I've heard a lot of talk about how the only reason Trump is winning is because the media and his supporters are misogynists. There is no doubt in my mind that there is a lot of sexim in this country and it informs a lot of how people react to Hillary Clinton (and other women in politics). That said, there are two facts that come to mind that very cleanly explains the fact that this is not the only thing at play: 1) Trump one the Republican primary; 2) The Republican primary candidates were mostly men.
Let me explain a bit. If the only reason Trump had support was misogyny, how did he go up against 10 other men (and 1 woman) and come out on top? Was it that the other men weren't sexist? I don't think so. I mean, not that I have any presumptions about Republican Presidential candidates (as I exhaust my sarcasm allocation for the rest of September), but I suspect that several of them have sexist policy ideas. Also, the one woman, Carly Fiorina, dropped out after 2 primaries and very early on in the process. Furthermore, the argument that Trump is being competitive only because of the country's misogynistic ways is that Trump is benefiting because he's a man going up against a woman, in which case, the other 10 men would have been on equal footing with him. But he beat those other candidates. He beat them pretty easily too. He got nearly 45% of the popular vote and nearly 70% of the delegates. So... he's popular enough to become a Presidential nominee of a major party without the benefit of being up against a woman.
I'm not trying to say there isn't an impact of the misogynistic tendencies of the nation, but I would suggest there's much more to the Trump V Clinton situation than that. To suggest that there isn't, that most of the reason that Trump is doing well has to do with the news stations treating him different from Clinton because of their genders and the populace treating them different for the same reason, to suggest this is to ignore vital issues before us. Trump's supporters have baffled the news and the Left's pundits. There is no single simple explanation.
Clinton's detractors are not only against her for sexist reasons either. The more we suggest that everything is that simple and that all those who have ill-will toward Clinton only feel that way because they are sexist, the more we risk alienating even more of the populace. If you think Marvel movies should have villains that are more compelling and stay longer than one movie, and someone tells you that the only reason anyone could dislike Marvel movies is because the movies are sexist, you might not listen to the argument. If, on the other hand, someone tells you that Marvel movies are sexist and explains why, there's the chance of getting into a fruitful discussion, because they haven't told you that your points of view are wrong, especially considering your point of view has merit.
Dark Wind Rising
Wednesday, September 21, 2016
Friday, September 16, 2016
Voting for the Good Rather than the Lesser of Two Evils
Ok, so, your read of the post header "voting for the food rather than the lesser of two evils"... what did you think it meant? I could have intended one of two meanings:
1) One of the two main parties' candidates is seen as good
2) Voting for a third party candidate
Answer... BOTH. This post is two posts in one!
Alright, so, starting with the obvious. I'm really quite happy that there are those out there, and I know quite a few, who are exceedingly pleased with Clinton for President. I'm not. This does not mean I'm sexist, stupid, unreasonable, die-hard-for-Bernie, single-minded, or in any other way wrong-headed. I have real and rational reasons for not being in favor of Clinton just as those friends of mine that are in favor of her surely have reasons they were not in favor of Sanders. There are political views and stands that are not based in sexism. I will be voting for Clinton, who I find to be a less than desirable candidate because she is not as liberal as I'd like in just about every aspect you can imagine, but especially so in terms of foreign affairs. So, for me, I am going to voting for the lesser of two evils. Please don't suggest that I'm doing otherwise because, by simple deduction, you are suggesting that either my values are invalid or worse, that I am being lumped in, in your mind, with the deplorables that Clinton speaks of when she talks of a certain subset of those in favor of Trump... and I'm pretty sure, for all the hate you may have for me, you don't actually lump me in there.
Second option, voting for a third party candidate for President. Are you kidding me with this? Ok, those of you who are voting in a state that is excessively in one major party's favor or the other, you're fine to vote for a third-party candidate... but don't think for a moment that they'll get elected. For those of you who are voting in a state that may, just maybe, pick either side... GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR... <clears throat> <takes breath> you're insane if you have a preference between Clinton and Trump and are voting third party. That's all there is to it. If your state could go either way and you're voting third party, that doesn't mean you want a third party candidate to be elected, that means you don't want the candidate that you favor between Trump and Clinton to be President... which is how I get to the "you're insane" bit. Let me rephrase that a bit. If you're voting for a third party candidate and you live in a state that is up for grabs (whether it's typically a swing state or not), you're actively opposing the candidate you prefer. Here's why. Third party candidates are great if you have representative elections like Europe does, or if the third party has a chance as it does in local, or even sometimes in state elections, but there is no chance, none, that a third party candidate will be elected President this year. It is, simply put, not going to happen. So, by voting for a third party candidate, you're not voting for the choice of two evils I mentioned above, and in so doing, not tipping the scales in that lesser evil's favor.
In Massachusetts, we have the luxury of being strongly in favor of Clinton and therefore can vote for a third party candidate to show support for a third party (not for the individuals running, because again, they're not going to win). And there is some logic to doing so. By voting for a third party candidate, you're influencing which parties are seen as viable for the local and state elections as well as who gets invited to the national stage (read Presidential debates), and that's important. So, yes, in a solid state, vote for a third party candidate to help the third party that you're in favor of get some further traction, by all means... but that's limited to the solid states.
1) One of the two main parties' candidates is seen as good
2) Voting for a third party candidate
Answer... BOTH. This post is two posts in one!
Alright, so, starting with the obvious. I'm really quite happy that there are those out there, and I know quite a few, who are exceedingly pleased with Clinton for President. I'm not. This does not mean I'm sexist, stupid, unreasonable, die-hard-for-Bernie, single-minded, or in any other way wrong-headed. I have real and rational reasons for not being in favor of Clinton just as those friends of mine that are in favor of her surely have reasons they were not in favor of Sanders. There are political views and stands that are not based in sexism. I will be voting for Clinton, who I find to be a less than desirable candidate because she is not as liberal as I'd like in just about every aspect you can imagine, but especially so in terms of foreign affairs. So, for me, I am going to voting for the lesser of two evils. Please don't suggest that I'm doing otherwise because, by simple deduction, you are suggesting that either my values are invalid or worse, that I am being lumped in, in your mind, with the deplorables that Clinton speaks of when she talks of a certain subset of those in favor of Trump... and I'm pretty sure, for all the hate you may have for me, you don't actually lump me in there.
Second option, voting for a third party candidate for President. Are you kidding me with this? Ok, those of you who are voting in a state that is excessively in one major party's favor or the other, you're fine to vote for a third-party candidate... but don't think for a moment that they'll get elected. For those of you who are voting in a state that may, just maybe, pick either side... GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR... <clears throat> <takes breath> you're insane if you have a preference between Clinton and Trump and are voting third party. That's all there is to it. If your state could go either way and you're voting third party, that doesn't mean you want a third party candidate to be elected, that means you don't want the candidate that you favor between Trump and Clinton to be President... which is how I get to the "you're insane" bit. Let me rephrase that a bit. If you're voting for a third party candidate and you live in a state that is up for grabs (whether it's typically a swing state or not), you're actively opposing the candidate you prefer. Here's why. Third party candidates are great if you have representative elections like Europe does, or if the third party has a chance as it does in local, or even sometimes in state elections, but there is no chance, none, that a third party candidate will be elected President this year. It is, simply put, not going to happen. So, by voting for a third party candidate, you're not voting for the choice of two evils I mentioned above, and in so doing, not tipping the scales in that lesser evil's favor.
In Massachusetts, we have the luxury of being strongly in favor of Clinton and therefore can vote for a third party candidate to show support for a third party (not for the individuals running, because again, they're not going to win). And there is some logic to doing so. By voting for a third party candidate, you're influencing which parties are seen as viable for the local and state elections as well as who gets invited to the national stage (read Presidential debates), and that's important. So, yes, in a solid state, vote for a third party candidate to help the third party that you're in favor of get some further traction, by all means... but that's limited to the solid states.
When Does A Man's Perspective Matter (by way of Clinton's Health Scandle)
This post is brought to you by the "Clinton Health Scandle of Really?!?!?"
I've been slowly coming to understand over the last year that I, as a man, can not have my own opinions on whether something has a particular aspect toward women, either degrading or otherwise.
O.k., let's back up and set the stage a bit.
For the last few months, Trump has been suggesting that Clinton's health isn't where you would want a president's health to be, in particular suggesting her stamina is lacking. This has been suggested by many to be a sexist comment, which I accept as being the case since I, as a man, can't pass judgement on what is/isn't being sexist toward a woman. Last Friday, Clinton was diagnosed with pneumonia and told to take some medication and get some rest. The latter not being an option because she's campaigning to be president, she proceeded to go to a 9/11 remembrance event. She got dehydrated, as one does when sick and working, and had to leave early. She was seen being assisted to her car. I would describe her movement as near-collapsing, again, to be expected if you're sick and being active. There's no shame there. The problem comes when you piece the bits together. Two more bits that should be included in the mix: Clinton's campaign didn't say to anyone that she was sick (normal) and one of the big concerns people have about Clinton is how private (read secretive) she is.
Alright, so, let's pull this apart a little before going into the reactions. Clinton didn't want to announce that she was sick because this would potentially be seen as weakness and play into what Trump has been saying for months. On the other side, Clinton then was seen as hiding a pneumonia diagnosis, at best, or hiding that she's really not well at all, at worst, the latter being the theory being floated by Trump supporters (and some fanatically anti-Clinton likely-to-believe-conspiracy folk). It's a tough call. It's a sticky catch 22 and one that's not easily avoided.
On the other side, people have started saying "Clinton got sick and kept working, exactly what women do all the time" without explaining anything about the second statement. I, being a childless man, didn't understand that what they meant was that women with children work while sick all the time in order to keep their sick time available for when their children (or husband) are sick and they need to be home taking care of them. I, being a man that has often gone to work while sick if it was anything short of debilitating, found this to be a bit insulting as it suggests that women are the only ones that commonly work while sick. I've seen colleagues come in to work while they have pneumonia plenty of times in the earlier part of my career. It's only very recent in my 13 years at my current company that the majority of my colleagues feel o.k. with taking time off when they're sick (mind you, having a cold doesn't count as being sick). Furthermore, I considered whether the statement was about positions that have been historically linked to women, but this didn't seem to align either, since there are various careers, such as restaurant kitchen staff, where taking time off when sick isn't something that's allowed.
Mind you, I understand now what was being commented on: not that women without children work while sick more than men without children, but instead that women who have a family tend to be expected to take care of family members when family members are sick and therefore save their sick time for those occurrences rather than taking the time to take care of themselves. Further, women with families are expected to take care of those families even when sick instead of the father taking care of the family needs when the mother is sick. This, of course, assumes a household with a woman and man, but I digress.
I also understand how this expectation not being something I understood to be the meaning of the posts makes me sexist because I didn't come up with it immediately so I'm not aware of the problems women face. So, before we move on, keep in mind that I already know that I'm a sexist man and am accepting that.
So... here's my question... I, as a man, can't determine when women should be offended by something. I get that. Can I, as a man, determine when I'm offended by something I see as offensive to men? If the line was "Clinton is hard working, exactly as all women are," would it be acceptable for me to find that offensive toward me as it suggests that I'm not hard working because I'm a man? The reason I ask is that it's not necessarily obvious that I am permitted this judgement. The judgement is based on the question of who determines whether women are harder working than men are in general. Is it me, based on my experience and knowledge, or is it the person making the claim, based on whatever criteria they wish to use? The statement "Clinton got sick and kept working, exactly what women do all the time" does not provide the understanding about why the latter statement is true and, if, like me, you didn't understand that it's really talking about "mothers" rather than "women", you're going to make the obvious interpretation of "this person thinks that women work while sick more than men do, generically." Thus, you might consider this comment to be offensive to men if that has not been your experience. So, who determines the basis for understanding the statement?
Let's take another example, "boys and girls" when referring to adults. Again, I understand I shouldn't provide feedback on whether calling a woman a "girl" is diminutive, but can I voice my opinion that calling a man a "boy" is diminutive? Where along the spectrum does my opinion cease to matter, my voice cease to be helpful, and my attempting to add to the dialogue start being considered not only not valid but outright harmful to the dialogue?
I'm not asking this in contempt, I'm asking it in contemplation and the hope that others will give thought to it as well as thought to how they react to the opinions of others and the writing statements that others may not understand without at least some level of explanation.
And at the risk of overstepping my bounds as a white, heterosexual, male from the middle-class, I would point out that blanket statements are easy and fun but they often detract from the hoped-for outcome. I say this with full knowledge and awareness that I have made them plenty of times in the past. I have been informed politely in several of those cases that my statements painted with too broad a brush and I have since often found myself trying to articulate my points better, such as by saying "Republican leadership" or "Congressional Republicans" rather than "Republicans". I feel, even as I write this, that I am overstepping my bounds because I should not suggest to other groups how they should argue their point or how they should advocate for their position... but I'm typing it anyway, regardless of how evil and privileged it indicates that I am to do so. I have, in previous posts indicated that I am indeed evil by way of the values, behavior requirements, and even more generally my born-to attributes, others have indicated they believe to be evil, so why not play into it a bit.
I've been slowly coming to understand over the last year that I, as a man, can not have my own opinions on whether something has a particular aspect toward women, either degrading or otherwise.
O.k., let's back up and set the stage a bit.
For the last few months, Trump has been suggesting that Clinton's health isn't where you would want a president's health to be, in particular suggesting her stamina is lacking. This has been suggested by many to be a sexist comment, which I accept as being the case since I, as a man, can't pass judgement on what is/isn't being sexist toward a woman. Last Friday, Clinton was diagnosed with pneumonia and told to take some medication and get some rest. The latter not being an option because she's campaigning to be president, she proceeded to go to a 9/11 remembrance event. She got dehydrated, as one does when sick and working, and had to leave early. She was seen being assisted to her car. I would describe her movement as near-collapsing, again, to be expected if you're sick and being active. There's no shame there. The problem comes when you piece the bits together. Two more bits that should be included in the mix: Clinton's campaign didn't say to anyone that she was sick (normal) and one of the big concerns people have about Clinton is how private (read secretive) she is.
Alright, so, let's pull this apart a little before going into the reactions. Clinton didn't want to announce that she was sick because this would potentially be seen as weakness and play into what Trump has been saying for months. On the other side, Clinton then was seen as hiding a pneumonia diagnosis, at best, or hiding that she's really not well at all, at worst, the latter being the theory being floated by Trump supporters (and some fanatically anti-Clinton likely-to-believe-conspiracy folk). It's a tough call. It's a sticky catch 22 and one that's not easily avoided.
On the other side, people have started saying "Clinton got sick and kept working, exactly what women do all the time" without explaining anything about the second statement. I, being a childless man, didn't understand that what they meant was that women with children work while sick all the time in order to keep their sick time available for when their children (or husband) are sick and they need to be home taking care of them. I, being a man that has often gone to work while sick if it was anything short of debilitating, found this to be a bit insulting as it suggests that women are the only ones that commonly work while sick. I've seen colleagues come in to work while they have pneumonia plenty of times in the earlier part of my career. It's only very recent in my 13 years at my current company that the majority of my colleagues feel o.k. with taking time off when they're sick (mind you, having a cold doesn't count as being sick). Furthermore, I considered whether the statement was about positions that have been historically linked to women, but this didn't seem to align either, since there are various careers, such as restaurant kitchen staff, where taking time off when sick isn't something that's allowed.
Mind you, I understand now what was being commented on: not that women without children work while sick more than men without children, but instead that women who have a family tend to be expected to take care of family members when family members are sick and therefore save their sick time for those occurrences rather than taking the time to take care of themselves. Further, women with families are expected to take care of those families even when sick instead of the father taking care of the family needs when the mother is sick. This, of course, assumes a household with a woman and man, but I digress.
I also understand how this expectation not being something I understood to be the meaning of the posts makes me sexist because I didn't come up with it immediately so I'm not aware of the problems women face. So, before we move on, keep in mind that I already know that I'm a sexist man and am accepting that.
So... here's my question... I, as a man, can't determine when women should be offended by something. I get that. Can I, as a man, determine when I'm offended by something I see as offensive to men? If the line was "Clinton is hard working, exactly as all women are," would it be acceptable for me to find that offensive toward me as it suggests that I'm not hard working because I'm a man? The reason I ask is that it's not necessarily obvious that I am permitted this judgement. The judgement is based on the question of who determines whether women are harder working than men are in general. Is it me, based on my experience and knowledge, or is it the person making the claim, based on whatever criteria they wish to use? The statement "Clinton got sick and kept working, exactly what women do all the time" does not provide the understanding about why the latter statement is true and, if, like me, you didn't understand that it's really talking about "mothers" rather than "women", you're going to make the obvious interpretation of "this person thinks that women work while sick more than men do, generically." Thus, you might consider this comment to be offensive to men if that has not been your experience. So, who determines the basis for understanding the statement?
Let's take another example, "boys and girls" when referring to adults. Again, I understand I shouldn't provide feedback on whether calling a woman a "girl" is diminutive, but can I voice my opinion that calling a man a "boy" is diminutive? Where along the spectrum does my opinion cease to matter, my voice cease to be helpful, and my attempting to add to the dialogue start being considered not only not valid but outright harmful to the dialogue?
I'm not asking this in contempt, I'm asking it in contemplation and the hope that others will give thought to it as well as thought to how they react to the opinions of others and the writing statements that others may not understand without at least some level of explanation.
And at the risk of overstepping my bounds as a white, heterosexual, male from the middle-class, I would point out that blanket statements are easy and fun but they often detract from the hoped-for outcome. I say this with full knowledge and awareness that I have made them plenty of times in the past. I have been informed politely in several of those cases that my statements painted with too broad a brush and I have since often found myself trying to articulate my points better, such as by saying "Republican leadership" or "Congressional Republicans" rather than "Republicans". I feel, even as I write this, that I am overstepping my bounds because I should not suggest to other groups how they should argue their point or how they should advocate for their position... but I'm typing it anyway, regardless of how evil and privileged it indicates that I am to do so. I have, in previous posts indicated that I am indeed evil by way of the values, behavior requirements, and even more generally my born-to attributes, others have indicated they believe to be evil, so why not play into it a bit.
Monday, July 25, 2016
"Elections Have Consequences" and "If You're Against Clinton, You're A Privileged Sexist".... AKA Thanks for pushing me away when we should be coming together
I've heard a lot about how Clinton won the primary so Sanders supporters should fall in line. I've heard a lot over the last 9 months about anybody being against Clinton being a sexist and an enemy of women. I've heard, more than a few times, that we (Democrats/liberals) should be in favor of Clinton because she's the most qualified and/or because she's a woman.
Let's start with the last and go backwards.
I don't believe in voting for someone because of their sex. I'm blessed to have my mother for my mom and, at different periods of my life, my school committee member, my state representative, and my state senator. I am extremely happy to have Senator Warren representing me in D.C. And by the way, I'm explaining these two because I feel that if I don't, I'll be attacked for being anti-women in office... and even after saying these, I feel I still will. I would have loved for Barbara Boxer to have run for President, or Elizabeth Warren for that matter. But they didn't. Clinton is by far the most experienced candidate this year. She has her years in the White House as First Lady (which counts for something when you're an activist as she was), her years as US Senator in New York, and her years as Secretary of State. She's held a variety of positions, giving her a wide variety of experiences, all helping her become extremely qualified from a background position. But you don't hire someone just based on their previous jobs, you look further at them to determine whether they're a good fit for the position you're offering. You ask whether they are as liberal as you'd like. You ask if they're as much in favor of peace and as disinterested in war as you'd like. And Clinton isn't either of these for me. I said in 2008 when I said that she and Obama were far to centrist for me and I've said it again for the last year. She's a centrist and she's a war-hawk. That isn't to say she's not better than the centrist-but-racist-lunatic that the Republicans have nominated. I dare say she's much better, but I pray that she doesn't embroil us in further wars, either fighting Russia in Eastern Europe or fighting terrorists in the Middle East... or some other force. There's more to my decision than my sexism, which you've determined I have just because I wanted Sanders. There's more to my decision than my male-privilege that allows me to say that I'm just as not interested in a female centrist war-hawk as I was the male centrist war-hawk that ran as the Republican Presidential nominee in 2008. When you tell me I'm sexist and privileged, it doesn't make me more interested in our candidate. In fact it makes me less enthused. And when you ignore the reasons I'm not in favor of her and tell me that I have other reasons, that doesn't make me listen to you and think about your statements any further, it makes me angry with you and makes me feel that you have no idea what you're talking about.
You know what else makes me less enthused? When people tell me to get over it or that "Elections have consequences." Of course "elections have consequences," but let's just take a moment to remember that we don't always know the consequences of elections immediately. Take this Presidential election, for instance. Yes, I believe Clinton will be the Democratic Nominee. Yes, I will be voting for her in November. But we don't know a few things:
1) Who will be elected President.
2) How the utter dismissal of Sanders supporters' feelings and arguments will affect the young left-leaning members of our society and their future voting patterns.
Let me address the first unknown first, because it's a little quicker to get to the point. A recent poll has Trump ahead of Clinton. Say what you want, but that is a very scary thing to me... even more scary than Trump's speech last Thursday. What's even more scary to me is that Clinton supporters have been ignoring that Trump has been gaining on her for the last 6 months.
And then there's the second point. Yes, elections have consequences and Clinton won the Democratic nomination (o.k., I'm assuming a bit but it's not a hard assumption to make), but that doesn't mean you should dismiss the hearts and minds of those you need in your camp, just because you don't see another option for them to choose. We should be coming together now, not hurting each other. Choose your words carefully, especially in public, especially to reporters, for your words will be heard and not just by those that agree with you. My words, I feel extremely confident, will be heard by those that do not agree with me.... and to those who disagree with me on this, I ask you to consider whether you really want to come at me and draw me toward that dark side that anger leads to or if you would rather follow the words of Clinton and work with love and compassion and work together to defeat Trump. Yes, I am angry at the DNC, yes, I understand you don't care, and yes, you should let me have my feelings and understand that they are not your own and that I will do the right thing in the end.
Starting now, with this first day of the Democratic Convention, we're supposed to come together as a party. But instead of the "let's get this done together" that should be filling my Facebook feed and that I should be hearing from my Clinton supporting friends, all I'm hearing are things like "suck it up", "your candidate lost so you should be excited for Clinton now," and "you're a sexist, privileged, white man." The Republicans just displayed their discord... I guess it's our turn now. Thanks for making it easy to feel good about getting behind our candidate.
Let's start with the last and go backwards.
I don't believe in voting for someone because of their sex. I'm blessed to have my mother for my mom and, at different periods of my life, my school committee member, my state representative, and my state senator. I am extremely happy to have Senator Warren representing me in D.C. And by the way, I'm explaining these two because I feel that if I don't, I'll be attacked for being anti-women in office... and even after saying these, I feel I still will. I would have loved for Barbara Boxer to have run for President, or Elizabeth Warren for that matter. But they didn't. Clinton is by far the most experienced candidate this year. She has her years in the White House as First Lady (which counts for something when you're an activist as she was), her years as US Senator in New York, and her years as Secretary of State. She's held a variety of positions, giving her a wide variety of experiences, all helping her become extremely qualified from a background position. But you don't hire someone just based on their previous jobs, you look further at them to determine whether they're a good fit for the position you're offering. You ask whether they are as liberal as you'd like. You ask if they're as much in favor of peace and as disinterested in war as you'd like. And Clinton isn't either of these for me. I said in 2008 when I said that she and Obama were far to centrist for me and I've said it again for the last year. She's a centrist and she's a war-hawk. That isn't to say she's not better than the centrist-but-racist-lunatic that the Republicans have nominated. I dare say she's much better, but I pray that she doesn't embroil us in further wars, either fighting Russia in Eastern Europe or fighting terrorists in the Middle East... or some other force. There's more to my decision than my sexism, which you've determined I have just because I wanted Sanders. There's more to my decision than my male-privilege that allows me to say that I'm just as not interested in a female centrist war-hawk as I was the male centrist war-hawk that ran as the Republican Presidential nominee in 2008. When you tell me I'm sexist and privileged, it doesn't make me more interested in our candidate. In fact it makes me less enthused. And when you ignore the reasons I'm not in favor of her and tell me that I have other reasons, that doesn't make me listen to you and think about your statements any further, it makes me angry with you and makes me feel that you have no idea what you're talking about.
You know what else makes me less enthused? When people tell me to get over it or that "Elections have consequences." Of course "elections have consequences," but let's just take a moment to remember that we don't always know the consequences of elections immediately. Take this Presidential election, for instance. Yes, I believe Clinton will be the Democratic Nominee. Yes, I will be voting for her in November. But we don't know a few things:
1) Who will be elected President.
2) How the utter dismissal of Sanders supporters' feelings and arguments will affect the young left-leaning members of our society and their future voting patterns.
Let me address the first unknown first, because it's a little quicker to get to the point. A recent poll has Trump ahead of Clinton. Say what you want, but that is a very scary thing to me... even more scary than Trump's speech last Thursday. What's even more scary to me is that Clinton supporters have been ignoring that Trump has been gaining on her for the last 6 months.
And then there's the second point. Yes, elections have consequences and Clinton won the Democratic nomination (o.k., I'm assuming a bit but it's not a hard assumption to make), but that doesn't mean you should dismiss the hearts and minds of those you need in your camp, just because you don't see another option for them to choose. We should be coming together now, not hurting each other. Choose your words carefully, especially in public, especially to reporters, for your words will be heard and not just by those that agree with you. My words, I feel extremely confident, will be heard by those that do not agree with me.... and to those who disagree with me on this, I ask you to consider whether you really want to come at me and draw me toward that dark side that anger leads to or if you would rather follow the words of Clinton and work with love and compassion and work together to defeat Trump. Yes, I am angry at the DNC, yes, I understand you don't care, and yes, you should let me have my feelings and understand that they are not your own and that I will do the right thing in the end.
Starting now, with this first day of the Democratic Convention, we're supposed to come together as a party. But instead of the "let's get this done together" that should be filling my Facebook feed and that I should be hearing from my Clinton supporting friends, all I'm hearing are things like "suck it up", "your candidate lost so you should be excited for Clinton now," and "you're a sexist, privileged, white man." The Republicans just displayed their discord... I guess it's our turn now. Thanks for making it easy to feel good about getting behind our candidate.
Sunday, July 3, 2016
X-Men: Apocalypse (spoilers... duh)
First off... spoilers... duh
So, let's start with the really quite desperately low hanging fruit. There was a lot of concern about Olivia Munn's acting chops when it was announced that she would be playing Psylocke. Sadly, or fortunately, depending on whether she's a good actress. She had all of about 3 lines. Those lines were rather blandly delivered, but they were pretty blandly written too, so is it her fault or the writer's? We may never know. What I do know is that Olivia (and the PR machine for the movie) made a huge deal about her enjoying fighting with swords. I know that Psylocke is a badass fighter and has psychokinetic powers. I also know that Psylocke in this movie spends all of like 2 minutes fighting, and most of that is just posed stuff and not actually combat. Drawing your sword and putting it to someone's throat or cutting a car in half and then posing with lots of CGI do not count as combat. So, yeah, as you may have figured out, I'm severely disappointed in the movie because of that.
Slightly less low, but still low hanging fruit. Why... why... WHY are we still having Mystique appearing "naked"? Admittedly, they finally put some clothes on her that was somewhat almost reminiscent of her comic costume, but it took the entirety of 2, count them TWO trilogies to get us there. They had the opportunity with the semi-reboot to fix it, but no.
Next topic. Can we, for the love of comic book movies, not force every movie to act as 10 different entities? This one was not just completing the set of 3 movies and therefore rounding out the story arcs of several characters, most notably Magneto, Mystique, and Professor X. But my biggest annoyance with the multiple-functions would have to be the attempt to promote the next Wolverine standalone, otherwise why divert to Stryker's facility at all. Seriously, the action at Stryker's facility did not promote anything other than to remind us that Wolverine was there which then supports the post-credit sequence... which was also lame. This movie is 2 hours 27 minutes, and how much could that have been reduced by using another, less time consuming plot device to get the 6 heroes away from the rest of the youth at the school? Because this movie was trying to be too much, the story telling suffered. This is just sad since this movie deserved better.
Back to sexism. There's this great opportunity with the X-Men with such powerful women characters. They, in fact, tend to be the most powerful of the X-Men. Yes, Cyclops has his beam, Wolverine is near invincible, and Xavier, well, let's just put him aside for a bit. Then you have the likes of Storm, Jean Grey and Rogue. Talk about power houses. Rogue was introduced in the original trilogy but never came to the fruition that would see her character truly showcase herself. Storm was there too, and while she showcased her abilities, they were never quite awe-inspiringly, jaw-droppingly demonstrated as they really should be. In this movie, we have the promise that we'll see more, since she's a horseman of Apocalypse... but no, we still barely see anything... just a bit of lightning in the final fight, not much more than that. Jean Grey seems to be the only one we really get to see show off in a semi-constant manner. O.k., and Mystique... she's also shown with her powers and her badass fighting (as poorly choreographed as it is in the original movie. But I maintain that the women of the X-Men remain under-represented in terms of just how magnificently powerful they are, both in terms of their abilities and in terms of their characters.
There's one last thing that I'm going to complain about, at least in this post. The villains. And this topic has a few sub-topics.
First of all.. Magneto. I get it, we need to have Magneto in every movie because he's a draw... but, no, seriously, please don't. Have him show up briefly or something but don't have him be a lackey of the big-bad. He's a big-bad on his own. He doesn't need Apocalypse to empower him. I must accept that this was a trilogy and therefore they're rounding out his arc, but perhaps in the next X-Men movie he can either play a much smaller role or not be there? Perhaps he shows up to recruit for the Brotherhood but doesn't actually do anything else? Or maybe it's just mentioned that he's off recruiting or hasn't been heard from?
I like that Psylocke walks away having witnessed Apocalypse being betrayed by both Magneto and Storm. I love that both Magneto and Storm betray Apocalypse with good reason... but Apocalypse dies (or so it seems). I'm tired of the arch-enemy dying at the end of the movie. If Apocalypse hadn't just woken up during the movie, I would have been more accepting as he could have created other villains over the years that would come up later. The original X-Men trilogy had a common enemy, even if Phoenix stole the show in the final part of the final episode. I want a bit more of that. And the enemy doesn't have to be on the forefront... you could have had Apocalypse show up, create 4 horsemen for the X-Men to fight, or create another super-villain, and stay in the background and come back in the second and third episodes of the trilogy. Magneto, it can be said, is that common villain I'm looking for... and I agree that he could have been, but I would say he hasn't been in this trilogy. In fact, he's played roughly the same role in each of the first two movies: reluctant hero -> villain. And then he transitions in this movie to the pattern of villain -> hero. But he's never the big-bad. He's always reacting to others. This is fine, but I want something a bit more. I want the leader of the Brotherhood of Mutants. I want a series of movies based on the sentinels. I want Apocalypse empowering mutants and sending them to battle the X-Men on his behalf. In short, I want a big-bad with staying power that doesn't just do a quick one-off thing in each movie (such as sending the missiles back at the ships that fired them or parking a stadium around the White House and taking over a few sentinels for around 30 minutes).
And lastly, Apocalypse deserved better story telling. He's a big-bad and you saw that he needed an introduction. Do that introduction well and don't rush the rest of the story. You could easily have made this movie a two-parter. Introduce Apocalypse, let him start recruiting, have the X-Men tangle with a couple recruits... maybe even kidnap Xavier in the first movie and blow up the estate and leave that as the cliff hanger. That way you spend an entire movie just on the recruiting and don't rush through it. The first movie becomes more a story about the formation of the 4 Horsemen and the second movie becomes a much better movie about the X-Men coming together and finding their ability to work together.
Alright, that's it for the moment. Hope you enjoyed this rant. Have other aspects of the movie you didn't like? Do you feel I've judged the movie too harshly? Let me know.
So, let's start with the really quite desperately low hanging fruit. There was a lot of concern about Olivia Munn's acting chops when it was announced that she would be playing Psylocke. Sadly, or fortunately, depending on whether she's a good actress. She had all of about 3 lines. Those lines were rather blandly delivered, but they were pretty blandly written too, so is it her fault or the writer's? We may never know. What I do know is that Olivia (and the PR machine for the movie) made a huge deal about her enjoying fighting with swords. I know that Psylocke is a badass fighter and has psychokinetic powers. I also know that Psylocke in this movie spends all of like 2 minutes fighting, and most of that is just posed stuff and not actually combat. Drawing your sword and putting it to someone's throat or cutting a car in half and then posing with lots of CGI do not count as combat. So, yeah, as you may have figured out, I'm severely disappointed in the movie because of that.
Slightly less low, but still low hanging fruit. Why... why... WHY are we still having Mystique appearing "naked"? Admittedly, they finally put some clothes on her that was somewhat almost reminiscent of her comic costume, but it took the entirety of 2, count them TWO trilogies to get us there. They had the opportunity with the semi-reboot to fix it, but no.
Next topic. Can we, for the love of comic book movies, not force every movie to act as 10 different entities? This one was not just completing the set of 3 movies and therefore rounding out the story arcs of several characters, most notably Magneto, Mystique, and Professor X. But my biggest annoyance with the multiple-functions would have to be the attempt to promote the next Wolverine standalone, otherwise why divert to Stryker's facility at all. Seriously, the action at Stryker's facility did not promote anything other than to remind us that Wolverine was there which then supports the post-credit sequence... which was also lame. This movie is 2 hours 27 minutes, and how much could that have been reduced by using another, less time consuming plot device to get the 6 heroes away from the rest of the youth at the school? Because this movie was trying to be too much, the story telling suffered. This is just sad since this movie deserved better.
Back to sexism. There's this great opportunity with the X-Men with such powerful women characters. They, in fact, tend to be the most powerful of the X-Men. Yes, Cyclops has his beam, Wolverine is near invincible, and Xavier, well, let's just put him aside for a bit. Then you have the likes of Storm, Jean Grey and Rogue. Talk about power houses. Rogue was introduced in the original trilogy but never came to the fruition that would see her character truly showcase herself. Storm was there too, and while she showcased her abilities, they were never quite awe-inspiringly, jaw-droppingly demonstrated as they really should be. In this movie, we have the promise that we'll see more, since she's a horseman of Apocalypse... but no, we still barely see anything... just a bit of lightning in the final fight, not much more than that. Jean Grey seems to be the only one we really get to see show off in a semi-constant manner. O.k., and Mystique... she's also shown with her powers and her badass fighting (as poorly choreographed as it is in the original movie. But I maintain that the women of the X-Men remain under-represented in terms of just how magnificently powerful they are, both in terms of their abilities and in terms of their characters.
There's one last thing that I'm going to complain about, at least in this post. The villains. And this topic has a few sub-topics.
First of all.. Magneto. I get it, we need to have Magneto in every movie because he's a draw... but, no, seriously, please don't. Have him show up briefly or something but don't have him be a lackey of the big-bad. He's a big-bad on his own. He doesn't need Apocalypse to empower him. I must accept that this was a trilogy and therefore they're rounding out his arc, but perhaps in the next X-Men movie he can either play a much smaller role or not be there? Perhaps he shows up to recruit for the Brotherhood but doesn't actually do anything else? Or maybe it's just mentioned that he's off recruiting or hasn't been heard from?
I like that Psylocke walks away having witnessed Apocalypse being betrayed by both Magneto and Storm. I love that both Magneto and Storm betray Apocalypse with good reason... but Apocalypse dies (or so it seems). I'm tired of the arch-enemy dying at the end of the movie. If Apocalypse hadn't just woken up during the movie, I would have been more accepting as he could have created other villains over the years that would come up later. The original X-Men trilogy had a common enemy, even if Phoenix stole the show in the final part of the final episode. I want a bit more of that. And the enemy doesn't have to be on the forefront... you could have had Apocalypse show up, create 4 horsemen for the X-Men to fight, or create another super-villain, and stay in the background and come back in the second and third episodes of the trilogy. Magneto, it can be said, is that common villain I'm looking for... and I agree that he could have been, but I would say he hasn't been in this trilogy. In fact, he's played roughly the same role in each of the first two movies: reluctant hero -> villain. And then he transitions in this movie to the pattern of villain -> hero. But he's never the big-bad. He's always reacting to others. This is fine, but I want something a bit more. I want the leader of the Brotherhood of Mutants. I want a series of movies based on the sentinels. I want Apocalypse empowering mutants and sending them to battle the X-Men on his behalf. In short, I want a big-bad with staying power that doesn't just do a quick one-off thing in each movie (such as sending the missiles back at the ships that fired them or parking a stadium around the White House and taking over a few sentinels for around 30 minutes).
And lastly, Apocalypse deserved better story telling. He's a big-bad and you saw that he needed an introduction. Do that introduction well and don't rush the rest of the story. You could easily have made this movie a two-parter. Introduce Apocalypse, let him start recruiting, have the X-Men tangle with a couple recruits... maybe even kidnap Xavier in the first movie and blow up the estate and leave that as the cliff hanger. That way you spend an entire movie just on the recruiting and don't rush through it. The first movie becomes more a story about the formation of the 4 Horsemen and the second movie becomes a much better movie about the X-Men coming together and finding their ability to work together.
Alright, that's it for the moment. Hope you enjoyed this rant. Have other aspects of the movie you didn't like? Do you feel I've judged the movie too harshly? Let me know.
Sunday, June 26, 2016
Clothes and sexism
As discussed previously, I'm evil and sexist. Accepting that, I'm going to point out a few things about fashion. Don't worry, this will be short.
First, the easy stuff that's not surprising to anyone. Women's clothing is horrific and sexist. No functional pockets and sizes being wildly different by company are just two ways in which this is the case.
That said, and here's the stuff I'll get flack for and proves further how I'm evil and sexist, expectations from men and women are different and have undertones of sexism too. Professional clothing. For a long time, women's professional fashion tended toward the showing of skin. This is obvious sexism as it treated women as sex objects. As time has gone by, offices have become more accepting of women wearing a much larger variety of clothes, including many that disregard the earlier sex-object fashion sense. Men's professional fashion, on the other hand, while also changing, has not changed nearly as much. Men are expected to wear pants. Not shorts, pants. In business casual environments we're allowed to wear t-shirts, but to be truly professional, we have to wear long-sleeve shirts, preferably button-down dress shirts.
I've heard more than a little discussion about how offices keep temperatures lower than women would like and that some of the reason for this is that men wear suits and therefore the office temperature is set to make them comfortable. Here's some quick, highly unscientific observation on my part: women prefer much higher temperatures than men. There is a constant complaint in my office of the building being too cold and as constant that complaint is, the men don't feel cold at all, ever, in any room, period... and we're not wearing suits. We're wearing long sleeve shirts and pants, yes, but no jacket. The top button of our dress shirts (or indeed sometimes the top 2, depending on the guy) are open. And now we're back to that point I was making in the third paragraph. Would the men wear shorts if we were permitted? Probably. I'd certainly be more comfortable in shorts and a t-shirt, but that's not considered professional. I'm limited to long pants, whether it be "smart" jeans or long dress pants. If I could, I'd wear "smart" jean shorts or dress shorts. I'd still be perfectly fine with the temperature by the way, I'd just be slightly less likely to be sweating on any given day.
"So, what's the problem?" you might ask. Well, it's 2-fold. First, there's a hidden double-standard that nobody talks about. Women have professional clothing that is a lot lighter and airy and doesn't have to cover as much of the body... but the range permits heavier clothing that covers just as much as men are required to wear. The second part of the problem isn't a sexist problem at all, it's an environmental one. By forcing men to wear heavier clothes, by forcing us to be warmer, offices need to be cooler, which requires much more energy in the summer. In the winter, everybody wears heavier clothing because, well, it's colder outside. But in the summer, when we should all be wearing lighter clothing so we're not as hot outside, men aren't permitted to. Yes, we would still need air conditioning even if everyone were allowed to wear lighter clothing, but we would need less of it.
So, there's my rant on clothing. Yes, I know, I'm a man and can't possibly understand the hardships of women and the demands on them from fashion. Yes, I know, clearly these hardships of men are nothing in comparison to those of women (even though professional clothing for women now is far more diverse than men's clothing and includes clothing that is virtually the same, if not identical, to men's). But you know what? You already pointed out that I'm a sexist by simply being a man, so, why shouldn't I prove it a bit by speaking my sexist mind.
First, the easy stuff that's not surprising to anyone. Women's clothing is horrific and sexist. No functional pockets and sizes being wildly different by company are just two ways in which this is the case.
That said, and here's the stuff I'll get flack for and proves further how I'm evil and sexist, expectations from men and women are different and have undertones of sexism too. Professional clothing. For a long time, women's professional fashion tended toward the showing of skin. This is obvious sexism as it treated women as sex objects. As time has gone by, offices have become more accepting of women wearing a much larger variety of clothes, including many that disregard the earlier sex-object fashion sense. Men's professional fashion, on the other hand, while also changing, has not changed nearly as much. Men are expected to wear pants. Not shorts, pants. In business casual environments we're allowed to wear t-shirts, but to be truly professional, we have to wear long-sleeve shirts, preferably button-down dress shirts.
I've heard more than a little discussion about how offices keep temperatures lower than women would like and that some of the reason for this is that men wear suits and therefore the office temperature is set to make them comfortable. Here's some quick, highly unscientific observation on my part: women prefer much higher temperatures than men. There is a constant complaint in my office of the building being too cold and as constant that complaint is, the men don't feel cold at all, ever, in any room, period... and we're not wearing suits. We're wearing long sleeve shirts and pants, yes, but no jacket. The top button of our dress shirts (or indeed sometimes the top 2, depending on the guy) are open. And now we're back to that point I was making in the third paragraph. Would the men wear shorts if we were permitted? Probably. I'd certainly be more comfortable in shorts and a t-shirt, but that's not considered professional. I'm limited to long pants, whether it be "smart" jeans or long dress pants. If I could, I'd wear "smart" jean shorts or dress shorts. I'd still be perfectly fine with the temperature by the way, I'd just be slightly less likely to be sweating on any given day.
"So, what's the problem?" you might ask. Well, it's 2-fold. First, there's a hidden double-standard that nobody talks about. Women have professional clothing that is a lot lighter and airy and doesn't have to cover as much of the body... but the range permits heavier clothing that covers just as much as men are required to wear. The second part of the problem isn't a sexist problem at all, it's an environmental one. By forcing men to wear heavier clothes, by forcing us to be warmer, offices need to be cooler, which requires much more energy in the summer. In the winter, everybody wears heavier clothing because, well, it's colder outside. But in the summer, when we should all be wearing lighter clothing so we're not as hot outside, men aren't permitted to. Yes, we would still need air conditioning even if everyone were allowed to wear lighter clothing, but we would need less of it.
So, there's my rant on clothing. Yes, I know, I'm a man and can't possibly understand the hardships of women and the demands on them from fashion. Yes, I know, clearly these hardships of men are nothing in comparison to those of women (even though professional clothing for women now is far more diverse than men's clothing and includes clothing that is virtually the same, if not identical, to men's). But you know what? You already pointed out that I'm a sexist by simply being a man, so, why shouldn't I prove it a bit by speaking my sexist mind.
Saturday, June 11, 2016
I am Become Trump (aka the problem with shame tactics)
O.k., so clearly I've been shamed into hating myself by people who's purpose in shaming me was to get me to fight harder for their cause. People use shame in this way a lot and it seems they do so more and more. This tactic is alarming and sometimes gets people to think about the issues and to change their ways... the problem is, what happens if that tactic turns someone off and in fact changes the person's ways so they are fighting less for the cause, and sometimes even fighting against it?
Prime example: I feel shame for being a man. I recently felt that I couldn't say something (I even edited a paragraph out of my recent post... yes, that post was edited, hard as that might be to believe). This reminds me of Trump's statement that men are afraid to say things about women. Now, to be clear, I do not support Trump... but this one statement of his rings a bit true. And let the further shaming begin. Just as women's rights groups were quick to respond saying that while Trump is afraid of women saying things, women are afraid of real things, like rape, sexual abuse, regular physical abuse... I expect you're saying this right now. I am shamed, but Trump's statement is also ringing truer to me.
We have to be careful how we use this tactic, for it can easily have side-effects we weren't expecting. And maybe that's fine with you. Maybe you've already made the calculation that your side will gain more out of the shaming than it will lose. If so, my hat is off to you, as is my support.
Sincerely,
Privileged Ill Intent
p.s. - do Trump and The Kingpin now remind you of each other?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)