Vegipus

Bringing new meaning to the phrase "Dinner Theater."

misandry/misogyny

Ever since I learned the word for hatred of men (misandry), I've wanted to know when it was entered into the English lexicon, and how it compared, historically, to misogyny. Today, thanks to dictionary.com, I found the answer:

Misogyny, the word for hatred of women, was entered into the lexicon sometime around 1650-1660.

Misandry, the word for hatred of men, was entered into the lexicon ~1945-1950. 300 years later, and (I think significantly) the same time the Rosies of WWII were displaced by men returning from the war.

What does this mean? Does it mean, as Carl Sagan and Ann Druyun suggest in Contact that the "male lexographers" couldn't imagine a use for the word, or does it mean that hatred of men is historically more likely to be ignored? There are at least a dozen other explanations I can think of off the top of my head, but first I'd like to know what you think. What accounts for the 300 year gap?

What Kids Can Teach Us

Yesterday, I came across this article via metafilter, and it is easily one of the most interesting pieces I've read in a very long time. In it, two teachers describe how their elementary school-aged after school kids went from playing with legos to deconstructing capitalism over the course of a school year.

Certainly, the ethics of teaching social justice in an elementary school classroom are up for debate, but I'd rather not focus on that here. Instead, what I found striking was the amount that these 8-year-olds were already a product of their environment. I think elementary school interactions socialize kids in broader ways than merely helping them form interpersonal relationships. These kids were clearly savvy to their societal environment. By the age of 8, many were already products of capitalism, completely accultured to the socioeconomic system in which they were growing up. Moreover, as I read further into the article, I realized that they were speaking in terms that were already defined by that system. For American schoolchildren, inequality is a natural way of life.

Back to the ethics of teaching social justice. In college I took a class on the Cold War in which we read a number of texts relating to propaganda. One of the texts discussed how social values are promulgated in small children. One of the most striking examples was how math texts are used to surreptitiously convey values to children. Look at an American high school or grade school math textbook. Look at the word problems. They almost always talk about buying things. Even when people buy them together, they rarely split the cost evenly. This isn't the case everywhere, and it certainly wasn't the case in Soviet Russia, where most math texts involved sharing or producing. So regardless of what teachers do in the classroom, children are constantly being instilled with social values in the classroom.

I am a BIG DORK

Dear Mr. Abrams:

While I understand the allure of big-name stars, I wish to express my concerns with rumored casting decisions for Star Trek XI. The original casts of “Star Trek: The Original Series,” “Star Trek: The Next Generation,” “Star Trek: Deep Space Nine,” and “Star Trek: Voyager” brought dynamism to the series and over the course of 7 years (5 in the case of TOS), the actors and actresses became synonymous with the characters themselves (sometimes to their dismay).

Part of the reason Nemesis failed (along with the short-lived “Star Trek: Enterprise”) was producer Rick Berman’s general weltanschauung when it comes to the series. No one can argue that Star Trek is a huge and enormously profitable franchise, but as with any business, producers like Berman and yourself must remember their audience. Star Trek’s audience is two-fold: self-professing geeks for whom the series represents fantasy, escape, and a world where technological and moral progress go hand-in-hand, and nostalgia fans who remember watching it at a time when the world was just beginning to explore the cosmos first-hand. Either way, Star Trek has become an oasis of idealism in an otherwise cynical world (evidence of this can be confirmed by looking at the launch dates of its most successful serials—at key points during the Cold War and shortly after the end of the first Gulf War), and for a Star Trek film to succeed, every aspect of it must live up to that image.

In addition, most of the Star Trek casts have had limited fame or television exposure prior to participating in a Star Trek series. Their status as relative unknowns (at least to the American TV audience) contributes to the completeness of their Star Trek personae. Their fame, once gained, is often a result, not a precursor, to their connection to Star Trek.

None of this is meant to suggest that you should cast acting novices, but you should consider the impact of the choices you are making. The rumor mill lists Matt Damon as the top choice for Kirk—a disastrous move that would alienate audiences. While Damon is a highly competent actor, his style is temperamental and fluid—two things Kirk (as played by William Shatner, at least) hasn’t been. Damon’s performances lack the magnetism to make him a convincing Star Trek captain.

Likewise, Adrian Brody’s performances are incredibly emotive, making them entirely inappropriate for a Vulcan. Even Spock, whose human side provides him with more emotional “give” than other Vulcan characters, is still at heart a logical being. Adrian Brody’s great for a film with waterworks, but Star Trek XI should not be that film. Rumor has it that Zachary Quinto has expressed an interest in this part. Please take him seriously. He is a fine actor with a history in series’ which share an audience with Star Trek.

That said, the other rumored casting choices—Gary Sinese as Bones and Daniel Dae Kim as Sulu—are both suitable. Kim has a history with Star Trek, and Gary Sinese shares the same wry sense of humor and mischievous nature as his Star Trek counterpart.

Please consider these requests from a long-time fan, fellow filmmaker, and critical theorist. Casting makes a huge difference in whether a film succeeds or fails. Any Star Trek fan will have a vested interest in seeing this film come to life. Don’t disappoint them by privileging mainstream fantasy over a loyal audience and fan base. Please, please don’t mess this up.

Heroes and WiR

Sure enough, when confronted with the prospect of killing of a character, Heroes took the girlfriend route. Simone died this past Monday, conveniently ending the possibility of our heroes going public with their superpowers this early in the series.

Meanwhile (to the tune of a certain Christmas song), it's beginning to look a lot like X-Men. Heroes was, from the start, an X-Men dupe. Genetically mutated superhumans with powers that, to most, seem like magic. But now, Dr. Suresh is talking about potentially supressing the powers of various heroes. The twist is still the Magneto character, Sylar. In X-Men, Magneto controls the powers of various Mutants by persuading them to become part of his army. Sylar skips the intermediary bodies, and gains control over other heroes' powers by consuming them. The relationship with cannibalism and consumption is further emphasized by Sylar's inability to gain new powers without killing heroes.

Recently, we've seen several heroes struggle to control their powers. Sylar and Peter Petrelli are two sides of the same coin: Peter can't control the powers he absorbs once he gets them, and Sylar can't control his lust for new powers. I think it could be argued at this point (though this may change later) that Sylar's version of the control problem is his inability to absorb without destroying/consuming. Perhaps his native ability--absorbing the powers of others (like Peter)--can be controlled in such a way that he can gain powers without killing. This is all speculation. You can bet I'll be watching as the story unfolds.

Next week: Mr. Bennett's past, and Claire's adoption.

From the Creepy Inside Jokes Department

Mini, the BMW subset devoted to mini-coopers, has gone a bit 1984. Much of advertising deals with the fine line between personalizing advertising (usually to a specific demographic), losing your audience by being boring or irrelevant, and losing your audience by being downright creepy. Billboards that talk specifically to you are kinda cute in an "L.A. Story" sort of way (as the blog I linked mentions), but not having a billboard identify me personally by name while I'm driving down the highway wouldn't make me feel like I was "missing out." It's basically just another form of spam, only this one allows someone to read your name, stalk you to wherever you're going, and pretend that they've known you for years.

Not to mention it's distracting.

Copyright/IP Law and Libraries

Yesterday, while poring over the most recent New Yorker, I started down a path to the strange and quirky ins and outs of American Copyright law. Jeffrey Toobin wrote an article on the Google Books project and the strange role of publishers, and it got me thinking about libraries and copyright.

A little digging turned up a lot of information on "digital libraries," and more broadly, "libraries in the digital age," but the cases themselves were by far the most interesting part of my search.

Here's an excerpt from an ALA brief of Sony v. Universal Studios by Mary Hutchings:

"...The Court's holding below that "intrinsic" uses of copyrighted materials cannot be "fair" uses will profoundly affect the ability of librarians to serve their constituencies effectively. Libraries are the critical link in bringing new information technologies to the public at large. Libraries permit the masses to use such technologies otherwise available only to the rich. Thus, many libraries now, and in the future most libraries will, provide patrons with access to videorecorders for "in-library" use. An increasing number of libraries provide off-air tapes of news and other programs for in-library viewing for patrons who are unable to afford their own recorders, and who otherwise would be denied access to broadcast programming. If the decision of the Court of Appeals is not reversed, libraries could be accused of making, or of aiding and abetting, unfair "intrinsic" uses of copyrighted materials. Rapid technological change and the need to strike a reasonable balance between the interests of copyright owners and copyright users make an early national resolution of these issues a matter of great urgency.

And later:

"The effect of the Court of Appeals' holding is to create a dichotomy between entertainment and education which will restrict public access to information and constrict the judicially-recognized role of libraries as "a mighty resource in the free market place of ideas." Minarcini v. Strongville City School District, 541 F.2d 577, 582 (6th Cir. 1976).

I, for one, never knew either that libraries had a defined "judicially-recognized role" nor that library staff saw themselves as protectorates of the poor and redistributors of knowledge where wealth is not distributed evenly. Other library organizations echo these concerns. The International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) has a manifesto pertaining to internet and information access. They say:

"Unhindered access to information is essential to freedom, equality, global understanding and peace.

and...

"The global Internet enables individuals and communities throughout the world, whether in the smallest and most remote villages or the largest cities, to have equality of access to information for personal development, education, stimulation, cultural enrichment, economic activity and informed participation in democracy. All can present their interests, knowledge and culture for the world to visit.

As these tracts suggest, disseminating information regardless of race, creed, sex, sexual preference, or class are vital elements not only to an American social agenda, but that are and ought to remain protected by US Copyright Law (Title 17). Seen in this light, Hutchings' concerns, as well as those laid out by Lawrence Lessig (quoted in the New Yorker article) are marked (the former moreso than the latter): while the rights of publishers and authors ought to be protected, stripping "the masses" of access to both information and new technologies goes against public rights protected by libraries.

My knowledge of law is limited, so feel free to chastise my interpretation fully.