Puffy Face

In which we shall see: I get somewhat rant-y. And with good reason.

* * * * *

After a public spate of fairly vicious commentary about Ashley Judd's looks, particularly regarding the above photo, she posted a response - and it is fantastic. (Please, read the whole thing.)

When will we finally have had enough? When will we stop judging people for how they look RIGHT THIS MINUTE and start remembering who they actually ARE? We are damaging women, relationships, children, men, teenagers, our perception of ourselves, our view of the past and our view of the future, the very fabric of our society by our refusal to stop allowing the media to tell us what is attractive and what is not; to reject the overwhelmingly common belief that people are worth no more than what they look like. How is it that we continue to be so FOOLISH?

We must stop. We simply have to.

I've never thought much about Ashley Judd - I thought she was pretty, a good actress, interesting family, but that was about it. Now, after reading her letter, I respect and admire her so much - she's smart, clear-eyed, and responding in an articulate, appropriate, confident manner to a personal attack and serious issue. A friend and fellow blogger recently posted a very funny, satirical (or is she serious? You decide) write-up on our collective tendency towards jealousy, and I'm starting to see that she has a point. Is there any reason for malicious gossip and irresponsible 'journalism' other than jealousy? I don't think so - it's not like calling out someone's age or a perceived 'flaw' is in any way news.

It's interesting how often lately I've heard people reminding me that we must not judge others, and all the thinking I've been doing about the importance of not making assumptions. How can anyone look at the picture above and not see a beautiful woman? And if she looks different than she did a month (or a decade) ago, why doesn't anyone ask if there's a reason? (Have any of us NOT seen that illness can change a person's appearance?) And why isn't it OK/normal/accepted/appreciated that we change as we get older? The gleeful disregard for facts, healthy discussion, and common courtesy tells me that yes, these commenters and interviewers and 'reporters' are jealous - jealous, and invested in the false trope that we have allowed the media (and each other) to impose on our world that 'image is everything.'

IT'S NOT TRUE. We are all worth so much more than what we look like. Ashley Judd's measured response proves to me, for example, that she is much, much, more than just a pretty (puffy) face - and she shouldn't have needed to write about it for anyone to believe it.

"The insanity has to stop, because as focused on me as it appears to have been, it is about all girls and women. In fact, it’s about boys and men, too, who are equally objectified and ridiculed, according to heteronormative definitions of masculinity that deny the full and dynamic range of their personhood. It affects each and every one of us, in multiple and nefarious ways: our self-image, how we show up in our relationships and at work, our sense of our worth, value, and potential as human beings. Join in—and help change—the Conversation." - Ashley Judd  (If you haven't, read the article.)

*

The Hunger Games is Watching YOU

In which we shall see: First, a movie review. Second, some socio-political commentary (more on the socio, less on the political) with a healthy dose of self-flagellation. Seriously. (You never see a good flagellation these days.)

* * * * *

                                                              Picture from The Hollywood News

I'm not a huge fan of The Hunger Games trilogy - which is to say, I read and appreciated the books, but did not get particularly invested or Twilight-y about them. I think they've got some fascinating ideas and pertinent warnings, and that Suzanne Collins did an excellent job with the storytelling. They're also such a MASSIVE presence in the States that it was a bit of a surprise when the movie came out and I found that most of the people I know hadn't read and were even barely aware of the books, let alone the movie. (Most of my friends, to be realistic, probably fall into that 'between' zone that comes in the middle of 'teens'/'YA target audience' and 'older readers who've rediscovered/jumped on the YA bandwagon'.) After all the buzz and the generally good reviews that came with the opening weekend of the film, I decided to check it out. I wasn't really sure what to expect, as the books had been plenty disturbing on their own.* I headed over to a matinee with a friend who'd heard of but not read the books, and who asked (in his customary way) if I would 'sum up (the backstory) in a Tweet'. Surprisingly, I found that I could. This is one series that you don't need to have much context for (dystopian, autocratic government, yearly subjugation of population with fight-to-the-death reality TV) in order to follow along.

And I thought it was an excellent movie. (Although I thoroughly enjoyed this contrary review by someone who's opinion - and writing skills - I very much respect.) I liked the look of the majority of the movie, I thought several of the performances were excellent (although, Gale? Oh, dear. I hope Liam Hemsworth got at least some of the same acting genes and not just the 'bulk' genes that his brother got... fingers are crossed for the next movie). Even the shaky-cam didn't bother me after the first few minutes - I think I may have been desensitized by the Bourne films. Yes, it felt very true to the book, but in a way that acknowleged skillfully that a good movie adaptation is going to have to move and squeeze and cut some things in order to get the highly detailed world of the book onto the less-detailed (odd as that may sound) world on the big screen. No, it wasn't art, but there were some beautiful, effective shots; in part I think I appreciated the experience more because it was better than your typical summer popcorn flick. (I also think the music is pretty great.)

No, I didn't 'like' the movie, I wouldn't say I 'enjoyed' it - I was far too aware of the actual nature of the action and themes and content to enjoy it, and I am glad that I was engrossed in the experience without forgetting to be disturbed by it. I'm also glad that the movie wasn't more graphic - I read the books, after all, and I'm much 'happier' (if that's the right word) with my mental perception of the killings than I would be with seeing them acted out. Again, I was plenty disturbed already. Any more, and I would have shut off from all of it completely. I like that it wasn't glossy enough to lump me with the Romans cheering for the gladiators, and not 'gritty' or realistic enough to try to convince me it was reality TV or a documentary. For me, the balance was good, and I appreciated that.

However...

* * * * *

You ever have one of those moments when you realize you've been completely, stupidly naive? The older I get, the more they seem to happen - which in a way is a good thing, because it means you're really THINKING about things. I was shocked to hear, in a few different articles, about people who have been Tweeting their disappointment over the casting for a few of the parts in The Hunger Games; specifically, using black actors for the parts of Rue, Thresh, and Cinna. Bottom line, of course, is that these Tweeters are stupid. They're not complaining about lack of talent, they're complaining about skin color - and a few of them go on to sniffily try to justify their complaints by wondering if the movie production team actually read the book. The book, The Hunger Games, in which Rue and Thresh are described BY THE AUTHOR as having 'dark brown skin.' (Cinna, incidentally, is not given a biological - racial? Skin-based? description, so anyone complaining about the movie casting messing with the book is, again, just plain stupid.)

A few weeks ago I had a conversation with a friend of mine about an interview with Morgan Freeman that was making the rounds in which he says the key to ending racism is to 'stop talking about it'.** I agreed with him, and told my friend that I didn't think racism was such a problem anymore because the younger generation had grown up knowing better - or at least not knowing that it was an issue; that it WASN'T an issue because kids today didn't know to talk about it as if it were something that needed to be solved. People are people now, I argued - skin color is just a fact and not a point of concern. She disagreed with me. I was surprised then, but I'm not now. Now, I'm horrified and appalled and more than a little disgusted with those who think the movie was 'ruined' because the 'producer[s made] all the good characters black.'

First, I'm honestly disgusted that people would feel this way, regardless of how the characters were described in the book. (None of the Tweeters seem to be upset that blue-eyed English rose Jennifer Lawrence, described in the book with straight black hair and olive skin, which generally brings to mind Hispanic, Mediterranean, or Native American genotypes, was cast as Katniss - I'm not particularly upset, as I think she did a fine job with the part.) I don't understand how anyone can think that skin color affects talent or story-telling ability, I really don't. (In fact, I thought the main scene with Rue was the most emotionally effective - I cried - in the entire film. That little girl was fantastic.) Really, movie or book or job or guy sitting next to you on the bus - I don't understand how people can feel this way. I've understood that racism has to be taught; I'm shocked, but have to acknowledge that somehow, people are still teaching it. How is this possible?!?

A. Dor. A. Ble.

 Second, I am truly mystified as to WHY anyone who does have that particular belief would blog, Tweet, or publicly talk about it. I understand and accept that people are entitled to their own beliefs, repugnant as they may be to the general population, but you have to be a complete moron to express a bigoted perception in the Internet age and not know that others are going to pick it up, pass it on, and flail you alive. How can you NOT know that you are being racist, a bigot? And if you do know, why would you SAY it?!? I just don't get it. Seriously. You are as foolish and self-deceptive as those in Suzanne Collins' books who watch The Hunger Games for fun and entertainment. Of course the world is watching you. That is what the Internet IS.

So - I recommend the movie. I recommend the books. I'm going to go read them again, and think a little harder about what we don't want the world to turn out to be. I don't know what the answer is, the way to stop people teaching others to be racist - but at least now I'm more aware, now I will think about what I can do (since I've become a little less naive) - like blog, maybe - to try to make sure the world doesn't get stupider. Not on my watch.

Falling turtles ahoy! Pay attention.

Cyd





* It really is a credit to an author to have written a series of books that are socially and politcally relevant, full of unlikeable and completely disturbing content, and still totally compelling. (The Twilight books, for example, are two out of three, AND Collins is a better writer. Sorry, Stephenie.)

** The link is essentially a summary of the interview - there are other, more complete, versions.

*

Can't We All Just Get Along (You Meatheads)?

Great article in the Deseret News today on civility in public discourse - the gist is that a few years ago a prominent conservative evangelical started to be disturbed over the way Mormons were treated during the 2008 presidential elections, particularly by evangelicals. (Just pause for a moment and take that in - I KNOW.) He decided to draw attention to the fact that most Americans actually want and believe in appropriate behavior in political settings, and came up with the Civility Pledge:

*  I will be civil in my public discourse and behavior.

*  I will be respectful of others whether or not I agree with them.

*  I will stand against incivility when I see it.

I would sign it. I'll think about it, remember it, and do my best to live by it. Sadly, when this man sent it out to members of Congress and governors only three people actually signed and returned it. THREE. Out of 585 requests that people be civil in their public and political discourse, three agreed to do it.

My state representatives were not on that list.

How embarrassing.

I think it's time to write a letter - a polite, intelligent, firm, calm, respectful letter to let my elected officials know that I expect better of them.

Coming into the beginning of campaign season, I think it's also time that this be one of the first questions asked in every discussion:  "What's your stance on civility? What do you plan to do about it?"

Once that's been established, we'll actually be able to talk productively about everything else. Wouldn't that be a nice change.

Brief, and Positive - Ideal?

I generally enjoy Scott Adams' blogs - he always has something interesting to say. In the category of "Self- and Society-Help" I present:

Slowing the Decline in Your Personal Appeal

We humans start our lives at the peak of your popularity. Everyone loves babies. The trouble starts when we learn to speak. Talking is the process by which we transform from adorable to insufferable. The more we talk, the less appealing we become. 

No topic is safe. If things are going well for you, and you make the mistake of talking about it, others will think you're a self-absorbed bragger. If things are going poorly for you, and you talk about it, others will think you're a gloomy downer. If you talk about other people, you're a gossip. If you freely offer your opinion on the pros and cons of things, you'll be seen as too critical or too opinionated.

If you talk about politics, the people who disagree with you will see you as either an immoral ass hat or a superstitious simpleton. The people who share your viewpoint will see you as a bore because you're stating the obvious and probably taking too long to do it. 

The old saying is that it's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. It's unambiguously true that the more you talk, the higher your odds of saying something that is memorably stupid, cruel, selfish, or evil. 

Telling amusing stories is okay in small doses. But storytelling is a rare skill. And the people who know you well have heard all of your best stories. Every story you tell will lower your average.

One situation in which talking works well is when two analytical or academic people share opinions and information on topics of common interest.  That can be stimulating, especially if one or both people has a sense of humor. But if those two people spend much time together, they start running out of fresh topics. The more they talk, the less interesting they become to each other. 

The rules of conversation are a bit different for people who don't know each other well or don't see each other often. In those cases, a bit of extra chatter is useful to keep the awkwardness at bay. But as you spend more time with an individual, every word you utter makes you less desirable.

Lately I have been wondering if there's an antidote for the social decay caused by talking. One fix is to spend more time with strangers. But that would be exhausting and hollow. 

You could try doing more listening and less talking. People like that. But listening with empathy has the perverse effect of rewarding the talker for sharing his woes. That's a problem because if you cause someone to focus on his own misfortune, you make things worse for him. In time, the talker will associate you with all of his most unpleasant thoughts because that's the connection you keep reinforcing.

My best solution for the scourge of talking is this: Be brief and say something positive.

Brevity will slow the inevitable decline in your popularity caused by talking. And saying something positive as often as possible will be a mood booster to whoever is in the room with you. Humans are followers, and if you set a positive tone, it rubs off. 

You'll never regain the personal appeal you enjoyed as a baby. But if you say nice things, and don't say much, you might become relatively less unappealing than the people around you. And that's not nothing.


* * * * *


Brief? Maybe. Positive? Sorta -yes? Either way, he makes a very good point. (Go try it!)

Bonus Content #10 - Character Values Trump Sexiness

Wow. Somebody in the mainstream media is finally getting it right. This article is targeted as advice to women about what to look for in men, and it's good stuff for both sexes to consider working on (urgh, just cannot find a way to end that sentence without a dangling preposition!).

In conclusion, when I build a house it's going to have to include both a den and a laboratory.

Bonus Content

Check out this interesting article I found the other day... Haven't Mormons known about this for, oh, 200+ years?