What an interesting coincidence. Yesterday, “Kidzmom” wanted to talk to the boy, and found out he wasn’t in a very conversational mood. And so she went on from that to reminding me of pressing parent-type business we needed to talk over, and from there we went to this flash drive I (for some reason?) have to get him for school. And that brought us round, somehow, to superhero movies.

And she found herself staring right down the barrel of my theory about superhero movies vs. superheroINE movies. Which leads to my prophecy: In the next decade or two, and probably beyond that, we will never, ever, ever, EVER see a Wonder Woman movie. Why? Because heroines are not developed in movies the way heroes are.

I didn’t like either one of the Tomb Raider movies, because when there’s too much time consumed on screen to develop too little by way of characters or story — it is BORING. And female superheroes are not developed. They are, rather, what I would call “templated.” Let’s see…she is strong-willed, assertive, loaded with really cool skills, athletic, not dependent on a man, confident with her body, stands up for the rights of the oppressed, capable of doing lots of things at the same time, doesn’t take crap from anybody, blah blah blah blah blah. Right? Well, that just isn’t fun to watch, and it has nothing to do with the fact that she’s a dame.

Lara Croft, through a radio headset, tells a guy to keep driving his jeep in a straight line out in the middle of the African plains. And then she drops in on him from a hang glider. Wow! Who coulda seen that coming? Well…since what you’re defining is that Lara always has a plan and she has lots of skills doing things, and that was already defined, again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again…the scene really exists for no purpose insofar as developing the story, or a character within it. Actually, the character that was supposed to be defined was the guy driving the jeep. When the scene’s over, we know absolutely nothing about him other than that he’s capable of driving a jeep in a straight line, and following orders, and — since he was taken by surprise by Lara doing what she always does — he must be a little bit of a likable dope. Probably not what the producers of the movie intended.

Consider the case of James Bond, notorious for defining the same character attributes over and over again, across generations. Generations. You would think it should be equally boring to watch him, right? But no. We can’t wait to see what he does. The reason: There’s always a twist, even if it involves exposing Bond’s few weaknesses. The masseuse is a Chinese spy…and Bond knows it although the audience does not. His conquest last night is secretly working for the villain, and while he slept she reached under his pillow and took the bullets out of his P99. Goldfinger does not want to steal the gold, he wants to blow it up. Andrea Anders was responsible for sending the golden bullet with “007” engraved in the casing to MI6 headquarters. Even if the central character has been developed to all the depth he is ever going to be developed, there is always something to guarantee this is a bad time to take a potty break. That’s how you make a good action movie.

But that has to do with playing the cards. Superheroine movies are dealt bad hands of cards that can’t be played well in any way.

In the case of Wonder Woman, the problem is audience sensitivity. Just the star-spangled shorts make this an impossible task. If she wears them, you’ll tick off half the audience; if she wears something else, you’ll tick off the other half. Then there is the matter of who Wonder Woman is. Is her alter ego really Diana Prince? If so, how many people know that? If a bullet happens to get past her bracelets, can it break her skin? If that’s the case, then is she just as strong as Superman? It seems to logically follow that she must not be. What’s up with that invisible jet, anyway? Can she fly without it? If she can, then why does she have the damn thing? And, being made out of clay, can she go into outer space in nothing but a bustier and bikini briefs like she does in the comic books?

The problem that confronts any superheroine here, is that while the superhero is inspired by the desire of young men to be more powerful, his female counterpart is inspired by populist rage. Once you are the champion of populist rage, you are at the mercy of that rage as well. We just saw it in the Obama/Hillary face off — the angry mob is always ready to say, once its grievance list receives representation, “Hey this is NOT the representation I had in mind!” And mobs do not have any way of communicating dislike or dissatisfaction, other than through injury and destruction. There is no other rhetorical device available to them.

And so female superheroes are beholden to delivering to their populist mob fan base, whatever it may be, exactly what that fan base expects. Precisely. Nothing more, nothing less. For Wonder Woman, it simply isn’t possible to define what this is. She’ll be boycotted if the costume designers simply change the cut or color of her boots, never mind whether the question is settled about how the magic lasso works.

Those are my thoughts.

But I found Whiskey had a lot more to say on the same subject. I found this out when I was taking delight in how well Katie Allison Granju was getting her man-and-boy-bashing wrinkly misandric ass handed to her in the comment section under the “Teenage Boys Are Stupid” thing…and upon finding Whiskey was the most thoughtful commenter there, decided to look and see what else he has to say.

The secret to comics is who created and read them, back when they were popular, first in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s, and again in the 1960’s (the “Golden” and “Silver” age respectively). The Comics creators were mostly Jewish, nerdy-smart guys, who liked the pretty girls who had no time for them, and preferred the wealthy athletes in High School and College. In wish fulfillment, these mostly Jewish artists and writers, who in the 1930s and early 1940s lived at a time when actual, real Nazis were active in America (the German-American Bund), created (almost exclusively male) characters that provided wish fulfillment to every young man and boy who was not a high-status, wealthy athlete, liked by guys and pursued by girls.

Which is about 90% of the male population, at one time or another. That’s what comics were, and the reason for the characters success. Superman is the most globally recognized fictional character. Because of that secret.

Yes, it’s really that simple. Male wish fulfillment is the secret to Superhero success.

Why does this work for male wish fulfillment and not female wish fulfillment? Therein lies the mystery. Part of it could be the destructive energy involved in the angry populist roar, that seems to engulf everything when the agenda shifts to showcasing how powerful and strong a woman can be.

There is much left undiscovered here, particularly with regard to that gender gap. Personally, I’d find it exquisitely frustrating if I was a gal. Perhaps it’s a conundrum that defies solution, since boys and girls are fundamentally different, and as Whiskey points out, male wish fulfillment has been inextricably intertwined with superhero success since Day One.

Great blog, albeit a young one. When I get some more time, I shall make a point to read every page.

Nothing new or interesting about this. Just another one of those “Everyone Else Is Blogging It, I Might As Well Do It Too” things.

Update: You’re asking — how does this relate to the 2008 elections?

I believe the following clip addresses that handily…

Rachel can’t spell “igniter,” but give her a break, she’s a dog person. Whaddya expect?

Anyway, based on her vast experience of participating in and studying flame wars on the innernets, she’s compiled together a list of ways to start blog debates sure to disintegrate into lotsen lotsen lotsa heat, and very little light. I’m just lovin’ it. It’s in “Letterman” format, and here’s your first few bullets:

10. I’m voting for John McCain.
9. I ate at Taco Bell today.
8. Illegal immigrants suck.
7. Here’s a picture of my dog.

They get a whole lot better. Go read it all, now.

And yeah, I agree with #1. Because they are, they really are. Time to feed them, time to make coffee, the coffee is going to come first and they damn well need to get used to it, I don’t give a good goddamn what the Egyptians thought of ’em.

Someone put that up yesterday. Here are the older ones…

H/T: Boortz.

YES, it is parody. Calm down.

I thought this previous installment did a better job of nailing down the irony, though:

Heard the radio guys talking about it a few minutes ago, and when I went to look it up I found it was turning rapidly into an “Everybody else is blogging it, I might as well do it too” thing. I also found it made a great deal of sense. A great deal. Except number nine…since that’s the one I’m missing, I think.

1. Public Speaking
2. Writing
3. Self-Management
4. Networking
5. Critical Thinking
6. Decision-Making
7. Math
8. Research
9. Relaxation
10. Basic Accounting

You realize what this guy is talking about with #5 and #6, right?

5. Critical Thinking

We are exposed to hundreds, if not thousands, of times more information on a daily basis than our great-grandparents were. Being able to evaluate that information, sort the potentially valuable from the trivial, analyze its relevance and meaning, and relate it to other information is crucial – and woefully under-taught. Good critical thinking skills immediately distinguish you from the mass of people these days.

6. Decision-Making

The bridge that leads from analysis to action is effective decision-making – knowing what to do based on the information available. While not being critical can be dangerous, so too can over-analyzing, or waiting for more information before making a decision. Being able to take in the scene and respond quickly and effectively is what separates the doers from the wannabes.

He’s talking about the first triad of the nine pillars of persuasion. First pillar, second pillar and third pillar.

Fact:
The first Pillar of Persuasion. In the narrow sense, it is a Cognition that can be proven. In the broader sense as it relates to an argument between individuals who disagree, it can be an Opinion that is agreed upon by all participating in the argument, thus rendering any residual disagreement about the veracity of that opinion effectively moot.

Opinion:
Something that is Subjective. It is 1) the second Pillar of Persuasion; it can be a) a Personal Preference, b) an Inference, or a Relative Measurement. Or, it is 2) a Thing To Do.

Thing To Do:
The third Pillar of Persuasion. It is a type of Opinion that someone should do something. In some situations it can be an opinion that someone should stop doing something, or avoid doing something. It is a sign of intellectual sincerity that the thing-to-do should rest on substantiated Cognitions, but there are many reasons to conceal this: 1) laziness, 2) the party offering the thing-to-do may not wish to explain their true interests/motives, fearing this would arouse unwanted suspicion, 3) the party offering the thing-to-do may desire to conceal the cognitions upon which it rests, due to confidentiality issues, intent to deceive, or both. See Must-Tard.

His critical thinking is simply the ability to form an opinion from a fact, while knowing what you’re doing so that the opinion rests on the facts that are available, and is in some way substantiated by those facts. Decision making, in turn, is the ability to arrive at a thing-to-do from an opinion about what’s going on.

We don’t always have the luxury of conjuring up complete certainty in our opinions about what’s going on, prior to being called-upon to decide what to do. And there, in a nutshell, is the situation in which there is such a broad spread of success or lack thereof — where skill meets chance. You see it in little kids who play board games with each other. Scrabble. Battleship. Master Mind. Clue. Any time it’s your role to try to figure out what’s in a hidden panel, or in your opponent’s cards, you see kids getting better at these games as they play them more often.

I would add another one. People need to be able to understand, independently, what are to be the most likely effects or consequences of the things they do. This is important for forming a vision of what is to be done. You could think of this skill as the jumper between the third pillar that is the thing-to-do, and the fourth pillar which is the cause-and-effect argument:

Cause and Effect Argument:
The fourth Pillar of Persuasion; an observation that when certain things happen, there are reasons why certain other things will almost certainly happen as a result. Usually invoked when discussing economics and human behavior, although this isn’t always the case. “When you change the color of the walls in the factory, you have to observe what happens to productivity as a result. It will naturally increase, because when people feel they are being watched, they tend to work harder.”

I don’t want to call this skill “vision” because vision is used too often to describe people who are just plain bossy.

Think of it this way. Imagine you wake up tomorrow morning, and you are Dictator Of The Entire World. You want to be able to lift things more easily.

Any nimrod can make a law that from here on, gravity shall be half as strong. But that would be a pretty stupid law. That would demonstrate a strong vision, and a weakness in the ability to predict cause-and-effect.

A twelfth skill I would add is something I’d call bookmarking, because it is one thing to labor away at a task, and it is quite another thing to be able to walk away from the task and come back to it again, spending a minimal amount of time trying to figure out what exactly was left undone earlier. In fact, this ninth skill, relaxation, is supposed to be required for keeping your wits about you and making good decisions about things. I have found there is some truth to that, and the people who fail most resoundingly at learning how to relax, most often simply can’t let go of something before it’s finished because they don’t have confidence in their own ability to pick it up at a later time.

Update: Being a good writer and skilled critical thinker, Mr. Dustin M. Wax heads to the sidebar; and, being a pinko-commie Bush-bashing left-winger, he gets a liberal-hippie turquoise icon by his name.

Yes, it’s possible for one person to be both. Doesn’t happen often. But it does happen. And, hey, nobody’s perfect.

My eleven-year-old son is back, just finished his third day here, after I picked him up from his mother’s to begin the school year. From his fascination with my blogging he has picked up what I am hoping will turn out to be a productive and useful habit of reading the news. And he’s already found an article that would have slipped right by me.

A flying inflatable chunk of dog feces, as big as a house.

A giant inflatable dog turd by American artist Paul McCarthy blew away from an exhibition in the garden of a Swiss museum, bringing down a power line and breaking a greenhouse window before it landed again, the museum said Monday.

The art work, titled “Complex S(expletive..)”, is the size of a house. The wind carried it 200 metres (yards) from the Paul Klee Centre in Berne before it fell back to Earth in the grounds of a children’s home, said museum director Juri Steiner.

The inflatable turd broke the window at the children’s home when it blew away on the night of July 31, Steiner said. The art work has a safety system which normally makes it deflate when there is a storm, but this did not work when it blew away.

Steiner said McCarthy had not yet been contacted and the museum was not sure if the piece would be put back on display.

Now, what do you do with that information? I dunno. But I do have to admit, it is good “bloggin'” material.

…male. But you knew that, right?

Likelihood of you being FEMALE is 2%
Likelihood of you being MALE is 98%

Via Buck, a nifty tool that will examine your browser history and figure out what you are. Because, y’know, unfastening your pants and peeking can be so inconvenient sometimes.

Here. For free, believe it or not.

Update: Also the first Cello Concerto in A Minor by Camille Saint-Saens. This is an amazing piece of work, in which the cellist does all the work while the rest of the orchestra just kinda sits on their asses…not really…they do some work about two thirds of the way through the first movement, but throughout the rest of it it’s that cello guy. Like watching an aircraft carrier being manipulated through a kids’ motocross bicycle track at sixty miles an hour or something.

Makes me think of Lucien LaPorte, who has not been on my mind now for some 23 years or more. Six years before his death he took on the hard work, and I was one of the ass-sitters up in the viola section strumming away. It was a great honor, as at the other end of Mr. Laporte’s career, prior to his immigration to the United States, he had performed under the conducting baton of Saint-Saens himself.

It is far more amazing to watch this in action than to merely listen. I know that’s tough to believe if you can appreciate what’s involved in making a cello play that high; but it’s true. And it’s really something watching an eighty-five year old guy do it, about fifteen feet away from you.

Two subjects, mostly unrelated. Both videos are five-star, easily.

“That’s great advice for the next time this happens” at about 0:45 — I heard that, and the coffee went squirting through my nostrils.

H/T: Gerard Van der Leun at American Digest. Home, Link 1, Link 2.

Cross-posted at Cassy’s place.

Yes, to the person who asked, I did see the article when it came out.

His wry, self- deprecating humour is as important as his floppy hair and English charm at ensuring he always wins the heart of his leading lady.

Now scientists have discovered the technique used by Hugh Grant’s film characters can bring the same romantic success offscreen.

Taking the mickey out of yourself works far better than clever jokes, which might be seen as boastful and put women off.

The findings were outlined by anthropologist Gil Greengross, who conducted a two-year study into the role of humour in seduction.

He discovered that the type of humour used by Hugh Grant in the film Notting Hill – in which he attempts to charm Julia Roberts with the poor contents of his fridge – works the best.

‘Many studies show that a sense of humour is sexually attractive, especially to women,’ he said.

‘But we’ve found that self-deprecating humour is the most attractive of all.

Barf.

See, there’s a lot of truth in this. In fact, I’m pretty sure if you did a study to find out why women decided not to go out on a second date with a guy, the number one adjective that would rocket up to the top of the stack would be “cocky.” Just as self-deprecating humor is the “most attractive of all,” a cocky personality is the most repugnant of all.

Here’s the trouble. It’s the word “most”…we presume this can safely depend on numbers of women. And yeah, two-thirds of all women, or three quarters of all women, make it ninety percent, will just love that self-deprecating humor.

Ooh, it’s like when he’s around I can have a never-ending Everybody Loves Raymond episode playing wherever we go! **swoon**

More power to ya — if you want to be married to my ex-wife.

Life’s way too short to accommodate nasty women like this, women who can’t see anything redeeming about their gentlemen unless said gentlemen are puttin’ themselves down. Here’s the bottom line: Those women don’t really like men that much. Yeah maybe that’s nearly all of the available women out there. Could be. If that’s the case, fellas, what you’re finding out is these chickees are available for a reason. They are, essentially, the female version of the guy who leaves his socks and underwear on the coffee table, kicks the cat, yells at his own momma, drinks milk out of the jug and couldn’t put the toilet seat down to save his life.

Women meet a fella like that, and they begin to seriously question whether a man is something they want to have around. In that respect, women are much smarter than men. Of course, acting on those reluctant thoughts is a completely different thing, but at least they raise the question. Guys — we’re pathetic. As long as we’re available we keep asking “what Hoover Vac method will suck in the greatest share of the available women?” with nary a thought pondering what kind of substandard stuff we’re sucking in.

Well, none of my business I guess. Self-deprecate away, you studs.

Miss Cellania is looking into them and it’s pretty hilarious.

Before I send you there, though — my Dad’s all-time favorite old-person joke is here.

Now then, on to MissC.

Not me quite so much, since I’m relatively inexperienced at traipsing through The South. Although, it should be said, I have done some traipsing and I’ve found the people to be remarkably friendly, in a pleasing sort of way. Not awkwardly-friendly like on the west coast — “I’m feeling sociable and I’m going to have a conversation with you about old socks whether you like it or not” — but friendly in a real sort of way. I have not found southerners to behave the way they are portrayed on made-for-television movies at all, not even close. I have found them to act like…well…the way left-winger liberals want to act. We’re all in this together whether some of us realize it or not — but — if you don’t see things the way the southerner does, he chalks it up to different life experiences, whistles a happy tune, and goes on with what he’s doing.

The stereotype is that they’re intolerant and pea-brained. I’ve found them to be the opposite. You can talk to them about just about anything, and even though the conversation started about your interests and not theirs, you’ll know more about the subject after the conversation’s over than you did before it began.

The stereotype is that they’re fat. Oh, goodness, the southern women I’ve met…fit as a fiddle, and they make it look easy.

The stereotype is that they like to control every little thing that goes on in their precious little towns. But whenever someone catches wind of something I’m doing or saying that they don’t like and starts waggling a finger at me, the finger is attached to some busy-body blue-blood northern liberal.

I think of The South as the “outer kingdom” that was in my dream a few weeks ago. Legend says they live in purgatory; with a broader view one sees reality saddles purgatory upon the miserable creatures who work so hard to stay out, and in so doing live in a gilded creation of their own design without knowing it.

But I digress. I am not qualified to come up with a list of ten things I love about The South, I’m only qualified to have my own opinions about it, with very little experience to back them up. The list is the product of Right Wing Sparkle, out in Texas.

5) Southerners love their animals. They love their horses, dogs, and cats. They also love to eat whatever animal isn’t one of those.
:
7) Blue Dog Democrats. Yes, these are Democrats I actually like because when asked about Obama over in Europe they say things like, “Well, I hope everyone in Germany votes for him.”
:
10) Restaurants tend to be family owned and the food melts in your mouth. When you ask for tea, they ask, “Regular or sweet?” If you say sweet they know you are from here.

Sparkle, you forgot to mention #11 which would be a wonderful sense of humor. You just helped to reinforce that.

Via Boortz we learn about…

A 5-year-old boy slipped out of the Imagination Station child care center unnoticed Tuesday afternoon, crossed two busy streets and wandered to a restaurant on the Interstate 35E service road in 100-degree heat.

Employees of Hooters found the child safe about 5:20 p.m. He left the child care center in the 2300 block of San Jacinto Boulevard, crossed the Interstate 35E northbound service road and Dallas Drive, bought a soft drink at a service station and walked to Hooters, where an employee found him in the parking lot and called police.

I’m glad he’s not my kid. Because then it would fall to me to explain to him why that was an awful, terrible thing to do, and that he should never think of doing it again. Meanwhile, I’m thinking…hot summer day, five in the afternoon, Hooter’s right across the street…yeah, sure I wouldn’t do exactly the same thing. Sure I wouldn’t.

Now if there are more details coming out, like for example the lad went to Hooter’s first, and then doubled back to the service station after he ordered a pitcher of brew and got turned down…that would be even better.

The story, unfortunately, has a sad-creepy aspect to it as well:

State records show that in April, Imagination Station was cited for violation of Section 746.1230(4) of the Child Care Standards and Regulations — Responsibilities of caregivers — supervision of children.

“It was determined that staff were not supervising properly. Two children were found involved in inappropriate contact while the caregivers were engaged in activities with other groups of children,” according to the citation posted on the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services Web site.

Hope that turns out to be a witch hunt…but it probably won’t.

If the supervision was indeed substandard, that makes it all the tougher to dish out some lecturing in the kid’s direction. I think he’s gonna turn out alright. Of course, this is exactly the kind of kid who ends up diagnosed with whatever-it-iz and medicated…but let’s review here. The daycare center is basically warehousing the kids, and he’s goin’ “Hey look, there’s a Hooters across the street. Screw this.” And forms a plan & acts on it.

And, if shenanigans & hijinks are indeed going on at the daycare, who knows when someone would’ve found out about it had the boy not gone off on his road trip in search of wings & suds. So, once again…politically incorrect behavior…positive result. There’s a lesson here for all of us.

Don’t click unless you have a strong stomach and can stand gut-wrenching screaming. Mkay?

Someone linked it in a thread about this fifteen-year-old boy up in Canada who suffered a most unpleasant way to depart — buried under a pile of roasting hot asphalt and suffocating under there.

The boy, too young to work on construction jobs under Manitoba labour laws, was part of a paving crew working on a parking lot in the Winnipeg bedroom community of Stony Mountain.

“I believe [the truck] dumped off way too much asphalt unexpectedly,” said Stony Mountain fire Chief Wallace Drysdale.

“I was one of the first members on scene and we just saw the hair sticking out of this individual. It was extremely hot asphalt. Our crews, when we were digging out, had to shuttle different members in and out in about four- or five-minute intervals because our feet were burning.”

Police and labour officials were investigating.

Richard Hill, who lives less than 100 metres from the accident scene, heard the boy screaming and ran over.

“I guess it was the truck driver that said, ‘There’s a guy buried in here’ and I … found a shovel, and me and another guy tried digging him out,” Mr. Hill said.

It took about 15 minutes to get the boy out. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

Things are not always what they seem to be.

Heh.

…with the notorious New Yorker cover, by making one of their own.

It’s The Onion, folks. That means it’s satire.

Good satire.

H/T: Rachel.

I did not need to read about this.

A TOURIST needing the loo at a railway station was killed by having a wee — on a live track.

The victim was electrocuted after he crept into a recess to relieve himself.

It is thought his urine splashed on the line and he died instantly when a 750-volt charge leaped up at him.

Staff found his body after he was filmed on CCTV going into the nook at Vauxhall, South London, and failing to come out again.