Entitlement and Prejudice: Abuse of Female Advantage

While Elizabeth Bennet, the female protagonist of Pride and Prejudice, is a kind, witty, and intelligent girl, I see in her some very familiar behaviors. In spite of her overall good character, she has a tendency shared by many women to judge people quickly based on the first impression that comes across in a social situation.

It is said that women are more emotional than men. This is not true, but it seems that women do have a far greater sensitivity to social situations and subtle cues than do men. It is not only one of their strongest abilities, it forms the basis by which they judge others. When women say they want an ‘intelligent’ man, they of course mean socially intelligent.

This certainly holds true in a book written by a woman in the 18^th century. The female main character perceives the socially awkward Mr. Darcy to be stiff, hateful, arrogant, and rude. Meanwhile she instantly believes the best in the silver-tongued and charming Mr. Wickham and falls at once for his every deception. The lies she accepts without question poison her opinion of Mr. Darcy still further and when the time comes to speak with him, she is simmering with resentment; all potential for seeing good in him is extinguished.

Women for all their ability to catch nuances often go awry when it comes to men. To say that women are good communicators is quite simply untrue. Socially adept is nearly the opposite of direct communication. Men are far more likely to be direct about what they’re after, so direct that neither gender can mistake their intent. Direct statements in female society, unfortunately, are a sure recipe for hurting feelings and creating enemies. Yet most women are unable to realize that the direct approach is how men normally do things. There is not necessarily any intent to hurt or be aggressive in such behavior. Furthermore, what is being said in female conversation is of secondary importance. The real message is in tone of voice and body language. Women are taken aback when they meet men who do not wear their mood on their sleeve and who have little interest in nuances. They frequently perceive this sort of behavior as hostile, rude, and anti-social. In fact, this is how men normally do things. From the mistaken female perception arises the well worn sentiments that men have less emotions, can’t communicate, are slow minded etc. From these wrong conclusions arises a certain deeply ingrained sort of female entitlement. If men are to be thought of as lesser emotional beings, certainly female needs outweigh those of the male. From this misunderstanding derives a mindset that entails female license to engage in all manner of aggressive, rude, and cruel behavior. Ethically, it opens the way for them to use their biologically endowed advantages without restriction to achieve their aims or to gain retribution for any offense, imagined or real.

Although Elizabeth Bennett is generally a well-meaning person, even she subscribes to this pervasive philosophy. When a socially inept rector shows up in her parents’ household, she relentlessly runs little circles of wit around him, mocking him in front of the entire family without his even realizing it. The rector certainly comes across as bombastic, conceited, and venal but that does not mean it is right to take advantage of his sex based weaknesses and publicly humiliate him. Just because she personally dislikes the guy and doesn’t want to marry him does not mean she’s entitled to take out her unrestrained aggression on him.

In the end, Mr. Darcy should perhaps have married a woman who understood men have their own strengths, strengths that usually they choose not to abuse. Men are by no means perfect but are in no position to convince themselves that they are entitled to take advantage of the weaknesses inherent in the other sex. When men cross a certain line, they go to prison. It is not men who have the reputation for ‘using sex as a weapon’ or taking men for ‘all they’re worth.’

Women seem generally better suited to perceiving the subtleties of human interaction, but it is wrong that so many of them feel they have license to abuse this strength or any other that is specific to their sex. It is no better for women to act in such a way than it is for men to get what they want through superior physical force.

Cool Hand Luke: A Rebel Against His Cause

Cool Hand Luke is a movie about a perfectly intelligent and capable young man who throws away the numerous opportunities given him by life. He ends up in jail for pointlessly destroying parking meters and although he has a shorter sentence than any of the other inmates, he causes trouble with such determination that the inevitable result is his destruction. This was a film made in 1967, the middle of the Vietnam War. To the radicals who so influenced the culture of the times, authority by its very nature was suspect. Accordingly, Lucas, the protagonist, spends the entire film fighting against a gigantic ‘establishment’ against which he has no hope of winning. The futility of his cause is alluded to during a boxing match with a fellow inmate who pummels him repeatedly. The onlookers shout at him to give up, that his opponent is simply too big for him to defeat. Lucas refuses to surrender, continuing to take a beating even though he is beyond the point of offering resistance. His motive to resist is of the purest order—defiance for the sake of defiance.

Unwilling to accept authority for any amount of time, he begins escaping from the prison even though he has nowhere to go to and virtually no chance of getting away for long. Every time he is recaptured, he ends up with leg irons, more rules, and harsh punishments. With each escape, Lucas is shown running through open countryside, symbolically jumping over all manner of barriers and fences as he goes. Such a scene may have seemed heroic in the 1960s, but I couldn’t help but think that Luke could have run free to his heart’s contentment if he had but refrained from a senseless crime. He broke the main condition upon which his freedom depended: the obligation to leave others, their freedoms, and their property unharmed. As strongly as Luke seemed to believe himself a victim of rules and regulations, he was imprisoned for the protection of the very freedoms he strove for. Freedom must be earned and Luke insisted that he was entitled to it, even at the expense of others.

Much of the film takes place on a chain gang, laboring day after day down an empty road that seems to stretch on forever. It is perhaps a commentary on the life led by a typical conformist working away at some job until life comes to an end. The workers are kept in line by a ‘man with no eyes,’ an intimidating figure representative of authority who tirelessly watches over them. His eyes are always covered by reflective glasses, his vision is penetrating, and his aim with a rifle is flawless.In the context of ‘60s rebellion, conformity came to mean following any traditional rules whatever, especially those laid down by authority figures. Real conformity, of course, is thoughtlessly adhering to rules that are arbitrary or unjust. Luke’s defiance for the sake of defiance drives him to violate and treat with contempt the basic conditions one must meet to exist in a human society. The price for eating food grown on a farm and wearing clothing made in a factory is a minimum of return contribution and deference. Unwilling to cooperate, Luke needlessly escalates the conflict which he has created to its climax.

Luke knows he will be killed if he escapes a third time and of course does so as soon as he can possibly manage. His victory lies in provoking authority to overstep its bounds, an outcome which he knows he will soon achieve as he says a last prayer in a dark church. Soon he is surrounded, and the man with no eyes waits for him outside. Luke sticks his head out the window and repeats one of the film’s famous lines just before he is silenced forever with a bullet through his throat. Authority’s mandate to enforce rules stems from protecting the individual. It is in the moment that Luke is destroyed by the powers that exist to preserve that he is fulfilled. Authority loses sight of its purpose, reverting to a common tyranny. The ‘man with no eyes’ loses his glasses soon afterwards and gropes for them blindly in the mud. He does not succeed in regaining his sight and the viewer sees the glasses crushed beneath the tires of cop cars as the authorities leave the scene. Though Justice entails a form of blindness, it is in the interest of gaining a clearer sort of vision. The ‘man with no eyes’ loses justice and is cast into a true blindness upon slaying Luke. He is vanquished the moment he carries out an act of vengeance and crushes an individual for the sake of the many.

Cool Hand Luke is the product of a dark era that gave rise to pessimism and doubt in the USA. It succeeds to this day as an exploration of boundaries in the relationship between the individual and society. As a story it is delightful and entertaining. Luke may be unreasonable, but he is roguishly likeable and possesses an undeniable charisma. He pulls off even the most pointless defiance and self-destructive acts with enjoyment and style. Only he can succeed in the end as a rebel against his own cause.

Video Games Are High Art and a Beneficial Addition to Society

The advent of computer and console gaming in the last 30-40 years has brought upon the world an entirely new category of art, the greatness and implications of which have not yet been appreciated by the vast majority. In fact, video gaming has been a nexus of controversy since its inception, a new technology that has caused unease, fear, and even revulsion in its detractors. It has been blamed for obesity, violence, addiction, breakdown of morality, reduction of intelligence and creativity—a slough of claims with varying degrees of validity. Though, electronic gaming can be abused like any other technology, it will with the passage of time be recognized for the great invention that it is.

I

 

In painting, the cubist movement superceded traditional conceptions of perspective and space. In electronic media, gaming has challenged traditional forms of experiencing art. Traditionally, art is appreciated by a passive observer, one who by definition enacts no change upon the work in the act of experiencing it. Video gaming is a form that goes beyond the standard of voyeurism and by its very nature entails the exploration of new realms.

Perhaps the reader has wished to go inside a painting or book—has desired that a beautiful sculpture come to life. Not only is this longing futile, most forms of high art have ropes, signs, guards, thick glass, proximity alarms; multiple layers of protection to keep the work strictly unchanged for the next observer. Even to touch, in these cases, would be impossible. Video gaming, however, is by definition hands on and the player is actually in a sense ‘within’ the work.

A video game is intricately crafted, a synthesis of many art forms that is closest in nature to architecture—a team of designers and engineers create an elaborate and spacious structure designed to weather any foreseeable event, which is then decorated and brought to life by master craftsmen and artisans. The result is truly greater than the sum of its parts, a work of art that not only is participatory in nature, but which can be changed in form by the will and actions of experiencer. The potential in electronic gaming for amorphism has resulted in works that mold themselves to the choices and preferences of each player. No two people will gain exactly the same impression from a painting or imagine things the same way when reading a novel; yet such works are regarded as being intrinsically static in nature. Video games, on the other hand, capitalize on the fact that no two observers are alike.

II

 

Computer and console games, unfortunately, have not yet been accorded their proper place among the other widely acknowledged forms of great art. As of yet they are dismissed by many as a waste of time and are far more frequently associated with society’s problems than inspiration and enlightenment. This state of affairs is regrettable since the benefits and potential benefits of electronic environments far outstrip any harm that comes from its abuse.

Perhaps most frequently, video games are blamed for numerous negative effects in children. Certainly, children are immature and prone to many types of excess if they are not guided by adults. Video gaming is no exception, but one must consider that a gaming console or computer is far beyond the financial means of most children as are the games. Many offended adults not only purchase gaming consoles but allow their children to use them without restrictions. The problem is thus easily solved where it arises. And when done in moderation, video gaming, like any other good thing, confers its many benefits upon people of all ages. Computer and console games require constant problem solving, quick and effective reaction to the most adverse circumstances, well planned, efficiently executed strategies, a knack for creativity and improvisation, thorough exploration, and in general the ability to rapidly analyze and piece together a comprehensive whole from a great amount of information. Playing a computer game is not only entertaining; it is a demanding cognitive process that sets the mind pleasantly abuzz with activity.

I have on occasion seen people try gaming for the first time. Almost always, the reaction is complete bewilderment and frustration. They are mentally unprepared to deal with the array of processes that faces them. The real time strategy game, for instance, is a well known format to almost any gamer and is easy enough to master. I once convinced my own father to try Age of Empires II for awhile, an effort that quickly fell flat. After some thought, I realized that one must acquire a sophisticated set of skills before even attempting to play a computer or video game. It occurred to me that it is not so simple to learn to play real time strategy. One must know which buildings produce which units for how much of which resources as well as how to begin with maximum speed a balanced economy that provides these resources in the correct quantities. The level of knowledge I just described covers no more than the first few minutes of a given game, but all it takes is a moment’s consideration to come the realization that gaming is a rigorous mental exercise and a wholesome influence on any human being.

 

III

 

Like other art forms, video gaming has the potential to render the fantastic into our reality in an immediate and moving fashion. That video gaming excites such controversy is a testament to its power. The advent of games such as Mortal Kombat scandalized a nation; it was not long before a ratings system similar to that used in cinema was created for electronic games. The impact made even upon detractors of the medium is so great that they routinely express deeply held fears of video games adversely shaping the behavior of human beings. Their concerns, however, are misguided not only because of a misunderstanding of gaming, but also of human nature.

One role of art is to satisfy the human desire to engage in fantasy. Ordinary life builds up many frustrations in each individual—frustrations which result in violent impulses that cannot be freely expressed. Critics blame gaming for anti-social behaviors because they do not understand or are unable to accept that anger and violence are a normal part of the human psyche. No human impulse is a bad thing until it is expressed in a destructive manner, and art—gaming included—is a means of providing human beings a constructive channel for pent up energies. Children of the 21^st century enact frequent play violence through use of their gaming machines. As recently as the 1950s and 60s, life was not so easy. My father had his front teeth permanently damaged in a fight over control of a treehouse. Animals were tortured, scrapping over turf with other bands of children was commonplace, and shooting targets and live animals with BB guns went without saying. After considering actual human play behavior, it is absurd to see fantasy enacted through video games as any kind of threat. People have a need to explore and test out the parameters of their surroundings, an endeavor that sometimes calls for forceful methods. Not only do video games satisfy this need, they allow human beings to enjoy godlike amounts of power without any responsibility and to break taboos at will. This very characteristic is most alarming of all to critics, but ultimately they are prudes. Being a ruthless dungeon overlord for a couple of hours is a truly enjoyable experience in which we gleefully acknowledge and indulge our deepest fantasies; it is an activity that leaves us refreshed and ready to cope once again with the rigors of a societal existence.

 

 

IV

 

Since the creation of electronic worlds is yet a young technology, what wonders or dangers will come is a matter of conjecture. One day, the process of making an electronic space down to the last intricate detail will become so easy and inexpensive that anyone will be able to create one. At the opening of the 21^st century, the production of video games has some parallels with the baroque and classical periods of Western music. A composer in Europe two to three hundred years ago required a rich and noble patron in order to pursue his trade and have access to an orchestra. Today, it requires the resources of a wealthy enterprise to assemble an orchestra of programmers, artists, composers, and writers and to release a finished product on the mass market. The current era has, like the classical or baroque eras, produced many masterpieces, but the medium of electronic gaming will flower even more spectacularly when improvement of technology frees it from the necessities of profit making and demographic appeal.

As a closing consideration, following video game technology down its logical course leads to a time when those spectacular electronic worlds can no longer be distinguished from reality. This is a time that has often been addressed in nearly every canonized form of art and which will surely present adventures, dangers, and opportunities for humankind. Such an age may very well dawn during my life and I would attempt not to make the mistake of turning away with reactionary fear, instead approaching with curiosity coupled with a healthy sense of caution.

Superman Meets Feminine Mystique: ‘Empowered’ Women in Superhero Cinema

Lois Lane and Superman, a couple that has been inseparable for decades, has been driven apart in the most recent Superman movie. Forced to wait for five years while her beau gallivants across the galaxy, she shows us that her updated version is no longer docile and naive. She is now a modern woman and no ‘faithful Penelope’ waiting for some man to return to her at his convenience. Instead she finds another man in this latest story.

Upon his return from outer space, superman finds that the love of his life has not only fallen in the arms of another man, but has also belittled his contributions to humanity with no small amount of vitriol in nationally syndicated publication. Lois is clearly a new woman, a completely new character with little relation to precedent. Superman in stark contrast is the same as ever and finds himself utterly confused by the changes that have occurred on Earth while he was away. He remains helplessly in love in Lois Lane, even though she has forsworn him in every possible way.

I surmise that the screenwriters wished to adapt the traditional toughness of Lois’ character to the modern era, but in so doing, they forgot her importance as a sensitive, classically feminine individual. Lois Lane was human and vulnerable underneath her initial bravado for a reason; she allowed Superman to show a more affectionate and emotional aspect of himself that dutiful service to humanity did not permit. Now that element is gone, and in the new film, Superman seems ready to burst as he struggles to accept the new man in Lois’ life and writhes with internal torture as he wonders if he fathered her child. This time, Superman finds himself utterly lonely, without support, still hopelessly attached to an unrequited love, and divided from a child he later finds out he fathered, but can never hope to be father to. He continues to selflessly serve humanity, but this time with a certain grim conviction in place of indefatigable optimism.

 

As for Lois, one must examine her side of the story. She tells Superman that she moved on to another boyfriend because he left without saying why or where and that she didn’t feel cared for. Didn’t feel cared for? Superman must have saved her life against impossible dangers dozens of times in both comics and movies—and with a romantic flight through the clouds afterwards. If that isn’t enough to show one’s care and love, what is? A romantic flight across the starry sky and full moon for God sake! Most men find purchasing a sparkly rock to be at the outer limit of their powers.

As for leaving suddenly and without explanation, one can’t conclude he’s dead very easily we’re talking about Superman here. As far as sleeping with another women is concerned, he’s Superman, he’s as morally upright as any human being has ever been. As far as being intentionally hurtful by leaving her, he’s Superman, he wouldn’t ever deliberately hurt any being at all if he could help it, let alone the love of his life. When her faith was put to the test in one of the most reliable, most desirable men ever conceived, she chose someone else.

Furthermore, she has little or no interest in hearing Superman’s reasons for acting as he did while demanding that he accept her justifications for turning away from him without question. She offers no empathy or understanding for the loneliness of a man who is the last of his species and regards his quest to discover his past with something bordering on incredulity.

The collapse of Lois Lane’s case is complete when one considers the fact that there is an issue over parenthood of her child. This means that she must have slept with the other guy almost as soon as Superman was out of sight. Five years is a lot to ask and we would be able to sympathize—if it were a normal man in question—but ditching the biggest hunk in the galaxy within a month?!

With all things considered, the new Lois Lane is completely undeserving of Superman’s love and trust. Meanwhile, Kitty, Lex Luthor’s girlfriend, is genuinely grateful to be saved by Superman and later repays him by saving his life. Ironically, one of Superman’s enemies proves herself far more constant and deserving of his affection than the new Lois Lane. She may seem too bubbly to be an ideal match for Superman, but she has the audacity to cross Lex Luthor, something not easily done by those much more powerful than she. Superman, however, is imprisoned in a bygone era and the prospect of moving on to a new love is not even suggested within the film.

 

Spider Man also finds himself in a predicament in his third movie. Peter Parker has the good fortune to keep his traditional sweetheart, Mary Jane Watson, but with enough strife that one almost begins to wish he didn’t. Their relationship is idyllic in the beginning of the film but the trouble quickly begins when Mary Jane’s Broadway career has an unpromising start. From that moment, there is no peace.

I can still see Peter Parker’s glowing expression as he sits in the front row barely able to contain himself as he watches the same girl he saw in an elementary school play realizing her life long dream. He is exultantly happy for her in what seems to be her moment of triumph, and when she is lambasted by the critics, he unremittingly supports her with utter sincerity.

Unfortunately, none of this is enough for Mary Jane. Her fanatically loyal boyfriend’s mere sympathies are no good if he can’t even empathize with her in exactly the way she deems proper. Everything goes to hell when he mentions Spiderman while assuring her that the critics will not be a problem. At this point, the wall crawler’s popularity is at an all time high and the mere mention of Spider Man causes Mary Jane to be consumed by resentment and jealousy. An old-fashioned Peter Parker doesn’t even comprehend the grief he’s brought upon himself by invoking the ire of a modern, liberated woman even as he plans to propose to her.

On the very evening he plans to present her the ring, he suddenly discovers the entire relationship is actually on the brink of collapse. Mary Jane is upset that her boyfriend seems focused on his career over hers and that he just doesn’t seem to have a lot of time to discuss the matter. And there’s the matter of worrying that her famous boyfriend will fall prey to other women, which drives her into a possessive frenzy.

 

Now let’s consider Mary Jane’s side. Spider Man giving out his upside down kiss as a matter of public spectacle is definitely a real transgression. She has every right to be angry over this, but there are mitigating factors. When the college classmate he rescued asks for a kiss, he tells her to ‘lay it on.’ As a viewer, I was expecting her to give him a peck on the cheek of his facemask. I don’t think Peter Parker anticipated her next move, to partially pull down his mask and kiss him on the mouth. Even seeing what was about to happen, Spiderman would have had to stop her right there and humiliate her in front of thousands. On closer examination, Peter Parker unintentionally got himself in a bind; he didn’t even realize he’d done anything wrong until Mary Jane confronted him with it later.

Mary Jane is absolutely right that her career seems to be coming second to that of Spiderman, but her resentment is spiteful and irrational. It should be obvious whose job comes first when your significant other has personally saved the city a half dozen times from seemingly unbeatable forces and who is admired by millions. Where is the disconnect here? Even if she was a famous Broadway diva she couldn’t compete with Spiderman, it can’t be done by a regular person. Peter Parker is genuinely proud of supportive of anything she may attempt, regardless of whether she succeeds or fails. This must be enough if their relationship is to continue. The movie would have us believe that Spider Man must think less about his job as savior of the city and focus more on his woman’s needs, but one must conclude ultimately that the problem lies with MJ. A temperamental prima donna has no place at the side of a renowned superhero.

Mary Jane’s case is decidedly very weak and not at all enough to justify her constant pouting, outbursts, and nagging. After they fight, they split apart for awhile and Peter Parker is the one who languishes without support. He falls victim to the corrupting influence of power—embodied by the symbiote—and finds himself in a devolving spiral of revenge, angry outbursts, and hateful acts. MJ demands additional support constantly and in exactly the empathetic sweet way she likes it, but she has a physically safe occupation, no particular need to bottle up secrets about herself, and is not the only one who receives scathing criticisms. It is she that needs to be there for Peter Parker, and when she finally shows up at his apartment he’s already been through hell and she’s too late to do much good.

With the relationship all but collapsed, a man less dedicated than Peter Parker would see that Mary Jane isn’t exactly the best woman for him. To him, she is the childhood sweetheart, the girl next door, but it doesn’t bear up to examination. Through both their childhoods only moments here and there passed between them at all. He was romantically invisible to her while she dated jocks and bad boys with sports cars left and right. She didn’t even notice him until his superpowers made him confident enough to be of interest. If it hadn’t been for the bite of a radioactive spider, she would never have looked at him twice and the supposedly golden romance would never have come to pass.

Now, I put Mary Jane’s competition into the arena, the college classmate who Spiderman rescues from a skyscraper. This woman is stupendously grateful for being saved just once by Spiderman—so much so that she initiates a city-wide parade in his honor and praises him publicly. Wow. Mary Jane has been saved a dozen times and her reward is to go on about how he’s not in touch with her feelings.

The competition does even better on the Peter Parker front. She is on the way to becoming a brilliant scientist and has a wealth of shared interests with him. She would be a true companion in his work as a superhero, she might even contribute to the gadgetry that allows him some of his special abilities. Mary Jane on the other hand has nothing in common with Peter Parker. I can’t think of a single activity they even do together; they inhabit completely separate spheres. The classmate is clearly a much better match, as is the Russian girl who has a huge crush on him and bakes him cookies, but the thought of a traditional Spiderman leaving his updated, liberated love interest cannot be seriously entertained.

Ultimately, we end with the same situation for both Spiderman and Superman. The old-fashioned man is helplessly trapped where he is, caught between traditional expectations and realities of the present, without the sense of self-worth and independence with which their women are amply endowed. Screenwriters powered up the love interests without any compensation on behalf of their heroes. Ironically, it is now the male characters who seem docile and weak.

This is no mistake, however. Screenwriters succeed in the marketplace by astutely reading the current trends and penning something that will sell. Superhero stories in particular serve as a sort of modern mythology populated by a colorful pantheon of deities acting out a plethora of morality plays. Superheroes embody the morality and values of their times and as such the tales of their exploits are a telling barometer. The message of Superman Returns and Spiderman 3 is clear—that even super powers, daring rescues, and undying love is no longer enough. Guys have to provide all that and furnish her with the right kind of affection and sympathy when she wants it, for the duration she wants it, in exactly the right way. Not only is the woman free to take whenever she wants, she has no obligation whatever to give anything in return. In fact, any infraction whatsoever, imagined or real, is justification for her to leave for another man since her emotional needs are apparently not being satisfied. The man must remain faithful all the while or he would be selfish and shallow. When it comes time for advice and council, Peter Parker’s Aunt May tells him that he must put his wife before himself, which implies to the viewer that he isn’t already. What more can he possibly give!? Superman has no one to console or advise him, just a sad longing that will not allow him to move on.

The greatest of superheroes have been broken and defeated, not by the villains that populate their universe, but by a new society, a post 1970s order, to which they are hopelessly unable to adapt. Both of these movies succeed in the tradition of their genre in that they resonate with the issues faced by their audience. With divorce rates at high rates in most Western nations, is it any surprise that Peter Parker finds himself in the doghouse and that Superman gets his chance to be a deadbeat dad? With the vast majority of these divorces initiated by women who are subsequently showered with money, property, and custody is it any surprise that the modernized heroines are always asking for more? While I certainly found these films entertaining, I also had an appreciation for their deeper commentary on social troubles. It is almost as if a new villainess has entered the scene and no one can say yet when or how she will be defeated.