Skip to content

Jeremy Renner Calls Scarlet Johannson’s Character A “Slut” , Chris Evans: “A Complete Whore”

April 24, 2015

It appears that even when a character isn’t real, as in, the movie Avengers, male actors have trouble with female sexuality, calling a completely fictitious character “a slut” and “a complete whore.” Will slut-shaming never end? Even when something isn’t real, apparently men in Hollywood have trouble separating their characters from their rather disgusting true selves.

When asked about the character played by Scarlet Johannson’s, Chris Renner proved that being asinine  isn’t just part of his character, calling her character a “total slut” in a way that makes it sound suspiciously like he is describing a real person:

During the press tour for Avengers: Age of Ultron, Chris Evans and Jeremy Renner had some very choice words to describe their costar Scarlett Johansson’s character. An interviewer from Digital Spy asked the pair what they thought about fans’ theories that Black Widow would end up with Captain America and/or Hawkeye.

“She’s a slut,” Renner replied, completely deadpan.

Evans burst out laughing, adding, “I was gonna say something along that line … she’s a complete whore.”

Who wants to watch the movie now? When even the male actors are derisive of their co-star and her acting role, cue flashcards “It’s not real, guys…”, what makes the movie watchable?

When movie execs obviously realized that some people might also not want to see the movie based on this “publicity tour,” and the men were blatantly told to apologize, they did so with a whole lot of “I was just tired,” or “It was just a joke” sort of half-assedness. Asshole of the week award goes to Jeremy Renner and Chris Evans.

“Yesterday we were asked about the rumors that Black Widow wanted to be in a relationship with both Hawkeye and Captain America,” said Evans’ statement. “We answered in a very juvenile and offensive way that rightfully angered some fans. I regret it and sincerely apologize.”

Renner’s statement reads: “I am sorry that this tasteless joke about a fictional character offended anyone. It was not meant to be serious in any way. Just poking fun during an exhausting and tedious press tour.”

The problem with this is that it’s not just “juvenile” to call a female co-star’s character a “slut” or “complete whore,” because that leads one to assume that juvenile males are entitled, by their youth, to malign women’s sexuality, judge it and act like religious police. No, saying that some character, is a “complete whore” to national media as a joke is not a rite of passage; it’s disgusting.  Playing it off as a “joke” or “I was just tired” is even more offensive. Neither man even knows how to apologize completely and shows no signs of any real remorse or understanding of the damage they have done.

Sharia police much Jeremy Renner and Chris Evans? Are you judging the movie you are supposed to be publicizing? Somehow these actors promoting their own movie sound like the religious police and then call it a “joke” because it’s “juvenile” to call women’s characters whores and sluts? Nope, not buying it.

Feel free to watch the idiocy. It’s not accidental, and these are grown, and one might assume professional men, just taking shots at female sexuality that are wrong. No remorse.

Definitely not an advertisement for me to watch the movie. In fact, that’s one interview/publicity bit that tells me to steer clear of this one. Thanks for the heads-up guys. At least I know I don’t want to see it before shelling out $20 at the theater.




Pregnant Women Are Not Public Property: Bethany Hamilton Told Not To Surf, More Pregnancy Body Shaming

April 22, 2015

You may remember Bethany Hamilton as the woman who lost an arm to a shark attack while surfing. She has been surfing since the loss of her arm, and she is pregnant now and still surfing. Never leave an opportunity to lecture a pregnant woman on the publicity of her body when she is carrying her own child I always say, or is that every other man in the media? Tough to tell, but there is are plenty of bashers who talk about how Hamilton shouldn’t be surfing.

Hamilton did say she modified her usually intense moves — beach sprints, explosive squats, stair-climbing — when she got pregnant. But she’s still on the spin bike, and gets counsel from a holistic health pro.

And the surfer — who announced her pregnancy in a video last month with husband Adam Dirks — says she has every intention to stay up on the board “as long as I can.”

“Once the belly’s pretty big, maybe (I’ll) just mellow it out and spend more time swimming and enjoying the ocean,” she added.

Preferably not too much time though: Pregnant women should only work out for 30 minutes a day, Roshan said.

“You don’t want to exhaust yourself (so) more blood will go to the baby,” Roshan said.

Never mind that no woman I know has only 30 minutes a day of activity. We don’t and haven’t been able to lead lives of leisure upon the acquisition of a positive pregnancy test. “More blood” to “go to the baby” nonsense, WHAT?? That sentence doesn’t even make sense, but it has been put out there by a so-called medical “professional.” Good Lord, you can’t even tell what someone is trying to lecture you about, much less do anything about it. Hello, the woman was partially eaten by a shark, lost her arm, and she keeps surfing. Pregnancy just may not scare her as much as it scares everyone else.

Here is her baby announcement here:

As if more pregnant women need body shaming to help them along. Remember Sarah Stage who maintained her abs throughout her pregnancy and was criticized for it?

How about surfing during pregnancy? Her baby, her body, period.

Model With A 6-Pack Gives BIrth to 8 Pound Boy-Body Shaming Abounds

April 17, 2015

A model who sported an impressive set of abs during pregnancy was maligned by online viewers because of the way her body looked during pregnancy. People commented that the baby would not be born healthy, that the woman was sick, that the baby was sick, that there were problems, and those were just the comments that I personally read. Turns out, the baby boy born to this mother weighed over 8 pounds at birth, no shrinking violet despite his mother’s striking abdominal muscles.

Sarah Stage was criticized for her Instagram pictures, but still delivered a healthy baby.

Of course the majority of her pictures during pregnancy have the evocative open-mouthed, sort of panting look, complete with bra and undies that sort of make me want to puke, but her abs are impressive. I say I want to puke, not because of the woman’s body but the presentation of such a body in a single manner, and that is one designed to simulate sex rather than just show its beauty. Why does she have to make the image look as if she is in the middle of a passive, sexual moment when she has enough beauty to just be herself? It’s an affect that I dislike, but the body image itself is beautiful.

The NYTimes has an article about the birth and body image bit here:

Most women’s abdominal muscles separate with the growth of their babies, but Sarah Stage’s did not–is that really a reason to criticize her?

Oregon Pushing to Limit Antibiotic Use On Farms

April 15, 2015

Antibiotics make farm animals fat. Farmers can feed animals antibiotics instead of food to make animals fatter faster in order to make more money from selling the meat. Problems with this beyond feeding animals antibiotics instead of food? We humans are losing our arsenal of antibiotics to treat human illness as the bacteria around farms, that spreads to people, become antibiotic resistant.

More than 70 percent of antibiotics sold in the U.S. are used on livestock and poultry—and not primarily to treat sick animals. Instead, factory farms often put antibiotics into the daily feed and water of healthy animals, to promote growth and prevent disease due to overcrowded and dirty conditions.

As a result, bacteria commonly present on farms are mutating into stronger, antibiotic-resistant strains, which in turn find their way to the human population through numerous pathways, including contaminated food, airborne dust blowing off farms, and water and soil polluted with contaminated feces.

“There is a near consensus among public health experts that the bulk antibiotics produced by [the animal pharmaceutical industry] are accelerating the approach of a post-antibiotics nightmare scenario, in which superbugs routinely emerge from our farms and wreak havoc on a human population living among the ruins of modern medicine,” Alexander Zaitchickwrote at Salon last year.

Those experts range from the World Health Organization and the Infectious Diseases Society of America to the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, all of which signed onto a 2011 letter stating that “the evidence is so strong of a link between misuse of antibiotics in food animals and human antibiotic resistance that FDA and Congress should be acting much more boldly and urgently to protect these vital drugs for human illness.”

The state of Oregon is trying to cut down on the use of antibiotics on farms to make animals gain weight.

Oregon’s House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources heard testimony on its bill last week, and the Senate Committee on Health Care will debate a similar proposal on Monday. The bills would only affect Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, as defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Out of Oregon’s 35,000 farms, just over 100 of them are CAFOs.

Opponents of the bills say such regulation should be left up to the federal government.

But federal efforts to address the problem have been week, watchdogs say.

As Oregon’s Statesman Journal reports:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has addressed a part of the issue and asked pharmaceutical companies to stop selling antibiotics to animal farms for the purpose of growth promotion. OSPIRG and Friends of Family Farms say this is a voluntary program and lacks teeth. It also does not address disease prevention, which they say masks poor animal husbandry practices and attempts to offset unsanitary conditions.

Meanwhile, the White House’s ‘National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria,’ released last week, was criticized as “a missed opportunity to take more aggressive action.”


Pink Takes On Body Shamers At Cancer Benefit

April 14, 2015

I love Pink. She is my crush. I love here even more when I read her comments on people who told her she was fat most recently.

I can see that some of you are concerned about me from your comments about my weight. You’re referring to the pictures of me from last night’s cancer benefit that I attended to support my dear friend Dr. Maggie DiNome. She was given the Duke Award for her tireless efforts and stellar contributions to the eradication of cancer. But unfortunately, my weight seems much more important to some of you. While I admit that that dress didn’t photograph as well as it did in my kitchen, I will also admit that I felt very pretty. In fact, I feel beautiful. So, my good and concerned peoples, please don’t worry about me. I’m not worried about me. And I’m not worried about you either :) … I am perfectly fine, perfectly happy, and my healthy, voluptuous and crazy strong body is having some much deserved time off. Thanks for your concern. Love, cheesecake.

I love the way she signed off, and I love that she doesn’t get mean. There is just so much of Pink’s attitude to love.

4/5 of Antibiotics Used in United States Given to Healthy Farm Animals

April 13, 2015

According to the Organic Consumer’s Association, antibiotic-resistant bacterial growth could be driven by the factory-farm method of producing animal products and the US meat industry.  Here are some scary statistics presented by the Organic Consumer’s Association:

  • Four-fifths of the antibiotics used in the United States are given to completely healthy farm animals.
  • Force-feeding animals antibiotics helps breed antibiotic-resistant superbugs (bacteria that antibiotics can’t kill). And every year over 70,000 Americans die because of bacterial resistance.
  • The USDA estimates that more than 335 million tons of “dry matter” waste (the portion of waste remaining after water is removed) is produced annually on farms in the United States, representing almost a third of the total municipal and industrial waste produce. Animal feeding operations annually produce about 100 times more manure than the amount of human sewage sludge processed in U.S. municipal wastewater plants. Unlike human waste, the law does not require that livestock waste be treated.
  • Twenty-six billion pounds of beef from 34 million cattle is produced annually in the U.S., more than in any other country.
  • Hog manure has ten to 100 times more concentrated pathogens than human waste. We treat human sewage, but we don’t treat animal waste.
  • The methane releases from billions of imprisoned animals on factory farms are 70 times more damaging per ton to the earth’s atmosphere than CO2, according to a 2006 report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
  • Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than cars, according to a United Nations report.
  • CAFOs release over 400 separate gases, mostly due to the large amounts of manure they produce. The principal gases released are hydrogen sulfide, methane, ammonia and carbon dioxide.
  • Twenty-three million pounds of antibiotics are added to animal feed every year, to make the animals grow faster.
  • The U.S. is the only country that feeds slaughterhouse waste, blood and manure to livestock.
  • Manure can contain pathogens, antibiotics, drug-resistant bacteria, hormones, heavy metals and other compounds.
  • Japan inspects 100 percent of its beef for mad cow disease; the European Union inspects 25 percent; the U.S. inspects less than one percent.

No one has spoken up yet to discuss the fact that we know that giving animals antibiotics makes them gain weight faster, but giving people antibiotics through the animal meat and to treat illness might make them gain weight faster, too.  Routine animal use of antibiotics causes weight gain, and aren’t we humans animals?

Facebook Use Linked to Depression

April 9, 2015

Facebook use triggers an intense desire to compare ourselves to other people, potentially leading to people feeling depressed when they feel they don’t measure up. Pretty standard formula of: compare myself to others and feel like a failure:

Steers conducted two studies to investigate how social comparison to peers on Facebook might impact users’ psychological health. Both studies provide evidence that Facebook users felt depressed when comparing themselves to others.

“It doesn’t mean Facebook causes depression, but that depressed feelings and lots of time on Facebook and comparing oneself to others tend to go hand in hand,” said Steers.

The first study found an association between time spent on Facebook and depressive symptoms for both genders. However, the results demonstrated that making Facebook social comparisons mediated the link between time spent on Facebook and depressive symptoms for men only. Similarly, the second study found a relationship between the amount of time spent on Facebook and depressive symptoms was mediated by social comparisons on Facebook. Unlike the first study, gender did not moderate these associations.

The concept of social comparison is not new. In fact, it has been studied in face-to-face contexts since the 1950’s. However, engaging in social comparisons on online social media sites may make people feel even worse.

I have not participated in Facebook, because I think they steal social data, but also because it constantly seems like a case of one-up-manship. There is nothing really of consequence written on Facebook, just a lot of pictures and discussions of everything people want to do, or a form of seeking social affirmation. I have people routinely ask if I read their Facebook posts. I don’t. It’s too easy for people to just set up a reading list, for Facebook to be a social to-do list, with people throwing tantrums if others don’t respond, opening the doorway to hurt feelings. It’s like emotional vomit, all over the place, no control, and then then marketing groups use it to make money.

I know that some of the most socially disadvantaged love to use Facebook, but then fights break out. And people seem upset after viewing pictures from Facebook. So, is it just a small issue? Nope, researchers who participated in the study hope to issue warnings for those at-risk for depression to let them know that Facebook use can have a destructive side:

This research and previous research indicates the act of socially comparing oneself to others is related to long-term destructive emotions. Any benefit gained from making social comparisons is temporary and engaging in frequent social comparison of any kind may be linked to lower well-being,” said Steers.

Steers hopes the results of these studies will help people understand that technological advances often possess both intended and unintended consequences. Further, she hopes her research will help guide future interventions that target the reduction of Facebook use among those at risk for depression.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 58 other followers