Mel Gibson is a Sociopath

Radaronline.com reports that Mel Gibson twice punched Oksana Grigorieva in the face while she was holding their baby. The incident is captured on the same tape in which he spews racial epithets, threatens to burn the house down, and tells her that she deserves to be punched.

This type of behavior should not be tolerated and Mel should be seen as the psychologically unbalanced, out-of-control sociopath he really is. Mel exhibits most of the character traits of a sociopath (http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html), such as glibness, a grandiose sense of self, a lack of remorse, shame or guilt about his actions, an incapacity for love, callousness, and a lack of empathy toward others.
Sociopaths, according to H. Cleckley and R. Hare, "never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible"; they are "covertly hostile and domineering," and they "may dominate and humiliate their victims."

Mel has still not come out and apologized for his racist rant, which was leaked last week. Instead, he and his lawyer have focused on who leaked the tape and whether or not it was Oksana (as if that makes any difference). Mel Gibson has no idea how out-of-control he really is, and if he does, he doesn't care. Everything that goes wrong in his life is someone else's fault, and he uses these adverse events as excuses to spout his hate-filled views to whomever is around. When he was arrested for DUI in 2006, he proceeded to go on an anti-Semitic tirade and sexually harass the female police officer who was on-scene; and in this latest rant, he insults and punches his girlfriend, spewing racial epithets, and telling her she deserves to be hit. This mentality is the same as a rapist who believes that his victim "really wanted it." Mel Gibson is a sociopath, and this is more than a tawdry tabloid story. This is the profile of a very sick mind.

WORLD EXCLUSIVE: Mel Gibson Caught On Tape Admitting He Hit Oksana -- "You F**king Deserved It" RadarOnline.com

The Toy Story Phenomenon

Look at the box office snapshot of June 27, 2010. Seven of the top ten movies blatantly exploit the innocence of youth, and obviously to great effect. Why, then do studios keep trying to tell us we should crave something else? I'm sick of critics pretending they're shocked when period pieces, dramas, or romantic thrillers fail. These are AUTUMN MOVIES, people. Haven't you realized that by now?

It's summer and my mind wants to go on vacation. I want sun and fun, beaches and Fantasyland. No stuffy wood-paneled rooms, cubicles, or desolate ghost towns. I want Katy Perry singing about "California Gurls" and Buzz Lightyear, the enduring staple of youth, comforting me with shouts of, "To infinity... and BEYOND!"

Seven of the top ten movies this week are staples of our youth, and if not our youth, then that of our children: innocent, enduring, and secure. "Toy Story 3," "The Karate Kid," "The A-Team," and "Shrek Forever After" are remakes, variations on a time-tested theme that has proven successful; while, "Get Him to the Greek," "Grown Ups," and "The Prince of Persia" capitalize on the rituals of male adventure, bonding, and virilty.

These are unsure times. We have enough to worry about, with terrorism, nuclear threats, increased surveillance, and impending economic collapse an everyday reality. We need fantasy and escape, comfort and security. We need to feel safe again, like we did in our youth.

Impending doom has always dogged us, the everpresent shadow ready to snatch us up at any given moment, but when we were kids, we didn't care. We were bound and determined to experience life, to imbibe of as much as we could before we ran out. Money, alcohol, drugs, and sex: the fleeting summers bonding with friends; memories you carry with you throughout your life, and that placate you as you grow older.

Security. Cartoon characters that never get old, heroes that never die. Sequels represent summer and are expected by audiences the same way they expect catchy pop songs and risque clothing. These staples are even more in demand today, because times are indeed bleak. So why don't the studios save some money, forego the pretense, and just give us what we want?

The Glass Closet

Cameron Diaz has joined the ranks of Christina Aguilera, as female celebrities eager for some cheap publicity, overpublicize their supposed sexual liberation and bisexuality. Since when has finding the same sex attractive become such a shallow marketing ploy?

Diaz told "Playboy" magazine that she "can be attracted to a woman sexually, but it doesn't mean I want to be in love with a woman." She adds, "If I'm going to be with a woman sexually, it doesn't mean I'm a lesbian."

We haven't seen such masterful parsing of language since Bill Clinton sought to define the word "is" and courted liberal groups while publicly disavowing being a "liberal" himself.

If Diaz is truly attracted to women, why does she have to qualify it? Why go to "Playboy" magazine, the embodiment of passive female degradation, to extoll her enigmatic sexuality?

It's interesting that this marketing ploy only works for women. Although there are a few male celebrities, like Fall Out Boy's Pete Wentz, who have admitted to having bisexual tendencies, for the most part, men are sex symbols precisely because they fit into the popular mold of male virility. They wear their rugged sexuality on their sleeves, and are unequivocally attracted to women. What would it do to Brad Pitt's or Robert Pattinson's career if they publicly admitted to being bisexual?

Women like Katy Perry, Christina Aguilera, Lady Gaga, and now Cameron Diaz are being told that ambiguous sexuality is a strong selling point. They cannot be lesbians, but they can be bisexual; yet these supposed "bisexuals" are never seen out with dates other than men. So, is your sexual proclivity even relevant? If you're married with children (like Christina), engaged to a man (like Katy), or simply engaging in shameless self-promotion (like Gaga and Cameron), then why do we care? It's not like you're a tireless activist for the movement. Your "bisexuality" is simply part of your marketing plan. Shock value, titillation. (yaaaaaawn)

Cameron's disavowal of lesbianism is hardly an endorsement. It's like having a spokesperson who films commercials cavorting with your product, only to turn around and tell everyone that she doesn't even use your product, or she only uses it sometimes.

Note to Cameron's publicist (and Christina's, and Katy's, and Gaga's as well), just stick to the entertainment. Leave the fight for true equal rights and acceptance to those people who don't have to pretend.

When Humbert Met Lolita: Part 2

People.com reported that Bret Michaels was to perform with Miley Cyrus today on "Good Morning America." The promo photo for the performance shows Miley, with a skimpy shirt, pulled up to reveal her waist, wearing one of Michaels' signature cowboy hats. Michaels is seen smiling, with his inflated pout and his arm around her.




The article refers to them as "family friends," but we all know what is really going on here. It's the same old Hollywood song and dance, the "Battle against Age" that forces underage female celebrities like Cyrus to strip down and branzenly exploit themselves, while overage males like Michaels defiantly flaunt their diminishing virility.



This tired dynamic should bore us all by now, or at least disgust us, but it doesn't. We keep clicking on the photos of Cyrus exposing herself getting out of a limo; we keep tuning in to the reality shows where washed-up celebrities like Michaels desperately try to convince us of their still-relevant sex-appeal.



Maybe these shows comfort us and serve as an escape from the everyday problems of our mundane lives. Maybe if we see Michaels, still rocking in 2010, still attractive to much younger women, we feel a little better about growing older ourselves. Cyrus is titillating, an escape from the bills we have to pay and the problems we have with our own children. We can look at her and say, "Well, things could be worse."



But are these images good for anyone (besides the promoters making loads of money off of this double exploitation)? Shouldn't young women be afforded more positive examples of maturity than just another clueless Lolita, taking her clothes off for money? Why can't she be celebrated for being accepted to Harvard or for some kind of writing or directing exploits? And why can't Michaels show us how to age gracefully, without a horde of women surrounding him? Why can't he be celebrated for his wisdom or his business acumen? He did win "Celebrity Apprentice" after all.



Sex is one of life's greatest mysteries, the thing that defines and confuses us the most. We seem to think we can master it through studying the exploitation of others; as if a more thorough understanding of it will be gleaned by reveling in celebrity degradation. When will we finally realize that true understanding does not come from another reality show or scantily clad young beauty. True understanding comes from self-analysis and respect for others, even the clueless young and the undying old.

Christina Aguilera Kissed a Girl and She Liked It

Christina Aguilera has joined the ranks of the utterly predictable, telling Company magazine that she is attracted to (GASP!) both women and men. Just as with Lady Gaga, this type of behavior is no longer shocking. We've seen it all before.


Female pop stars follow a predictable road to superstardom, marketing themselves as the “good girls gone bad.” They start out as mediocre talents (in Christina’s case, she is actually talented, but real singing now takes a backseat to sensationalism), then turn to the dark side, dressing more provocatively, singing overtly sexual lyrics, cavorting with other sex kittens, and eschewing everything decent and moral.

There is a difference between expression and exploitation. A woman truly attracted to other women should be allowed to express that in song and action without having to play to the lurid fantasies of a male audience. When lesbianism is exploited for sensational shock value, it becomes nothing more than another way to keep women down. We are again defined by our sexuality, instead of by our intelligence or our talent. This is not liberation. This is subjugation in another form.

A Feminist Reading of Just about Everything

Caryl Churchill’s play, “Top Girls,” uses the trope of 80’s women’s liberation as the lens through which it views feminist history. The play features a character, a “modern woman,” who comes breezing into the employment agency, where she works as an executive, on a Monday morning, still ecstatically giddy over spending the weekend with her lover, while his wife was away. “It was just like we lived together,” she says wistfully.


Which brings me to this question: Does the modern portrayal of women in art contain any dignity, or is it merely the same message of grateful repression hiding behind a different disguise? The concept of “reality” shows springs to mind. The “Real Housewives” series on Bravo features a group of wealthy women who came into money and power through their husbands. “Kendra” features a young, beautiful wife and mother who came into money and fame through Hugh Hefner (and now her pro-football-playing husband). Is it hazardous to glorify these images of women at the expense of all of the other ones available to us today?

The feminist would argue, of course, that the media’s decision to glorify these women illustrates how subjugated we still are. These women acquired money and power through their relationships with men; in fact, it is because of men that these women are wealthy or powerful at all; and although they start their own charities and plan their own parties, these are more along the lines of “busy work,” meant to create rating-enhancing drama and lucrative tax write-offs (which, again, benefit their husbands).

An anti-feminist would disagree. She would see in this media glorification the underlying message of equality; for no matter how they chose to come into their money and power, they were still making conscious choices, a feat that represents true equality. Kendra may never be as famous as the man who discovered her, but she is certainly more famous than her husband. She is the star of her “reality” show, not because she kowtows to men, but because she makes all of her own decisions. People have the freedom to change the channel and find something more “feminist friendly” if they so desire.

Is that true? If we do change the channel, what other archetypes of women will be waiting to greet us? I thought about why there wasn’t a “reality” show about poor women, single-mothers struggling to get by, or teachers or doctors. When we do see women in these roles, they are fictionalized, decorated, and beautiful. What kind of “reality” is that?

Maybe I’m making too much of things again, I thought. Maybe images of men are just as shallow. Maybe it’s just a symptom of the times. Honestly, “The Situation,” from MTV’s “Jersey Shore,” cannot be doing anything to advocate for men either. The difference is, however, that there are a plethora of powerful men on TV. Powerful men are all around us; and they usually did not get there by relying on their wives’ money.

I would like to see the tables turned a bit: a “reality” show that features a group of young hunks with gorgeous bodies, former pool boys and gardeners, whose older wives are the bread-winners. Let’s watch the lively hijinks that ensue when their disparate personalities collide, as they use their spouses’ money and reputation to attract attention. Oh, and they have to stand out on street corners, usually drunk, in the middle of the night, verbally attacking one another, at least once every episode, kind of like “Jerry Springer” in Prada. Think anybody would watch it?

Which brings me back to “The Situation” and the fact that much of our society already does. We love to watch people humiliating themselves. Just look at competitive shows like “Wipeout,” on ABC. Men and women trip, slip, and fall off things, all in the name of money. When a society blindly chases profit, as America does, it objectifies everyone, regardless of gender. Until we begin teaching people authentic skills with which they can use to help others, we will continue to worship greed and money; and as long as we worship greed and money, women will go on being objectified, the only way they know how.