A MUST READ if you're SICK of the lack of diversity in comic book movies!

Here is an EXCELLENT piece I first read on Oh No They Didn't. 

Original source here: On Marvel, Mandarin, and Marginalization by Marrisa Lee - from Racebending.com:

At ComicCon 2012, Marvel Studios announced that Sir Ben Kingsley will be playing a version of The Mandarin, Tony Stark’s traditional yellow peril arch-nemesis, in Iron Man 3. The announcement was a sudden about-turn from previous statements the Iron Man directors have made about the Fu Manchu-inspired villain.....

Kingsley’s casting has made some waves; he is a British actor of partial South Asian descent while the Mandarin was originally of Chinese descent in the comics. It’s complicated by the fact that the Chinese government is virtually co-financing and co-producing Iron 3 through DMG film group; China likely had a say in the depiction of The Mandarin in Iron Man 3. [A stamp of approval from the Chinese government doesn't mean much given Asian Americans who live in the United States as a minority group are arguably more strongly affected by sinophobia and stereotypes than the people of China or the Chinese government. (eg. Han Chinese people living in China have access to unlimited representation of themselves in their domestic entertainment industries; Asian Americans do not.)]

Does the casting of Kingsley serve to perpetuate the stereotype that all Asian ethnic groups are interchangeable? Or does it simply cement Marvel Studios’ decision to shift the stereotypical bad guys of the comics from “yellow peril” to “Middle Eastern/South Asian terrorism”? (The first Iron Man film had the Ten Rings bad guy Raza, played by South Asian American actor Faran Tahir.) Rather than debating among ourselves about which Asian American or Asian actor should have the sad privilege to continue the legacy of the reviled Fu Manchu-esque Mandarin, or hand wringing about how Asian Americans don’t have much say in how to reinvent or salvage unforgivable stereotypes that have caused great harm to our communities, there are more pertinent questions we need to lob at Marvel. 

Questions like: How did we end up with The Mandarin in a Marvel Studios movie before any Asian American lead heroes?

Or even just: Why isn’t Marvel really utilizing it’s pantheon of women heroes or characters of color?

A few thoughts on stuff I've been reading about SMP and such

Before you begin reading this, you may want to look up terms such as "Sexual Market Place", "alpha", "beta".  These terms are used to deal with the dating scene, sexual matters between males and females, and general interactions between the sexes.  A good place to start is Hooking Up Smart created by Susan Walsh.  There are a whole lot of other sites that discuss this subject but personally Walsh's site is more well-rounded.  But that's just my personal opinion.

There are a few things I've been noticing a while when visiting blogs focusing on the SMP (Sexual Market Place) as it's called in circles and blogs focusing on men's issues.  Guys who identify themselves as "beta's" express how upset they are about how eager and how quickly females have sex with "alphas" while with betas, females are less eager and less willing to have sex with them. 

My thing is this though.  Anytime a woman complains about not being noticed by by guys, other men are quick to say "Oh well, you were (or are) just focusing on the alphas/studs/etc., etc.", basically disregarding her experience.  They say that if she, I guess, expand her focus or whatever, that she'll notice more men interested in her.  To them, if you are modestly attractive, then it's almost a guarantee that there are guys attracted to you.  Simply put, chicks have it easy to them.

But wait a minute...couldn't the same be said for these betas who are upset at the lack of attention they they receive?  If they are focusing on only the really attractive girls, I'm sure that the less attractive girls or modestly attractive ones are ignored....girls who may be interested in them, if they would only pay them any attention.  It's like a guy who focuses on the "cheerleader" and pays no attention to the "band geek", "the good girl", or "nerd".

There's another way of looking at this too.

Are males and females obligated to consider EVERYONE, absolutely not.  If you're not attracted to someone, then you're not attracted to someone.  The whole issue seems to be the lack of people you find attractive being attracted to you.  Sure there are people out there who are attracted to me...OK.  But if I don't find them attractive myself, then most likely it won't go anywhere, especially considering the fact that I am VERY visually oriented when it comes to attractiveness in men (something that's apparently rare in females).  So while I think it'd be nice for people to expand their horizons when it comes to attractiveness, people have preferences.  But we should realize that when we go strictly with our preferences, we ignore those who may find us attractive who aren't attractive to us. 

Well in the end, I think both males and females struggle with being ignored when it comes to the opposite sex.  I'm sure guys will say that they have it worse, but I wouldn't be so quick to think that females have it so easy.       



In other news....I need to stop taking these big breaks in between posting lol :P

Using Birth Control = SLUT????

Rush Limbaugh has once again stirred up controversy with his comments about Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown law student, who - in her Congressional testimony - argued that birth control should be covered by health insurance at religious institutions.  From NY Daily News:

Conservative radio host declared Georgetown Law School's Sandra Fluke "a slut" for arguing that birth control should be covered by health insurance at religious institutions.
The shock jock mocked Sandra Fluke for arguing that her fellow students shell out $1,000 a year in out of pocket expenses. Georgetown University, a Catholic institution, does not cover  birth control as part of its health insurance plan.

Limbaugh dismissed Fluke’s assertion that women may be prescribed the pill for medical reasons and accused her of merely promoting promiscuity.

“What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute,” he said. “She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception.”
Limbaugh went on to insult Fluke’s family for raising a daughter with loose attitudes.

“Can you imagine if you're her parents how proud of Sandra Fluke you would be?” he said. “Your daughter goes up to a congressional hearing conducted by the Botox-filled Nancy Pelosi and testifies she's having so much sex she can't afford her own birth control pills and she agrees that Obama should provide them, or the Pope.”

In order to accentuate his point, he played the 1970s soul song “Troglodyte (Cave Man)” by the Jimmy Castor Bunch. He shouted “get pregnant!” over the lyrics about clubbing and grabbing women.

Even the top-ranked Georgetown Law School, a Catholic institution, did not escape Limbaugh’s sexist wrath.

“Well, I guess now we know why Bill Clinton went to Georgetown and why Hillary went to Wellesley,” he said. “Well, all the sex going on at Georgetown.”

.......................

The Case of the 41yr old Teacher and the 18yr old Student

You would have to be living under a rock (or not watch the news) to not know the latest teacher scandal.  From the Modesto Bee:

A 41-year-old Enochs High School teacher in Modesto has resigned and moved in with an 18-year-old student. The reaction has been largely shock, disapproval and betrayal.

The teen's mother has waged a very public campaign on Facebook since last week, when her daughter moved out of the family's home and into a Modesto apartment with the man. He has left his wife and children, one of whom is a junior at Enochs. 

Modesto police are investigating whether there was inappropriate contact before the girl turned 18 in the fall.  And school district and teachers union officials worry that an ethical and moral line has been crossed, even if the student is legally an adult.

James Hooker was placed on paid administrative leave Feb. 3 by Modesto City Schools and resigned Feb. 22, he said Tuesday. Hooker taught business and computer classes, and he was an adviser to three active campus clubs.

"In making our choice, we've hurt a lot of people," Hooker acknowledged. "We keep asking ourselves, 'Do we make everyone else happy or do we follow our hearts?' " Hooker and Enochs senior Jordan Powers said Tuesday in an interview at The Bee that they are making a life for themselves "day by day."

Powers was in Hooker's virtual business class and an associated club until his suspension. They said they met when she was a freshman.

Tammie Powers, Jordan's mother, said she believes Hooker pursued her daughter. She said her daughter's grades fell this year, and Jordan had panic attacks.  "I believe it was the stress of the lie," Tammie Powers said. She said her daughter was "always compliant," kept her room tidy at their Waterford home and minded her curfew. No R-rated movies until she was of age. No lone trips to the mall or the movies.

"I was really, really careful. I wanted her to be safe," she said.  "In hindsight, in retrospect, I should have looked at things differently," Powers said.......

Looking back over phone records, she said she found an estimated 8,000 text messages between the teacher and student going back through the summer. In the fall, about 32 texts a day, starting at 6 a.m. were recorded, she said......

On Facebook, Powers has called Hooker "an arrogant pervert," among other things, and urged readers to "help get the word out" about his involvement with a student.
The hundreds of responses are, for the most part, supportive of her. Many express disbelief.

Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/2012/02/28/2090490/enochs-high-teacher-resigns-after.html#storylink=cpy

David Wainwright posted that he sees teacher and student as complicit in the relationship, then added: "I just wouldn't of expected this from my fav teacher. What is the world coming to?"
Modesto City Schools Superintendent Pam Able confirmed Hooker's resignation Tuesday morning.

"Allegations of Mr. Hooker having a relationship with a student is the source of great concern for staff, students and parents. I consider student-teacher dating relationships to be not only unprofessional, but immoral," Able said via e-mail.

Modesto City Schools Board President Rubén Villalobos said Tuesday: "Schools need to be a safe place. Anything less than that is a failure." He said he could not comment on the case, but said in general teacher-student romances are wrong "because of that unequal balance of power."

Hooker knows his decisions may have cost him his teaching career. He taught business courses for 15 years and advised three campus clubs — Future Business Leaders of America, Mock Trial Club and Virtual Business Club.  Extra jobs such as the clubs earned Hooker $28,000 in added pay in 2009, the latest figures immediately available. District records show Hooker made $110,537 that year.

Hooker and Jordan Powers said their relationship was strictly teacher-student until mid-December, when they started talking more frequently and then dated. "I just kind of knew that she's the one," he said.

Powers turned 18 on Sept. 5, and Modesto police say that makes her a consenting adult. However, Lt. Rick Armendariz said there is an ongoing investigation involving a high school teacher and student.

Hooker confirmed Tuesday that he remains the object of a police probe. He said he is confident he will be cleared of accusations that any physical relationship started while Powers was a minor.  "There's no evidence of that. There's no proof of that. It didn't exist," Hooker said.He said the criticism is part of a campaign of lies he and Powers face online and in person. "I've been portrayed as a monster through all of this," Hooker said. "I'm not a monster. I'm not any different than I've always been."....

Hooker said he hopes to get a job in the private sector. "We're just taking it day by day," he said.

Homosexuality and Public Acceptance Based on Sex

In today's day and age, people have become more accepting of homosexuality.  Now as a Christian myself, I have my own views about homosexuality, but that's another topic for another day.  This is more of an observation that I've been noticing.


About a year ago, I was watching an episode of ABC's What Would You Do on a Friday.  There was a segment dealing with homosexual couples and the public response to them openly showing affection for one another. 

In one scenario, two gay men were showing off public displays of affection (or PDA) for one another while sitting on a public bench out in the open.  While onlookers looked on, the couple snuggled, kissed, held hands, etc., etc.  Nothing graphic.  However many people looked on in disgust.  One woman even called the police, and an officer came on to the scene and calmly told the couple to refrain from displaying any PDA.  It turns out though, that the officer was aware of the scenario being for a show and was in on the whole thing.  With all this happening to a gay male couple minding their own business, one would think that the same thing would happen to a lesbian couple.  Not so fast....

In the scenario of the lesbian couple, while there were still people who looked on in disgust at their PDA, there were also men who looked on in interest.  The segment even showed men approaching the couple and starting a conversation.  In a few instances, the conversation leaned on the flirtatious side.  Now let it be said that with the gay couple, they were also approached by a few women, but the conversation didn't appear to be flirtatious in any instance (unless women just have a different way of going about it).  In fact, in one example, a woman seemed to be striking up a more supportive conversation, if you will.  Something I didn't witness with the lesbian couple.

These differences in the interaction with couples such as these is the main point of this post, which is the observation of how society treats gay couples vs. lesbian couples.

All you have to do is to look at TV and movies to see how vastly different gays and lesbians are treated and viewed by society based on their sex. A lesbian couple is more often shown on TV, movies, music videos, etc. compared to gay couples.  If one wants to incorporate sex into something and attract a male audience, then either a hot lesbian couple or simply how chicks making out. However, with a gay couple, showing them in media is seen as something more controversial than hot.  Sometimes it seems almost like pulling teeth to simply show two guys kissing.

Take the kiss between Madonna and Britney Spears, then with Christine Aguilera on one of the past MTV awards.  The media considered it hot.  But with Adam Lambert kissing one the members of his band during a performance on TV, it was considered offensive, and too much.  Why???  

A common attribute that I notice is that these views and receptions seem to be "male-based", as in, beautiful looking lesbians or women making out are many times seen as hot to men, thus they are seen often in the media compared to handsome looking gays or men making out.  Two men kissing are not seen as hot to men, hence you don't see those images often.

Now....why are the opinions and sexual turn-ons of the male audience the foremost concern?  Do they believe that women aren't turned on by two men kissing (fanfiction and the internet in general disproves that idea lol)?  Why is the media quick to show two beautiful women making out?

Here are bullets of other observations on this subject:

• Why do guys get seemingly "squeamish" when it come to gays, or go out there way in voicing how grossed out they are by it?  I rarely see this reaction when it comes to women and lesbians.  Is it because gayness is related to "weakness" and strength (or different forms of strength) is a known characteristic of masculinity ("be a man")?  
• Why do people wonder about the sexuality of an actor who plays a homosexual in a movie, or on TV, but people aren't that concerned when it comes to actresses who play lesbians? 

Thoughts to Ponder.....

• HPV vaccine regarding girls and boys. 

Back when there was controversy surrounding possible mandatory vaccinations of girls, I found myself thinking, "Ok this is a good idea, early prevention and all that...". So when I read some of the reactions of parents and officials, was rather confused and annoyed.  It's one thing to have concerns about the safety of vaccinations (that's understandable), but to not agree with mandatory HPV vaccinations because you're not comfortable with the thought of your daughter loosing her virginity and having sex is ridiculous.  Looking back I remember reading comments from parents and people in position saying something like how they'll be teaching their daughters abstinence and how they were too young getting vaccinated against something related to sexual activity.

I wanted to tell these parents to GET A GRIP!

Don't get me wrong.  I'm a Christian and all for abstinence.  But I'm also realistic. 

A parent can teach their child how they should save themselves until marriage until they're blue in the face, and that child may still decide to have premarital sex.  Not to mention that a woman can wait to have sex until marriage and STILL catch HPV because her husband had engaged in casual sex before or adultery during marriage.  A girl receiving the HPV vaccine will not in and of itself encourage her to have casual sex.

Interesting thing though.  I remember reading a long time ago about the HPV vaccine possibly being made for boys.  Recently CNN has had articles saying that HPV vaccine was effective in males and that vaccination of boys is encouraged and even urged*.  It seemed that the main concern in this case was potential health risks for the boys.  NO mention of possible repercussions toward their sexual activity.  Hmmm......But that was when it was first being considered, a few years ago.  Maybe today people are as concerned with their supposed potential sexual activity as well.  Seriously though, what's wrong with taking precautions if the vaccine's proven to be safe???

Speaking of sexual activity.....

• Plan B

As you all know (if you've been watching the news), Plan B was pretty close to being available over-the-counter for females of all ages.   However, it didn't happen:

For the first time ever, the Health and Human Services secretary publicly overruled the Food and Drug Administration, refusing Wednesday to allow emergency contraceptives to be sold over the counter, including to young teenagers. The decision avoided what could have been a bruising political battle over parental control and contraception during a presidential election season..... 

I have to say, I was kind of disappointed with the decision.  Again, I am a Christian but I am also realistic.  If there was a chance that a young girl can avoid an unplanned pregnancy with this pill being widely available then that's a good thing.  I mean, you have condoms being available for boys of all ages.  Why not have the pill be widely accessible for girls of all ages if it proves to be safe to use?

Of course there is the question of when life actually starts.  I don't know, but personally I don't really believe it starts right at conception.  Maybe it's the biology major-side of me....Anyway, while I think abstinence is the best way to go, there are young people that will choose to have sex.  And I would rather a girl use Plan B than have an abortion.

I might make a post of this by itself so I can expand on this more.

• Trigger warnings

From the website Objectify This - What is a Trigger Warning:     

Anyone who reads feminist blogs has come across “trigger warnings” before graphic images or descriptions of rape or violence to women.  The intent of a trigger warning is to advertise the potentially emotionally triggering content of a piece, which might revive memories of rape or sexual assault for survivors.  Survivors of sexual assault are especially sensitive to such images because they are traumatized, and like other traumatized people, this may affect their whole world-view. Some survivors experience post-traumatic stress disorder.............The trigger warning also implicitly validates survivors of sexual assault, by recognizing their existence and their potential needs and offering them control over some of what they process.

I understand the need for trigger warnings.  The consideration for victims is noble.  However, why are trigger warnings exclusive to mainly rape and sexual assault victims?  Not to mention where does one draw the line?  If there are trigger warnings for rape and sexual assault, what about overall abuse (I have indeed seen warnings for domestic abuse), murder, physical assault....violence in general?  Like I said, it's noble to be considerate of victims of sexual assault and rape, but I do wonder if it's leaning closer to coddling.  I know, that sounds mean, and I'm really trying to explain my point in such a way that I don't come across as a b*tch.

What I'm saying is, this world is violent and will pretty much remain violent until Judgement Day.  I guess what rubs me the wrong way is this idea that victims of rape and sexual assault - most of which are women - need to be sheltered and protected as if they're these weak, helpless beings, something that for thousands of years have been associated with women. 

I don't know...I still don't think I really expressed what I was thinking on this point that well :-/