The new Megan Fox.

 Shia Labouf talks Megan Fox.

The new transformers movie is going to come out this summer, but this time the lead female role and love interest will no longer be played by the beloved by men Megan Fox.  This time around, director Michael Bay has chosen Victoria's secret model Rosie Hunington-Whitely-a tall blond-as Megan Fox's replacement.  This New York Times article features an interview with Shia Labouf about the departure of Megan Fox from the third Transformers installment, and he speaks of Fox's insecurities of being put in the spotlight essentially through one film series and subsequently being perceived as the sexiest woman in America.  He talks about how she was uncomfortable with Michael Bay's demands for the role, which didn't involve a lot of lines, but rather sexy poses and a lot plain old "looking hot."  This article perfectly ties into the idea of the male gaze and the fetishistic perception of an ideal woman being portrayed through a camera lens.  Since Fox no longer felt comfortable doing the same thing for three films in a row, he ended up hiring an alternate that happens to be a Victoria Secret model; obviously sexy poses are what she does for a living so this acting job would not be much of an insecurity issue for her.  It is fascinating to see how directors will use woman in order to make money, because for example, this is Rosie's first acting job.  It proves that the image of a woman's body is the ideal way of making profit of a big Hollywood Blockbuster in America.

Hangover Drops the N Bomb

I am a fan of the first Hangover, so naturally I went to see the second one. I was excited and sat down with GREAT expectations, but the movie failed me. The humor was so over the top and the plot was exactly the same, just with new locations. I was extremely disappointed. It depicted so many stereotypes. What angered me the most though was the fact that the N word was used MULTIPLE times by three different characters in different ways, none of which were acceptable. I do not mean to spoil the movie at all but the use of the word was by three individuals who were not of African descent and even if they were I still don’t think it was acceptable. The writers then went on to defend the use of the word in an article by saying that, “For someone to say that word so cluelessly, it’s funny because it comes out of a place of ignorance, and Alan doesn’t know any better; he’s just an idiot. Anyone who would say that so loosely is an idiot. That word can be very inflammatory but Alan is such a dimwit, it’s not excusable at all but you’re making fun of people that would say that word.” I however did not see the humor in it at all.

Source: http://www.eurweb.com/?p=106591

Four Weddings

I recently fell in love with a television show called “Four Weddings” on the Learning Channel. In the show, these four brides believe that they are having the best wedding ever. The network makes them guests at each other’s weddings and the brides vote on who had the best wedding. The winner then gets to take a honeymoon that the network pays for. It seems innocent enough, however you have brides of all economic backgrounds coming together to compete. I see this as a major flaw in the show. Sometimes it is comedic how ridiculous the weddings are and we as viewers know that there is no way that some weddings will win. Then we have to ask ourselves is it fair that the woman who had the nice 80,000 dollar wedding should win an all expense paid honeymoon, versus the woman who had a 7, 000 dollar wedding and probably can’t afford that type of honeymoon. We as viewers even scoff at the woman with the cheap wedding and the editors of the show clearly depict the bad parts of the weddings so the viewers make up their mind that the cheap wedding just cannot win. It also doesn’t help that the bride who is usually having the cheap wedding is a woman of color and of course of a lower class. However, as a viewer I cannot deny that this is entertainment.

Illinois grants same-sex marriage.

Today is a good day if you happen to be gay and are looking to get married.  I had just discussed the notion of the value of marriage itself within American society.  Even though the divorce rate is up to 50% today in comparison to the 1950's where marriages and childbirths where at an all time high, people still want to get married.  What is interesting though is the fact that more and more heterosexuals are not wanting to get married and in opposition more same-sex couples are.  Today Jamie Gayle and Robin Petrovic of Cook County in Illinois where granted Civil union, which is obviously a first for our states.  It is fascinating to see how many gay couples want marriage considering how many straight couples increasingly do not in fear or divorce and breaking social norms.  It is arguable that reason so many gay couples may want marriage is solely because of equality-much like woman not having the right to vote 50 years ago-which seems absurd to us today.  Regardless of reasoning, this is a step up for Illinois because we are one of the very few states now that allow same-sex marriage.  I'm proud of the fact that we are breaking social norms and looking at gays as equals rather than inferiors.  This poses a step up for the gay community, and a step in the right direction for the entire nation.

link: http://www.suntimes.com/5712829-417/gay-couples-line-up-for-licenses-as-illinois-civil-union-law-takes-effect.html

The Great Idiot of Social Science Goes Too Far

Satoshi Kanazawa, author of a very contentious blog in Psychology Today recently wrote (and quickly deleted) a very racist post. However, you can't really delete anything on the internet. It's right here. Some things you should know about Satoshi Kanazawa: there is currently a campaign for his dismissal from the University of London as a professor of economics, when you search his name in google, google suggests 'Satoshi Kanazawa Idiot' (his nickname in the title of this blog post, given to him by evolutionary biologist P.Z. Meyers, has stuck), he thinks Ann Coulter, if she were president, would have handled 9/11 and its aftermath better than anybody else he could think of, he has an interest in prostitutes.

What is so discouraging about this man's existence is that he does everything he does in the name of science. He claims that he knows everything and that he can predict events before they happen, not because he is a genius or because he's special in any way, but because he's an evolutionary psychologist. An evolutionary psychologist. To me, that's just a fancy title for an anthropologist who can charge you by the hour to talk to him. This man is dangerous.

He's dangerous because he's willing to generalize people in unthinkable ways. Furthermore Kanazawa is guilty of something that has been a growing trend with the increasing popularity in reality TV and the internet: he creates inflammatory material with the specific intent of getting a reaction and gaining sympathy or popularity or whatever satisfaction racists get from being racist. I was made aware of this piece by CNN's LZ Granderson so it was obviously very widely syndicated. Content is constantly sacrificed for clicks. That is most profitable, presumably. Kanazawa is a professor of economics after all.

Psychology Today had been overwhelmed with responses, and many of their writers took offense to Kanazawa lowering the publication's credibility, he was denounced by Daniel R. Hawes and Nathan A. Heflick with the consensus conclusion being: Kanazawa's research was not objective at all, making it quite racist.

Psychology Today issued this statement last week:

“Last week, a blog post about race and appearance by Satoshi Kanazawa was published–and promptly removed–from this site. We deeply apologize for the pain and offense that this post caused. Psychology Today’s mission is to inform the public, not to provide a platform for inflammatory and offensive material. Psychology Today does not tolerate racism or prejudice of any sort. The post was not approved by Psychology Today, but we take full responsibility for its publication on our site. We have taken measures to ensure that such an incident does not occur again. Again, we are deeply sorry for the hurt that this post caused.”

A BIG Help

The horrific storms and tornados that ripped through Missouri last week left quite the mess with the people of Joplin. After seeing pictures, I couldn’t believe that some people were left with absolutely nothing and even lost family members. Gosh, what a horrible horrible disaster to have happen. While reading an article on CNN about the cleanup that is occurring in Missouri, I saw that an elephant from a nearby circus was brought in. Not only did the elephant provide somewhat of a happy entertainment for the folks of the town to see, but it also helped move heavy debris. I feel that this was a great idea to not only help out the town but also help lift spirits in town at the same time. Some people were outraged claiming that the elephant was in danger. I’m no expert on elephants, but I don’t see the big deal? They are one of the strongest and largest animals, so wouldn’t it make sense to have allowed it to help with a natural disaster? Maybe it’s just me, but I think whoever allowed for the use of this animal did a good thing for the town and its people in an effort to a speedy recovery.

He Did WHAT!?

I don’t know how shocked I was to read about Arnold and Maria’s latest split. I of course that it was sad that the family was splitting, but the part that shocked me most is the fact that Arnold had a love child with a housekeeper 10 years ago!! Apparently, the woman Arnold had a child with (besides his wife) worked at the family’s home for years and was practically considered part of the family, how crazy is that!? And the worst part, is that Maria and the housekeeper carrying Arnold’s child were PREGNANT AT THE SAME TIME! What I don’t understand is how Maria didn’t think something was going on with those two? I mean maybe she did, but im sure she didn’t think that the woman who worked for her was carrying her husband’s child! I just felt really bad for Maria when I heard this (here I am calling her Maria as if I know her). But anyways, I think that the fact he knew exactly what was going on for 10 whole years and never thought to share it with his wife is a very big deal. Also, the fact that he is leading the state of California and he’s that much of a liar get me thinking, what is he hiding from the people of California?