I’ve actually read a lot of Sapolsky’s work. He’s one of my favorite scientists in the neuro/socio world.
I just watched the documentary and there is so much more about the troop that isn’t in this photoset—not only does the troop have a culture of little aggression and greater cooperation, but any incoming jerk baboons learned within a few months that their shitty behaviour was in no way acceptable, that the troop only rewarded sociability, and they changed accordingly.
If effin’ baboons can learn this there’s pretty much no reason to believe that our only option in dealing with assholes is to just ignore their behaviour and let it continue.
erasure of Asian people and characters is very deep rooted in American media and goes all the way back to conception—don’t let it persist!
Important even when you’re excited about this movie!
good points, but please for the love of god, realize that the original marvel comic was a fucking horrible racist disaster of the most unacceptable calibre that rode on the tail ends of the 90s ninja craze and the budding 00s anime craze.
I still have no idea why Disney chose to adapt this MASSACRE of a comic book series to film, but what I have heard is that they’ve cherry picked the best parts of it and created something great from what was absolute dregs before.
And honestly I think a movie portraying a much, much more racially diverse -even if it is fictional- world, where everyone lives unquestionably together and showing what that might just be like, is a pretty good goddamn thing that I think could stand to be shown and portrayed to kids of this generation. You aren’t seeing the white kids appropriating anybody’s culture, you’re seeing a bunch of kids who are friends and race is not a divisive factor between them. I sort of think, in media, portraying/normalizing these sorts of things is really important and I think that is what BH6 is doing here: normalizing these sorts of situations.
When I say “normalize”, I mean, in media, and especially media for impressionable children, things that could be anything from diverse/inclusive groups of people from different races, to things like different genders, or different body types, being shown as “normal.” You put them on screen and tell a kid “this is normal.” and this can be shown in a way to goad children into doing what advertisers/media producers want, but it can also be used as a force of good. It’s about time we start using this media influence to spread stuff like this, instead of “buy this toy, wear this type of clothes, girls behave this way and boys have to do this or they aren’t normal”.
baby steps, man. There was a shitstorm when Laika released a movie with an openly gay character. But when they did the same thing a year after for the Boxtrolls, only the stupid old people got pissy about it. See? It’s starting to become normalized.
In the future I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s now easier for more diverse casts to exist, not just because it’s now been done once, but because the people, like me, who work in production, can point to things like this and say “see? They did it in Paranorman, the world didn’t explode. It’ll be fine.” or “see? the movie didn’t have to change for a bunch of different races to fit in fine. It’s not a big deal.” It’s been normalized. Somebody has to set a precedent. Wouldn’t it be great if shows were as diverse as this, not because they had some sort of agenda to, but just because that’s… yknow, normal?
[…]Hurt organized a study of 224 near-term or full-term babies born at Einstein between 1989 and 1992 - half with mothers who used cocaine during pregnancy and half who were not exposed to the drug in utero. All the babies came from low-income families, and nearly all were African Americans.
"We went looking for the effects of cocaine," Hurt said. But after a time "we began to ask, ‘Was there something else going on?’ "
While the cocaine-exposed children and a group of nonexposed controls performed about the same on tests, both groups lagged on developmental and intellectual measures compared to the norm. Hurt and her team began to think the “something else” was poverty.
The years of tracking kids have led Hurt to a conclusion she didn’t see coming.
"Poverty is a more powerful influence on the outcome of inner-city children than gestational exposure to cocaine," Hurt said at her May lecture.
Before Martin Luther King Jr, there was Elizabeth Peratrovich (Tlingit Nation) from Alaska! She was instrumental in passing the FIRST Anti-Discrimination Act (1945) in the USA!
As Grand Camp President of the Alaska Native Sisterhood, Elizabeth provided the crucial testimony that cultivated passage of the Anti Discrimination Bill. It was her response when questioned by the Senate — Will the equal rights bill eliminate discrimination in Alaska? — that split the opposition and allowed the bill to pass.
"Have you eliminated larceny or murder by passing a law against it? No law will eliminate crimes but, at least you as legislators, can assert to the world that you recognize the evil of the present situation and speak your intent to help us overcome discrimination."
As Elizabeth stepped down from the Senate platform, the galleries and some of the senators gave her a rousing acclaim. The Senate passed the bill 11 to 5. A new era in Alaska’s racial relations had begun. Elizabeth Peratrovich died on December 1, 1958, after a lengthy battle with cancer. She is buried in Evergreen Cemetery in Jeneau.
It was not until many years later that Elizabeth’s efforts to secure equality for all Alaskans won recognition. In 1988, the Alaska Legislature established February 16 as “The Annual Elizabeth Peratrovich Day,” the anniversary of the signing of the Anti-Discrimination Act. Every year since that day, Alaskans pause to remember her, dedicating themselves to the continuation of her efforts to achieve equality and justice for all Alaskans of every race, creed, and ethnic background.
This is one of the most common deflections when the issue of how women are portrayed comes up. It’s known as a false equivalence – the idea that two things presented together as equal when in fact they aren’t. In this case, the idea that just because women have exaggerated physiques doesn’t mean they’re sexist because the men are just as exaggerated too. Of course, this doesn’t work for many reasons. To start with, it assumes – falsely – that the things that women find sexy are the same things that guys find sexy; that is, the exaggerated secondary sex characteristics. But we’ll get to that in a second.
The other issue is the reason for the exaggeration. Comics and games are fantasy true, but the fantasy aspect differs when it comes to male and female characters. Male characters are a power fantasy; the large muscles and massive torsos are visual signs that this character is an unstoppable powerhouse. Kratos doesn’t look the way he does because Sony Computer Entertainment did focus-market studies and found that women reacted best to that design; he looks the way he does because he represents the powerful alpha-male that gamers want to be.
The women, on the other hand, are sexual fantasies. These are the rewards for the player – the character’s love-interest, the motivation to complete the game. They’re designed as eye-candy; they’re intended as something to be consumed, not something to escape into. Women like to fantasize about being desirable yes, but they also like to be powerful, and their definition of what they would consider to be sexy and powerful doesn’t mean battle-bikinis and thongs of power.
But hey, I’m a guy. It’s easy for me to sit here and proclaim what women find sexy, but I could be talking out of my ass. So why not take it to the source? I put out a completely unscientific poll on Facebook and Twitter about characters that women find sexy – video games, comics, anime, whatever. And the results? Well, let’s compare.
Up top we have the exaggerated figures that are supposedly sexy.
And here are the characters my female readers find sexy:
Notice a trend here? These are not the massive beefcakes alpha-males that are supposedly as equally objectified as Kasumi, Ayane or Ivy. These men have longer torsos with much leaner builds; they’re built like swimmers rather than weight-lifters. They’re not men who scream “unstoppable physical power”. They’re lithe and dextrous, not barrel-chested juggernauts with treestumps for limbs.
And the other critical factor: it’s not just their builds that make them sexy. Gambit, for example is attractive because of his personality and his situation; he’s tortured because he can’t physically touch the woman he loves. Nightcrawler is the laughing swashbuckler, full of wit and flirty charm. Jareth is dark and mysterious and just a little dangerous and oozes sexuality.
Yes, the men are exaggerated as much as the women. But it’s the intent and the message that make all of the difference.
The part I find most baffling about the claims that men suffer from the same objectification and sexualization as women is I can never, for the life of me, think of a popular product that has:
Plot essential scenes taking place inside a male strip bar, a strip bar that is introduced with loving panning shots over the performers bodies.
Sincere marketing campaigns for non-romantic productions focusing entirely on the sexual characteristics and flirtatious manner of the male lead.
A scandal where it turns out the creators accidentally released imagery of a male lead nude, imagery that never needed to be created for the production in the first place.
A video game rumor that there’s a key function to unlock “naked mode” so you can see the male protagonist running around naked
Part of the reason why some people seem to think that men are sexualized is, ironically, because male sexuality is so rarely put on display as enticement that it creates a mirage effect. People who assume it must be there start seeing it everywhere rather than realizing it’s just not there.
What I find most funny about the argument that men are objectified in comics and video games (the implication being that the guy making this argument doesn’t give a shit, so women should shut up too) is that the majority of the time, if you present the guy making this argument with a REAL example of the female gaze (and to a lesser extent the gay male gaze) they immediately get super uncomfortable. It doesn’t even have to be as exaggerated an example as when Shortpacked! tackled this subject; look at all the straight male readers who get upset about Nightwing’s ass.
What I find baffling is that they didn’t put a picture of Optimus Prime in there.