Unfair Critical Bias: Dawn of Justice vs Civil War

It's been an epic summer for superhero movies. After almost three years of hype, DC finally released Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice in March, while this past weekend Marvel unleashed Captain America: Civil War. With two tentpole movies released so close together, it's hard not to draw comparisons between the two: both feature iconic superhero characters fighting over an ethical dilemma with a villain pulling the strings. So which was more successful?

Dawn of Justice, despite smashing weekend box office records, was unanimously panned by critics (with a 27% score on review aggregate site Rotten Tomatoes) and received a mixed audience reaction. Civil War, meanwhile, is receiving near universal praise (90% on Rotten Tomatoes). How could two eerily similar films render such different verdicts? Critics of Dawn of Justice have lambasted it with everything from not staying true to its characters to having a muddled and confusing plot to Zack Snyder just not being a good director. There's a lot of hate for this movie . . . like, a LOT.

But why?

I think it's far more than the "flaws" its critics thrust upon it. I think there's something more psychological at play, because I truly loved Batman v. Superman. I genuinely enjoyed all the elements and thought they worked wonderfully in the movie, including many of the parts other people seemed to hate. And while I also equally enjoyed Civil War, I can't see a difference in quality large enough to account for Batman v. Superman's divisive critical reaction.

In fact, I think poor DC has been working under several major handicaps that many critics and members of the moviegoing audience fail to acknowledge, all of which resulted in a perfect storm of criticism against the film. Let's look at this situation a little more mindfully . . .

**Spoilers for both Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice and Captain America: Civil War**


1. The Studio Approach: Auteur vs Formula Filmmaking

First and foremost, both Warner Bros and Marvel Studios are taking different approaches to their separate cinematic universes. Grace Randolph, who runs the excellent YouTube channel Beyond the Trailer, labels the different approaches as Auteur vs Formula filmmaking. Warner Bros prides itself on being considered a "filmmaker's" studio, meaning most of the agency regarding their films are in the hands of the director (or "auteur," in film theory lexicon). While there's a continuity that each individual film in their universe plays into, the film's themselves noticeably carry the stamp of their director.

Marvel, meanwhile, has a very formulaic approach to their cinematic universe. They had wild success with Iron Man in 2008 and their approach hasn't differed much a dozen films later in terms of tone and presentation. While some of their directors like Shane Black (Iron Man 3) and James Gunn (Guardians of the Galaxy) manage to inject a bit of their own personality, each Marvel movie is very distinctly a Marvel film. They have a template and overarching plot which doesn't allow for much creative liberty from their directors.

Each approach has its pros and cons. Auteur filmmaking creates unique pieces of cinema with one creative mind pushing forward, but can also yield a mixed audience response; the more singular the artistic vision, the more divided the audience's reaction will be. Formulaic filmmaking, meanwhile, allows for little deviation from an established template, but the critical and financial response is much more predictable, with films being largely inoffensive while appealing to the broadest possible audience.

If there was a critical flaw with Dawn of Justice, it wasn't with the film itself but rather with Warner Bros' expectations - they assumed they could yield formulaic filmmaking success off an auteur driven spectacle, perhaps because of their prior success with Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy. Batman v. Superman was marketed as a movie that everyone could go see when it was very much a film for a specific audience due to its interpretation of the characters, its dark tone, and the storytelling challenge it presents to the audience (more on that later). Warner Bros had inflated expectations for a product that was incapable of meeting them with the approach they chose to take.


2. Brand Allegiance and Entitled Criticism Culture

Like it or not, we humans have a terrible track record of being sympathetic toward other groups of people. We divide ourselves into categories based on our race, religion, country . . . and also among entertainment properties, whether it's betamax vs VHS, Apple vs Microsoft, or DC vs Marvel. Check any webpage comment section involving a debate between two properties and you'll see insults of the harshest variety being slung. Once someone commits to a brand, getting them to acknowledge that anything comparatively exists is like pulling teeth.

It doesn't take much for people to commit to a brand either, and like it or not, Marvel was the first to establish a shared cinematic universe. Their films have been successful both financially and critically, and to many they represent what interconnected comic book movies should be. As a result, there are no doubt a large number of moviegoers predisposed to disliking whatever DC's attempts at a cinematic universe might be for the simple reason that they're committed to the conventions and tone that Marvel established first. 

We also live in a culture where - thanks largely to the Internet - everyone has an outlet to voice their opinion. Unfortunately, the go-to that people use to ensure their voice is heard is to make their opinion harsher, louder, and more controversial than the rest. I call this phenomenon "Entitled Criticism Culture" because there are many amateur film critics (not to mention several professional ones) who write harsh reviews with an air of unearned authority as if their opinion is the be-all-end-all. As a rule of thumb, I never take any review seriously that shits on a film with the same vernacular one would use to describe the Holocaust or a natural disaster. There were many reviewers that referred to Dawn of Justice as an "abomination" of filmmaking and an "insult" to DC fans, despite a fair number of fans having received it positively. This is not good, responsible criticism - this is being explicitly cruel for the sake of garnering page views. 

All of this to say I feel a large chunk of the criticism levelled at Batman v. Superman had nothing to do with the actual quality of the film and more to do with the selfish and biased nature of people in general. And that's not to say people aren't entitled to dislike the film if it genuinely didn't appeal to them; it's just hard to take an opinion seriously when a review strays from subjective statements like "I didn't enjoy the film" to misguided objective statements like "this film is terrible." A critique is a personal opinion, not an omnipotent declaration - confusing the two only undermines your credibility as a reviewer.


3. Zack Snyder, Film Director

Zack Snyder's early films were great successes, in particular his 2004 remake of Dawn of the Dead and his 2006 adaption of Frank Miller's 300. Afterward he was entrusted with the monumental task of adapting Alan Moore's groundbreaking graphic novel Watchmen for the big screen, which he did a commendable job at (especially since many considered it an impossible task). And yet this was around the time that public perception of him started to turn. He became pegged as a director that valued style over substance, a monicker which reached its full-blown pitch with 2011's Sucker Punch.

The previews for Sucker Punch promised a wildly stylized action film about a group of young women fighting Nazi zombies, dragons, and killer robots. Almost immediately it was criticized and dismissed as pure exploitation, an unfortunate stigma which stuck well after the film's release. Critics assumed only teenage boys would find any value watching young women prance around being impossibly awesome, yet even that specific audience was deterred when presented with the film's real narrative about a group of young girls forced to struggle under the heel of a sexist patriarchal system. Ironically, the film was dismissed as pure objectification when it in fact carried a very feminist message. Zack Snyder's fatal error was requiring effort on the part of the audience to put that message together.

The themes and metaphors for patriarchy and feminist rebellion in Sucker Punch are not readily apparent or particularly obvious without some critical thought, and if one doesn't look for them then the film can easily be dismissed as pure exploitation. It requires active engagement and mindful analysis on the part of the viewer to truly appreciate, and Dawn of Justice is no different. The motivations and intentions of the characters are largely cerebral and there are a host of thematic parallels that aren't obvious at face-value. We are introduced to a very bitter Bruce Wayne/Batman (Ben Affleck) and left subtle hints to infer what pushed him to the point of moral bankruptcy at the film's start. Meanwhile, the villain's motivations aren't fuelled by revenge or a mad lust for power, but by a philosophical mistrust of anything more powerful than him. These concepts are more existential and require mindful attention and engagement on the audience's part and encourage multiple viewings; Snyder does not spoon-feed viewers, instead assuming an inherent degree of intelligence in their ability to thoughtfully analyze the elements he presents. Again, this was a gamble that Warner Bros took that inevitably wouldn't pay off with a large audience.

I feel because of the almost "hidden" intellectual nature of Snyder's films (a phrase I'm sure many would disagree with) and his obvious talent for stylized action, public opinion of him often sways into the "style over substance" category. His attachment to films brings with it unjustified eye-rolling and a taint which clouds viewers' bias, which is exactly what happened with 2013's Man of Steel when it was first announced he would direct a Superman film - public perception of the movie took a turn for the worst before it even came out. 

It's kinda like how everyone used to love Nickelback but now everyone hates them, and yet no one can actually pin-point when or why public opinion suddenly turned.


4. The Pop Culture Handicap

There's a final handicap that DC has been operating under that I'm surprised I haven't seen more acknowledgement of. To understand it, let's dip back into human psychology and try to understand how the weight of expectation can cloud perspective.

Imagine you're meeting someone for the first time. You know literally nothing about them, and then someone tells you the person you're about to meet is an asshole. What happens to your expectation of that person, regardless of whether they're actually an asshole or not? That comment suddenly informs everything you know about that person because you have no other reference point. You'll be cautiously looking for signs of asshole-ishness, even if they appear to be the nicest person in the world.

What does this have to do with Batman v. Superman? Although Marvel was the first to start a shared cinematic universe, Warner Bros had been releasing superhero movies for decades beforehand. Batman and Superman are arguably the most famous superheroes in the world; Batman had seven standalone films before Batman v. Superman, while Superman had five before Man of Steel. Whenever Warner Bros creates a new iteration of a character, they have decades of past expectations and history to overcome. Marvel, meanwhile, had a clean slate with almost all of their characters. Audiences knew almost nothing about Iron Man or Thor, which meant they were establishing expectations for the first time with each of their films. There was no previous bar to hit, unlike with DC and Warner Bros. Every film and casting announcement is inevitably compared to what came before (just look at the response Heath Ledger and Ben Affleck received) while no one could have cared that Robert Downey Jr. was cast as Iron Man because they had no reference for that character or the quality of the film they should expect.

Batman and Superman have a rich history in movies, TV, cartoons, comics, and video games, so much so that it's almost impossible for anyone - not just comic book fans - to not have a set definition of the characters before seeing Dawn of Justice, which leads to unfair and divided expectations. It's why some say the "true" Batman is quirky and colourful because the grew up watching Adam West, while others believe the "true" Batman is dark and gothic because of Tim Burton's 1989 film. Superman is no different, with his character having undergone multiple iterations across several mediums over the past century. Everyone has a preconceived notion of what the "best" version of a Batman/Superman movie is, so a film like Dawn of Justice is either going to satisfy those expectations (which you'll love) or challenge them (which you'll hate). It's why Superman can be criticized for being too perfect and unsympathetic in the comics, then lambasted for being too emotional and brooding in Man of Steel; it's why we can say superhero movies should be more serious like Nolan's trilogy, then criticize them for being joyless like Dawn of Justice.

Warner Bros literally had no way to present a version of their characters or create a film that would satisfy everyone's expectations, which is why they now have a film that a lot of people love and a lot more people hate. This is why the character of Wonder Woman (portrayed by Gal Gadot) is praised even by critics who disliked the film because this is most people's first introduction to the character; there is no previous expectation or popular definition for what a "good" portrayal of her should look like.


In Conclusion . . .

For the record, I'm enjoying what Marvel and DC are both doing with their cinematic properties. I like the dependable, lighthearted, and charming tone that Marvel has established and I like the dark, serious, more philosophical tone that DC has struck. I deeply enjoyed both Dawn of Justice and Civil War. Do I think both films are perfect? No, of course not. They each have their respective flaws and outstanding moments, yet I can't decipher why Dawn of Justice has received harsher criticism for similar "flaws" as Civil War.

For example:

Both films feature a villain (Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor and Daniel Brühl as Baron Zemo) who seeks to destroy the good guys (Superman and the Avengers) by turning one superhero (Batman and Iron Man) against another (Superman and Captain America). To accomplish this, they both bomb a political venue to divide public opinion against a superhero (Superman and the Winter Soldier) while using parent(s) as the final emotional trump card to instigate a fight between heroes. 

And yet, Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor was heavily criticized for being unclear with his intentions, despite flat-out saying he wants to destroy Superman because he doesn't believe a being with such power is capable of being as righteous as public perception insists. Baron Zemo, meanwhile, has been called one of the better and more sympathetic Marvel villains despite his motivations being nothing more than a simple revenge trope (his family was killed during the events of Avengers: Age of Ultron). Two villains with equally convoluted agendas, and yet one receives harsher criticism than the other.

Both films also feature a major fight between superheroes, and yet the circumstances in Dawn of Justice has been criticized despite requiring just as much suspension of disbelief as Civil War. In Batman v. Superman, Lex Luthor manipulates Bruce Wayne into trying to kill Superman while pushing Superman into the fight by threatening to kill his mother. The fight ends when Superman - broken and beaten - mentions his mother's name, "Martha," which also happens to be Bruce's deceased mother's name. Bruce has a moment of reflection, reliving the trauma of his parent's murder before realizing how close he's come to being the same sort of monster that destroyed his own life.

The film was criticized for the ease with which Batman and Superman begin fighting without Superman trying to reveal Lex's master plot, and the fight's end has been painfully simplified by many who insist Batman only stops because their mothers share the same name, ignoring the reflection Bruce undergoes to the memory of his parents' death.

Civil War, meanwhile, features a spectacular superhero brawl with almost a dozen characters. It is being heralded by critics as one of the most spectacular fight scenes in superhero history (which it rightfully is) and yet there is almost no mention about how equally unbelievable the circumstances are regarding the fight's beginning and end. The characters have all been teammates for several films and have overcome monumental challenges together, and yet they too are willing to fight one another with little provocation. The fight subsequently ends when War Machine (Don Cheadle) is injured . . . with everyone seemingly astonished that beating the shit out of each might lead to one of them getting seriously hurt.

I am by no means trying to criticize Captain America: Civil War in an attempt to elevate Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice. I am simply trying to point out the hypocritical nature by which one film's flaws are highly criticized while another film's similar flaws are praised and/or ignored. Warner Bros had a host of obstacles set before them, and while some of challenges were the result of the filmmaker and the studio, I find it impossible to ignore the unfair and severely harsh criticism it's received as a result. There is too much else at play to dismiss it (as many have) as simply a bad film.

And there are clearly a number of people who love it, like me. In an age when we have so much available to us, I find the rampant degree of entitled criticism disheartening when we should be thankful that we have such a variety of art available about our favourite characters, regardless of whether we personally love the current iteration. But what the fuck, right? It's always been easier for people to criticize than trying to understand the challenges inherent to the creative process.

So suck it, Internet. You can kiss my adorable Dawn of Justice loving ass.

Understand People to Understand the World

I've been told that I'm one of those people who's good at formulating and articulating complex ideas. I attribute this largely to writing and wanting to be creative; art in all its forms is about trying to express an idea, and the more practiced you are at a medium, the better you get at conveying what you want to say. I'm also one of those assholes who's great at giving advice but can't seem follow any of it myself (I do try . . .) but regardless, I feel like I've developed a good sense of understanding people.

The more you understand the world and the individuals in it, the more sense life tends to make. And while it's hard to boil down the complexity of the unique individual experience on this earth into a blog post, there are certain fundamental notions I've pulled from various experiences over the years that have given me - what I believe - tools to better understand the human condition, and thus give a better understanding of who people are and why we think and act the way we do.

If you'll permit me a moment of your time, I'd like to share some of those notions with you in no particular order.

PEOPLE GENERALLY DO EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT

Before I get into the nitty-gritty of human psychology, take a second and visit this link here. I'm mainly posting it because I want to give credit where it's due, and this is the only article I can distinctly remember that was a direct influence for what I'm about to say.

If you didn't click the link (shame on you) I'll try to summarize: it's an article on Cracked.com by author David Wong, who proposes a game to understand whether you're a filthy liar to yourself. He asks you to write a list of your top five priorities, followed by a list of the top five things you did yesterday in order of how much time you dedicated to them. If the two lists don't sync up, then you're not being honest with yourself. If you say that following your faith is important but you only begrudgingly go to church an hour a week, it's clearly not your top priority and probably shouldn't be on that list. If you say spending time with your kids is important, but you spent more time watching Netflix last night than you did playing with them, what was actually more important to you?

All of this to say that generally people will often talk about the things they would like, but actually put time into the things that they genuinely want (and aren't always honest about what those things are). We might say that we want to be fit and exercise regularly, but will take any excuse not to. We may complain endlessly about how we hate the job we're in, but if we're not taking steps to remedy that, then clearly the security of working a shitty job is more important than taking the chance of pursuing something more meaningful. We grow up with an ideal of what we should be doing with our lives, and feel if we can't achieve those aims then we've done something wrong. In my experience, the majority of people have the time and resources to pursue the goals they claim are important to them, but simply aren't honest enough to admit that in actuality those goals aren't their top priority.

To put it in personal context, I enjoy writing and playing music. Someday, I'd love to make a living as a writer, but right now I'm content with just writing stories and not pursuing publishing them. That priority might change in the future, but for the time being I accept that publishing isn't as high a priority as actually writing. Likewise, I play music in a band with my best friend. We don't play as much as we used to and don't write any original songs anymore, and while we sometimes talk about "what might have been" if we'd put more effort into it, we acknowledge that we have no one to blame but ourselves for not being rock stars. We also acknowledge that "blame" isn't a negative word in this scenario, but rather an admission that our success as musicians is entirely dictated by our own efforts, and that we've gained enough satisfaction already not to pursue it beyond what we've already achieved.

The next time you think about how much you want something, ask yourself if you've done everything in your power to achieve it (and of course I'm not talking about breaking the law or hurting anyone - don't be a dick). If you haven't, then ask yourself if that thing is truly important to you.

WE HAVE UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS OF OUR FUTURE SELVES

The human race is unique as a species in that we're the only one on this planet that are cognitively aware of our own existence (except for maybe dolphins, because dolphins are smart as fuck). We're the only species that knows we exist in a place in time, and that in the future we will exist in another place and time. Other animals are only concerned with survival in the here and now, which is why you've never seen your dog listening to Linkin Park and asking "What's the point of it all?" If your dog could talk it'd probably say "What do you mean 'what's the point of it all?' I'm alive, motherfucker! Isn't it amazing that I'm alive?!"

Which is why dogs make better friends than people sometimes.

Anyway, my point is that people are still evolving out of the primordial ooze, and one of the pitfalls that comes with our recent cognitive capabilities is the habit of projecting unrealistic expectations on future versions of ourselves. It's why we say "I'll start my new diet on Monday" and then Monday comes and we're no less motivated to start. Why would Present You worry about starting your diet right now? That's Future You's problem! We live our lives under the assumption that a future version of ourself will somehow be more capable then our present version. What we often fail to recognize is that Future You and Present You are more or less the same person; you're not going to magically gain more motivation or discipline.

It's why I get nervous whenever I see someone in a bad relationship say "I can change!" It's placing an empty promise on a hypothetical future scenario. It's more or less saying "Don't judge me for being an asshole now, just believe that I'll somehow not be an asshole later." People who wish to enact change in their lives don't talk about doing it, they actually do it. Saying that you'll do something in the future is taking a gamble on whether or not a magical interim event will cause a radical shift in your psyche between now and then. With this in mind, you learn to trust facts and history rather than hope for the best, like when Honey Nut Cheerios say they "might help" lower cholesterol - empty promises all around.

Displacing agency from a present version of yourself onto a hypothetical "other" version removes the responsibility for immediate change. Everyone does it, and most of the time, we do it to ourselves.

EVERYONE HAS THE SAME FEAR

Fear is the great binding force for all humanity. It unites us in so many things, and to boil it down to its simplest element, there is one universal fear that almost everyone the whole world over shares.

We fear the unknown.

And this makes sense. We fear things that are different from what we're familiar with because we don't understand what they are and how they might affect us. It's why when we were all primitive apes we were cautious about approaching that massive cat with sharp fangs, or drinking from that unfamiliar watering hole. Those things might eat or poison us, so we grew this collective fear of the unknown as a defense mechanism. Unfortunately, that mechanism has evolved with us and manifested in unforeseen ways.

Our cognitive evolution has gifted us with a brain that can think beyond the capacity of our primitive ancestors, and yet is still locked in the same "fear the unknown" mindset that informed day-to-day survival millions of years ago. When confronted with the unknown in our day-to-day life, our first reaction is almost an immediate threat analysis of "What is this thing and what will it do to me?" And when we cannot obtain those answers, we freak the fuck out. Not knowing the parameters of a potentially threatening situation can be terrifying; it's what Batman bases his whole goddamn philosophy for beating up criminals on.

And it exists at large in society too. Religion is a response to the fear of our own mortality, because it gives an understanding and explanation for what happens to us when we die; staring into the abyss is terrifying, but being told on the other side is a compassionate and loving deity makes the abyss a little less scary.

The root of racism and sexism is a fundamental fear and misunderstanding of one demographic by another. Protests of non-segregated schools didn't occur out of genuine hatred; they occurred because people didn't know how the introduction of another ethnicity would threaten their current, comfortable existence. It's why the predominant mentality against feminism isn't "I'm scared about what women might gain" but rather "I'm scared of what men might lose." And while homosexuality is becoming widely accepted now that people realize it's not some kind of threat to established societal institutions, there's still misunderstanding over bisexuality and transsexualism because there's still a general lack of knowledge in the public consciousness, which fuels caution and ignorance and elicits responses such as "bisexuality is just a phase" and "deep down, you're still a guy, right?"

Most people fear what they don't understand, and in my experience, emotions like hate or love can be the result of a fear over something else. "I hate that person who did better than me on a test . . . because I'm afraid I might not be the smartest anymore" and "I can't imagine living without my girlfriend . . . because I'm terrified of being alone" are scenarios we witness everyday.

WE'RE TERRIFIED OF BEING THE BAD GUYS

People love narratives. Storytelling is an ancient art, and it's our natural tendency to consume it because it's how we learn about life and the world, whether it's learning right from wrong through the stories of the Bible or Grimm's Fairy Tales. Storytelling is a multi-billion dollar industry whether it be books, films, comics, the news, or anything in between. It's a natural tendency to associate with relate-able characters and follow a protagonist through to a satisfactory conclusion, which is why we always feel a bit conflicted about rooting for villains or when good guys don't win.

In the context of our greater understanding of life, we think of ourselves as the hero in our own narrative. One thing we also share, however, is a fear of being the villain.

According to statistics, 1 in 4 women will be sexually assaulted. If you work in a public environment, look around, but don't look at the women, look at the men. In order for that statistic to be true, there have to be a lot of perpetrators, which means more than a few of the men you work with and see everyday are probably guilty, and some of them might be your friends or maybe even you. If you were to ask, however, I doubt anyone would honestly admit that they've ever sexually assaulted anyone. That means that there are two possibilities: either women have greatly exaggerated their stories of assault (and if you believe that, then you can fuck right off to an M.R.A. website) or the more likely scenario, that most men don't believe they've done anything wrong.

And that, dear readers, is the biggest obstacle to all advocacy.

No one wants to think or admit that they may be responsible for having done something wrong, whether its trying to convince yourself that at least YOU are not a racist after reading about a celebrity getting caught saying a racial slur even though you've probably said much worse (you just didn't get caught) or a college kid trying to convince himself he's not a rapist because he simply "misread" the signals a female friend was giving him before she passed out. Admitting that you've done something wrong - especially if doing so comes with a title that will forever haunt you such as "racist" or "rapist" - is practically a death sentence in polite society.

People will defend themselves to the death if it means never having to acknowledge a problem in a system they're comfortable with. It's why male gamers will scream about how sexism doesn't exist in gaming instead of admitting that their all-boys club has been exclusive for far too long; it's why white people will say racism isn't an issue anymore instead of admitting that their comfortable existence has come at the cost of repressing another ethnicity. It's why advocates will always have an uphill battle, because they often have to convince the general public that a problem exists, and they're the problem. People immediately get defensive when they feel they've been accused of something, regardless of whether they've actually done something wrong, which is why you can't throw around the term "white-privilege" without someone immediately yelling "but my family never owned slaves!"

And that's not to say that people on the other side of the fence are without fault too. I've encountered militant-advocats who are so staunchly entrenched in the notion that they are crusading on the side of the good and just that they resort to the same underhanded tactics and negative actions that they are supposed to be campaigning against. Everyone wants to be right, and the easiest way to assure yourself that you're righteous is to vilify your opposition, which is also the direct root of victim blaming.

Our minds are locked into very rigid constraints for what we think is socially acceptable, and rather than admit fault or acknowledge that we should change, we make excuses, hurl insults, or play mental gymnastics to convince ourselves we're in the right.

A FINAL THOUGHT . . .

These are some of the broader notions I've come to realize when trying to understand how people generally behave and operate. It's a lot easier to comprehend why someone behaves a certain way when you try to fully understand their motivations, priorities, and fears.

Have you ever had a friend who constantly talks about wanting to exercise, but when you show up to take them to the gym, they make any excuse not to? Ask yourself what their real priorities are. Have you ever met someone who makes a bad decision and excuses it by saying "I'm just a bad person"? Ask them whether they truly believe that or if they just want an excuse not to change their behaviour because that's the much tougher course of action.

Just don't take it too far and assume you know someone better than they know themselves and therefore think you know what's best for them, because in spite of everything you've just read, we very rarely can truly understand absolutely everything about another person. Unless you know someone's entire history - all their thoughts, feelings, and the extent of their goals and dreams - the only real life you have full authority over is your own. 

We're all still human at the end of the day, however, and a lot of our behaviours and ways of thinking come from the same biological mould.

We're all unique snowflakes, but we're still all made of snow.

The Root of Victim Blaming

Why does victim blaming exist? It's as rampant as ever, but when you stop and think about it, it's hopelessly illogical. And yet it swirls around the murky comment sections of almost every online debate regarding sexual harassment or rape.  

For those unfamiliar with the term, "victim blaming" is exactly what it sounds like - blaming the victim in any instance of a crime or violation. "If you didn't want to get mugged, you shouldn't have walked down that alley" is a good example. Currently, the term is almost synonymous with instances of rape and sexual assault. "She was asking for it wearing that skirt" or "if she didn't want to have sex she shouldn't have been so flirty" are tame versions of some of the comments you might hear when such cases crop up, with the worst going so far as something like "she secretly wanted it because everyone knows she's a slut."

All of these are horrible, but why do they exist? What constructive purpose does victim blaming serve? Are there really so many awful people willing to condemn someone who has just undergone something traumatic? Personally I don't think so, so I would like to propose a possible explanation that is far less nefarious.

I believe it's simple. I think it all boils down to fear.

I think people are scared. I think people are afraid to admit that something like rape happens on a horrifyingly regular basis, because admitting it would be admitting that the world by extension can be a rather horrible and scary place. That's something a lot of people frankly aren't ready to accept just yet (if ever) because it would be admitting that they themselves might not be safe.

There's a wonderful speech at the end of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (correct me if I'm wrong on this, I sometimes get the movies confused) where Dumbledore is talking to Harry in his dorm room just after a climactic battle with Voldemort. Dumbledore says to Harry, "There will soon come a time where people will have to decide between what is right . . . and what is easy." In the case of victim blaming in rape cases, what is right is admitting that sometimes terrible things happen to good people and that the world isn't always safe, especially if you're a girl; what is easy is to deny that the world can be terrible and scary by denying such things happen, and the easiest way to deny an accusation is to discredit the accuser.

When I was in elementary school, we had a presentation about the dangers of drunk driving. We watched a video that had interviews with a woman who had been hit by a drunk driver. The resulting accident trapped her in her car, which caught fire. At the risk of sounding insensitive, the physical damage as a result of her burns was horrifying. It left me deeply disturbed, and my mind's initial reaction was to say that such things weren't possible. I tried to convince myself it was all a show, that it was all makeup and special effects for the sake of making a very effective PSA, but that was just my mind playing mental gymnastics for one purpose: I didn't want to admit that something so horrible could happen to someone.

It goes beyond simply admitting that bad things happen, unfortunately, especially when further implications arise. The startlingly high statistics of rape and harassment towards women are symptoms of a predominantly patriarchal society with misogynistic tendencies, but a lot of people are very comfortable with current society, and would therefore fear anything that threatens established norms (one only needs to look at the GamerGate incident to see this in microcosm). Admitting that things are bad also means admitting that things should change, which I would say the majority of people are very adverse to, especially if it requires any degree of work on their part. The easy solution therefore becomes to deny such problems exist, and by extension, deny any evidence of a problem. 

As Dumbledore indicates to young Harry, it's easier for people to deny that evil exists (exemplified by the fact that Voldemort for the first half of the series is referred to as "He Who Must Not Be Named") because admitting it also means recognition that it must be subsequently fought, which is a frightening prospect. Likewise, it is especially difficult to admit that celebrities or people in positions of power are guilty of crimes (be it sexual assault or otherwise) because it means acknowledging that a figure that some might have idolized was not the beacon of light once thought. It was easier to deny Bill Cosby was a rapist (until the evidence became too overwhelming) because otherwise we would be destroying a fixture of American pop culture that many people grew up with, in the same way it's difficult to admit that John Lennon was an abusive man because it would taint the legacy of his music.      

We build mental templates for ourselves to make us feel safe, and these templates have very rigid specifications that must be met before many of us are willing to recognize something for what it is. We have an idea of what an abusive relationship is so that if the one we're in becomes abusive or unhealthy, we can compare it to our template and say "it might not be great, but at least it's not that." We do the same for words. The word "rape" conjures up so many negative things - feelings of betrayal, violence, devastation, trauma - that unless something fits with the exact criteria we design in our heads, we just deny it. Most people think of rape as something that happens in a dark alley at knife-point, not something that happens in a dorm room after a girl has drank too much to properly say "no." People don't want to admit that something that we associate such horrible things with could happen easily and often. Even worse, no one wants to think that they could be a criminal, and so the boy in the dorm room makes excuses, saying "she wanted it" or "why would she drink so much if she didn't know what could happen?" because the fear of admitting they are a rapist is too terrifying.   

And so this fear manifests as denial. We find excuses so we don't have to admit that the university we went to has a sexual harassment problem; we make excuses so we don't have to admit a high school football star is actually a criminal; we make excuses so we don't have to admit a celebrity who was a big part of our childhood was secretly a monster.

It's easier to discredit the victim, because at the end of the day, everyone is more afraid for themselves.

Advocacy and Anger: A Dangerous Mix

Social media is a wonderful tool for anyone with a cause to preach; no longer is someone striving for social justice relegated to an underground forum, doing their best to raise awareness through demonstrations, marches, or whatever else people did in the fifties. The world is instantly accessible, and the Internet has become one of the best tools for any advocate or social justice warrior.

There is, however, a big obstacle that advocacy soldiers need to overcome: anger.

Their own, to be precise.

I was lightly involved in advocacy work back in my more youthful days, mostly as just a volunteer. Most of my work centered around feminist campaigns, and overall it was a very eye-opening experience that I'm glad I was a part of. That's not to say it was all smiles and sunshine, however, and to say there were clashes with some of the people I was involved with would be a massive understatement (which is why I tend not to be very involved these days).

Those "clashes" tended to crop up around the more elitist of advocates that I encountered, the sort of people who would condemn me for having a private discussion with friends in which an off-color joke was uttered. Frankly, it became too off-putting to deal with. I was all for helping a cause, but when the people I was involved with started playing Thought Police to my personal Facebook page, that's when it transformed from passionate cause to stressful burden. I was fully supportive of the ideals and notions these people were advocating, but it was the people themselves that grew too difficult to deal with. And since most of the work I was involved with revolved around feminism (which is becoming quite the buzzword these days) we might as well start there.

Feminism is such a basic and primordial idea that it's even bizarre to think we live in a world where we still have to campaign for it. Feminism is simply the idea that women should be treated as equally as men in all matters of life. That's it. Ask almost anyone if they believe in this and they'll agree, but ask if they're a feminist, and good luck keeping track of the responses you get. "Feminism" is still a bit of a dirty word, and is full of negative associations (like "angry feminist" or "femi-Nazis"). But why did these associates crop up in the first place?

Well, the first thing I think we need to understand is that feminists are people too, and the thing about people is that they can be very angry and egocentric. And on the other side of the fence, people often correlate unrelated things and make unwarranted associations, which is why encountering one angry advocate could turn you off their cause, even if their cause is still a valid and worthy one.

Let me explain it better with a story . . .

Many, many months ago, I was pursuing online dating. During that time I began speaking with someone whom we'll call "Girl-X" for the sake of this article. Girl-X was a very outspoken feminist, and she was excited when I told her that I had dabbled in a bit of advocacy work in years past. We talked for a little while, and it became obvious that she was very emboldened and passionate, which I respected. Then she shared something which threw up many red flags. 

You see, Girl-X was also very angry (which anyone who's dealt with misogyny has every right to be) and she'd also encountered a guy online who self-identified as a "women-hater." Girl-X concocted a plan to create a fake online profile, get close to this man, learn his identity and his secrets, then expose him. She shared this information with me because she wanted to be honest with me, and then asked if I thought she was crazy. This is when I had to have a very real talk with her . . .

I told her that because of my experience with advocacy, I understood that she was just angry. Unequal pay, cat calls, sexual objectification - these are things women have to deal with regularly, and so her anger was justified. She wanted someone to pay, and this guy seemed like a ripe target. She thought she would be doing the world a favour by outing him. That's perfectly understandable . . . to someone like me who has experience with her cause. But to anyone else who isn't familiar, like say, the general population, it would come across as certifiably bat-shit insane. I convinced her to stop with her elaborate plan based on one irrefutable fact:

Anger solves nothing. And in the case of advocacy, it hurts it.

To me, she was just an angry girl. To someone else, she might be a "crazy feminist" and therefore justification to ignore the entire cause. There's a very important rule when it comes to advocacy that I think some advocates ignore: advocacy supports an idea, usually in an attempt to fix a problem . . . but the average person doesn't realize there's even a problem in the first place (or in the worst cases, don't want to admit there's a problem). Feminism is particularly hard fought because unless you've dealt with misogyny first hand, you're probably not going to believe it's an issue worth fighting over, and because most men never have to deal with it, that means that female feminists have to convince the very people responsible for the problem that there is one. This certainly explains why there's such opposition to feminist crusaders (take a look at what happened to poor Anita Sarkeesian) because no one wants to believe that they're secretly responsible for having done something bad.

It thus becomes a heavy burden for advocates because they have to not only attempt to fix a problem, but they need to justify and explain why there's a need to fix it in the first place. The only way you can do this is through education, but when you're so angry at having suffered under a problem (patriarchy, misogyny . . . take your pick) then patience and understanding can go out the window, and suddenly you're just this person that to the general population is attempting to fix a problem no one knew existed.

A perfect analogy is bullying. If you go to a high school and ask someone from a popular crowd if bullying is a problem at their school, they'll probably say no because they've never experienced it personally; it's not a part of their life and therefore they have no reason to believe it's an issue. But if you ask someone who gets the shit beaten out of them daily, the answer will be much different. If you show evidence to the popular person that there's indeed someone getting bullied and thus it is in fact a problem, then you've properly educated them. If, however, you simply run up to them and start saying they need to fix a problem that they don't know exists, you're going to get a lukewarm response. And if you get angry when they fail to accept your campaign because of their ignorance, you've effectively scared them away forever.

You could also say the same about racism. A white person isn't going to have much experience dealing with that sort of prejudice, so if an advocate starts condemning them and preaching about white privilege, then nothing gets solved, and all that's been accomplished is you've deterred a potential supporter away from your cause.

It can be difficult to accept that change is a slow process and that people are often resistant to it. We're a culture obsessed with quick fixes, so our instinct is to push and pull and scream until we accomplish something or get our way; we did it when we were kids, and it's a go-to tactic when we're angry and frustrated. In the grand scheme, however, this only sets us back as a society. It's easy to make associations where they shouldn't be, so if the most vocal member of a cause or movement comes across as angry or furious, then the bridge to the average person just got a whole lot scarier for them to cross.

It's a shitty situation, make no doubt about it. It puts all the pressure for change on the shoulders of victims and people that have suffered enough; you're telling someone seeking justice that they need to be patient and understanding with people who are ignorant and blissfully unaware of the injustices they've faced.

So to all those passionate advocates out there, I implore you to keep your hearts open and accept that fear and ignorance don't equal opposition. And to everyone else, I encourage you to keep your ears and minds open to the experiences of those who have lived a life outside of your own.

What I Learned About Fitness in 2014

Hello world, and Happy New Year. To the few people that know me well, it's no secret that I'm a big fan of health and fitness. This last year especially (thanks in large part to the encouragement of a close friend whom I discovered most of the things on this article through) I've tried my best to dedicate myself to exercising more and being an overall healthier person. There have been ups and downs, and I thought it would be a good idea to reflect on some of the things I've learned, not just about fitness in general, but some of the philosophies I've picked up along the way as well.

I should also say right now that I am by no means an expert on fitness, nor have I gone to school and studied to any great degree some of the things I'll be talking about. I'm just a guy with a blog who spent a long time reading up and observing things. I'll try and be as concise as possible so as not to waste too much of your day, but this article will probably be pretty long. Give me a break though; it was a long year and if you're at all interested in exercising or living a healthier life, you might learn a thing or two (the last point is kinda the most important in my opinion). And it's got headings, so feel free to skip ahead.

And so, in no particular order . . .

YOU CAN'T OUT-EXERCISE A BAD DIET

Diet is literally the most important element of healthy living. I went from a diet consisting mainly of pizza, hamburgers, chicken strips, chips, soda and chocolate to one that was rich in whole grains, fruits and vegetables, low-fat diary, healthy fats, and lean protein. The results were astounding. My energy skyrocketed and my appearance changed quite drastically in a short amount of time. While the biological process is far more complicated than I'm probably making it seem, diet accounts for anywhere between 60-80% of your fitness goals and has a profound impact on your health. You could exercise hours everyday with a shitty diet with no results, while otherwise get great results with a good diet and only a few hours of exercise a week. 

Remember, a healthy meal shouldn't be the exception to your day (i.e. "At least I had a salad for lunch!") but the other way around. Eating an apple doesn't cancel out several candy bars.

HAVING SAID THAT, FOCUSING TOO MUCH ON DIET CAN RUIN YOUR LIFE

I have a very obsessive personality, and when I launch myself into something, I usually do it with as much zeal and effort as I'm able to dedicate. Unfortunately, it's more than possible to take something such as a desire to be healthy and have it transition into a very unhealthy frame of mind. I became obsessive about counting calories and macro-nutrient ratios (the percentage of protein, carbohydrates, and fats you consume daily) and overly critical about how I looked, feeling guilty if I had something like pizza or chocolate. I'm not near as bad as I once was, but it's still something I deal with from time to time.

WHAT YOU SEE IN MAGAZINES/MOVIES AREN'T HOW THINGS WORK IN REAL LIFE

Much like how porn has warped the minds of young men into believing sex operates a certain way, movies and magazines often portray fitness in such an incorrect fashion too. Looking as good as models and actors requires months and months of dedication and discipline. It requires sleeping 8-10 hours a night, consuming dangerously excessive and then dangerously limited amounts of food, and six intense days a week in the gym (with one day for rest). Before a photo shoot or a shirtless scene, models/actors will often dehydrate themselves to lose water weight, plus lighting and camera positioning plays a huge role too. Those instances are often built up to; actors rarely maintain such a level of "shreddedness" for an entire film shoot, and they especially don't maintain that level of fitness once shooting is over. That lifestyle is simply too demanding, and it's especially daunting to even try and attempt when you're working a 9-5 office job.  

IT'S NOT ABOUT BUILDING MUSCLE, IT'S ABOUT LOSING BODY FAT

I, like many others, used to think that the key to a six-pack of abs was an unprecedented number of crunches and situps. My mind was therefore blown when I found out that not only do those two exercises suck for bringing out the ab muscles, but you can get a perfectly decent flat stomach without doing any ab exercises whatsoever. What matters is dropping your body fat to the point that all of your muscles become visible and highly defined (which is most easily achieved through diet). It's an illusion that the fitness industry has capitalized on for decades. Case in point, Brad Pitt - who's body in the film Fight Club was considered the epitome of male fitness for a long time - only weighed around 155 pounds during that film (he's six feet tall). You'll hear it everywhere, but it's true: abs are made in the kitchen.
 
YOU HAVE TO PRETTY MUCH EAT DRYWALL TO GET SUPER TRIM 

The "drywall" bit is a joke Ryan Reynolds made about what he had to eat to get into shape for Blade: Trinity, but anyone who's followed that kind of diet would have to agree. In order to drop body fat you pretty much have to stick to the leanest of proteins and the most nutrient dense of vegetables, which is why chicken and broccoli are such staples of fitness diets.

PEOPLE HAVE A STRANGE DISASSOCIATION FROM THEIR BODY

Sometimes I feel that the majority of people think of their body as some physical entity completely disassociated from their brain, like their mind is a driver and their body a car, and that if the car gets rundown the brain will still be fine. Unfortunately this isn't the case, as the mind and body are BOTH the car, and as one gets rundown so does the other. There's no way to separate the two. Your body is the vessel by which you live, and if you don't keep it in good health, your quality of life will suffer.
 
IT'S AMAZING WHAT YOU CAN TRAIN YOUR BODY TO DO

The human body is a highly adaptive organism, and it's incredibly efficient at learning and adapting to new movements. The nervous system plays just as much a part in weight training as do muscles. It's often the initial hurdle of becoming familiar with new movements that sets most people back, but as many motivational posters claim, your mind will often quit before your bodies does.

COMPOUND BEFORE ISOLATION EXERCISES & BODY BALANCE

This is more actual training related, but an awful lot of people walk nervously into a gym not entirely sure what exercises they should be performing, and immediately start either bench pressing or doing bicep curls because those are the only exercises they're familiar with. It's important when beginning to exercise (honestly, for the first several years) to focus on big, compound exercises that make you use several muscles at once, instead of worrying about doing isolation exercises like bicep curls that only target one muscle. It's also important to make sure you have proper posture and execute everything with good form, otherwise you're setting yourself up for a nasty injury, and for the love of Christ, never try to lift more weight than you can do comfortably. If you want to see what overreaching and bad posture delivers, go to YouTube and check out any number of "CrossFit Fails" compilations.

The best exercises to focus on are things such as bench-presses, deadlifts, squats, pull-ups, dips, shoulder presses, and anything else that requires natural movement and that works more than one muscle group. Unless you're a bodybuilder, there's no reason to try and follow a bodybuilding style training routine. And it's also important to make sure you're balancing your body properly. If all you do is bench press without worrying about working the opposing muscles groups (in this case the back, which is targeted through movements like rows and pull-ups) you're on a one way trip to muscle imbalance, which isn't pleasant. 
   
CARDIO SUCKS FOR FAT LOSS

That's not to say it's not an important part of an exercise regime, but if you're spending hours on the treadmill or elliptical hoping to burn calories, think again. While it might be great for improving your cardiovascular fitness, it won't put much of a dent (like, at all) in your daily caloric consumption. Studies show lifting weights is actually more effective for weight loss with strict cardio a distant second. If you want to lose weight, you NEED to reign in your diet. There's just no other way.

THE BODY ISN'T A JIGSAW PUZZLE

Having said that, it's also important to realize that the body isn't broken down into separate entities such as when you divide your routine into "cardio" and "strength training." The body functions as a whole, and while it's possible to work different processes through certain methods, ultimately everything works as a cohesive unit.

PEOPLE WANT A QUICK FIX 

I used to think that one hour of exercise three days a week was enough to offset whatever poor lifestyle choices I was making, and I realize now that was a very unhealthy notion (in the same way I used to think an hour of yoga a week was enough to fix seven day's worth of bad posture). Similarly, I have a coworker I overheard talking about how they have a very bad back and wanted to pursue surgery, but was furious when their doctor suggested exercising first; my coworker didn't want to think that something that would require that much effort and discipline on their part was the solution to their problem - they wanted the "magic pill" solution.

We've become obsessed with the idea that there's a singular cure for whatever ailment we have. A healthy lifestyle is like any other discipline - you can't do it for a day and expect to see results. It takes a lot of time and hard work to see any progress. 

EXERCISE AND PROPER DIET ARE THE MEDICATION NO ONE WANTS TO TAKE

I understand that not everyone enjoys exercising like I do, and I certainly understand that not everyone wants to adjust their diet either. That shit's hard, plain and simple. Unfortunately, being healthy isn't like other hobbies or skills that we can choose to indulge in based on whether we enjoy them or not; our bodies all operate on the same biological processes, and being healthy is literally capable of curing a good percentage of lifestyle-related diseases (of which heart disease, cardiac problems, and a good chunk of cancers fall under). It's a cure that is sitting in front of everyone's face, but few people want to pick up. If there existed a pill with all the benefits of exercise with none of the hard work, it would be the best selling product in all of human history.

REST IS JUST AS IMPORTANT AS DIET AND EXERCISE 

I've made the mistake of assuming the key to fitness was strictly exercise, but it's actually a holy trinity of exercise, diet and rest, with each part being just as important as the other. Muscle is grown by tearing it so it may build back up, so you actually "grow" muscle when you're not exercising. Six days of hard exercise a week is probably going to keep you from reaching optimal results unless you're eating a dump truck worth of clean food a day to compensate, or at the very least being smart about how you structure your routine. 

EVERYONE NEEDS TO GET MORE SLEEP 

I truly underestimated the degree to which rest plays in living a healthy lifestyle, and from the looks of a small Facebook poll I took, so does everyone else. I'm lucky if I sleep more than six hours a night, even though it's recommended that everyone should get at least 7-8 on average (more if you exercise vigorously). Hormones released during sleep contribute to everything from stress management to weight loss to muscle growth, and yet I think because it's something free that most people enjoy, it's therefore viewed as an indulgence instead of a necessary element of healthy living. 

FITNESS ISN'T ALL ABOUT MUSCLE 

There are some fun videos on YouTube showing what happens when professional bodybuilders try rock climbing for the first time and are easily beaten by someone half their size with a third of the muscle. Having big muscles won't help you at all if you aren't performing functional training; if someone steals your wallet and runs off, it won't matter how much you bench-pressed the night before if you can't run thirty seconds without being out of breath. Overall fitness is broken down equally between muscular endurance, flexibility, cardiovascular processes (how well your body utilizes oxygen) and body composition (how much fat to muscle you have).
 
WEIGHT LOSS IS A FINICKY THING     

Weight loss is predominantly related to one's diet, but the details are freakin' hard to nail down. Everyone's body is different, and while there are tons of "calorie calculators" online, finding out what works best for you is going to take a lot of trial and error. Eat too much and you'll be gaining more fat than muscle; eat too little and your body will enter starvation mode and you'll actually gain weight. You can also fluctuate up to ten pounds in a single day based on water-weight alone, so don't rely on fitness magazines and the bathroom scale to tell you how much progress you're making.
 
SUGAR ADDICTION AND OBESITY ARE WORSE THAN PEOPLE REALIZE

I've always considered myself an extremely disciplined person, and I always thought the threat of obesity was just a matter of people being too lazy . . . until I tried cutting out all processed sugar from my diet. To say it was challenging is an understatement. I still get cravings and have to fight off the desire for sugar (especially chocolate). Studies show the body reacts similarly to sugar in the way it also reacts to hard drugs, and if I had such a hard time breaking it off then I fear for everyone else, because it's in fucking EVERYTHING.

SERIOUSLY, SUGAR IS THE FUCKING DEVIL

The documentary Fed Up is a great film that I highly recommend because it takes a very no-nonsense approach to obesity and the effects of sugar, and if it's good enough to get Kevin Smith to change his diet, it's good enough for everyone else. To sum up the science, the body can only process about six grams of sugar at a time, and eating more will trigger an insulin response in your body that automatically starts converting food to fat. This provides a double whammy because all the nutrients get stored as fat instead of filling you up and giving you energy, so not only are you still hungry, you feel sluggish as well. Therefore, it doesn't matter how few calories you eat; if what you're eating is still high in sugar, you're still converting a lot of what you eat to fat.

Also, take a look at any nutrient label. Notice how sugar is the only item that doesn't list its "Daily %" value. That's because sugar corporations (I hate using the vague term "corporations" but what else do you call them in this situation) lobbied to have that removed, otherwise a can of Coca Cola would say something along the lines of 110% on the label.  

A CALORIE ISN'T ALWAYS A CALORIE

This is an old school notion that assumed if you burned more calories than you consumed, you'd lose weight. But because the body isn't a calculator and sugar is a nefarious bastard, science has shown that isn't the case. 200 calories of chocolate and 200 calories of vegetables are not going to have the same nutritional effect on your body. 

EVEN IF SOMETHING IS HEALTHY, IT'S STILL POSSIBLE TO GET FAT OFF IT

Almonds are healthy, and there have been some studies that show health benefits to dark chocolate, and yes, even a glass of wine now and then is good, but holy shit, that's not an excuse to shove it down your throat like it's the antidote to a six pack. Almonds and dark chocolate are still high in fat, and any chocolate is still filled with sugar (some types more than others, obviously). Even fruits when eaten in large quantities can be high calorie. Really, vegetables are one of the few types of food that you can pretty much eat with abandon without ever having to worry about their calorie count.

MISLEADING MARKETING IS GOING TO KILL THE MISINFORMED

Fuck fruit juice, and fuck any other thing that claims to be "Gluten Free." There are a lot of old misconceptions about food that marketers capitalize on, and because the majority of the population isn't as informed about nutritional science, the fallout can be rather severe. People may assume the juice from 100% juice is healthy, but without the fiber of the actual fruit to accompany the natural sugars, drinking juice is almost as bad as soda. As for gluten, if you're not actually allergic to it, there's no need to treat it like the devil's food. And don't trust Doctor Oz for your nutritional advice either - the guy was just called out in court because half his claims were proven to be bullshit. I went to a Whole Foods the other day and was really disappointed by how a lot of unhealthy foods were disguised as healthy with overblown prices. 

A LOT OF TRAINING MENTALITIES ARE ANTIQUATED 

There are a lot of guidelines in the fitness world based on old schools of thought that recent studies have proven to be false, or at the very least, not as concrete as once believed. Protein is a great example. Lots of bodybuilders and fitness enthusiasts still cling to the notion that in order to get big you need to be eating 1-2 grams of protein per pound of body weight a day, but recent studies show that the body can really only utilize 0.8 grams per day towards building muscle. The same thing goes for ideas such as you need to eat several small meals a day to keep your metabolism going (it really doesn't make much of a difference) and you should eat something protein heavy within an hour of working out (while it's good to eat something, the "window" for protein synthesis lasts anywhere from 24-48 hours; your body isn't a clock).

A large number of these notions are based on practices that - because they were part of certain successful routines - were just naturally assumed to be right. It's not to say they're all bad (I still follow certain guidelines myself) but there's really not as many magical formulas as people think. 

PEOPLE CAN BE VERY MISINFORMED ABOUT HOW THE BODY WORKS 

The uprising of fad diets and juice cleanses is very frightening, as is the number of people who read a single article about health and proclaim its content as fact. "Cleanses" are a waste of time because the body is designed to cleanse itself; drinking nothing but juice is only going to make you sluggish and piss yourself silly. The same goes for the demonizing of carbohydrates. There are lots of articles claiming low-carb diets are the secret to weight loss, but it's not limiting the carbs themselves that make you lose weight but the lack of calories you're eating from omitting carbs from your diet. I remember screaming at a weight-loss magazine awhile ago over a similar claim about how you can lose tons of weight drinking only lemon juice a day because they were praising the weight-loss effects of lemon juice instead of acknowledging the weight loss came from not eating anything else.

EVERYONE THINKS THEY'RE AN EXPERT

If you really want to lose your faith in humanity, check out any online fitness forum and count how many insults get hurled at people because their "program" is wrong. This is more just a negative personality trait that many people have, assuming they're an expert on something because of their own personal experience instead of acknowledging that there are many successful practices (and yes, I realize the irony of that statement considering what I've written thus far in this article) and everyone's body responds differently. For added fun, check out how many people claim the cast of the movie 300 were all on steroids because the commenters had been exercising for years without getting those kind of results.

YOU DON'T NEED A GYM MEMBERSHIP

I've been able to achieve a relatively decent level of fitness without having stepped foot in a commercial gym since first year university (almost ten years ago now). There are tons of YouTube channels that show you how to get in a great workout at home with almost no equipment. I myself follow a program that is largely based on calisthenics (body-weight exercises) dumbbells and yoga. If you want to build muscle, you really don't need anything more than a pull-up bar.

LIVING HEALTHY CAN BE EXPENSIVE . . . KINDA

I don't have a gym membership, so I don't have to rely on spending money for my actual workouts. As for food, being smart about what you buy can save you a ton of money in the long run. You don't need to buy everything organic, and avoid anything that's high priced with a bunch of big-print health claims on the packaging. Yes, some foods cost a bit extra, but it's not nearly as bad as you might assume. 

IT'S IMPORTANT TO LOVE YOURSELF

At the risk of coming off too narcissistic with this post, I wholeheartedly 100% agree that first and foremost it is important to love and accept your body for what it is. I went through some bad body image issues myself regardless of what people around me were saying, and my excessive compulsive nature only added to the trouble. It's much better to take the Average Joes approach from Dodgeball: you're perfect the way you are, but hey . . . if you want to take a stab at getting a bit healthier, all the power to you. If you don't want to, that's your decision.

. . . BUT ALSO BE REALISTIC 

It's one thing to be happy with who you are, but it's another to turn that around and take it too far in the other direction. I think fat shaming is a horrible thing, but to grab hold of the "it's okay to be big" movement and take it all the way to "fuck skinny people" kinda misses the point. Fitness models are just as insecure about their bodies as everyone else (one could argue more so, because their actual livelihood is dependent on it) so it doesn't help anyone to go up to a skinny person eating a slice of pizza and guilt them by saying "I wish I could eat that and still look like you" (which happens quite often, whether it's meant to be scornful or not). If you forgo eating healthy and not wanting to exercise, more power to you, but don't try to convince others that it's a superior way to live, in the same way you shouldn't shame others if they enjoy indulging in less-than-healthy alternatives.

THERE IS A GENETIC LIMIT TO HOW FIT YOU CAN REALISTICALLY GET

I didn't realize just how prominent steroid abuse was in the world of bodybuilding until I looked into it. It's sorta startling, actually, so much so that there's actually contests referred to as "Natural Bodybuilding Competitions" which means it's actually expected that you'll take steroids in your typical bodybuilding contest (but that's not to say they're all that way). The reason for this is that there's actually only so much muscle you can build naturally, depending on your genetics and your body type. Some people are just naturally gifted (like Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson) while others can achieve a pretty good body with strict dedication (such as skinny-man Adrien Brody's transformation in Predators) but there really is a limit. The average weigh in during "Natural Bodybuilding" contests is actually somewhere in the 170 pound range (and that's at a very low body fat percentage, mind) so if you're looking at someone whose abs look like paving slabs the size of your face, it's safe to assume they may be getting some assistance from steroids.

IT TAKES A LONG TIME TO BUILD MUSCLE

Following that line of thought, it actually takes a very long time to build muscle. Like, years and years. I've been exercising for well over a decade, and while I may have gained some new muscle when I fixed my diet, I also plateaued pretty fast (I'm still pretty skinny). Again, look at movie stars who literally have all the time and money in the world to get fit. Henry Cavill went from being incredibly ripped in Immortals to being still incredibly ripped but with about ten extra pounds of muscle in Man of Steel. The kicker? It took him a year to do it, training three hours in gruelingly intense sessions six days a week, eating five thousand calories per day. Brad Pitt was at his fittest in Troy, which took almost a year to train from how fit he already was. It takes a lot of time and effort, which is why you're not going to look like Stallone overnight.

There are also a lot of women who are afraid to lift weights because they fear getting bulky like some women you see in bodybuilding contests. Women possess about 1/10 the testosterone levels of men (a key ingredient of building muscle) so that woman who looks unnaturally bulky is either a genetic abnormality or getting help from steroids. So ladies, if you want to get "toned," get off the treadmill and start lifting some heavy barbells.

THE HIPPIES WERE RIGHT

A great many ailments of the modern age are a result of us moving away from nature. Our bodies adapted and evolved over hundreds of thousands of years to get used to certain functions and food. Processed food and sedentary lifestyles only developed in the last hundred years or so, and frankly, it shows. Our bodies haven't had the time to adapt to a high-sugar, high-caloric diet, just as they haven't adapted to spending most of our days sitting on our asses. For many thousands of years people exercised by climbing and moving heavy shit, not by dedicating an hour a day to bench pressing; they ate mostly fruits and vegetables and occasionally meat, not two quarter-pounders a day with a gallon of coke and a bag of chips. Honestly, the best way to get fit is to embrace the mentality that evolution forged us a certain way, and if something fits in line with evolution, it's probably good for you to do. This is why activities like sprinting, rock climbing, and gymnastics are extremely effective for getting fit, because they embrace natural movements of the body. 

WALKING IS GREAT, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO A BIT MORE 

Walking is a fantastic exercise. It gets your blood flowing, helps improve your cardiovascular system, and is a great overall functional exercise. But if that's the only thing you're doing and you're still waiting for the pounds to melt off, you're going to have to try a bit harder. Walking isn't particularly physical stressful (i.e. it won't stimulate an insane amount of muscle growth) and it doesn't burn an awful lot of calories. At best it's a supplement to a proper exercise program, but it shouldn't be the anchor by which you plan your weight loss strategy.

MARTIAL ARTS AND GYMNASTICS ARE TOTALLY BAD-ASS

Gymnastics and martial arts are probably two of the things I've gained the most respect for in the last year. I have a close friend who is heavily involved in martial arts who was a big inspiration for my fitness endeavors this past year, and learning about how intense martial arts can be was really eye-opening. The same applies to gymnastics, which many dismiss as a "sissy sport" when in fact you'll probably find some of the fittest athletes in the world partaking in such activities. It's one of the reasons I've taken such a huge interest in calisthenics. For anyone who doesn't think you can get strong doing body weight exercises, I challenge you to try your hand at ring dips, one-arm push-ups/pull-ups, headstand push-ups, single-leg squats, dragonflies, or the human flag.

That shit is downright inspiring.

IT'S AMAZING HOW MANY PEOPLE SAY "I CAN'T" WHEN THEY SHOULD REALLY BE SAYING "I DON'T WANT TO" 

This is probably one of the most important psychological lessons I've learned about people in general this past year. Everyone wants to be fit; everyone knows they should exercise (every doctor  in the world wouldn't recommend it if it wasn't an essential part of living a long and healthy life) and yet an awful lot of people will seek out excuses not to. I can understand not enjoying exercise, but I am also intimately aware of the mental gymnastics people often do to convince themselves that something is beyond their control. I have many friends and family who cannot understand my vigorous enthusiasm for exercise, and that's fine. I know I'm a bit more hardcore than I should be, but I enjoy it, and I recognize not everyone does. What kills me, however, is when I hear people say "I want/wish I could do that too, but I can't because . . ." and then follow it up with a very poor excuse, such as not having time or not having a gym membership.

I think it's important to be honest with yourself. If you're unable to replace "I can't" with "I'm physically incapable because . . ." then you're probably just making an excuse, and that's fine, but at least admit it. If you tell yourself that you can't exercise because you don't have the time, genuinely sit down and look at your schedule. If you're spending two hours a night watching reality TV, then it's not a matter of "You can't" but rather "You don't want to."

Exercise isn't easy. It's not suppose to be. It's supposed to hurt, because if you're not sore than you're not challenging your body enough to stimulate growth. People hate being put outside their comfort zone. It's going to be a challenge, especially if you're new to exercise - your body is finally moving in ways it hasn't been forced to move in years (if not decades). Your joints and muscles are probably going to be sore in the beginning (although please note there's a difference between "sore" and "painful" - I'm not encouraging people to hurt themselves) but the body is incredibly adaptive if you give it enough credit and patience. It's one thing to not want to squat because you have a previous injury and are physically incapable, but it's another to tell yourself you have bad knees and just can't do it (especially since after that initial hurdle of getting used to the movement, most exercises are extremely beneficial for your joints). Just be honest with yourself; do as much or as little as you want, and if you don't want to do anything at all, that's fine too, but acknowledge that it's a personal choice you're making and not something dependent on anyone else.

And that's it, folks. That's probably my longest article by far, but what can I say - it was a hell of a year.