Violence in Movies

Why do we spend vast amounts of money each year to watch violence? Within the past several years, people have spent money to see some of the greatest violent portrayals ever created. Consider the following several movies: Hostel, Saw, 300, The Matrix, The Passion of the Christ, Nightmare on Elm Street, and the list goes on.

It seems strange that we would want to see such barbarity. I believe that we enjoy seeing violence in movies, in stories, on television, etc. because it is an outlet. People like seeing it because it exists on the fringe of reality.

I think we also enjoy the good vs. evil dichotomy. Anyone who has ever watched an action movie has certainly rooted for the “good guy” (or the bad guy if that is the intent). In “Indiana Jones”, we are constantly rooting for the hero. We admire his abilities and see justice in the use of his violence. He is violent and remains within our perception of positive social conduct. When he uses violence it is perceived as good, exciting, an escape, and it is why we are willing to pay $7 for a chance to see it.

Whether this is a positive outlet is debatable. It creates a mindset of apathy and desensitizes individuals towards violent behavior. Certainly, violent movies are not the sole influence of violence, but it makes it seem more tolerable in contemporary society.

Censorship

I have trouble with the concept of speech being violent. I understand that certain language is unnecessary and inappropriate, but to actually consider a word or set of words violent seems strange.

An example of this is music. Censorship is a perpetual annoyance. I always felt like monitoring of music should be an individual/parent’s job and not the music distributor’s. I understand that people do not want children exposed to certain lyrics, but on the same note I feel that the music I enjoy should be readily available as it was made; rather than how a minority of people prefers to listen to it. Wal-Mart is an example of a store that distributes censored music. I want you to consider two different stances; Of course, there are individuals who feel that music should be censored if available in stores like Wal-Mart where it is available to the youth. However, is it not just as violent to keep someone from hearing music? Especially if that is the way the music was intended to be heard.

My personal vendetta against music censorship began when I purchased a Puddle of Mudd CD several years ago from Wal-Mart. That was clearly a mistake. The song “She Hates Me” really loses something when half of the lyrics are missing. Regardless of the particular message being sent by the lyrics, it is an artistic expression. The message that is being communicated is merely artistic expression with the goal aesthetic auditory perception.

Gender Bias

I appreciated Bruce Kokopeli and George Lakeys’ vision of androgyny. I feel that, too often in society, we assign gender roles. This is evident even in the way we raise children. For instance, the color pink is typically associated with femininity and blues normally signify masculinity. Even by monitoring the colors of children’s clothing, we are creating a gender bias.

Another example of gender bias that is seen is toy selection. Girls normally play with dolls and boys play with cars. There is no reason for this other than societal influence on their selection. A male child is not born innately drawn to toy trucks. In fact, I believe that a boy raised without any gender bias would be just as likely to play with a Barbie doll.

One gender bias that is deeply ingrained in our society is that men and women cannot just be friends. That of course is false, but it is evident that the majority of society has been socialized to think in such terms. To this day, I have about an equal number of male and female friends and I attribute that to my parents’ lassez-faire style of parenting.

The vision of androgyny appeals to me because it seeks equality. Its goal is to eliminate any socialized gender bias and create a level playing field for men and women. I was raised with very little gender bias. By growing up with very few gender biases and seeing equality, rather than patriarchy, I feel that my relationships with others have been immensely, positively impacted.

Crude

I attended the documentary “Crude” for my Spanish class, and was appalled by the violence that is occurring in Ecuador. The violence was not direct, physical abuse. Instead, the land of the Ecuadorian people was left in shambles in corporations’ (mainly Texaco) pursuit of crude oil. They left many areas with pools of oil, seeping into the ground and into the water. This subsequently affected the Ecuadorians because now, in certain areas the cancer rate is extremely high, safe drinking water is not always available, and there is oil even in the ground.

It is astounding to me that such an act of violence could perpetuate. How are the individuals heading the Texaco oil company able to sleep at night knowing that there are people dying because of their ignorance and incompetence? One of the most heartbreaking stories in the movie was of a man talking about losing two sons to the effects of the oil. He said that one died soon after birth and the other drank from a stream that was polluted with oil and then died within 24 hours.

What did I learn from this documentary? That corporations can be cruel. I will never buy gas or support Texaco again. I feel that it is the responsibility of the people to take action when injustice is occurring. We were asked in class several weeks ago if there was a cause that we would be willing to fight for. This is certainly something I could see fighting for. People should be more than a means of attaining material wealth.

Patriarchy

Patriarchy is a very strange thing. Why should an individual’s sex create inequality? I was brought up in a church which clearly preached female submission. It was not as strict as many churches. For instance, women were not required to wear skirts. However, it was expected that a woman was to submit to her husband. It was also faux pas for a woman to preach. That was a “man’s job”. The Hierarchy was as follows: children submit to their parents, women submit to their husbands, men submit to God.

My personal belief is that female submission is just another way of saying misogyny; it’s a system based on distrust and mistreatment of women. Furthermore, it is a degradation of women’s basic human rights. Why should a woman ingratiate herself to appease her husband? Such ideology is deplorable.

Clearly, these biases extend beyond the church. I’ll never forget reading about inequality in the workforce in Sociology. My textbook started off by saying that there is a secret in our society that can allow you to make more money and be more successful with less effort. To do that, all you have to do is be born male. If you want to make even more money, also be born white and tall

Much of the social interaction between men and women has sexist undertones. For instance, we see the glass ceiling and the glass escalator in the work force. Women, when in positions primarily occupied by men, must take on masculine characteristics in order to attain the same level of respect and promotion. Men on the other hand, when placed in positions primarily occupied by women are often promoted rapidly. I think this is because people associate masculinity with power and competitiveness and femininity with nurturing and caring.

What I learned from Bruce Kokopeli and George Lakey’s essay merely reaffirmed my beliefs and understanding of sexism in contemporary society. This is a cause that I would be willing to fight for. I cannot stand to see such a violation of human rights.

Denmark

Denmark’s strategic resistance to the Nazi occupation serves as a testament to the power of nonviolent action. The Danish movement tied in with the class discussion on power. By not working and not completely conforming to the Nazi’s will, the Danish took away the power held by the regime.

Wealth and availability of resources drove the occupation of many countries during Hitler’s reign. One of the main factors in Denmark’s success was making the resources more difficult to obtain or inaccessible. The Danish used noncooperation to regain some control over their country. By making the access and production of resources extremely difficult, the Danish made the Nazi’s occupation more trouble than it was worth.

The Nazis also expected the Danish to work. So, when the Danish people refused to labor, the Nazi’s place of power was compromised. By separating the Nazi’s from their means of production, the Danish were empowered. The Nazis tried to gain control of the country by making living conditions uncomfortable for the Danish people; but the Danish did not cave in to the pressure. They remained steadfast and continued to not cooperate with the Nazi power.

Through noncooperation, omission of action, and resistance in the form of collateral damage, the Danish drove the Nazi regime out of Denmark. I feel that, even though some Danish people were killed, the numbers were far less because of the nonviolent action used.

The Center of Gravity

I was fascinated by the center of gravity theory. I was considering how our own nation functions. My perception - The US is run by two driving forces: 1) the government, which is of the people and for the people. Within the democratic confines established in our constitution, the lay-person is capable of influencing political action. 2) The corporations which, according to Annie Leonard, are now bigger than the government. The government is currently in the pocket of big business.

In class, one of the students mentioned the energy crisis. I was trying to figure out where the center of gravity is in the struggle for alternative energy. Is it with the corporations? Is it with our government? The answer is with the money. Even if the power was with the government, which is supposedly controlled by the people, then the government’s power to change is still largely affected by the corporations that will be financially impacted.

If the power is with the people, it is only marginally so. Consequently, the majority of power is with the elite. If we expect change, it must be through corporate influence.

In order to have change, there must be a will to change. Are the corporations willing to make change that will not be in their best interest? Oil companies are driven by people’s dependence on their fossil fuels. I feel that the corporations pushing the fossil fuel industries will continue to make alternative energy, which is in the public’s best interest, very difficult to obtain.