on the scientific workings of his abilities, how he’s impacted American society, the moral and philosophical questions he’s raised, and even the practicality of him and Lois engaging in coitus. While I doubt that I will be able to bring anything new to the conversation, especially since the character is nearly 80 years old, I do hope to be able to sort through the myriad articles and essays to perhaps consolidate what is being said into an easy-to-comprehend piece of literature. The character means a lot to me and plays a huge role in my life. I am in contact with people who love the character and despise his very existence. However, after reading the articles from this week, I feel that I am well-equipped to be writing about this topic. I write for The Superman Homepage and host a podcast on the character; I think I have a pretty good understanding of who the character is, why he works, and what makes him so enduring.

back in the day

 Posted by on Sun, 9/25 at 9:26pm  reading  No Responses »
Sep 252016
 

I was reading a book for my Intro Literature Studies that is called O Pioneers wrote by Willa Cather.  This book talks mostly about a  young woman name Alexandra Bergson who grew up on a farm in which  she made it her home.  Now when I was reading this book I noticed there was this spark of my topic and I was glad because not only I feel related to the story but it also makes me feel home since my parents had a farm too. In chapter two it explains how John Bergeson who was Alexandra’s father was telling her to keep the land and to cultivate it. Now I was reluctant to even this book associated with my topic because I did not see the connection until I finish reading chapter three which explained how years later the land was prosperous in which she became a very wealthy person.  the author describes in depth more how she was working hard and trust her instinct in making the good decision about the farm.    Back in the day, things were much simpler and easy because things were not expensive back then and it was very helpful for farmers who have their own land to eat and to not worry about food. Didn’t people pay farmers and workers to have their land cultivate I ask? In the book, it did not say anything about Alexandra paying tenant farmers with money to  work on her farm.  i would assume that  she paid them with food or gave them some shelter and this when i realize that i made a connection about my topic. And it also provides a perfect example for my topic.  I always curious what the past was like especially living  in a farm wit animals, great   landscape with green grass, and  the wind that the blew on my face. All of that tell me that pollution was reduced, machines were not made, technology was barely popular back then which means as time prolonged money affected the rising of pollution with those big expensive machines technology destroyed mother nature to the core. without money. A government without a money system can survive because we have great knowledge to build space shuttle in to space i am sure we can find a way to eliminate this system that making almost everyone in this planet with great debts.

Superman Never Made Any Money Saving the World From Solomon Grundy

 Posted by on Sun, 9/25 at 9:08pm  reading  No Responses »
Sep 252016
 

When you’re involved with a group of like-minded people, it can be really easy to fall into the rut of reading the same ideas. Sometimes, new ideas and thoughts are rare and hard to come by. As a fan of Superman, I find myself reading a lot of the same opinions, mostly because I find myself reading the thoughts of people who share very similar viewpoints about the character, the mythology, and the philosophical implications of his existence. I find this weekly journaling and reading to be incredibly insightful as it allows me to read articles and thoughts from people who are not necessarily in the group. I am given the chance to find out what people who are outsiders think about Superman.

This week, I read a couple of interesting articles analyzing Superman and his relevance in popular culture. One article that stuck out to me was “The Trouble With Superman.” (http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/02/the-trouble-with-superman/435408/) A lot of the things said in the article have been said before, but the author’s word choice and often unconventional opinions gave me the impression that they were not particularly invested in Superman. In the article, Asher Elbein writes that Superman’s biggest problem regarding relevancy is that DC Comics has no idea how to handle their flagship character. While Elbein isn’t necessarily wrong, he also doesn’t seem to have a full understanding of what makes the character work, let alone suggest a way to make the character relevant again. For example, Elbein references an event that happens in Action Comics (vol. 2) #42 in which Superman, depowered after a long and incredibly convoluted series of events, punches a cop. Elbein states that making Superman confront current social issues, much like he did during the first few years of his existence, is the the answer to make him relevant again. Not much else is offered in terms of suggestions.

Regarding another article that I happened to read (http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/25/superman-unconsciously-fights-relativism-one-popular-adventures/), author Jace Lington takes a more philosophical approach to the character. In the article, Lington references a moment in All-Star Superman in which Superman states that he has no right to impose his beliefs on anybody. Lington takes this moment and analyzes it, as well as the implications, as well as Superman’s unintended hypocrisy. According to Lington, in fighting against evil and injustice, Superman’s actions are in a sense him imposing his beliefs on others. Furthermore, Lington writes that this contradiction raises a lot of questions about relativism.

Regardless of how popular Superman might be currently, there will always be some sort of discussion regarding him.

(Reading) Why Do People Care About Other People’s Makeup

 Posted by on Sun, 9/25 at 8:50pm  reading  No Responses »
Sep 252016
 

http://www.wcsh6.com/news/local/why-do-people-care-about-other-peoples-makeup/321680480

 

I was reading an article online about “why do people care about other people’s makeup”. It caught my attention because I feel like I want to know the answer too. The article discussed a recent event in which recording artist, Alicia Keys, refused to wear makeup publicly anymore. This caused such an uproar with fans, paparazzi, and critics. I feel like, “who the hell cares!” Why does it matter who wears what and for what reasons. The article discusses how a news anchor saw what Alicia Keys was doing and wanted to see if she didn’t wear makeup on television would people notice. Well, of course people are going to notice. If you wear makeup every day on TV then decide you are not going to, prepare to be noticed. In fact, I feel like thats the rhetoric right there. This articles title is about why do people care but the person themselves who wrote the article decided not to wear makeup to see what kind of positive and/or negative attention they would in fact get. The writer’s purpose is to inform and entertain the idea that if you wear makeup all the time and choose to one day not wear any, people will notice. But do people actually care? That’s the question that I feel the author is trying to answer here. Using Alicia Keys as a current event helped the author point out that if Alicia Keys is doing it and people are giving her hell for it then what will happen if “everyday” people do it? What will be the outcome? The text mixing historical events that had to do with makeup as well as pop culture makes the article more relatable for the reader.

 Older Entries  Newer Entries