our subject isn't cool, but he fakes it anyway
Внимание!
вторник, 21 апреля 2015
URL
- U-mail
- Дневник
- Профиль
- Комментировать
-
Поделиться
- ВКонтакте
- РћРТвЂВВВВВВВВнокласснРСвЂВВВВВВВВРєРСвЂВВВВВВВВ
- LiveJournal
our subject isn't cool, but he fakes it anyway
Vani Hari, AKA the Food Babe, has amassed a loyal following in her Food Babe Army. The recent subject of profiles and interviews in the New York Times, the New York Post and New York Magazine, Hari implores her soldiers to petition food companies to change their formulas. She's also written a bestselling book telling you that you can change your life in 21 days by "breaking free of the hidden toxins in your life." She and her army are out to change the world.
She's also utterly full of shit.
I am an analytical chemist with a background in forensics and toxicology. Before working full-time as a science writer and public speaker, I worked as a chemistry professor, a toxicology chemist, and in research analyzing pesticides for safety. I now run my own blog, Science Babe, dedicated to debunking pseudoscience that tends to proliferate in the blogosphere. Reading Hari's site, it's rare to come across a single scientific fact. Between her egregious abuse of the word "toxin" anytime there's a chemical she can't pronounce and asserting that everyone who disagrees with her is a paid shill, it's hard to pinpoint her biggest sin.
Hari's superhero origin story is that she came down with appendicitis and didn't accept the explanation that appendicitis just happens sometimes. So she quit her job as a consultant, attended Google University and transformed herself into an uncredentialed expert in everything she admittedly can't pronounce. Slap the catchy moniker "Food Babe" on top, throw in a couple of trend stories and some appearances on the Dr. Oz show, and we have the new organic media darling.
But reader beware. Here are some reasons why she's the worst assault on science on the internet.
читать дальшеNatural, Organic, GMO-Free Fear
Hari's campaign last year against the Starbucks Pumpkin Spice Latte drove me to launch my site (don't fuck with a Bostonian's Pumpkin-Spice Anything). She alleged that the PSL has a "toxic" dose of sugar and two (TWO!!) doses of caramel color level IV in carcinogen class 2b.
The word "toxic" has a meaning, and that is "having the effect of a poison." Anything can be poisonous depending on the dose. Enough water can even be poisonous in the right quantity (and can cause a condition called hyponatremia).
But then, the Food Babe has gone on record to say, " There is just no acceptable level of any chemical to ingest, ever." I wonder if anybody's warned her about good old dihydrogen monoxide?
(AKA water.)
It's a goddamn stretch to say that sugar has deleterious effects, other than making your Lululemons stretch a little farther if you don't "namaste" your cheeks off. However, I implore you to look at the Safety Data Sheet for sugar. The average adult would need to ingest about fifty PSLs in one sitting to get a lethal dose of sugar. By that point, you would already have hyponatremia from an overdose of water in the lattes.
And almost enough caffeine for me.
And what about that "carcinogenic" caramel color? Well, it turns out that it's not the only thing in your PSL that's in carcinogen class 2b.
There's also coffee.
Coffee is class 2b because of the acrylamide accumulated during the roasting process. Coffee, before Starbucks turns it into a milkshake, is pretty healthy for you. Class 2b means that all possible carcinogenic effects haven't been ruled out (because we haven't tested drinking it while tightrope walking across the Grand Canyon and simultaneously attempting to eat fire… yet), but that it hasn't been shown to cause a single case of cancer.
This is a blatant attempt at getting you to look to her for answers by making you unnecessarily afraid. The goal of Hari's campaign was to… well, we're still not sure. Remove the caramel color? Smear Starbucks? After that campaign failed, she launched a failed attempt to get them to use only organic milk, which would have made their lattes far more expensive and no healthier.
Hari uses this tricky technique again and again. If I told you that a chemical that's used as a disinfectant, used in industrial laboratory for hydrolysis reactions, and can create a nasty chemical burn is also a common ingredient in salad dressing, would you panic? Be suspicious that the industries were poisoning your children? Think it might cause cancer? Sign a petition to have it removed?
What if I told you I was talking about vinegar, otherwise known as acetic acid?
This is Hari's business. She takes innocuous ingredients and makes you afraid of them by pulling them out of context (Michelle Francl, in a review of Hari's book for Slate, expertly demonstrates the shallowness of this gimmick). This is how Hari demonized the harmless yet hard-to-pronounce azodicarbonamide, or as she deemed it, the "yoga mat chemical," which is yes, found in yoga mats and also in bread, specifically Subway sandwich bread, a discovery Hari bombastically trumpeted on her website. However, as the science-minded among us understand, a substance can be used for more than one thing perfectly safely, and it doesn't mean that your bread is made of a yoga mat if it happens to contain azodicarbonamide, which is FDA-approved as a dough-softening agent. It simply means your bread is composed of chemicals, much like everything else you eat.
Hari's rule? "If a third grader can't pronounce it, don't eat it."
My rule? Don't base your diet on the pronunciation skills of an eight-year-old.
A Force to Disagree With
In a recent blog post, Hari accused several of her detractors of having nefarious ties to sinister organizations. These evildoers included Dr. Joe Schwarcz, the director for Science and Society at McGill University, Dr. Steve Novella, a Yale-educated neurologist and contributor to the Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast, and Dr. Kevin Folta, the horticultural chair at the University of Florida. Why? Because these highly credentialed scientists had the nerve to use facts against Hari. Dr. Schwarcz speaks out regularly about her tactics. Dr. Novella debunked some wild claims of hers about the science of microwaves. And Dr. Folta said "she found that a popular social media site was more powerful than science itself, more powerful than reason, more powerful than actually knowing what you're talking about."
But could any of these scientists' criticisms possibly have merit? Not to Hari. She has flung these accusations at Dr. Folta multiple times. He's responded on his personal blog and has released his email correspondence to prove that he has no financial connections to hide. And yet, Hari has not recanted.
Moreover, the tireless crusader for transparency doesn't want you to pay attention to the bullshit behind the curtain. And it's not just when scientists point it out in the news–it's when anybody questions her on her Facebook page.
There's a group on Facebook called " Banned By Food Babe" that boasts nearly 6,000 members. Reasons for being banned include "I asked for her qualifications" and "I pointed out that water was a chemical." Some members of the page were former fans of hers who were banned when they asked questions of clarification. Any dissent couldn't possibly have merit within the ranks of the Food Babe Army.
And when Hari's been questioned about silencing critics by news outlets? She consistently says that she won't be silenced by people who are haters and shills, racist or sexist.
If she thinks she's being attacked for being a woman, she's missed that she's not the only "babe" in this discussion.
If her arguments had merit, she could engage in a battle of wits with her detractors instead of making insidious accusations. It's not about Hari, the woman who gets home at the end of the day, maybe gives her dog an (organic) treat and watches some crappy TV show. It's about Food Babe LLC, the business organization that spreads terribly inaccurate science.
It's about statements like this:
"The enzymes released from kale go in to your liver and trigger cancer fighting chemicals that literally dissolve unhealthy cells throughout your body."
One of her outspoken critics, Kavin Senapathy, is a writer at Grounded Parents and a contributor at the Genetic Literacy Project. Senapathy has said that the Food Babe "exploits the scientific ignorance of her followers." With a background in genomics, Senapathy is a science writer and likewise an Indian American woman, but I'm sure it's a much more comforting narrative in the Food Babe Army to say that we're all just sexists and racists.
Is It Made With Real Girl Scouts?
How many companies or products do you think it would make sense to crusade against in the course of a career? One? Three? A dozen?
Hari has declared, to date, more than 610 products and companies to be unsafe over the course of four years.
According to Hari, the problem with most of them, including Girl Scout Cookies: GMOs and pesticides. She's even alleged that an apple can be worse for you than a hot fudge sundae, if it's not organic.
And is there even a shred of truth to this? Not in the least. Hari claims going organic will save you from pesticides, but organic farming uses pesticides too. Some of them are far more toxic than conventional pesticides. (Remember, the dose makes the poison. Neither apple would have enough pesticide by the time it reaches market to be harmful.)
The difference between organic and conventional? For a product that's no healthier, organic is more expensive and they give Hari a commission.
As for those GMOs in the Girl Scout Cookies, fret ye not. In order to introduce a genetically modified crop into the food supply, they have to be proven to be nutritionally indistinguishable from their non-GM counterparts.
Maybe Hari's crusades would be OK if she had the facts to back them up. But she doesn't, and worse, when she's wrong, she tries to make her errors disappear.
Recently, a writer from the New York Times contacted me to ask for some background on Hari. I was happy to oblige. She was looking for the articles for which Hari had been widely criticized and that were conspicuously absent from her Facebook page. Hari had told the writer that she couldn't recall those articles.
Luckily, the internet never forgets.
If you want proof that Hari doesn't research anything before she puts it online, look no further than this article on airplanes, which she deleted from her site. She claimed that pilots control the air in an airplane, so you should sit near the front to breathe better air. She wrote that passengers are sometimes sprayed with pesticides before flights, and that airplane air is pumped full of nitrogen.
Please recall high school science, in which you hopefully learned that the atmosphere is 78% nitrogen. Also, if anyone has personally been sprayed with pesticides before a flight, please email me, I would love to talk to you about it (not really).
The other piece of writing that she unsuccessfully attempted to cleanse from the bowels of the internet claimed that microwaves are like small nuclear reactors, and they make water crystalize the same way it does when you say "Hitler" or "Satan" to it, because water has ears and a grasp of early twentieth-century European dictators.
Feel Better—Detox and Definitely Don't Vaccinate!
Food Babe has written that, in order to deal with the flu, you should take vitamins, get sunshine, and " encounter the flu naturally." In other words, her advice is to get the flu, an infection that kills an average of 31,000 people annually.
A PSA: Please remember that when you vaccinate, you help protect the people around you who cannot vaccinate. You protect people who are immunocompromised, who are going through cancer treatments, and who are on immunosupressants. If you catch the flu, you become a disease vector and can easily infect more people.
"I won't eat any of these ingredients or even put them on my body," Hari wrote of the components that make up the flu vaccine. "However, the mainstream medical community, government agencies and pharmaceutical companies suggest that I directly inject these ingredients into my bloodstream? And I need do it every year until I die? Are you freaking kidding me?"
Nope! Not kidding. The flu is serious. To scare people into not taking every measure they can against a deadly disease mortifies me. Hari has denied that she's anti-vax, but all the reasons she has for avoiding the flu vaccine are ones anti-vaxxers hold near and dear to their hearts for letting their children suffer. Toxins. Aluminum. Mercury. The usual suspects.
But hey, the next time you're down with a bug, follow Hari's lead and detox your way out of it. Who doesn't want to lose a few pounds, feel better, and have more energy? Hari will help, for only $9/per bottle from her sponsor, Suja.
In Hari's non-defense, they're "only" $6 per bottle from Suja's website.
But wait, didn't she say that the Pumpkin Spice Lattes had a toxic dose of sugar at fifty grams in a grande? So why does she endorse Suja when it has forty-two grams of sugar and even comes with a warning on its website that it's not suitable for diabetics?
It's probably because detox is complete bullshit.
In order to buy into the premise that you need detoxing, you first have to be "toxed." The common enemies they claim that juice can clean out of your system are heavy metals and pesticides. The bullshit? Those don't cause allergies, acne, weight gain, or whatever symptom she's using to scare you into buying overpriced juice this week. Heavy metal toxicity has specific symptoms, and actual pesticide poisoning is really scary.
Neither can be fixed by fruit juice. Not even organic fruit juice.
You're constantly "detoxing" just by living. Your kidneys and liver take care of cleaning out unnecessary things in the body fairly efficiently on their own. Proof? The toilet paper industry.
Go Ahead, Lie About Your Food Allergies
We've already established that Hari has a fickle relationship with the truth. How about the definition of the word "allergy"? That seems basic enough. An allergy is an immune system overreaction. Life-threatening food allergies are serious.
And this one is very serious.
Hari claimed that she's allergic to refined sugar in a blog entry in which she also wrote about about all the desserts she's eaten. But only refined sugar, because apparently short-chain carbohydrates are only evil if they're not from one of her approved sponsored sugar sources. So, I guess she can just eat these now that her acupuncturist diagnosed and treated her for this alleged sugar allergy.
Alleged. Because she's admitted that she's fine with lying about allergies.
"Go as far as telling the server you are allergic to butter and dairy, soy and corn," she writes. "Butter really isn't bad for you if it is organic and you use it in moderation – but restaurants can go crazy with it, adding several hundred extra calories you can live without."
This is a problem.
I have celiac disease, and there are people with genuine life-threatening allergies. When people like me go into a restaurant, we're at the whim of a waiter who may have just served twenty fussy assholes from the Food Babe Army who think that gluten causes your spleen to turn radioactive, or whatever lie she's using to sell organic kale dipped in yak's butter this week. So when I tell a server that I can't do gluten, that waiter might roll their eyes at me because of people like Vani Hari.
Well, people like Hari and her Food Babe Army. Changing the world, one lie at a time.
She's also utterly full of shit.
I am an analytical chemist with a background in forensics and toxicology. Before working full-time as a science writer and public speaker, I worked as a chemistry professor, a toxicology chemist, and in research analyzing pesticides for safety. I now run my own blog, Science Babe, dedicated to debunking pseudoscience that tends to proliferate in the blogosphere. Reading Hari's site, it's rare to come across a single scientific fact. Between her egregious abuse of the word "toxin" anytime there's a chemical she can't pronounce and asserting that everyone who disagrees with her is a paid shill, it's hard to pinpoint her biggest sin.
Hari's superhero origin story is that she came down with appendicitis and didn't accept the explanation that appendicitis just happens sometimes. So she quit her job as a consultant, attended Google University and transformed herself into an uncredentialed expert in everything she admittedly can't pronounce. Slap the catchy moniker "Food Babe" on top, throw in a couple of trend stories and some appearances on the Dr. Oz show, and we have the new organic media darling.
But reader beware. Here are some reasons why she's the worst assault on science on the internet.
читать дальшеNatural, Organic, GMO-Free Fear
Hari's campaign last year against the Starbucks Pumpkin Spice Latte drove me to launch my site (don't fuck with a Bostonian's Pumpkin-Spice Anything). She alleged that the PSL has a "toxic" dose of sugar and two (TWO!!) doses of caramel color level IV in carcinogen class 2b.
The word "toxic" has a meaning, and that is "having the effect of a poison." Anything can be poisonous depending on the dose. Enough water can even be poisonous in the right quantity (and can cause a condition called hyponatremia).
But then, the Food Babe has gone on record to say, " There is just no acceptable level of any chemical to ingest, ever." I wonder if anybody's warned her about good old dihydrogen monoxide?
(AKA water.)
It's a goddamn stretch to say that sugar has deleterious effects, other than making your Lululemons stretch a little farther if you don't "namaste" your cheeks off. However, I implore you to look at the Safety Data Sheet for sugar. The average adult would need to ingest about fifty PSLs in one sitting to get a lethal dose of sugar. By that point, you would already have hyponatremia from an overdose of water in the lattes.
And almost enough caffeine for me.
And what about that "carcinogenic" caramel color? Well, it turns out that it's not the only thing in your PSL that's in carcinogen class 2b.
There's also coffee.
Coffee is class 2b because of the acrylamide accumulated during the roasting process. Coffee, before Starbucks turns it into a milkshake, is pretty healthy for you. Class 2b means that all possible carcinogenic effects haven't been ruled out (because we haven't tested drinking it while tightrope walking across the Grand Canyon and simultaneously attempting to eat fire… yet), but that it hasn't been shown to cause a single case of cancer.
This is a blatant attempt at getting you to look to her for answers by making you unnecessarily afraid. The goal of Hari's campaign was to… well, we're still not sure. Remove the caramel color? Smear Starbucks? After that campaign failed, she launched a failed attempt to get them to use only organic milk, which would have made their lattes far more expensive and no healthier.
Hari uses this tricky technique again and again. If I told you that a chemical that's used as a disinfectant, used in industrial laboratory for hydrolysis reactions, and can create a nasty chemical burn is also a common ingredient in salad dressing, would you panic? Be suspicious that the industries were poisoning your children? Think it might cause cancer? Sign a petition to have it removed?
What if I told you I was talking about vinegar, otherwise known as acetic acid?
This is Hari's business. She takes innocuous ingredients and makes you afraid of them by pulling them out of context (Michelle Francl, in a review of Hari's book for Slate, expertly demonstrates the shallowness of this gimmick). This is how Hari demonized the harmless yet hard-to-pronounce azodicarbonamide, or as she deemed it, the "yoga mat chemical," which is yes, found in yoga mats and also in bread, specifically Subway sandwich bread, a discovery Hari bombastically trumpeted on her website. However, as the science-minded among us understand, a substance can be used for more than one thing perfectly safely, and it doesn't mean that your bread is made of a yoga mat if it happens to contain azodicarbonamide, which is FDA-approved as a dough-softening agent. It simply means your bread is composed of chemicals, much like everything else you eat.
Hari's rule? "If a third grader can't pronounce it, don't eat it."
My rule? Don't base your diet on the pronunciation skills of an eight-year-old.
A Force to Disagree With
In a recent blog post, Hari accused several of her detractors of having nefarious ties to sinister organizations. These evildoers included Dr. Joe Schwarcz, the director for Science and Society at McGill University, Dr. Steve Novella, a Yale-educated neurologist and contributor to the Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast, and Dr. Kevin Folta, the horticultural chair at the University of Florida. Why? Because these highly credentialed scientists had the nerve to use facts against Hari. Dr. Schwarcz speaks out regularly about her tactics. Dr. Novella debunked some wild claims of hers about the science of microwaves. And Dr. Folta said "she found that a popular social media site was more powerful than science itself, more powerful than reason, more powerful than actually knowing what you're talking about."
But could any of these scientists' criticisms possibly have merit? Not to Hari. She has flung these accusations at Dr. Folta multiple times. He's responded on his personal blog and has released his email correspondence to prove that he has no financial connections to hide. And yet, Hari has not recanted.
Moreover, the tireless crusader for transparency doesn't want you to pay attention to the bullshit behind the curtain. And it's not just when scientists point it out in the news–it's when anybody questions her on her Facebook page.
There's a group on Facebook called " Banned By Food Babe" that boasts nearly 6,000 members. Reasons for being banned include "I asked for her qualifications" and "I pointed out that water was a chemical." Some members of the page were former fans of hers who were banned when they asked questions of clarification. Any dissent couldn't possibly have merit within the ranks of the Food Babe Army.
And when Hari's been questioned about silencing critics by news outlets? She consistently says that she won't be silenced by people who are haters and shills, racist or sexist.
If she thinks she's being attacked for being a woman, she's missed that she's not the only "babe" in this discussion.
If her arguments had merit, she could engage in a battle of wits with her detractors instead of making insidious accusations. It's not about Hari, the woman who gets home at the end of the day, maybe gives her dog an (organic) treat and watches some crappy TV show. It's about Food Babe LLC, the business organization that spreads terribly inaccurate science.
It's about statements like this:
"The enzymes released from kale go in to your liver and trigger cancer fighting chemicals that literally dissolve unhealthy cells throughout your body."
One of her outspoken critics, Kavin Senapathy, is a writer at Grounded Parents and a contributor at the Genetic Literacy Project. Senapathy has said that the Food Babe "exploits the scientific ignorance of her followers." With a background in genomics, Senapathy is a science writer and likewise an Indian American woman, but I'm sure it's a much more comforting narrative in the Food Babe Army to say that we're all just sexists and racists.
Is It Made With Real Girl Scouts?
How many companies or products do you think it would make sense to crusade against in the course of a career? One? Three? A dozen?
Hari has declared, to date, more than 610 products and companies to be unsafe over the course of four years.
According to Hari, the problem with most of them, including Girl Scout Cookies: GMOs and pesticides. She's even alleged that an apple can be worse for you than a hot fudge sundae, if it's not organic.
And is there even a shred of truth to this? Not in the least. Hari claims going organic will save you from pesticides, but organic farming uses pesticides too. Some of them are far more toxic than conventional pesticides. (Remember, the dose makes the poison. Neither apple would have enough pesticide by the time it reaches market to be harmful.)
The difference between organic and conventional? For a product that's no healthier, organic is more expensive and they give Hari a commission.
As for those GMOs in the Girl Scout Cookies, fret ye not. In order to introduce a genetically modified crop into the food supply, they have to be proven to be nutritionally indistinguishable from their non-GM counterparts.
Maybe Hari's crusades would be OK if she had the facts to back them up. But she doesn't, and worse, when she's wrong, she tries to make her errors disappear.
Recently, a writer from the New York Times contacted me to ask for some background on Hari. I was happy to oblige. She was looking for the articles for which Hari had been widely criticized and that were conspicuously absent from her Facebook page. Hari had told the writer that she couldn't recall those articles.
Luckily, the internet never forgets.
If you want proof that Hari doesn't research anything before she puts it online, look no further than this article on airplanes, which she deleted from her site. She claimed that pilots control the air in an airplane, so you should sit near the front to breathe better air. She wrote that passengers are sometimes sprayed with pesticides before flights, and that airplane air is pumped full of nitrogen.
Please recall high school science, in which you hopefully learned that the atmosphere is 78% nitrogen. Also, if anyone has personally been sprayed with pesticides before a flight, please email me, I would love to talk to you about it (not really).
The other piece of writing that she unsuccessfully attempted to cleanse from the bowels of the internet claimed that microwaves are like small nuclear reactors, and they make water crystalize the same way it does when you say "Hitler" or "Satan" to it, because water has ears and a grasp of early twentieth-century European dictators.
Feel Better—Detox and Definitely Don't Vaccinate!
Food Babe has written that, in order to deal with the flu, you should take vitamins, get sunshine, and " encounter the flu naturally." In other words, her advice is to get the flu, an infection that kills an average of 31,000 people annually.
A PSA: Please remember that when you vaccinate, you help protect the people around you who cannot vaccinate. You protect people who are immunocompromised, who are going through cancer treatments, and who are on immunosupressants. If you catch the flu, you become a disease vector and can easily infect more people.
"I won't eat any of these ingredients or even put them on my body," Hari wrote of the components that make up the flu vaccine. "However, the mainstream medical community, government agencies and pharmaceutical companies suggest that I directly inject these ingredients into my bloodstream? And I need do it every year until I die? Are you freaking kidding me?"
Nope! Not kidding. The flu is serious. To scare people into not taking every measure they can against a deadly disease mortifies me. Hari has denied that she's anti-vax, but all the reasons she has for avoiding the flu vaccine are ones anti-vaxxers hold near and dear to their hearts for letting their children suffer. Toxins. Aluminum. Mercury. The usual suspects.
But hey, the next time you're down with a bug, follow Hari's lead and detox your way out of it. Who doesn't want to lose a few pounds, feel better, and have more energy? Hari will help, for only $9/per bottle from her sponsor, Suja.
In Hari's non-defense, they're "only" $6 per bottle from Suja's website.
But wait, didn't she say that the Pumpkin Spice Lattes had a toxic dose of sugar at fifty grams in a grande? So why does she endorse Suja when it has forty-two grams of sugar and even comes with a warning on its website that it's not suitable for diabetics?
It's probably because detox is complete bullshit.
In order to buy into the premise that you need detoxing, you first have to be "toxed." The common enemies they claim that juice can clean out of your system are heavy metals and pesticides. The bullshit? Those don't cause allergies, acne, weight gain, or whatever symptom she's using to scare you into buying overpriced juice this week. Heavy metal toxicity has specific symptoms, and actual pesticide poisoning is really scary.
Neither can be fixed by fruit juice. Not even organic fruit juice.
You're constantly "detoxing" just by living. Your kidneys and liver take care of cleaning out unnecessary things in the body fairly efficiently on their own. Proof? The toilet paper industry.
Go Ahead, Lie About Your Food Allergies
We've already established that Hari has a fickle relationship with the truth. How about the definition of the word "allergy"? That seems basic enough. An allergy is an immune system overreaction. Life-threatening food allergies are serious.
And this one is very serious.
Hari claimed that she's allergic to refined sugar in a blog entry in which she also wrote about about all the desserts she's eaten. But only refined sugar, because apparently short-chain carbohydrates are only evil if they're not from one of her approved sponsored sugar sources. So, I guess she can just eat these now that her acupuncturist diagnosed and treated her for this alleged sugar allergy.
Alleged. Because she's admitted that she's fine with lying about allergies.
"Go as far as telling the server you are allergic to butter and dairy, soy and corn," she writes. "Butter really isn't bad for you if it is organic and you use it in moderation – but restaurants can go crazy with it, adding several hundred extra calories you can live without."
This is a problem.
I have celiac disease, and there are people with genuine life-threatening allergies. When people like me go into a restaurant, we're at the whim of a waiter who may have just served twenty fussy assholes from the Food Babe Army who think that gluten causes your spleen to turn radioactive, or whatever lie she's using to sell organic kale dipped in yak's butter this week. So when I tell a server that I can't do gluten, that waiter might roll their eyes at me because of people like Vani Hari.
Well, people like Hari and her Food Babe Army. Changing the world, one lie at a time.
@темы: шоб позырить, yeah, science!, eat your greens!
URL
- U-mail
- Дневник
- Профиль
- Комментарии (1)
-
Поделиться
- ВКонтакте
- РћРТвЂВВВВВВВВнокласснРСвЂВВВВВВВВРєРСвЂВВВВВВВВ
- LiveJournal
понедельник, 20 апреля 2015
our subject isn't cool, but he fakes it anyway
URL
- U-mail
- Дневник
- Профиль
- Комментировать
-
Поделиться
- ВКонтакте
- РћРТвЂВВВВВВВВнокласснРСвЂВВВВВВВВРєРСвЂВВВВВВВВ
- LiveJournal
our subject isn't cool, but he fakes it anyway
yay new fandom i missed those
я правда не знаю, как функционировать без активного фандома. даже когда вроде бы жизнь полна событий
@темы: гиф, daredevil, marvel cinematic universe
URL
- U-mail
- Дневник
- Профиль
- Комментарии (13)
-
Поделиться
- ВКонтакте
- РћРТвЂВВВВВВВВнокласснРСвЂВВВВВВВВРєРСвЂВВВВВВВВ
- LiveJournal
our subject isn't cool, but he fakes it anyway
URL
- U-mail
- Дневник
- Профиль
- Комментировать
-
Поделиться
- ВКонтакте
- РћРТвЂВВВВВВВВнокласснРСвЂВВВВВВВВРєРСвЂВВВВВВВВ
- LiveJournal
воскресенье, 19 апреля 2015
our subject isn't cool, but he fakes it anyway
URL
- U-mail
- Дневник
- Профиль
- Комментарии (2)
-
Поделиться
- ВКонтакте
- РћРТвЂВВВВВВВВнокласснРСвЂВВВВВВВВРєРСвЂВВВВВВВВ
- LiveJournal
our subject isn't cool, but he fakes it anyway
URL
- U-mail
- Дневник
- Профиль
- Комментировать
-
Поделиться
- ВКонтакте
- РћРТвЂВВВВВВВВнокласснРСвЂВВВВВВВВРєРСвЂВВВВВВВВ
- LiveJournal
our subject isn't cool, but he fakes it anyway
ask.fm/clnsan/answer/128289383086 Вопросник yun
Тоже вопрос по тексту про депрессию: немного напугал, так как я считала описанные симптомы неотъемлемым этапом взросления и усталости. Как понять, что ты не в рамках нормы и что говорить специалисту? Просто прийти и сказать: у меня постоянный упадок сил и хандра, которая почему-то не проходит? Да, именно так и говорить, ровно как вы написали.
.
Может и хорошо, что вас этот текст напугал. Я вот неизменно огорчаюсь, когда встречаюсь с картинами мира, где постоянная усталость, отвращение к жизни, отсутствие целей, недосып и все прочие вещи - абсолютная проза жизни, с которой человек даже не пытается бороться. Не должно это быть нормой! Это не психическое здоровье! Это может быть небольшим жизненным этапом, кризисом, или в тяжелых жизненных ситуациях, но из таких ситуаций нужно усиленно выгребать. Здоровье - это полноценная, активная жизнь, удовольствие от жизни, значимые и интересные цели, богатая палитра эмоций и переживаний, ощущение своей силы и значимости. И это не призрак никакой, это состояние, в котором любой физически здоровый человек способен прийти.
.
А с рамки нормы можно очень условные провести по времени. То есть если у вас плохое настроение/упадок сил/усталость длится недолго, дни-недели, и возникает нечасто, а все остальное время вы свежи, бодры и полны сил, то это здоровье. Здоровье подразумевает всю палитру эмоций, и усталости там тоже есть место.
Но если упадок сил и хандра постоянные, длятся недели, месяцы или даже годы, если есть постоянное ощущение бессмысленности, скуки, лени, если эмоциональная жизнь бедная, а значимых и интересных целей в жизни нет - это очень, очень серьезный повод обратиться к терапевту!
Тоже вопрос по тексту про депрессию: немного напугал, так как я считала описанные симптомы неотъемлемым этапом взросления и усталости. Как понять, что ты не в рамках нормы и что говорить специалисту? Просто прийти и сказать: у меня постоянный упадок сил и хандра, которая почему-то не проходит? Да, именно так и говорить, ровно как вы написали.
.
Может и хорошо, что вас этот текст напугал. Я вот неизменно огорчаюсь, когда встречаюсь с картинами мира, где постоянная усталость, отвращение к жизни, отсутствие целей, недосып и все прочие вещи - абсолютная проза жизни, с которой человек даже не пытается бороться. Не должно это быть нормой! Это не психическое здоровье! Это может быть небольшим жизненным этапом, кризисом, или в тяжелых жизненных ситуациях, но из таких ситуаций нужно усиленно выгребать. Здоровье - это полноценная, активная жизнь, удовольствие от жизни, значимые и интересные цели, богатая палитра эмоций и переживаний, ощущение своей силы и значимости. И это не призрак никакой, это состояние, в котором любой физически здоровый человек способен прийти.
.
А с рамки нормы можно очень условные провести по времени. То есть если у вас плохое настроение/упадок сил/усталость длится недолго, дни-недели, и возникает нечасто, а все остальное время вы свежи, бодры и полны сил, то это здоровье. Здоровье подразумевает всю палитру эмоций, и усталости там тоже есть место.
Но если упадок сил и хандра постоянные, длятся недели, месяцы или даже годы, если есть постоянное ощущение бессмысленности, скуки, лени, если эмоциональная жизнь бедная, а значимых и интересных целей в жизни нет - это очень, очень серьезный повод обратиться к терапевту!
@темы: если нет возможности лечиться вотпрямщас, надо постоянно себе напоминать, что это не норма., псих
URL
- U-mail
- Дневник
- Профиль
- Комментарии (1)
-
Поделиться
- ВКонтакте
- РћРТвЂВВВВВВВВнокласснРСвЂВВВВВВВВРєРСвЂВВВВВВВВ
- LiveJournal
our subject isn't cool, but he fakes it anyway
URL
- U-mail
- Дневник
- Профиль
- Комментировать
-
Поделиться
- ВКонтакте
- РћРТвЂВВВВВВВВнокласснРСвЂВВВВВВВВРєРСвЂВВВВВВВВ
- LiveJournal
our subject isn't cool, but he fakes it anyway
Один из любимых комплиментов - что у меня красивый голос.
URL
- U-mail
- Дневник
- Профиль
- Комментарии (1)
-
Поделиться
- ВКонтакте
- РћРТвЂВВВВВВВВнокласснРСвЂВВВВВВВВРєРСвЂВВВВВВВВ
- LiveJournal
our subject isn't cool, but he fakes it anyway
Александр Марков о том, почему люди с большим трудом постигают суть теории эволюции.
URL
- U-mail
- Дневник
- Профиль
- Комментарии (1)
-
Поделиться
- ВКонтакте
- РћРТвЂВВВВВВВВнокласснРСвЂВВВВВВВВРєРСвЂВВВВВВВВ
- LiveJournal
суббота, 18 апреля 2015
our subject isn't cool, but he fakes it anyway
Марвел и Нетфликс сделали классный сериал про слепого супергероя Сорвиголову.
И Чарли Кокс офигенно его играет. Рекомменд.
PS Сериал, как и OITNB, выходит целым сезоном.
***
Matt Murdock, Sad, Holding a balloon.
URL
- U-mail
- Дневник
- Профиль
- Комментарии (2)
-
Поделиться
- ВКонтакте
- РћРТвЂВВВВВВВВнокласснРСвЂВВВВВВВВРєРСвЂВВВВВВВВ
- LiveJournal
пятница, 17 апреля 2015
our subject isn't cool, but he fakes it anyway
URL
- U-mail
- Дневник
- Профиль
- Комментировать
-
Поделиться
- ВКонтакте
- РћРТвЂВВВВВВВВнокласснРСвЂВВВВВВВВРєРСвЂВВВВВВВВ
- LiveJournal
среда, 15 апреля 2015
our subject isn't cool, but he fakes it anyway
@темы: гиф, песнь огня и пламени
URL
- U-mail
- Дневник
- Профиль
- Комментарии (1)
-
Поделиться
- ВКонтакте
- РћРТвЂВВВВВВВВнокласснРСвЂВВВВВВВВРєРСвЂВВВВВВВВ
- LiveJournal
our subject isn't cool, but he fakes it anyway
Интересная статья о том, почему Стив Роджерс - не тот, кем кажется.
At this point I don’t think Steven needs an introduction — or wouldn’t, were it not for the fact that he’s now Doctor Steven Attewell, and we all know how that title can change a man. — SEK
www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/10/steven-att...
A while ago, I came across an argument on Tumblr over whether “modern approaches to writing steve rogers are politically correct revisionist history bc people write steve now as being super accepting of all races and sexualities and genders etc.”My initial thought was: ok, I have to chime in on this. There is a mistaken belief that cultural attitudes in the past were monolithic, that everyone and everywhere was “of their time.” This is not true; even in the past, there were people and places who saw past conventional wisdom and social pressure and looked to a better future.
But the real reason I had to chime in was that Steve Rogers is my favorite superhero. Why? Because unlike other patriotism-themed characters, Steve Rogers doesn’t represent a genericized America but rather a very specific time and place – 1930’s New York City. We know he was born July 4, 1920 (not kidding about the 4th of July) to a working-class family of Irish Catholic immigrants who lived in New York’s Lower East Side.[1] This biographical detail has political meaning: given the era he was born in and his class and religious/ethnic background, there is no way in hell Steve Rogers didn’t grow up as a Democrat, and a New Deal Democrat at that, complete with a picture of FDR on the wall.
Steve Rogers grew up poor in the Great Depression, the son of a single mother who insisted he stayed in school despite the trend of the time (his father died when he was a child; in some versions, his father is a brave WWI veteran, in others an alcoholic, either or both of which would be appropriate given what happened to WWI veterans in the Great Depression) and then orphaned in his late teens when his mother died of TB.[2] And he came of age in New York City at a time when the New Deal was in full swing, Fiorello LaGuardia was mayor, the American Labor Party was a major force in city politics, labor unions were on the move, the Abraham Lincoln Brigade was organizing to fight fascism in Spain in the name of the Popular Front, and a militant anti-racist movement was growing that equated segregation at home with Nazism abroad that will eventually feed into the “Double V” campaign.
Then he became a fine arts student.читать дальше To be an artist in New York City in the 1930s was to be surrounded by the “Cultural Front.” We’re talking the WPA Arts and Theater Projects, Diego Rivera painting socialist murals in Rockefeller Center, Orson Welles turning Julius Caesar into an anti-fascist play and running an all-black Macbeth and “The Cradle Will Rock,” Paul Robeson was a major star, and so on. You couldn’t really be an artist and have escaped left-wing politics. And if a poor kid like Steve Rogers was going to college as a fine arts student, odds are very good that he was going to the City College of New York at a time when an 80% Jewish student body is organizing student trade unions, anti-fascist rallies, and the “New York Intellectuals” were busily debating Trotskyism vs. Stalinism vs. Norman Thomas Socialism vs. the New Deal in the dining halls and study carrels.
And this Steve Rogers, who’s been exposed to all of what New York City has to offer, becomes an explicit anti-fascist. In the fall of 1940, over a year before Pearl Harbor, he first volunteers to join the army to fight the Nazis specifically. This isn’t an apolitical patriotism forged out of a sense that the U.S has been attacked; rather, Steve Rogers had come to believe that Nazism posed an existential threat to the America he believed in. New Deal America.
The original Captain American comics are awash with this New Deal/anti-fascist spirit: in his March 1941 premiere issue published by Timely Comics (prominently featuring the eponymous hero socking Hitler in the jaw), FDR comes up with the idea for Captain America as a solution to fascist fifth-columnists interfering with America’s war-readiness program. In a deliberate thumb in the eye to Hitler’s racial science, Steve Rogers is turned from a malnourished working-class intellectual into the very image of the Aryan Superman Hitler fetishized by a Jewish refugee scientist – alternately named Joseph Reinstein or Abraham Erskine – who is then gunned down by a Nazi agent.[3] Captain America takes up the shield presented to him by President Roosevelt, and then spends much of his early issues fighting sabotage and subversion on the home front.
The nature of this subversion is quite pointedly political (in addition to a surprising amount of occult and weird science to leaven the mixture) – it’s Nazi agents (the Red Skull appears in issue #1 as the chief of Hitler’s sabotage programme, despite the handicap of, you know, having a red skull instead of a face; in issue #5, Cap takes on the German-American Bund), and it’s the greedy bosses (in issue #2 where Captain America acquires his more iconic round shield, for example, Captain America fights a pair of corporate income tax evaders who for some reason are using Tibetan golems to cover up their crimes), but it’s not striking workers or Japanese-Americans (although the depictions of Japanese soldiers are up there with the worse of WWII propaganda as far as racism goes, it’s hard to find examples of the fifth-columnist fantasies of internal subversion from Japanese-Americans, which is noteworthy for a comic obsessed with sabotage on the home-front).[4] And of course, when he gets to Europe (occasionally in drag), he promptly goes to working, punching out Hitler, Goering, Himmler, and any number of other Nazis, and blowing up an astonishing amount of tanks.
Indeed, the politics of Captain America became a bit of a problem when the war ended and there weren’t any Nazis left to punch. For a while, there was an attempt to fill the void with weird science (Cap fights Martians more than once) and gangsters, but it didn’t really work. More pertinent, in 1953, there was a failed attempt to re-brand Captain America as the “Commie Smasher” and return to the war-time scripts of sabotage and fifth-columnists but with the swastika replaced with the hammer and sickle.[5] A funny thing happened though; even at the height of the McCarthy era, Americans didn’t want to buy an anti-Communist Captain America. The comic book folded and Captain America wasn’t seen until 1964 when he was suddenly revived from his Arctic prison by the Avengers. The anti-Communist Captain America was ret-conned into being a crazed history graduate student named William Burnside who had himself surgically altered and then dosed with a flawed version of the Super-Serum, which drove him insane to the point where he saw communist sympathizers everywhere.[6] The subtext isn’t particularly thick here: the “Commie-Smasher” was a paranoid wannabe, whereas the real Captain America is the “living legend of WWII” waiting in suspended animation during the Second Red Scare, who emerges back onto the scene with the arrival of the New Frontier and the Great Society.
When Marvel Comics brought Captain America back, they built on the rather crude work of the Timely Comics era to more fully flesh out Steve Rogers’ backstory at the same time that Captain America became one of the mainstays of the Avengers. Far from a mere homefront hero, Steve Rogers is reimagined on the front lines of the Allied war effort. As the leader of the Invaders (an international and multispecies supergroup primarily composed of the Human Torch, Namor, and Britain’s Union Jack and Spitfire), Captain America goes to war in Europe against Nazi super-villains like the Red Skull, Baron Zemo, Colonel War-Hound, Master Man (“the personification of the lurid Nietzschean nightmare”), takes to the skies over London to fend off the Blitzkreig, save Winston Churchill from the U-Man, thwarts the vampiric Baron Blood, raids the Warsaw Ghetto and fight alongside the Jewish superhero the Golem against Colonel Eisen, parachutes into Berchtesgaden, hits the beaches at Normandy and fights in the Battle of the Bulge, culminating with a 1945 storming of Red Skull’s holdout bunker that eventually winds up with Captain America locked in the ice to be discovered when a new generation needs him.[7]
The larger point here is that unlike other patriotic superheroes (like Superman, for example), Captain America is meant to represent the America of the Four Freedoms, the Atlantic Charter, and the Second Bill of Rights – a particular progressive ideal.[8]
Marvel hasn’t always been particularly comfortable with that ideal – it’s political, it’s lefty politics at that, and it’s just generally alien to a generation whose primary exposure to WWII is in the more depoliticized depictions of Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers than something like Casablanca. Notably, in Mark Millar’s “gritty reboot” of the Ultimates (which gave us the original Samuel L. Jackson-as-Nick-Fury), Captain America is reconceived as an unthinking nationalist, complete with Iraq War-era anti-French witticisms:[9]
Millar finds this idea so funny he spends a page congratulating himself about thinking up this joke in the following issue.[10] For a character who for decades embodied not a narrow xenophobic nationalism but an internationalist spirit in which New Deal and anti-fascist values went hand-in-hand with pro-Allied internationalism, this suggests a failure to get to grips with the material.
Marvel has done better with recent years, with the Joe Johnson-helmed “Captain America: First Avenger” borrowing directly from the original comic books to recreate Steve Rogers’ origin story and the sock-Hitler-in-the-jaw WWII iconography, and Joss Whedon’s continuation firmly placing Steve Rogers as a thoughtful soldier who looks askance at Nick Fury’s cooption of Hydra/Nazi weaponry and who explicitly compares Loki’s desire for domination to Hitler’s.
However, even in these versions, some of the political edge of the character is left out. Joe Johnson’s Captain America spends a lot of time punching Hitlers for the USO, but not so much hunting down corporate tax evaders or the German-American Bund, because that might raise uncomfortable questions. Likewise, when it came time to bring Steve Rogers into the Avengers, Joss Whedon describes that “One of the best scenes that I wrote [for the Avengers] was the beautiful and poignant scene between Steve and Peggy [Carter] that takes place in the present,” in which Captain America “talks about the loss of the social safety net that existed in his time, including the need for affordable healthcare for everyone.”[11] It’s good to know that Joss Whedon was thinking about “a sense of loss about what’s happening in our culture, loss of the idea of community, loss of health care and welfare and all sorts of things,” but it really is a shame that the element of Steve Rogers that most challenges modern America with the question of whether we’ve lived up to the ideals of the “Greatest Generation” was left on the cutting room floor.
So no, there’s nothing “revisionist” or “politically correct” about portraying Steve Rogers as an explicitly progressive superhero. Without that, he wouldn’t be Captain America.
[1] The digital comic book First Vengeance changes this slightly, shifting his birth to 1918 and moving the family to Brooklyn, but the details are the same. Captain America #283 tried to re-Americanize Steve by inventing a history of other Captain Americas, including a Native-American-magic-empowered Civil War Captain America (who, thank God, fought for the Union) and a Revolutionary War Captain America, but let’s be clear: the real Steve Rogers, the real Captain America, is a second-generation Irish Catholic from New York City.
[2] Captain America #255.
[3] Captain America #1.
[4] Ibid, Captain America #2, 5.
[5] Captain America #77.
[6] Captain America #155.
[7] Invaders, #1-21.
[8] Historically, Marvel writers have been very consistent on this point: When Rogers’ ideals are violated, such as when Nixon commits suicide over Marvel’s version of the Watergate affair, rather than accept a cover-up, Rogers resigns in protest, becoming a 70s-inspired Nomad (complete with open shirt (Captain America #180.) Likewise, when he’s replaced by the right-wing “Super-Patriot” (created explicitly by Mark Gruenwald to “embod[] patriotism in a way that Captain America didn’t – a patriotic villain”) in 1986, Steve Rogers is impelled to take him on (Captain America #323).
[9] Ultimates #11.
[10] Ultimates #12.
[11] www.slashfilm.com/captain-americas-reunion-pegg...
io9.com/5902799/the-avengers-dvd-will-include-a...
Steven Attewell: Steve Rogers Isn’t Just Any Hero
At this point I don’t think Steven needs an introduction — or wouldn’t, were it not for the fact that he’s now Doctor Steven Attewell, and we all know how that title can change a man. — SEK
www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/10/steven-att...
A while ago, I came across an argument on Tumblr over whether “modern approaches to writing steve rogers are politically correct revisionist history bc people write steve now as being super accepting of all races and sexualities and genders etc.”My initial thought was: ok, I have to chime in on this. There is a mistaken belief that cultural attitudes in the past were monolithic, that everyone and everywhere was “of their time.” This is not true; even in the past, there were people and places who saw past conventional wisdom and social pressure and looked to a better future.
But the real reason I had to chime in was that Steve Rogers is my favorite superhero. Why? Because unlike other patriotism-themed characters, Steve Rogers doesn’t represent a genericized America but rather a very specific time and place – 1930’s New York City. We know he was born July 4, 1920 (not kidding about the 4th of July) to a working-class family of Irish Catholic immigrants who lived in New York’s Lower East Side.[1] This biographical detail has political meaning: given the era he was born in and his class and religious/ethnic background, there is no way in hell Steve Rogers didn’t grow up as a Democrat, and a New Deal Democrat at that, complete with a picture of FDR on the wall.
Steve Rogers grew up poor in the Great Depression, the son of a single mother who insisted he stayed in school despite the trend of the time (his father died when he was a child; in some versions, his father is a brave WWI veteran, in others an alcoholic, either or both of which would be appropriate given what happened to WWI veterans in the Great Depression) and then orphaned in his late teens when his mother died of TB.[2] And he came of age in New York City at a time when the New Deal was in full swing, Fiorello LaGuardia was mayor, the American Labor Party was a major force in city politics, labor unions were on the move, the Abraham Lincoln Brigade was organizing to fight fascism in Spain in the name of the Popular Front, and a militant anti-racist movement was growing that equated segregation at home with Nazism abroad that will eventually feed into the “Double V” campaign.
Then he became a fine arts student.читать дальше To be an artist in New York City in the 1930s was to be surrounded by the “Cultural Front.” We’re talking the WPA Arts and Theater Projects, Diego Rivera painting socialist murals in Rockefeller Center, Orson Welles turning Julius Caesar into an anti-fascist play and running an all-black Macbeth and “The Cradle Will Rock,” Paul Robeson was a major star, and so on. You couldn’t really be an artist and have escaped left-wing politics. And if a poor kid like Steve Rogers was going to college as a fine arts student, odds are very good that he was going to the City College of New York at a time when an 80% Jewish student body is organizing student trade unions, anti-fascist rallies, and the “New York Intellectuals” were busily debating Trotskyism vs. Stalinism vs. Norman Thomas Socialism vs. the New Deal in the dining halls and study carrels.
And this Steve Rogers, who’s been exposed to all of what New York City has to offer, becomes an explicit anti-fascist. In the fall of 1940, over a year before Pearl Harbor, he first volunteers to join the army to fight the Nazis specifically. This isn’t an apolitical patriotism forged out of a sense that the U.S has been attacked; rather, Steve Rogers had come to believe that Nazism posed an existential threat to the America he believed in. New Deal America.
The original Captain American comics are awash with this New Deal/anti-fascist spirit: in his March 1941 premiere issue published by Timely Comics (prominently featuring the eponymous hero socking Hitler in the jaw), FDR comes up with the idea for Captain America as a solution to fascist fifth-columnists interfering with America’s war-readiness program. In a deliberate thumb in the eye to Hitler’s racial science, Steve Rogers is turned from a malnourished working-class intellectual into the very image of the Aryan Superman Hitler fetishized by a Jewish refugee scientist – alternately named Joseph Reinstein or Abraham Erskine – who is then gunned down by a Nazi agent.[3] Captain America takes up the shield presented to him by President Roosevelt, and then spends much of his early issues fighting sabotage and subversion on the home front.
The nature of this subversion is quite pointedly political (in addition to a surprising amount of occult and weird science to leaven the mixture) – it’s Nazi agents (the Red Skull appears in issue #1 as the chief of Hitler’s sabotage programme, despite the handicap of, you know, having a red skull instead of a face; in issue #5, Cap takes on the German-American Bund), and it’s the greedy bosses (in issue #2 where Captain America acquires his more iconic round shield, for example, Captain America fights a pair of corporate income tax evaders who for some reason are using Tibetan golems to cover up their crimes), but it’s not striking workers or Japanese-Americans (although the depictions of Japanese soldiers are up there with the worse of WWII propaganda as far as racism goes, it’s hard to find examples of the fifth-columnist fantasies of internal subversion from Japanese-Americans, which is noteworthy for a comic obsessed with sabotage on the home-front).[4] And of course, when he gets to Europe (occasionally in drag), he promptly goes to working, punching out Hitler, Goering, Himmler, and any number of other Nazis, and blowing up an astonishing amount of tanks.
Indeed, the politics of Captain America became a bit of a problem when the war ended and there weren’t any Nazis left to punch. For a while, there was an attempt to fill the void with weird science (Cap fights Martians more than once) and gangsters, but it didn’t really work. More pertinent, in 1953, there was a failed attempt to re-brand Captain America as the “Commie Smasher” and return to the war-time scripts of sabotage and fifth-columnists but with the swastika replaced with the hammer and sickle.[5] A funny thing happened though; even at the height of the McCarthy era, Americans didn’t want to buy an anti-Communist Captain America. The comic book folded and Captain America wasn’t seen until 1964 when he was suddenly revived from his Arctic prison by the Avengers. The anti-Communist Captain America was ret-conned into being a crazed history graduate student named William Burnside who had himself surgically altered and then dosed with a flawed version of the Super-Serum, which drove him insane to the point where he saw communist sympathizers everywhere.[6] The subtext isn’t particularly thick here: the “Commie-Smasher” was a paranoid wannabe, whereas the real Captain America is the “living legend of WWII” waiting in suspended animation during the Second Red Scare, who emerges back onto the scene with the arrival of the New Frontier and the Great Society.
When Marvel Comics brought Captain America back, they built on the rather crude work of the Timely Comics era to more fully flesh out Steve Rogers’ backstory at the same time that Captain America became one of the mainstays of the Avengers. Far from a mere homefront hero, Steve Rogers is reimagined on the front lines of the Allied war effort. As the leader of the Invaders (an international and multispecies supergroup primarily composed of the Human Torch, Namor, and Britain’s Union Jack and Spitfire), Captain America goes to war in Europe against Nazi super-villains like the Red Skull, Baron Zemo, Colonel War-Hound, Master Man (“the personification of the lurid Nietzschean nightmare”), takes to the skies over London to fend off the Blitzkreig, save Winston Churchill from the U-Man, thwarts the vampiric Baron Blood, raids the Warsaw Ghetto and fight alongside the Jewish superhero the Golem against Colonel Eisen, parachutes into Berchtesgaden, hits the beaches at Normandy and fights in the Battle of the Bulge, culminating with a 1945 storming of Red Skull’s holdout bunker that eventually winds up with Captain America locked in the ice to be discovered when a new generation needs him.[7]
The larger point here is that unlike other patriotic superheroes (like Superman, for example), Captain America is meant to represent the America of the Four Freedoms, the Atlantic Charter, and the Second Bill of Rights – a particular progressive ideal.[8]
Marvel hasn’t always been particularly comfortable with that ideal – it’s political, it’s lefty politics at that, and it’s just generally alien to a generation whose primary exposure to WWII is in the more depoliticized depictions of Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers than something like Casablanca. Notably, in Mark Millar’s “gritty reboot” of the Ultimates (which gave us the original Samuel L. Jackson-as-Nick-Fury), Captain America is reconceived as an unthinking nationalist, complete with Iraq War-era anti-French witticisms:[9]
Millar finds this idea so funny he spends a page congratulating himself about thinking up this joke in the following issue.[10] For a character who for decades embodied not a narrow xenophobic nationalism but an internationalist spirit in which New Deal and anti-fascist values went hand-in-hand with pro-Allied internationalism, this suggests a failure to get to grips with the material.
Marvel has done better with recent years, with the Joe Johnson-helmed “Captain America: First Avenger” borrowing directly from the original comic books to recreate Steve Rogers’ origin story and the sock-Hitler-in-the-jaw WWII iconography, and Joss Whedon’s continuation firmly placing Steve Rogers as a thoughtful soldier who looks askance at Nick Fury’s cooption of Hydra/Nazi weaponry and who explicitly compares Loki’s desire for domination to Hitler’s.
However, even in these versions, some of the political edge of the character is left out. Joe Johnson’s Captain America spends a lot of time punching Hitlers for the USO, but not so much hunting down corporate tax evaders or the German-American Bund, because that might raise uncomfortable questions. Likewise, when it came time to bring Steve Rogers into the Avengers, Joss Whedon describes that “One of the best scenes that I wrote [for the Avengers] was the beautiful and poignant scene between Steve and Peggy [Carter] that takes place in the present,” in which Captain America “talks about the loss of the social safety net that existed in his time, including the need for affordable healthcare for everyone.”[11] It’s good to know that Joss Whedon was thinking about “a sense of loss about what’s happening in our culture, loss of the idea of community, loss of health care and welfare and all sorts of things,” but it really is a shame that the element of Steve Rogers that most challenges modern America with the question of whether we’ve lived up to the ideals of the “Greatest Generation” was left on the cutting room floor.
So no, there’s nothing “revisionist” or “politically correct” about portraying Steve Rogers as an explicitly progressive superhero. Without that, he wouldn’t be Captain America.
[1] The digital comic book First Vengeance changes this slightly, shifting his birth to 1918 and moving the family to Brooklyn, but the details are the same. Captain America #283 tried to re-Americanize Steve by inventing a history of other Captain Americas, including a Native-American-magic-empowered Civil War Captain America (who, thank God, fought for the Union) and a Revolutionary War Captain America, but let’s be clear: the real Steve Rogers, the real Captain America, is a second-generation Irish Catholic from New York City.
[2] Captain America #255.
[3] Captain America #1.
[4] Ibid, Captain America #2, 5.
[5] Captain America #77.
[6] Captain America #155.
[7] Invaders, #1-21.
[8] Historically, Marvel writers have been very consistent on this point: When Rogers’ ideals are violated, such as when Nixon commits suicide over Marvel’s version of the Watergate affair, rather than accept a cover-up, Rogers resigns in protest, becoming a 70s-inspired Nomad (complete with open shirt (Captain America #180.) Likewise, when he’s replaced by the right-wing “Super-Patriot” (created explicitly by Mark Gruenwald to “embod[] patriotism in a way that Captain America didn’t – a patriotic villain”) in 1986, Steve Rogers is impelled to take him on (Captain America #323).
[9] Ultimates #11.
[10] Ultimates #12.
[11] www.slashfilm.com/captain-americas-reunion-pegg...
io9.com/5902799/the-avengers-dvd-will-include-a...
@темы: гиф, marvel cinematic universe
URL
- U-mail
- Дневник
- Профиль
- Комментировать
-
Поделиться
- ВКонтакте
- РћРТвЂВВВВВВВВнокласснРСвЂВВВВВВВВРєРСвЂВВВВВВВВ
- LiveJournal
our subject isn't cool, but he fakes it anyway
Oral Contraceptive Pill Could Be Altering The Physical Structure Of Your Brain
The pill is a very popular contraceptive choice for women, with around 100 million individuals worldwide currently using it. There is no doubt that it has helped revolutionize contraception, and most users report satisfaction, but it is also apparent that it can cause undesirable side effects in women. For example, many studies have demonstrated that its use is associated with metabolic and emotional effects, and one study even found it could influence a woman’s choice of partner.
Now, a new investigation is adding to the growing body of evidence that the pill may be associated with neurological alterations, with the discovery that oral contraceptives are linked to thinning in two different regions of the brain, possibly altering their function.
For the study, scientists at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), investigated 90 women, 44 of whom were using oral contraceptives, whilst the others were naturally-cycling. They were interested in comparing the thickness and volumes of different brain regions that participate in two networks, the salience network and the default mode network. The former functions to sort through all the internal and external stimuli we are presented with, like pain or a distant noise, in order to identify the most relevant for guiding behavior. The latter is most active when we are at rest, for example during daydreaming or thinking about the future.
As described in Human Brain Mapping, the researchers found that two particular regions, the lateral orbitofrontal cortex and the posterior cingulate cortex, tended to be thinner in those who were taking oral contraceptive pills. The lateral orbitofrontal cortex helps us regulate emotions and is thought to allow us to adapt our behavior in response to rewards or adversities, while the posterior cingulate cortex helps us evaluate our internal states. The researchers told Huffington Post that changes to the former could help to explain why some women experience negative emotional side effects, such as anxiety and depression, when they commence the pill.
Although the study cannot prove whether oral contraceptives are causing these alterations in brain morphology, or if they are merely indirectly linked to them, the findings are interesting because they contradict an earlier study. Back in 2010, scientists documented that women taking hormonal contraceptives had numerous cortical regions that were larger than those in women not using contraceptives. Once again, some of these regions were involved in regulating emotions.
As Medical News Today points out, given that sex hormones, like estrogen, strongly influence the brain and nervous system, it does make sense that hormonal contraceptives could be exerting side effects on these parts of the body. That being said, it is unclear at this stage as to whether the alterations observed so far are permanent, or disappear when a woman goes off the pill. Furthermore, we don’t know if they are actually causing changes in behavior or cognition, which is why further studies are needed.
www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/oral-con...
@темы: yeah, science!
URL
- U-mail
- Дневник
- Профиль
- Комментарии (1)
-
Поделиться
- ВКонтакте
- РћРТвЂВВВВВВВВнокласснРСвЂВВВВВВВВРєРСвЂВВВВВВВВ
- LiveJournal
вторник, 14 апреля 2015
our subject isn't cool, but he fakes it anyway
Ленд-лиз: как «проклятые пиндосы» спасли дедов и СССР во Второй мировой войне (фото)
12.04.2015 1:08 читать дальше
До настоящего времени остается огромное количество эпизодов, фактов, событий и имен в истории России и СССР, о которых современные власти РФ стараются не говорить, а некоторые важные факты не достигли достойной огласки. Существует реальная угроза того, что о них никто и не узнает, если очевидцы не расскажут об этом. В числе таких малоизвестных фактов – американский ленд-лиз Советскому Союзу, в ходе которого в СССР поставлялась военная техника, продовольствие, оружие, снаряжение, боеприпасы, а также стратегическое сырье, в котором сталинский режим очень нуждался. По определенным политическим соображениям эти поставки были строго засекречены вплоть до 1992 года, и знали о них только непосредственные участники.
Общий объем полученного ленд-лиза Советским Союзом составил на сумму порядка 9,8 миллиардов долларов. Но помощь Америки в то время была действительно неоценимой, и стала одним из решающих факторов, которые способствовали разгрому фашисткой силы.
В то же время советские власти не только искусственно создавали негативное мнение относительно американской помощи, но и держали ее в строжайшей тайне, а всех непосредственных участников нередко ставили вне закона. Но наконец-то пришло время расставить все точки над «і», и узнать хотя бы часть всей правды о столь плодотворном (наверное единственном в истории) сотрудничестве двух сверхдержав.
Как американские, так и советские летчики, моряки, которые участвовали в перегонке самолетов, в перевозке и сопровождении грузов, совершали настоящий подвиг, огибая более половины земного шара, поэтому наше поколение не должно, просто не имеет права забыть их подвиг и героизм.
Официально начало переговорам по ленд-лизу было положено в последние дни сентября 1941 года. От американской стороны участие в переговорах принимал А.Гарриман, которого специально направил в Москву американский президент. 1 октября 1941 годы им был подписан протокол относительно поставок в Советский Союз, сумма которых составила 1 миллиард долларов. Срок поставок – девять месяцев. Но, несмотря на это, только в начале ноября 1941 года американский президент подписал указ о том, что закон о ленд-лизе (полное название документа англ. «An Act to Promote the Defense of the United States» («Закон по обеспечению защиты Соединенных Штатов»), принят Конгрессом США 11.03.1941 года) распространяется и на Советский Союз.
Первые поставки вооружения и техники начались в октябре, и до конца года в Советский Союз было поставлено 256 самолетов на сумму в 545 тысяч долларов. Сумма же всего авиационного ленд-лиза в годы войны составляла 3,6 миллиардов долларов.
В общей сложности за годы войны из Америки в Советский Союз было переправлено более 14 тысяч самолетов: Белл Р-39 «Аэрокобра», Кертисс «Китихоук» и «Томагаук», Дуглас А-20 «Бостон», Консолидейтед PBY «Каталина», Рипаблик Р-47 «Тандерболт», Норт-Америкен В-25 «Митчелл».
Большая часть этих самолетов (примерно 8 тысяч) была перегнана по трассе Аляска-Сибирь. В Мурманск поставлялись из Англии истребители Супермарин «Спитфайр», Хоукер «Харрикейн», а также бомбардировщики Хендли-Пейдж «Хемпден». По ленд-лизу поставлялся также один из наиболее малоизвестных самолетов – «Армстронг Альбермарл».
Самолеты, которые были изготовлены на территории США, перегонялись американскими и канадскими летчиками на Аляску, а оттуда их перегоняли на территорию Советского Союза летчики перегоночной советской дивизии, которая была создана специально для этих целей и состояла из пяти полков.
Многие из представителей старшего поколения помнят джипы, самолеты, а также «Студебеккеры» и американскую тушенку, которые поставлялись по ленд-лизу.
Кроме большой помощи в материальном плане, немалую роль сыграл американский ленд-лиз и в плане моральной поддержки советских войск. Будучи на фронте, многие советские воины чувствовали себяувереннее, когда видели в небе иностранные самолеты, оказывавшие им поддержку. Да и мирное население, видя, что американцы и британцы помогают ресурсами, понимало, что это во многом может помочь одержать победу над фашистской Германией.
Американские самолеты всегда были видны на фронтах. Они оказывали поддержку и прикрывали с воздуха морские конвои с грузами, во время блокады Ленинграда воздушную защиту его осуществляли истребители «Китихоук», они осуществляли бомбардировки немецкого морского транспорта в Финском заливе, участвовали в освобождении Украины, Кубани.
Кроме самолетов, в Советский Союз по ленд-лизу поставлялись также джипы, хотя, по словам советской стороны, просили они о поставках мотоциклетных колясок. Однако по совету госсекретаря США Эдварда Стеттиниуса были поставлены именно военные автомобили, поскольку у американцев был большой и весьма удачный опыт их использования. Общий объем полученных джипов за годы войны составил 44 тысячи единиц.
Кроме того, по ленд-лизу поступали автомобили 50-ти моделей, производителями которых были 26 американских, английских и канадских фирм. Комплектующие к ним производились значительно большим количеством заводов.
Наибольшее количество среди всех поставленных автомобилей составили американские грузовики US 6 Studebаker и RЕО – их объем составил 152 тысячи экземпляров. Общий же объем таких автомобилей составил около 478 тысяч единиц без учета запчастей (а их хватило бы еще на сборку нескольких тысяч автомобилей).
Хотя документы были и подписаны позже, но первые морские конвои с ленд-лизовскими грузами уже были направлены в СССР в августе 1941 года. Они получили обозначение PQ (это инициалы британского офицера военно-морских сил Эдвардса). Грузы доставлялись в Мурманск, Северодвинск, Архангельск. Сначала корабли прибывали в Рейкьявик, где их формировали в караваны по 20 судов, а затем в сопровождении охраны из военных кораблей и доставляли на территорию СССР. Но очень скоро немецкая разведка получила точные координаты маршрутов этих конвоев. Тогда и начались потери. Одной из наибольших потерь является эпизод, произошедший в июле 1942 года, когда из 36 кораблей уцелело всего 11, на дне оказались более 4 сотен танков, 2 сотен самолетов и 3 тысяч автомобилей. Всего же за период войны немецкими подводными лодками и торпедоносцами было потоплено 80 кораблей, даже несмотря на то, что для их охраны привлекались боевые корабли и самолеты. Британские и американские военно-морские силы потеряли в северной Атлантике 19 боевых кораблей.
Надо заметить, что в советской истории осталось много темных пятен относительно ленд-лиза. Мнение о том, что американцы сознательно задерживают поставки, ожидая, когда советский строй рухнет, было в то время общепринятым. Но в то же время возникает немало вопросов: почему американцы с такой поспешностью принимали закон о ленд-лизе и его распространении на советскую территорию? Можно ли считать случайностью тот факт, что война «уложилась» в срок этого закона?
Более того, некоторые исследователи выдвигают версию о том, что американский ленд-лиз – это результат работы советской разведки. Ходили даже слухи о том, что большую роль в подписании закона о ленд-лизе сыграл непосредственно сам Сталин – якобы он, в целях предотвращения распространения нацизма, намеревался первым начать войну против фашисткой Германии и очень надеялся на помощь Запада в этой войне. Но это всего лишь слухи, никаких документальных подтверждений данных теорий пока не существует.
Заметим, что поставки практически не прекращались всю войну, за исключением одного раза в 1942 году, когда Великобритания готовилась к операции в Африке, и одного раза в 1943 году, когда планировалась высадка союзных войск в Италии.
По окончании войны часть техники, согласно прежним договоренностям, советская сторона сдала обратно союзникам. Но в то же время существовал и солидный долг СССР перед США по ленд-лизу, остаток которого в размере 674 миллионов долларов советские властиотказывались выплачивать, мотивируя это дискриминацией в отношении СССР со стороны американцев в торговле. Но, уже в 1972 году, было подписано соглашение, по которому СССР согласилось выплатить США 722 миллионов долларов. Последний платеж по этому соглашению был проведен в 2001 году.
Таким образом, принижение значения поставок военной техники, амуниции и продовольствия, которые осуществлялись американскими и британскими союзниками, было осуществлено исходя из идеологических принципов времен СССР. Это делалось якобы для того, чтобы утвердить постулат, что советская военная экономика имеет не просто большое, а просто огромное превосходство над экономикой капиталистических государств, причем не только Германии, но и Соединенных Штатов Америки и Великобритании.В отличие от советской точки зрения, в американской историографии, роль ленд-лизовских поставок всегда справедливо представлялась решающим фактором в способности СССР продолжать вести войну против фашистской Германии и это действительно является неудобной правдой для Советского союза, а теперь и РФ.
Но какими бы то не были суждения, нельзя отрицать тот факт, что ленд-лиз оказал существенную поддержку советской стране в трудные времена.
Кроме того надо сказать, что на территории бывшего Советского Союза практически не осталось ничего, что бы служило напоминанием о героизме людей, которые перегоняли американские самолеты, водили и сопровождали транспорты, за исключением, разве что трех маленьких музеев и останков самолетов. В то же время на Аляске и в Канаде наблюдается совершенно противоположная картина – мемориальные доски и большие музеи, ухоженные кладбища. Каждый год в городах, по которым проходила трасса, устраиваются празднования в честь ветеранов.
@темы: история, ликвидация безграмотности
URL
- U-mail
- Дневник
- Профиль
- Комментировать
-
Поделиться
- ВКонтакте
- РћРТвЂВВВВВВВВнокласснРСвЂВВВВВВВВРєРСвЂВВВВВВВВ
- LiveJournal
понедельник, 13 апреля 2015
our subject isn't cool, but he fakes it anyway
THE JOURNEY
Above the mountains
the geese turn into
the light again
Painting their
black silhouettes
on an open sky.
Sometimes everything
has to be
inscribed across
the heavens
so you can find
the one line
already written
inside you.
Sometimes it takes
a great sky
to find that
first, bright
and indescribable
wedge of freedom
in your own heart.
Sometimes with
the bones of the black
sticks left when the fire
has gone out
someone has written
something new
in the ashes of your life.
You are not leaving.
Even as the light fades quickly now,
you are arriving.
Above the mountains
the geese turn into
the light again
Painting their
black silhouettes
on an open sky.
Sometimes everything
has to be
inscribed across
the heavens
so you can find
the one line
already written
inside you.
Sometimes it takes
a great sky
to find that
first, bright
and indescribable
wedge of freedom
in your own heart.
Sometimes with
the bones of the black
sticks left when the fire
has gone out
someone has written
something new
in the ashes of your life.
You are not leaving.
Even as the light fades quickly now,
you are arriving.
URL
- U-mail
- Дневник
- Профиль
- Комментарии (2)
-
Поделиться
- ВКонтакте
- РћРТвЂВВВВВВВВнокласснРСвЂВВВВВВВВРєРСвЂВВВВВВВВ
- LiveJournal
our subject isn't cool, but he fakes it anyway
Are Women More Emotional Than Men?
Women’s negative emotionality as experienced around the world
Women’s negative emotionality as experienced around the world
Post published by David P Schmitt Ph.D. on Apr 10, 2015 in Sexual Personalities
Are women more emotional than men? Maybe. Men could be described as more emotional than women, too. It depends on the type of emotion, how it is measured, where it is expressed, and lots of other factors. It is also important when answering that type of question not to dichotomize sex differences as necessarily being either “entirely absent” (i.e., gender blank slate-ism) or so large that men and women “can’t relate to one another” (i.e., the old Mars versus Venus claptrap). Most psychological sex differences fall somewhere in the middle (Petersen & Hyde, 2010).
From an evolutionary perspective, it is likely there are some sex differences in emotion. Indeed, the odds of men and women having evolved the exact same emotional psychology are basically zero. It would be nothing short of a Darwinian miracle for men and women to have evolved precisely identical emotional designs. The forces of selection acting on humans would have had to eliminate all previous sex differences in emotionality stemming from our lineage as mammals and primates, actively select against any and all sex-specific emotional adaptations developing during our hundreds of millennia as hunter-gatherers, and maintain a perfectly androgynous psychology of emotion in men and women post-Pleistocene epoch (Buss & Schmitt, 2011). For one to expect absolutely no sex differences in human emotion, one would have to believe in a god/godess-like creature, Androgyna, having actively intervened throughout all of human history to make sure men and women reproduce in ways that maintain precisely the same emotional psychology. As Vandermassen (2011) has noted, “that human males and females should have evolved to be psychologically identical, for example, is a theoretical impossibility, and, indeed, turns out to be untrue” (p. 733).
Still, any particular scientific claim about men and women being emotionally different needs to be evaluated empirically. And finding sex differences in emotionality would not mean the differences are evolved, even if the sex differences have neurological substrates (gender role socialization may change the brains of boys and girls). The evolved question requires a lot more evidence (see Schmitt & Pilcher, 2004).
сайенс
So, are there some apparent sex differences in emotion, and how big are those differences (using the d statistic where small differences are ±0.20, moderate differences are ±0.50, and large differences are ±0.80 and above)? Probably the most compelling evidence for sex differences in emotion exists in the domain of negative emotions (Brody & Hall, 2008; McLean & Anderson, 2009).
For instance, in a meta-analysis of sex differences in the feeling of “moral” emotions (Else-Quest et al., 2012), women tended to experience more negative emotions, such as more guilt (d = −0.27), shame (d = −0.29), to a lesser degree embarrassment (d = −0.08). Similar results were found in a recent meta-analysis of children’s emotions (Chaplin & Aldao, 2013). In a cross-cultural study of 37 nations, women tended to report more negative emotionality (Fischer et al., 2004). Among those nations with relatively higher sociopolitical gender equity, sex differences were found in the intensity of felt sadness (d = -0.26), fear (d = -0.26), shame (d = -0.12), and guilt (d = -0.12; Fischer & Manstead, 2000). Sex differences in social anxiety across cultures find women are universally higher than men (18 nations; Caballo et al., 2014), as do studies of test anxiety among high school students (12 nations; Bodas & Ollendick, 2005). Most these sex differences in negative emotion are relatively small, though. No Mars versus Venus here.
In studies using experience sampling or measures other than self-report (e.g., observer reports or clinical evaluations), sex differences in the actual daily life experience of negative emotionality are usually found (Diener et al., 1983; Fujita et al., 1991; Seidlitz & Diener, 1998), but not always (Barrett et al., 1998). Sex differences in the stressful reactions to coping with negative daily life events also have been found (Matud, 2004), and observation data of women’s written and verbal behavior tends to find women express more negative emotions than men do (e.g., Burke et al., 1976; Levenson et al., 1994). It’s important to note which situations tend to elicit negative emotionality in relationships, however. Women report more negative emotionality when their partners reject them, men tend to report more negative emotions when their partners demand more intimacy (Brody et al., 2002).
Women do appear to react more negatively to unpleasant experiences in experimental settings (Bradley et al., 2001; Chentsova-Dutton & Tsai, 2007; Grossman & Wood, 1993). For instance, in a study of sex differences in reactions to pleasant and unpleasant slides (Gomez, Gunten, & Danuser, 2013), researchers found women reacted more negatively to unpleasant slides (e.g., mutilated bodies, physical violence, and suffering or dead animals), a sex difference that persisted in size from ages 20 to 81. Kring and Gordon (1998) found women react with more sadness to sad films than men do (d = -0.78) and women react with more fear-disgust to fearful-disgusting films than men do (d = -0.40). In contrast, men reacted with greater happiness to happy films (d = +0.31). Men and women appear to differ in the brain regions used to regulate reactions to unpleasant experimental stimuli, as well (Domes et al., 2010; McRae et al., 2008).
Women tend to be able to recognize and process the negative emotions of others better than men do (Babchuck et al., 1985; Hampson et al., 2006; McClure, 2000). There are several evolutionary hypotheses about why this is the case. For instance, women may be more sensitive to all the emotions of others because of their need (more than men) to attach with their children, or women may be especially responsive to negative emotions only because of the need to react to fitness threats more than men do. Hampson and her colleagues (2006) found more support for the former hypothesis.
Most studies show women tend to score higher on the personality trait most closely associated with negative emotionality—neuroticism (Feingold, 1994; Schmitt et al., 2008). In a meta-analysis across 25 studies, for instance, Feingold (1994) found women score higher in anxiety (d = -0.27). Several large cross-cultural studies have confirmed these sex differences across dozens of nations (Costa et al., 2001; Lippa, 2010; Schmitt et al., 2008). Women have been found to score higher in overall neuroticism in a studies of 26 nations (d = -0.26; Costa et al., 2001), 53 nations (d = -0.41; Lippa, 2010), and 56 nations (d = -0.40; Schmitt et al., 2008).
Interestingly, all of these cross-cultural studies find sex differences in neuroticism are larger in cultures with more sociopolitical gender equity. That's right, in more gender egalitarian nations sex differences in neuroticism are larger, not smaller as would be expected if sex differences come only from gender roles, learning, and patriarchy (see chart below contrasting neuroticism scores of men and women from Northern Europe and Africa; Schmitt, 2015).
Similar results are found in studies depression. Men and women tend to differ in average levels of depression (Hyde et al., 2008), a sex difference that is apparent in most cultures (Hopcroft & McLaughlin, 2012; Van de Velde, Bracke, & Levecque, 2010). The sex gap in depression is wider in high gender equity societies than in low gender equity societies. Hopcroft speculates that this is due in part to differential effects of children on feelings of depression for women in high and low equity countries. For women in high gender equity countries, children promote feelings of depression, whereas for unemployed women in low gender equity countries the reverse is true. There is little difference in the effect of children on feelings of depression for men in high and low gender equity countries. This can explain the paradoxical finding that while gender equity boosts mental health on average, it creates a wider sex gap in depression.
Similar results are found in studies of personal values, including values related to altruism and love. In a study of 127 samples in 70 countries (N = 77,528; Schwartz & Rubel-Lifschitz, 2009) women attribute consistently more importance than men do to benevolence and universalism values. National measures of gender egalitarianism predicted sex differences in benevolence and universalism values but, once again, in an unexpected direction. The greater the social, health, and employment equality of women and men in a country…the larger the sex differences (women higher) in benevolence and universalism values. That is, in countries with greater gender equity (e.g., Finland, Sweden), women attribute substantially more importance to benevolence and universalism values than men do. In more patriarchal cultures, sex differences in benevolence and universalism and much smaller. The authors of the values study speculate that increased independence and equality of women in the labor force may encourage women to express their “inherent” values rather than to accommodate their values to those of their husbands. Maybe.
What is clear is that if sex differences are assumed to result from gender role socialization, it is extremely odd for the largest sex differences to be found in Scandinavian cultures and the smallest in more patriarchal cultures. Yet, we also find this with studies of tested cognitive ability and even physical traits (see charts; Schmitt, 2015).
Finally, I’d say if one’s goal is to provide an accurate portrayal of men and women possibly differing in their psychology in a particular domain, it is probably best to evaluate the degree of difference using multivariate statistics within that specific domain. For instance, Del Guidice et al. (2012) examined sex differences in personality using Cattell’s 16 factor model of personality traits, finding an overall multivariate D of 2.71 for the personality domain. This is huge difference, with less than 10% overlap in men’s and women’s personalities. Emotion-related traits are only a small part of that profile of sex differences, though. My guess is, in taking a multivariate perspective of the emotional domain, researchers will find emotion differences between men and women are more moderate in size. Same planet, different neighborhoods.
www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sexual-personaliti...
@темы: феминизм, социальное
URL
- U-mail
- Дневник
- Профиль
- Комментировать
-
Поделиться
- ВКонтакте
- РћРТвЂВВВВВВВВнокласснРСвЂВВВВВВВВРєРСвЂВВВВВВВВ
- LiveJournal
воскресенье, 12 апреля 2015
our subject isn't cool, but he fakes it anyway
URL
- U-mail
- Дневник
- Профиль
- Комментарии (1)
-
Поделиться
- ВКонтакте
- РћРТвЂВВВВВВВВнокласснРСвЂВВВВВВВВРєРСвЂВВВВВВВВ
- LiveJournal
Жизнь с призраками точности
Авторизация
Записи
- Календарь записей
- Темы записей
-
685 шоб позырить
-
453 псих
-
410 гиф
-
375 социальное
-
247 политичное
-
237 дорогой дневник
-
223 феминизм
-
186 yeah, science!
-
171 нытье
-
158 фотография
-
138 yep dats me
-
135 фандомы
-
125 lgbt+
-
122 music
-
116 поехали!
-
113 олени
- Список заголовков
Главное меню