Women and Men in Movies

Alright, let's start with the fact that I know I'm probably going to make a lot of people upset by something in this post, for different people it will be something different, but I'm sure I'll make you upset by the end by something.  Let's also point out that this is going to be somewhat stream of conscience and not an argument over one thing, such as whether there should be women-only cast spinoffs of movies.... though I'm relatively confident that will come up given that I just watched a youtube show with a group of people arguing about it.  I also recognize that this isn't going to be some of my best writing, in part because it's just a rant, and probably not a very good one at that.

First aspect of women and men in movies, though, is going to be "I'm going to see that movie because so-and-so is hot".  For the love of movies, if you're going to see a movie to see a guy or a girl, you should just stay home and rent a porn with a lookalike or get a video with them in it and watch that over and over again instead of spending the $8-12 on a one-off viewing.  To me, movies are exercises in story-telling, first and foremost.  They are not opportunities to watch hot people be hot, they're opportunities to watch hot people perform in a story... I mean... they're opportunities to watch people perform in a story... ok, it helps when you cook with better ingredients and certainly part of visual story-telling is the scenery and, though it sounds shallow, beautiful people make for better scenery most of the time.  That said, I don't go see any movie because of a hot chick (or hot dude for that matter)... I go see it because I think it'll be fun or I think it'll have a good story.  I'm happy that women are going to see Marvel movies, but it saddens me whenever I hear that they're going because the men are hotties.  I know that men do the same thing and that creates 2 problems for me: 1) I'm ashamed for my gender and 2) it takes a lot out of my being annoyed by women who see Thor because Chris Hemsworth is hot topless.

All-women-lead casts.  Alright, the discussion online centered around what franchise should have an all-women-lead spinoff (other than Ghostbusters).  One person picked Mission Impossible, another picked Bridesmaids.  The person that picked Bridesmaids made the argument that she didn't want to see women playing male roles but instead wanted to see women being women and talking about things women talk about.  I'm sorry, there are already movies geared toward women, just as there are movies geared toward men.  There's nothing ground breaking about movies geared toward women with leading women, and it doesn't further the discussion, or the fact that there shouldn't need to be a discussion, of women playing different roles in movies.  There's also no way you can suggest that men in Mission Impossible are playing me, they're playing spies and heroes.  Men in Mission Impossible don't talk about normal man things.  Sure, a comedy movie about women would further the goal a little, but it has to be a movie for men or for both men and women.... not a movie that women bring their husbands/boyfriends to because their husbands/boyfriends brought them to X-Men and it's payback time.  Women in, let's say action movies, can also play different roles within those movies.  They can play stereotypical women roles, they can play stereotypical guy roles, they can play ... whatever.... point is, women and men have a wider range of characters than have historically been portrayed.  We're just starting to see geeky characters in action movies not be insanely wimpish and also not being super-awesome... expand it all and you're breaking barriers and proving that we don't need one-dimensional characters (Ethan Hunt), we need multi-dimensional characters (Loki, Magneto) and we need more of them to be women so that we can get past the whole discussion, then we can let it flow naturally to the point where we don't see the token woman or the token man but instead see true ensemble casts.

In conclusion, we should go to movies for the stories, not how sexy the people in them are and while we shouldn't need to think about whether we should cast strong women characters or whether we have enough women characters, we do for the time being until it becomes natural that there are strong women characters as often as there are strong men characters and the same with supporting roles.

Wako Comparisons

I've seen several posts comparing Wako's gang shootout to riots in Baltimore.... I'm not so sure that a gang shootout is really something you can compare to a riot so easily.

• One comparison suggested that there weren't mass arrests in Wako, but 170 gang members were arrested.
• One comparison suggested that since tear gas wasn't used, the police weren't as intense..... police were firing their guns at the gang members, that's not as intense as tear gas?
• One comparison suggested that since the National Guard wasn't called in, it wasn't being taken as seriously.... this comparison was made 1 day after the shoot out, the National Guard has been typically pulled into scenes much later than the first riot in the area... And by the time the comparison was made, the ATF and FBI were on the scene, the area was cordoned off, not really sure what the National Guard would have done
• I've seen a photo and the suggestion that the police were being super-relaxed in their handling of the gang members... Maybe they were, maybe they weren't, but I certainly can't tell from one photo and I most definitely don't know enough about the scene to know if they really could have behaved any differently (when you're entirely overwhelmed numerically you often react differently than if you have a ton of cops in riot gear)
• And now I've seen something asking why the media is calling it a gang shootout instead of a riot.... that's because IT WAS A GANG SHOOTOUT... if the riots in Baltimore were gangs shooting each other rather than gangs and others tearing apart some businesses, the story there would have been a gang shoot out as well.

Not everything is equivalent.
Not everything is a prime example of the difference in how police treat blacks vs whites.

Here's one more comparison: The location of the gun fight has been closed down as a franchise and will not re-open.  CVS re-opened one of the sites of the riot in Baltimore and has pledged to support the community.  Please tell me which community is being treated as dangerous and problematic to invite into a business.

I'm not saying there isn't white privilege, there absolutely is.  I'm not saying police behavior isn't part of that white privilege, it absolutely is.  I'm not saying that the riots weren't poorly reported, they absolutely were.  But just because gang members are being called gang members instead of thugs doesn't mean that the reporting isn't appropriate.

I leave you with one last comment: with all these comparisons, none of them are pointing out that 9 people are dead and 18 injured.

It's o.k. to be Selfish

Something has had me thinking lately.  Is it o.k. to be selfish?  I would say it has to be.  When you get a scholarship instead of someone else, you're selfish for accepting it because it could help someone else.  Know what though?  Nobody blames you for accepting that scholarship.  When you have a job and get yourself a new one, you guessed it, that's being selfish too.  You're leaving one job, where your coworkers will now be impacted negatively because they have to pick up the slack.  Even if the company hires someone else, there's ramp up time and there are always projects and/or tasks that someone has to pick up in the meantime.  Does that mean you should never try to get a job while you have one?  Of course not.  So clearly, it's o.k. to be selfish.... even if it has a negative connotation.

That's not to say it's always right to be selfish.  Stealing someone's car certainly shouldn't be held up as a good thing to do.  Leaving the scene of an accident when nobody is around and not leaving a note providing contact details is less selfish but is still a bit more selfish than I'd say is o.k.

So, as with many things, selfish is o.k., even preferred, in moderation.  So, next time someone tells you you're being selfish, don't be quite as offended.  If you feel you should be offended, consider looking at what you're being told you're being selfish about and decide for yourself if you're being selfish and if so, if it's reasonable to be selfish in that way.  If it's not reasonable, consider changing your ways.  If it is reasonable, recognize that the comment should not be offensive... after all, we're all selfish a lot of the time, and it's only healthy.

End of 2014 Tax Donation suggestions

Today and tomorrow are your last days to have tax-exempt donations counted toward your upcoming tax filings.  If you donate, I suggest donating locally.  Below are 3 groups in Somerville that I recommend for those in the Somerville area: The Growing Center, The OPENAIR Circus, and The Welcome Project.

The Growing Center is an open space in Somerville with, well, growing things ;-) Seriously though, the Growing Center is a place for community events as well as a place where members of the community can come to learn about a great many outdoor thing (not just plants and bees but also stuff like the equinox and solstice).  They host camps, classes, readings, and more!  They're planning on expanding their programming this year:
1)    Completing a community site design upgrade to support the space’s role as a living example of urban permaculture and integrated sustainable management
2)    Developing a small nearby Growing Center Annex site to promote urban agriculture partnering with several other local non-profit groups
3)    Expanding their Children in Nature Initiative through partnering with the Somerville Family Learning Collaborative and others to create more opportunities for a range of families with young children to benefit from the space, and
4)    Supporting the 21st year of a full calendar of free events and learning opportunities.
Get involved and read up on their activities at http://thegrowingcenter.org/ or donate at http://thegrowingcenter.org/get-involved/donate/

The OPENAIR Circus is an entirely volunteer-run organization (seriously, the only people paid at the OAC are the teachers, and most of the teachers even volunteer) that is heading into its 30th year.  They have a summer program with roughly 200 students (more than 90% are children ages 3-15) which teaches an appreciation for art, community, physical activity, and cooperation.  They also provide an opportunity for teens to grow into roles of leadership.  To learn more about the OPENAIR Circus, visit http://www.openaircircus.org or donate at http://www.openaircircus.org/donate1.asp

The Welcome Project is yet another example of what makes Somerville great!  They work on immigrant rights, inclusion, and support.  They promote civic engagement and have several great programs, including LIPS, which trains teens to be interpreters, adult English classes, and even free yoga classes for members.  To learn more about them, visit http://welcomeproject.org/ or donate at https://secure.lglforms.com/form_engine/s/UbO6kZzzXWr8mMzwULy5Fg

2014 MA Candidates for Governor

O.k., I apologize to anybody that thinks a third party candidate is the way to go but you're essentially voting for the greater of two evils by voting for someone other than a Democrat or a Republican... it's the truth and you need to accept it.  When instant runoff elections are implemented, then voting for a third party candidate won't be voting for the candidate you would least like to see if office, or when the election isn't close, like it is this year.

Alright, so, let's discuss the 2 actual candidates for Governor this year: Martha Coakley and Charlie Baker.

Say what you will, and I can say a lot about both, there are in fact issues that each has indicated their stances on and we should probably vote for them based on those stances.

• Taxes
• Charlie Baker has proclaimed no new taxes.  Congrats, you're the first Republican to take that vow.  This means, however, that we're going to see cuts and/or a crumbling of resources (such as state highways, the MBTA, schools).  No new taxes, by the way, also includes the reversal of the recent law that Question 1 would override: the updating of the gas tax based on inflation.  This is an automatic increase in taxes, yes, but it's not an increase in relation to everything else.... in fact, the whole point is to keep the gas tax up to date with everything else rather than eroding away.  See, most taxes are based on a percentage of something, rather than strictly a dollar amount per quantity of a thing consumed.  Our income tax is a percentage of our income, sales tax is a percentage of the cost of your purchase... the gas tax doesn't change based on the cost of your purchase but rather is a fixed amount based on the amount of gas you're buying.  If it were a percentage of the cost of the gas, that would be a different story and it would automatically increase over time with the increasing cost of gas (or decrease with a decrease in the cost of gas).  For more thoughts on Question 1, please consider reading my post on it.
• Martha Coakley is somewhat reticent to say she's in favor of new taxes, but she's in support of the new gas tax law and has indicated that new taxes would most likely lean more toward the higher income residents... similar to a graduated tax.  Graduated taxes are great for lower and middle incomes and are what made this country great for most of the 20th century.  The degradation of the Federal graduated income tax can be tied to the blowing up of the difference in income between the top 1% and the lower 99%.
• Bottle Bill... simply put...
• Baker's against it because Business
• Coakley's in favor because it encourages recycling (currently 80% of deposit bottles are recycled vs 23% of non-deposit) and increases revenue to the state.
• (For a more comprehensive review of Question 2, please consider reading my post on it)
• Sick time for all 
• Baker's against question 4 because Business
• Coakley's in favor because Workers Rights (and disputes the risk to business)
• (For a more comprehensive review of Question 4, please consider reading my post on it.)
• Schools
• Baker's in favor of charter schools... to the detriment of public schools
• Coakley's position is somewhat less exact and she seems to be doing a balancing act to attract more people (though it's been turning people off).  She claims to be in favor of some balance between charter schools and improving public schools.
• Essentially, if you're in favor of charter schools and all other things don't matter to you, vote Baker, but if you're not as keen to rely on charter schools, vote Coakley

My suggestion?  I know she may not be your top pick of everybody on the ballot, but vote Coakley.  She may not be my kind of Democrat but she's definitely not as bad as Baker.  One last thing to point out: Do you like how the state has been managed in the last 8 years?  Deval Patrick is far to the left of both Coakley and Baker, so there's absolutely no harm in having a Democrat in the Governor's office while having Democrats in power in the House and Senate, especially not one closer to the center than Patrick.

To summarize my posts in the last couple weeks:

Governor: Vote Coakley

Question 1: Vote No

Question 2: Vote Yes

Question 3: Vote Yes

Question 4: Vote Yes

2014 MA Ballot Questions: Question 4 - Sick Time for all Employees

Last question to go through... and this one's pretty simple for anybody believing in workers' rights.  A yes vote makes it so that any employee will earn 5 sick days per year (1 hour per 30 hours worked; would be available for use after the 90th day after hire).  These sick days would be paid if the employer has more than 10 employees and unpaid if the employer has fewer employees.  The sick days are to be used

1. to care for a physical or mental illness, injury or medical condition affecting the employee or employee's child, spouse, parent, or parent of a spouse
2. to attend routine medical appointments of the employee or the employee's child, spouse, parent, or parent of a spouse
3. to address the effects of domestic violence on the employee or the employee's dependent child

So... who would argue against this?  Chambers of commerce... aka business.  Business tends to be against workers' rights because it costs more.  I get that, but sick time should be a basic right.  I don't know how else to say it.  Business claims that this will cost money and therefore cause lower wages and kill jobs.  O.k., so, that being the case, maybe we should do away with the minimum wage so that we can have more jobs?  They also suggest that it takes away flexibility for employees and employers to negotiate compensation.  So may be after doing away with all workers' rights since they all protect the employee from the employer negotiating away those rights.  

Enough already.  Minimum wage, 40 hour work week, lunch breaks, the right not to be sexually harassed on the job, protections for whistle blowers, regulations about safety in the workplace... all of these things limit what business can do and they are all accepted as basic rights for workers and they were all brought to use by Unions fighting against chambers of commerce.  Let's bring sick days to all employees in this Commonwealth.

Vote yes on question 4.

2014 MA Ballot Questions: Question 3 - Gambling in Massachusetts

Question 3 on the 2014 ballot in Massachusetts is essentially overturn the decision to legalize gambling in Massachusetts that was made back in 2011, a decision allowing 3 casinos and 1 slot parlor to be established (none of which have actually started construction).  A "yes" vote would overturn the law, a "no" vote maintains the plan.

Simply put, gambling establishments have a negative impact on the communities around them.  There is no question about this.  Seriously, it's not debated.  So, what are the reasons we would want casinos in Massachusetts?  Let's discuss them and see if they're worth the negatives.

• Jobs.  In 2011, Massachusetts was on the road to recovery from the largest recession in quite a while, but we were still hurting quite a bit.  We still are, but at 6% unemployment today, we're definitely in a better place than we were in 2011 (7.7% in Jan - 6.9% in Dec).  So yes, jobs are an important consideration, but I would suggest that there are better ways to grow the economy than to introduce harmful industries.  Also, looking at how casinos operate and how they're doing in nearby states suggests that the jobs that would come would pay less than a living wage.  I know, having a job is better than not having a job, but the quality of jobs being produced by negative industries should be part of the consideration.
• Government Income.  So, here's the interesting thing, this actually isn't something opponents to this question (proponents of gambling) argue.  The reason?  Gambling establishments introduce huge new costs that have to be covered.

Any other good things?  Nope, not really.

O.k., so, let's discuss a few things to keep in mind in addition to the benefit of jobs that aren't particularly good.

• Casinos in other states haven't been doing well, which leads proponents of this Question to believe that workers from those states may come to Massachusetts for those jobs... and they'll be more likely to be hired because they're already trained.  Besides the idea that not all the jobs will go to MA residents, this also draws into question how well the new casinos in MA would do. 
• Casinos are really bad neighbors.  They muck up traffic and cause local businesses to go under.  Even Governor Deval Patrick, a huge supporter of casinos, doesn't want one near him.  

O.k., so, we're not as hurting for jobs as we once were, the jobs that would be produced aren't good jobs, the construction industry is doing pretty well, gambling is detrimental to the neighborhoods it comes to, and the economic benefit of having casinos is dubious at best.  All in all, it's time to put this idea back to bed and move on with what makes Massachusetts a great state and has allowed our economy to not be as negatively impacted by the Great Recession but also to rebound rather well.  We're known for our great educational institutions, bio-tech sciences, finance, health care and computer science.  These are all great industries we can continue to grow.

Please vote yes on Question 3.