new thread
Today on the tv show Charmed, the two male characters of Leo and Chris went to a parellel world and their evil counterparts came through.
The evil Leo sports a goatee while the evil Chris has long hair.
the "Good" Chris has short hair.
I've noticed this in a number of episodes, not only in Charmed , but other shows as well. why are longhaired males portrayed as villians?
sorry, but I just don't get it. is there some sort of bias against longhaired males?
Yes.
It's just a cultural thing. As George Bernard Shaw put it: "When will we realize that the fact that we can become accustomed to anything, however disgusting at first, makes it necessary to examine carefully everything we have become accustomed to?"
Yeah i've noticed that too, and also in many action movies the bad guy often has long hair, and even a ponytail too.
Long live Conan the Barbarian. Hero of the Long Hairs. Anyway the badguys you talk about with who have long hair is usually with a small pony tail. That's not that long because not all of the hair is bound into the rubber band. Anyway that was off topic.
I don't really care how those shows portray things. Anyway, I don't watch Charmed. I just stop to watch Alyssa Milano for a second and then move on.
I think it's more versatile for an actor to have long hair. You could do more with that. You could even give the illusion of short hair. I just like long hair.
shown this way. I have seen it again and again in crime dramas as well.
This is probably why:
Our society tends to stifle free thinking. What society and corporate America wants, for the most part, are sheeple that do things a certain way. Our society is run by ruthless control freaks that want to stay in power any way they can.
Longhairs are free thinkers and seen as system busters. For this reason, they are often seen as threats to conservative America. This is probably why longhairs are shown as villains.
Many of the real villains, are those conservative control freaks who make up 5% of the population and hold 50% of the wealth. The fact is that the more money you have, the more power you have, and the more freedom you have.
Our system is becoming an oligarchy. It is becoming a government of, for, and by the wealthy and powerful. It was originally of, for, and by the people. The middle and lower class don't have much power at all to change things. By lying, the wealthy and powerful even pursuade you to vote a certain way to keep them in power. They make false promises. I am wise to this but most sheeple are clueless.
God forbid that free thinking longhairs would threaten this. I am becoming increasingly pro socialist. This would return power to its rightful owners, the people as a whole, and not a few rich fat cats.
Sorry for the long political rant, but this really struck a nerve.
Absalom
Scott, I understand your frustration here, but I am troubled by your statements. You are upset that all long haired people as a group are portrayed as villains. Then you proceed to do exactly the same thing, to portray as villains another group of which you are not a member of.
It is true that the more wealth you have, the more freedom you have. But that upon itself is not a bad thing. I someone busts his butt, works hard, and acquires enough money to have freedom, more power to him.
And I also disagree that we are becoming an oligarchy. One of the most recent oligarchy governments was that of South Africa during apartheid, which was ended when the country went to a democratic form of government. Which is what we have.
The middle and lower class of people in this country have the power to overthrow the government in place every four years. It's called an election. Majority rules. Warren Buffet has only one vote in the presidential election. I think you will see a major shift in US policy following the next presidential election.
Can things be better. Sure. Nothing is perfect. We need to remove the power from those in government and return it to a true government of the people. It can be done; it will take time.
You say you are becoming pro-socialist. Socialism has failed in every case where it was the primary form of government. It is nothing but government redistribution of wealth. It is totally against ambition, drive, motivation, and the will to succeed. It kills production, creativity, and progress. Why should someone work hard to succeed when his earnings will be taken away and given to those who choose to do nothing but wait for this to occur? Why are they the "rightful owners"?
Portraying longhairs as villains is wrong. There may be individual arguments for such, as Ken described not long ago. But portraying business leaders or wealthy people as villains is just as wrong. Portraying any group as a whole is wrong.
We should know this better than anyone else out there.
George
I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you here. Any democracy which utilizes an "electoral college" to elect its officials is a corrupt democracy in my opinion. There have actually even been cases where a president has not won the popular vote (IE the will of the people) but has been elected anyhow because the electoral vote was different. Ask any historian and he'll tell you the same: the electoral college was put in place because our founding fathes did not trust "common folk" to have the power to elect their own officials with no intervnention.
I'm going to go ahead and say, right now, we should stop this discussion. You can argue all you want for why capitalism is good, or why socialism is bad, but it all comes down to a person's view on what makes a social system successful. For example, I don't associate myself with any political philosophy in particular, but I'd have to say I would consider most capitalist countries to be failed institutions because of the consumer culture, monopolies and general socioeconomic divide it has created. "Success" is relative. Money does not equal success. A good job does not equal success. Success is a myth. Happiness is what humans should strive for, not success.
And with that, I hope we can stop the political debate before things heat up too much.
Wonderful idea, but simply not true. You may think a social system successful, but if there is mass unemployment, food shortages, rampant disease, and ecological disasters in the making you would be completely wrong. It's not how one individual thinks something should be, but how well the system satisfies the needs of both its population and how well it interacts with the rest of the neighbors of the world.
Once again, facts do not support your opinion. If that were true, world economies would be moving away from capitalism towards socialism. Exactly the opposite is occurring. Understand, that's not saying that a capitalistic system is perfect; far from it. It's just much better than anything else out there.
Success is a myth? How can you ever be happy with such a negative outlook?
Have you never won a sporting event, chess match, done extremely well in school or in business, completed a civic project, worked on completing a house for "Habitat for Humanity", or done a myriad of other things that would be considered a success? Have you never had a successful relationship? All of these things are myths to you?
If success is a myth, then the other two options are failure and/or do nothing coexistence. How can either of these make you happy?
I agree; since it is your suggestion let's see if you can stop without having to get in the last word as you did earlier just prior to suggesting others not respond.
George
Ah, but it is true. A system may produce marvellous macroeconomic numbers but at a cost of creating a poverty stricken underclass. More total wealth in soceity does no good if it is all in the hands of a few.
There's a fallacy here. You are supposing that economies move to systems that produce the most good for everyone, but this has never been true.
And this is exactly why I suggested after we both give our points of view, that should be the end of it.
The last thing I wish to say with regard to your last counter-point (and this is not a rebuttal, simply a clarification): I never suggested that doing well in feilds you enjoy was a *bad* thing, I was simply stating that monetary gain or otherwise "getting ahead" of others was not *everyone's* ultimate goal in life. Some of us prefer to simply enjoy this garden of Eden we have before us, regardless of whether or not we've surpassed others in some way.
elektros already covered the others, so I won't go there. ;)
One man's pain is the next man's pleasure, 's all I'm saying, basically. Simply pointing out you were basing your own arguments on *other* issues which you assumed we were in agreement on.
I'm not going to try to convince you of my own philosophy. As you said, it would be hypocritical of me if I tried to get the last word in as an argument for my own views. Please understand that this response was not intended to come across that way; it was just a clarification of my own meaning.
It's obvious to me that you and I have very different values, and there's nothing wrong with that. Takes all kinds. :)
I think we should stop the debate too, mostly because this is going WAY too far. So the evil characters had long hair. Big deal. I think you're reading way, way too much into it.
No offense but this is one of those times where I gotta say - it's only hair, and you shouldn't read so much into it.
I still believe that the best form of government is a constitutional republic where there is strict checks and balances and a final check and balance where the people is allowed to own guns. This has proven to be successful in many countries (not just the USA). Well maybe not the gun part but for the most part, countries that are well off are a constitutional republic of some kind.
I do not like a pure democracy nor do I like an authorterian system either. People are like sheeps and if everyone has equal power it takes very little time for one leader to control the entire population through propaganda. This is how many dictators throughout history sized power (remember Hitler?). Communism never works because people lack motivation to do anything and the government controls everything, including what to produce or how to live. Communism only works if the government is faultless and uncorruptable, however that never happens, therefore a constitutional republic offers the best compromise between people's greed and people's power to participate in politics.
China learned a lot from the USSR that is why they are slowly ditching communism.
Whoa, Absalom, beautiful,
Absolutely beautifully written. Bravo. I completely concur with your perceptions here. Nothing to add a'tall. Just to you the kudos you are to be lauded with for expressing this hackneyed rendering so well. Thank you for posting, Absalom!
In full agreement,
Quenyan (+;-)}
Wow. How did you get there from the subject of Hollywood's portrayal of longhairs? Do you hate all rich people, or only the ones who show us in a bad light? As a Conservative (yes, a conservative longhair), I was a little put off, and personally, I think the liberals are the control freaks. On the whole, liberal politians are wealthier than the Conservatives. And Conservatives lead the way in green issues. BTW, socialism is a way to take from one person and give it to another. Believe it or not, some people are rich because of hard work, determination, and good business sense. They aren't all dishonest, greedy, hard-hearted, power hungry, evil jerks. Many charities were founded by rich people with a heart for helping others. If it weren't for these people, there wouldn't be enough charitable donations to amount to much. Many people are employed by them as well.
"I am wise to this but most sheeple are clueless." ...and humble, too.
Let's just discuss hair, and leave politics to the Drudge report.
I agree with this statement:
The fact is that the more money you have, the more power you have, and the more freedom you have.
Bear in mind with stories like this one of the prime
things you have to do is differentiate alternate time line
characters.
Don't think of it as a slight against long hairs, look at it
as a convenience to the story line.
I think its not that the bad guy always has long hair, its more that we notice it more when they do. There are plenty of movies out there with short haired guys as villains, and some with long hairs as the hero. Just try not to let it get to you :)
man why do i always forget to type in my email address? :P
Because long hair is cool-looking, and the villains need to be cool. :)
Similar to why I feel British actors typically play villains: because British accents are cool and thus make the villains cool. :)
That's true! It reminds me of the way William Blake said that John Milton was in league with Satan when he wrote Paradise Lost. Blake said Satan was the hero of the epic poem!
I know what you mean... + Good Wyatt has short hair and evil Wyatt has Long hair.
Because TV shows like that are owned and/or financially supported by razor blade companies, and/or barber shop organizations, and/or...
OK, now here's my REAL answer: I haven't a clue!!!
(But, maybe it's time to stop watching that TV program, then!)
- Ken
The real answer is this. Actors cut their hair short to be "versatile", i.e. to be able to play a wide range of parts. In theory they could wear wigs for some parts but seldom do unless absolutely necessary. Lord of the Rings is an example of when they thought it was necessary. Anyone (male) who goes into acting and doesn't shear off their hair is therefore branded as difficult and can only get parts such as villains. QED.
There is also a possible solution. In the past colour blind casting was demanded to promote the civil rights of black actors. So for example, black actors would demand to be cast as bank managers, judges, etc., even if there were few such in real life at that time. Now we need to call for 'hair blind' casting! Tell the TV studios we want long haired lawyers in their courtroom dramas or we will change the channel!
It could work - we beat Albertson's, right? (See another thread, although I didn't write in because they have no stores in my area, but maybe I should have)
I've noticed villains that had both long and short hair. I think it depends on the producer or director largely. There are plenty of movies and shows that have long haired guys that aren't villains too. However, many more villains have short hair than long - kind of the way many more guys in the real world have short hair than long.
Once in Star Trek, Spock had a beard in the parallel universe as the "evil" Spock though.
Sure, to some extent, there is a bias. Anything that is culturally entrenched, such as short hair for males, when rebelled against or ignored by any certain person, creates a backlash from the majority who subscribes to the cultural mores without question.
"Nature loves diversity. Society abhors it". There's just a basic tenancy of throughout social history to hate/villanize those who do not fit dominate mold. This is a especially true of any trait regarded by some as distinguishing the sexes. In our society there seems to be a basic male fear of homosexuality, and males tend to associated long hair with their attraction to women. So long hair on a man makes men uncomfortable. Thus long haired men often turn up as the bad guys.
I've known lots of long haired guys and they seem to run the range of personality, of course. It's too bad the media does this, because it programs prejudice into young people's minds from an early age. Have you ever noticed how kids in obviously conservative families tend to stare at you if you have long hair?
Also, I'd like to add that there is a preconceived stereotype that most guys who have or had long hair are well aware of and unfortunately it's this stereotype that I think encourages guys to wear shorter hairstyles.
it may not be the woodstock era anymore and the Cheech and Chong "Up in smoke" days are long gone, but the stereotype still exists unfortunatley.
A stereotype associated with peace and love. How do you get from that to evil?
that wasn't the stereotype I had in mind.
the one I was referring to is the fact that many people still have preconceived beliefs that long haired Males do drugs. that was what I was getting at.
Doing drugs isn't necessary evil, or even an evil. It depends on the drugs and the amount that are used. Some illegal drugs aren't addictive, others are very addictive. Some are associated with death through overdose, others do very little harm in vast quantities. With some of them the illegality is the problem itself. Most of them also greatly diminish the likelihood of the user doing anything violent. You are many times more likely to be beaten up by a drunk than by someone doing drugs.
There are drug problems of course. Users of the more addictive drugs (opiates and cocaine in all it's various forms) sometimes commit crimes to support their habit, and Heroin users in particular often take doses that are only a step away from fatal to get the strongest effect, so consequently death from overdose is relatively common with that drug. Even if they survive, it is hard to beat the addiction. And we've all heard of people on unsupervised acid trips leaping from windows and doing other dangerous things.
The idea, though, that people on drugs are violent and dangerous is mostly a myth (except for the addict who takes a gun with him to commit a robbery), although some of them may be dangerous to themselves.
I've seen some interesting suggestions, but I think there's a much simpler explanation -- and also more benign.
a. Most men are shorthairs
b. Directors want audiences to sympathize with the "good guys" more than the "bad guys"
c. People tend to find it easier to see themselves in a character who looks more like them
Scott McCloud's "Understanding Comics" suggests this is why abstractly-drawn comics are popular: the more abstract, the more people can see themselves in it. At the extreme, a smiley like :-) can be male or female, black or white, gay or straight, longhair or bald.
But you can't really make a live-action movie "visually abstract" in the way a stick figure is, so instead directors pick somebody who looks like their average audience member. It doesn't mean they think longhairs are evil.
Beacuse in general, one is more likely to get a good butt-kicking out of a long haired guy than short.