Serena Williams: Women And The Display Of Anger Part II Of II


Image result for Credibility


Credibility played an interesting role in this process: Both the credibility and the emotionality of female holdouts influenced how much confidence participants had in their own original verdict. However, when the female holdout expressed anger, credibility no longer played a predictive role. It’s as if the participants discounted an angry woman entirely and instead became more confident in their initial verdict. For men, on the other hand, expressing anger made them seem more credible, which, in turn, led participants to become less confident in their own verdict.

These findings have troubling implications about how seriously women are taken compared to men when they behave in the exact same way. As the authors note:

“Our results lend scientific support to a frequent claim voiced by women, sometimes dismissed as paranoia: that people would have listened to her impassioned argument, had she been a man” (p. 11).

The Hillarys of the world may feel the need to keep stifling their anger when people ask annoying questions, while the Donalds can let their rants go unchecked. And the ordinary woman who wishes to be heard may have to suppress her passion, no matter how strongly she feels about her point of view.

Research such as the ASU study can help shed light on the complex ways our biases influence the way we perceive men and women. We may hope that one day this research will allow people, regardless of gender, to allow us to achieve fulfillment by expressing our true passions.

Image result for Types of anger

Types Of Anger

Most people use anger properly or in a good way, here is sixteen way to use anger in a good way.

good anger

Good Anger:

The Value of Anger: 16 Reasons It’s Good to Get Angry

By Moshe Ratson, MBA, MS, LMFT


Emotions evolved to keep us safe. Our fight response, which evolved so we could defend ourselves from an enemy or danger, stems from anger. Anger is embedded in our primitive need to live and protect ourselves against aggression. Anger drives people to be extremely vigilant about threats and sharpens our focus. When we are threatened or attacked by a predator, anger is automatically activated and pushes us to fight back and act quickly and forcefully to protect ourselves.


When you are angry, you experience physical and emotional pain. When you experience physical and emotional distress, anger strongly motivates you to do something about it. As such, anger helps you cope with the stress by first discharging the tension in your body, and by doing so it calms your “nerves.” That’s why you may have an angry reaction and then feel calm afterward.


Anger is related to a deep need for control. Anger protects what is ours, helping us feel in charge rather than helpless. The function of anger is to inflict costs or withhold benefits from others to increase our welfare. Individuals who experience and display their anger appropriately are in a better position to fulfill their needs and control their destiny than those who suppress their anger. That said, it’s important to guard against becoming obsessed by the sense of power anger may elicit.


From a survival perspective, we defend ourselves when we retaliate and make other people fear us. Anger guards us when someone wants to hurt us. It gives us the strength and aggression to help us overcome a stronger enemy. In day-to-day situations, anger serves as a positive force to motivate us to stand up for ourselves and creatively find solutions to the challenges we face. As Richard Davidson says, anger “mobilizes resources, increases vigilance, and facilitates the removal of obstacles in the way of our goal pursuits, particularly if the anger can be divorced from the propensity to harm or destroy.”


When we feel like things are out of place, we can get angry. If things are not the way they are supposed to be and need to change, anger propels us to do something and motivates us to find solutions to our problems. Anger is triggered when we face an obstacle or individual (or something else) that blocks our needs. It prepares us to deal with the obstruction or problem in our path so we can get to where we want to be.


We often experience anger when we are denied rights or when faced with insults, disrespect, injustice, or exploitation. Anger serves as an internal guidance system that indicates something is not quite right, that someone has treated us unjustly or unfairly. Anger helps communicate to others: “You’d better treat me fairly; otherwise, you’ll pay a high cost.” On a global level, standing up for a lack of fairness can prevent people from taking advantage of others. This type of anger can bring about positive change in society and increase the social cost of misbehaving.


Anger pushes us to pursue our desired goals and rewards. When we don’t get what we want, anger is triggered and indicates we have moved away from our desired objectives. Anger tries to eliminate whatever prevents us from realizing our desires. It energizes and pushes us to act in service of achieving our goals and working toward our ideals.

Image result for ANGER INJECTS OPTIMISM cartoon


Surprisingly, anger can trigger optimism. It can encourage us to focus on what we hope to achieve, rather than merely focusing on the pain, insult, or victimization. The anger system is geared toward what is attainable, not the impossible. When we are angry, we often feel positive about our ability to change the situation, empowering us to take action and move from an undesirable position to a desirable one.

Anger serves as a social and personal value indicator and regulator. It is activated when our values are not in harmony with the situation we face. Accordingly, it makes us aware of our deep-seated beliefs and what we stand for.


Anger serves as a social and personal value indicator and regulator. It is activated when our valuesare not in harmony with the situation we face. Accordingly, it makes us aware of our deep-seated beliefs and what we stand for. It also motivates us to rectify the discrepancy and take action to change the situation (or our belief) to align the reality we face with our values.


Anger erupts naturally when someone puts a lower value, or weight, on your welfare relative to their own. Anger is designed to recalibrate the situation and thus increase our value. Anger also strongly asserts our position and may lead to compliance by others. Anger drives us to respond to conflict in a way that helps us bargain to our advantage. It causes others to rethink their positions against our position. It signals to the other side: “What you propose is too costly for me. You would be better off if you changed the value you assign to me (decrease my cost or increase your value).”

Image result for ANGER INCREASES COOPERATION cartoon


If anger is justified and the response is appropriate, usually the misunderstanding is corrected, leading to increased cooperation. Anger tells others it is important to listen to us—that we feel annoyed and it is wise to pay attention to our words. Anger communicates: “I don’t like the situation, and we need to work together to find a better solution.” Anger makes you stand up for yourself and constructively challenge the other side. As such, anger encourages cooperation.


Anger may lead to better outcomes in business negotiations. While two parties negotiate, the negotiator who seems angrier may be in a better position to tilt the agreement in their favor. Similarly, when one party believes the other negotiating side is angry, they may be more willing to compromise. In that regard, anger serves as a negotiating tool used to persuade, reach a deal, or improve the negotiated position.


Similar to Sigmund Freud‘s defense mechanisms that exist to protect the personality from an unbearable anxiety when the ego is under attack, anger serves this critical psychological function. Anger is a raw, “superficial” emotion that prevents (defends/blocks) you from feeling even more painful emotions. For example, a person who was betrayed by their partner may use anger to control their partner rather than share their own pain, which is difficult to bear.


Anger is generally a very apparent emotion and at times can be volcanic. Yet—like a volcano that is formed when magma pushes up through the earth’s crust from below, depositing lava on the surface—there are many forces that push anger to surface, such as fear and defensiveness. It might be a fear of losing control or fear of being alone, rejectedabandoned, unloved, etc. Anger provides insight into ourselves, as it is the layer of deeper issues that are most hidden. This is why it is important to trace the trail of anger and dig down to find and address its source. Only after addressing the blockage that leads to anger can we free ourselves from the misery it sometimes induces.


Anger can make you a better person and can be a force of positive change. It provides insight into our faults and shortcomings. If looked at constructively, this can lead to positive outcomes. Just like motivation, it can lead to self-change. For instance, if one knows certain things make them angry, they can work on these triggers to improve their response to them and, by doing so, improve their quality of life and relationships.


Individuals willing to embrace uncomfortable emotions such as anger, rather than avoiding or repressing them, have greater emotional intelligence. Emotionally intelligent individuals do not resist anger, instead utilizing its “wisdom” to gain its positives. As a result, they have highly flexible emotional response systems and are more adaptive and resilient.

Related image

Relational Anger or bad anger, basically it depends on the ability to be “pushed” into a anger situation or not.

Relational  Anger:

1. Resistant and passive anger:

These individuals believe that all anger is wrong or bad. They avoid conflict like the plague. They were told as children (or taught through actions) that all anger is unacceptable. These people bottle up their emotions and keep everything inside. They are prone to physical and mental illness.

2. Internet/tech rage:

Have you ever noticed that some people are especially prone to respond strongly to slow Internet speed or social media interactions? They may even go online seeking quarrels. Interestingly, this is also common in texting addictions which often also lead to anger issues.

3. Addictive anger:

Anger becomes addictive when it involves significant adrenaline rushes, which the individual comes to depend upon, psychologically and/or physically. This type of anger provides a sense of strength and courage. Interestingly, individuals who possess this anger type are often interested in—or engage in—violent media (TV, movies, video games and sports).

4. Petrified anger:

This anger is largely based on holding grudges and refusing to forgive. Individuals are reluctant to let their anger go. Instead they keep vendettas against others.

5. Compressive anger:

Individuals with this type of anger are walking time bombs. They have a hairline trigger, waiting to be ignited and set off. Once angry, it spirals out of control and they cannot contain it.

6. Jealousy:

This type of anger stems from childhood. It is largely based on abandonment and loss, often times parental divorce, or feeling a sense of rejection. One’s anger evolves to the need to possess—and even own others—This can lead to “stalking.”


Despite an unfavorable reputation, the concept of constructive anger is gaining more empirical support from researchers and can have a beneficial role in our lives. Anger is an integral part of our fight-or-flight mechanism. It had a survival necessity in the past and has some positive value in the present, too. The motivation and action that is powered by anger can move us toward reaching our goals. It pushes us to fix the wrongs we see in the world and make it right.

Extreme anger is effective in serious life-or-death situations. Yet, this modality is rarely useful in day-to-day living. The key to its effectiveness is for anger to be expressed with the appropriate intensity to the situation, while feeling it (rather than repressing it) and utilizing it in a wise manner. As Aristotle said, we have to be angry “with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way.” He added this is not easy.

I would like to end by using a metaphor: Anger, like a fire, is a primal force. When left unchecked, it can be destructive, yet when managed and used wisely, it can be a beneficial and powerful instrument that leads to enlightenment.


Understanding, Controlling, Repairing, And Manipulating Emotions Part II Of VI


Image result for negative emotions take a physical toll on our bodies

When negative emotions take a physical toll on our bodies


September 19, 2015 5:20 pm

If you prefer to listen, here’s the Soundcloud podcast version of this post, also on iTunes.

Just like stress can cause you to get a tight knot in the muscles of your back, so too can other parts of your body hold tight to things like fear or anger or even malform due to a particular belief system.  Things like a pervasive feeling of lack in life can manifest in physical form in the way we digest food. You’ve probably heard things like this a million times and thought to yourself, “Ha – yeah right!” Because it’s a heady concept and not something you could test with a beaker tube. The power of the mind over the body comes off as super new-agey and therefore we all to often put it in the crazy pile. But the affects of how we hold onto emotional pain are quite severe, they manifest in disease and damage your gene code for future generations– so in my opinion, why not lean in favor of, “do something about it, regardless” because there’s nothing to lose, everything to gain.  OR, even just decide to stay open to what I am saying purely for the sake of practicing openness.

In broad strokes, I will go through some of the connections between emotions we hold onto and where they tend to get stuck in our body- plus a few tools to do something about it. I will post my references at the end of this post but in truth – if you suffer from chronic pain, go to a doctor! And if you suffer severe emotional pain, see a therapist! This is not a substitute for either of those. And just so you know what you’re getting into – this is an episode all about the body, with a whole lot of yoga to soothe particular negative emotions that get stuck in our body. If that doesn’t appeal to you – you probably won’t like this episode– but I will bet you get something valuable out of it regardless. This is about the body, so I’m going to talk about things like pooping – so if that’s not what you want to listen to right now, then maybe save this for another time. If you’re worried I’m going to go into anything too hippy dippy, I hear you- it’s a turn off. It’s almost like you think you like the person you’re talking to and suddenly you hear something they say and think, “Ah okay – I understand, you’re a crazy person.” So I’m going to try my best to keep this as grounded and relatable as possible. Again – I’ll ask you to please, receive what I say without judging it on the way you. Allow yourself that experience: to listen with total non-judgment and openness. A simple resting state of, “Maybe that IS true.” There are three parts – the what, the why and the how.

Image result for The What

Part 1: The What

Just like a physical injury, when you go through a particularly painful emotional experience, it will manifest in the way you think, feel, act and therefore live.  The effects it will manifest in your body in more ways than simply the chemicals released in your brain. Because we’re complex and every system is interconnected: there’s a whole chain reaction that occurs one something becomes a pattern. Balance is thrown off. Just look at the affect of driving with your right foot. We have a race of humans with a right leg slightly shorter than our left.  The tendons gets tighter.

So just like different people deal with stress differently – some explode, some eat it, some run it off, the ways we manage toxic emotions is different depending on who we are and the tools we are dealt genetically. Depending on your sensitivities and also your ability to manage extremely overwhelming types of pain – sometimes you don’t release the emotion, and instead we clench. We bury.  We control. We manage them in unconscious ways – and this is when we “hold” onto them, deep inside ourselves. It is when we do not process and vent these toxic emotions that they manifest an imbalance in physical form in our bodies. We take out the emotion on our body instead of moving through it consciously.

For example, if you have a delicate stomach to begin with and you have problems processing stress – and therefore you internalize stress, you might develop a stomach ulcer. Or, if you have intense anxiety and do not process the emotion, the imbalance in your chemicals causes an allergic reaction: your immune system might react with an itchy rash or you might break out with zits. The connections between toxic emotions are common and quite logical. An unmanaged toxic emotion creates chronic pain when it becomes a pattern enacted over a length of time.  That’s when these imbalances become too much to simply continue treating the symptoms. When your chemicals are upset, weird stuff happens! Which is why it’s so vital to your long-term health and the DNA you pass along to your kids – to effort to live with balance, to soothe your body and help yourself to recognize and pass the pain instead of holding onto it. Because we inherit our stuffed emotional problems from the generations before us in the form of gene-degradation. There is such a thing as culturally inherited trauma.

If you don’t process pain correctly, don’t be bummed at yourself – it’s likely because you were incapable of dealing with it a different way – it’s come about as a self-defense mechanism. All of these come in to play when you need to cope: usually at an age when we are overwhelmed and the feelings are simply too much.  This is not about blame, it’s about changing yourself now, today, moving forward: recognizing where you want to focus healing yourself, changing your ways, and working on it deliberately with small actions. Change is much easier from a grown-up, stable place in your life – the you who is capable, now, today.

Emotional pain needs to be confronted and processed so that it can be released. When you harbor emotions like resentment or fear or anger, you allow the emotion – with all its toxic chemicals, to fester inside. Where, depends on your particular make up as a person – but it will create an upset to your system, one that arises from chronic imbalance. Resistance creates tension. The pain grows a point of focus.

When you learn to manage pain, growing up, if you’re not totally skilled in the form of self-expression – or perhaps you are more vulnerable to your environment, you will create coping mechanisms.  These will form a kind of muscle-memory inside your body, like curling into a ball to protect yourself, but in much more varied and specific places.

Image result for The Why

Part 2: The Why

If you were to connect the dots between emotional causes and their effects in the body, they would make a whole lot of sense. It’s almost like drawing a map of the flow of your chemicals throughout the day, and how they are altered by specific stressful emotions and life-patterns. Patterns, like managing emotions – are unconscious. They are our ‘story’ and therefore they define us, but because they are habits, they can also trap us. Depending on what you choose to tell yourself – you will be strong or weak: a victim to your troubles or powerfully conquering them. It all comes down to a choice and an awareness of having a choice, in the first place.

I know it’s hard to believe that you could cause the physical pains you suffer from, because that means you have a hand in something you’re helpless against. How can you stop something you can’t see you’re doing? If you were told by your doctor that you could change the way you feel your pain, you’d likely say, “Go to hell, jerk. I came here to get some help.” Because you’re IN your body and can’t separate from it, when it’s hurting or revolting you feel you are a victim. This is all about taking small deliberate steps to self-examine and mentally separate as much as possible for the sake of the potential benefits. To look deeper and question the beliefs you hold to be true and slow down your patterns so that you can apply a new approach. It’s rare that we even question our own belief systems or try to take apart our patterns – because they’re cemented into our identity.  Yet the benefits are immense: everything in the rest of your life changes if you start a new habit, today.

So let’s talk specifically about some of the common spots we hold pain in the body. Anger when kept inside, boils and infects the body. Resentment festers, guilt leads to pain. Anxiety creates imbalance and lack of focus, and comes from a lack of trust or faith in the flow of life. Here are some typical manifestations of pain:

Related image

Stomach issues like indigestion usually relate to dread and fear of the new. Commonly, if you have stomach problems you internalize anxiety, fear, or you experienced a trauma.

Back pain is usually a sign of un-vented anger. Depending on how bad the pain is, your anger might be very old and intense because it’s the anger of a child. Does that sound weird to you? Picture a cartoon character that’s super mad and turning red. They don’t look bendy and relaxed, they look completely tensed. You could think of back ache as a pinched nerve caused by rigidness in life: tension affects the various ligaments and tendons – and then eventually, the nerves. If your childhood involved managing a lot of unmet needs – like maybe you were angry and never voiced the anger, this storing of emotion might manifest as back pain.  So if you have excruciating back pain that has caused an avalanche of other effects – there’s a likelihood you hold a lot of anger.

Skin problems like rashes and acne are often tied to feelings of threat. Internalized stress and panic can cause an allergic reaction. Like your body starts fighting itself.  I get allergic reactions to stress and anxiety that makes me itchy all over. It’s nutso man.

Constipation is related to a holding onto things. It’s usually paired with a feeling of lack in ones life –that it’s never going to be enough. So if you are often constipated, analyze the rest of your habits in life. Are you a person who feels like you don’t have “enough” money or love or success? That you’re never satisfied?

Fat (I know this is a weird one) but holding onto fat, particularly in the belly, is tied to feelings that we didn’t get enough emotional nourishment.  It’s tied to emotional neediness and sensitivity, like you didn’t get enough love growing up.

Spinal misalignments have so many specific connections to emotional health that it’s too big to attack in a blog like this. But, in short – if your spine is misaligned it can irritate a ton of different things in your nervous system that affect your mental outlook.

Coincidentally, the sacrum (the bones you sit on) is where many of us hold onto the oldest of anger: emotions to do with loss of power in our youth; old stubborn anger. In yoga, sometimes people are hit with intense emotions and tears while doing intense hip openers: it holds a lot of old weird stuff – this body of ours.

If any or all of these bodily connections DON’T ring true for you and you’re feeling that urge to shut off because this just sounds way too extreme and hippy to you – I feel you! It’s totally that kind of topic – especially if you’re not used to thinking of the power of your mind in this way.  Instead of completely dismissing all of this, I would ask you to instead think about what does seem logical to you based on your particular ailments. Ask yourself, “What could be a pattern in my emotions that could be creating (xyz physical problem)?” Trust your instincts – if you have a theory, place some value in it. If not just for the sake of the next section where we do some yoga!

35 Things You Might Not Know About Mister Rogers

PBS Television/Courtesy of Getty Images


In this episode of our YouTube series, John Green brings you a whole pile of things you should know about everybody’s favorite neighbor. Here’s a transcript, courtesy of Nerdfighteria:

Hi, I’m John Green, welcome to my neighborhood. This is mental_floss, and today we’re going to talk about Mr. Rogers, with whom I have a lot in common. By the way, thanks to copyright laws, that’s the only picture of Mr. Rogers we can afford, so you’ll be seeing a lot of it today. But yes, Fred Rogers and I have many similarities:

Image result for mr rogers minister

1. We both considered becoming ministers (he actually did).

2. Both happily married to women named Sara(h).

And we both make stuff for young people… although I don’t think that his work has been banned from several dozen high schools in Tennessee.

[intro music]

3. Mr. Rogers was an Ivy League dropout. He completed his freshman year at Dartmouth, and then transferred to Rollins College so he could get a degree in music.

4. And he was an excellent piano player; not only did he graduate from Rollins “Magna cum laude,” but he wrote all of the songs on the show, as well as more than 200 other songs, and several kids’ operas including one called “All in the Laundry.”

5. Mr. Rogers decided to get into television, because when he saw it for the first time he, “hated it so.” When he turned on a set, all he saw was angry people throwing pies in each others’ faces, and he vowed to use the medium to make the world a better place.

Image result for mr rogers minister

6. Over the years, he talked to kids about their feelings, covering topics as varied as why kids shouldn’t be afraid of haircuts, or the bathroom drain (because you won’t fit), to bigger issues like divorce and war.

7. In the opening sequence of Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood, the stoplight is always on yellow. That’s a reminder to kids and parents to slow down a little.

8. Also, Mr. Rogers wasn’t afraid of dead air time, unlike me: Once he invited a marine biologist and explorer onto his program to put a microphone into his fish tank, because he wanted to show the kids at home that fish make sounds when they eat. However, while taping the segment, the fish weren’t hungry so the marine biologist started trying to egg the fish on, saying “C’mon,” “It’s Chowtime,” “Dinnerbell.” But Mr. Rogers just waited quietly. The crew thought he’d want to re-tape it, but Mr. Rogers just kept it… to show kids the importance of being patient.

9. Fred Rogers was a perfectionist, and so he disliked ad-libbing. He felt that he owed it to children to make sure that every word on his show was thought out. But here at mental_floss, we love ad libbing because it’s much less work.

10. In a Yale psychology study, when Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood went “head to head,” kids who watched Mr. Rogers not only remembered more of the story lines, but their, “Tolerance of delay,” a fancy term for their ability to wait for promised treats or adult attention, was considerably higher.

Image result for koko the gorilla mr rogers

11. Mr. Rogers was also beloved by Koko the Gorilla, you know Koko the Stanford educated Gorilla who can speak about 1000 words in American Sign Language; she watched The Neighborhood, and when Mr. Rogers made a trip to meet her, she not only embraced him but she did what she’d always see him do on screen: She proceeded to take his shoes off.

12. Those shoes were store bought, by the way, but every one of the cardigans Mr. Rogers wore on his show was knit by his mother.

13. Today one of them resides in the Smithsonian – a red one. Mr. Rogers chose to donate that sweater, because the cameras at his studio didn’t pick up the color very well.

14. Mr. Rogers could start to feel anxious and overwhelmed, and when he did, he liked to play the chords to the show’s theme song on the piano on set in order to calm himself.

15. The other way you could tell he was exasperated? If he said the word, “mercy.” Mostly, he said it when he got to his desk in the morning, and the mountains of fan mail were a little bit too tall. But, “mercy” was about the strongest word in his vocabulary.

Image result for mr rogers responding to fan mail

16. And yes, Mr. Rogers responded to every single piece of fan mail. He had the same routine every morning: wake up at 5:00AM. Pray for a few hours for all of his friends and family, study, write, make calls, reach out to every single fan who took the time to write him, go for a morning swim, get on a scale, then start the day. My morning routine is a bit less ambitious than that; Mr. Rogers, I thought you were supposed to make me feel good about myself! You just made me feel terrible!

17. But speaking of that daily weigh-in, Mr. Rogers watched his weight very closely. And he’d like to weigh exactly 143 lbs (65 kg). By the way, he didn’t drink, smoke, or eat the flesh of any animal. NATCH.

18. Why did Mr. Rogers like the number 1-4-3 so much? Because it takes 1 letter to say “I”, 4 letters to say “love,” and 3 letters to say, “you” (Jean –Luc Picard).

19. Now it starts to get a little weird. So, journalists had a tough time covering Mr. Rogers because he’d often, like befriend them, ask them tons of questions, take pictures of them, compile an album for them at the end of their time together, and then call them afterwards to check in on them and hear about their families. He genuinely loved hearing the life stories of other people.

20. And it wasn’t just reporters. Like once, on a fancy trip up to a PBS executive’s house, he heard the limo driver was gonna have to wait outside for two hours, so Mr. Rogers insisted that the driver come in and join them. And then, on the way back, Rogers sat up front, and when he learned that they were passing the driver’s house on the way, he asked if they could stop in to meet the family. And according to the driver, it was one of the best nights of his life. The house lit up when Rogers arrived, and he played jazz piano and bantered with them late into the night.

21. Okay, so thieves, Smithsonian curators, reporters, limo drivers, kids, all these people loved Mr. Rogers, but someone has to hate him, right? Well, LSU professor Don Chance certainly doesn’t love his legacy: He believes that Mr. Rogers created a, “culture of excessive doting” which resulted in generations of lazy, entitled college students… and that makes sense, because generally the deterioration of culture can be traced back to a single public television program.

Image result for was mr rogers in the military

22. Other curious theories about Mr. Rogers that are all over the Internet: That he served in the army and was a sniper in Vietnam;

23. That he served in the army and was a sniper in Korea;

24. That he only wore sweaters to cover up the tattoos on his arms. These are all untrue. He was never in the army; he never shot anyone; he had no tattoos.

25. One other rumor we’d like to quash? That he used to chase kids off his porch on Halloween. That’s crazy! In fact, his house was known for being one of those generous homes that give out full-size candy bars… because of course it was!

26. In fact, for all the myths that people want to create about him, Mr. Rogers seems to have been almost exactly the same person “off screen,” as he was, “onscreen.” As an ordained Presbyterian minister and a man of tremendous faith, Mr. Rogers preached tolerance first. He never engaged in the culture wars; all he would ever say is, “God loves you just the way you are.”

Image result for was mr rogers in the military

27. He was also kind of a superhero, like when the government wanted to cut public television funds in 1969, the then relatively unknown Mr. Rogers went to Washington and almost like straight out of a Capra film, his testimony on how TV had the potential to give kids hope and create more productive citizens was so passionate and convincing, that even the most gruff politicians were charmed… and instead of cutting the budget, funding for public TV jumped from $9M to $22M.

28. Years later, Mr. Rogers also swayed the Supreme Court to allow VCR’s to record TV shows from home. It was a cantankerous debate at the time, but his argument was that recording a program like his allowed working parents to sit down with their children and watch shows as a family. Plus, it allowed him to watch Captain Stubing on The Love Boat anytime he wanted, without having to stay up till 8:30PM.

29. He was also heavily parodied, but most of the people who made fun of him, loved him. Like Johnny Carson hoped his send up of The Neighborhood would make Mr. Rogers more famous.

30. And the first time Eddie Murphy met Mr. Rogers, he couldn’t stop himself from giving the guy a big hug.

All right, we’re running out of time, so let’s speed this up.

31. Mr. Rogers was color-blind. I mean that figuratively, like his parents took in African-American foster children, and he loved people of all backgrounds equally, but also literally.

32. Michael Keaton got his start on the show: He was a puppeteer and worked the trolley.

Related image

33. Mr. Rogers once made a guest appearance on Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman as a pastor’s mentor.

34. And many of the characters on his show took their names from his family. Like, McFeely was his grandfather’s name, Queen Sara is named for his wife.

35. And lastly, we return to the Salon so I can tell you probably my favorite story about Mr. Rogers: that he could make a whole New York City subway car full of strangers sing. He was rushing to a meeting and there were no cabs available so Mr. Rogers jumped on the subway. The car was full of people, Rogers assumed that he wouldn’t be noticed, but he quickly was, of course, and then people burst into song, chanting, “It’s a beautiful day in the neighborhood.”

Thanks for watching mental_floss, which is made with the help of all of these lovely people and remember that you make every day special just by being you.

Image result for mr rogers

Thank You For Reading!!!!

Serena Williams: Women And The Display Of Anger Part I Of II

Image result for Serena williams angry outburst

Serena Williams the professional women’s tennis sensation, and her Tennis winnings have been on display for the past 20 years, but this week her anger was full-court and it was 15-0. This brought a huge buzz around the news media and to other media outlets, the question, Was she right to display her anger like that? but more so, Why was she so angry? Which begs the big question: Is there a discrepancy of how angry men are treated when angry in tennis, and women are treated in sports and even in life???

One of the key individual and the posted-child for men’s anger in tennis, That was talked about this week, was the treatment of the male tennis John McEnroe: Great tennis star of the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s. Tennis Great, with “$12,539,622 in official earnings and 77 singles titles, third most behind Jimmy Connors’ 109 and Ivan Lendl’s 94. He won 17 Grand Slam championships, including nine in men’s doubles (seven with Peter Fleming) and one in mixed doubles with Mary Carillo at the French Open. His Davis Cup record was 41-8 in singles and 18-2 in doubles as he helped the U.S. win five Cups.” To his record of accomplishments.

His anger was on display so much that they called: “a whiner, a super talent nicknamed Superbrat.” However because he was a man, he wasn’t questioned, got a game taken away, Nor was he fined Like Serena Williams was. “Is this a double standard or are women in treated and taxed differently in society for being angry???”

Image result for Anger

What Is Anger


Anger is a basic human emotion that is experienced by all people. Typically triggered by an emotional hurt, anger is usually experienced as an unpleasant feeling that occurs when we think we have been injured, mistreated, opposed in our long-held views, or when we are faced with obstacles that keep us from attaining personal goals.

The experience of anger varies widely; how often anger occurs, how intensely it is felt, and how long it lasts are different for each person. People also vary in how easily they get angry (their anger threshold), as well as how comfortable they are with feeling angry. Some people are always getting angry while others seldom feel angry. Some people are very aware of their anger, while others fail to recognize anger when it occurs. Some experts suggest that the average adult gets angry about once a day and annoyed or peeved about three times a day. Other anger management experts suggest that getting angry fifteen times a day is more likely a realistic average. Regardless of how often we actually experience anger, it is a common and unavoidable emotion.

Image result for Anger

Anger can be constructive or destructive. When well managed, anger or annoyance has very few detrimental health or interpersonal consequences. At its roots, anger is a signal to you that something in your environment isn’t right. It captures your attention and motivates you to take action to correct that wrong thing. How you end up handling the anger signal has very important consequences for your overall health and welfare, however. When you express anger, your actions trigger others to become defensive and angry too. Blood pressures raises and stress hormones flow. Violence can ensue. You may develop a reputation as a dangerous ‘loose cannon’ whom no one wants to be around.

Out of control anger alienates friends, co-workers and family members. It also has a clear relationship with health problems and early mortality. Hostile, aggressive anger not only increases your risk for an early death, but also your risk for social isolation, which itself is a major risk factor for serious illness and death. These are but two of many reasons why learning to properly manage anger is a good idea.

Image result for Men and women Anger

Do Men And Women Experience Anger Differently:

Anger across the gender divide

Researchers strive to understand how men and women experience and express anger.


Both men and women are often ashamed of their anger, although it appears they may experience their anger differently, according to ongoing research. For example, gender socialization can affect how men and women handle their anger, researchers have found.

“Both men and women have been poorly served by the gender socialization they have received,” says psychologist Sandra Thomas, PhD, a leading research-er in women’s anger who has recently also begun studying men’s experiences with anger. “Men have been encouraged to be more overt with their anger. If [boys] have a conflict on the playground, they act it out with their fists. Girls have been encouraged to keep their anger down.”

Indeed, anger in men is often viewed as “masculine”–it is seen as “manly” when men engage in fistfights or act their anger out physically, notes Thomas, director of the nursing doctoral program at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. “For girls, acting out in that way is not encouraged,” she says. “Women usually get the message that anger is unpleasant and unfeminine.” Therefore, their anger may be misdirected in passive-aggressive maneuvers such as sulking or destructive gossip, she says.

In her view, however, neither approach in its extreme is healthy. It is important, Thomas says, for both men and women to be clear and forthright when they are angry and to use problem-solving techniques in dealing with their anger.

“Things are not getting better in anger behavior,” notes Thomas, who cites the many incidences today of violence among children. “We need to understand what anger is about before we can intervene effectively.”

Image result for Anger

Differences in anger expression

Also needed, researchers say, are efforts to dislodge gender stereotypes about anger. June Tangney, PhD, for example, has called into question common assumptions about women and anger, such as the notion that women have trouble with anger. Women don’t have a problem with anger–they just manage it differently, says Tangney, professor of psychology at George Mason University.

Women tend not to be as aggressive as men in expressing anger and tend to talk about their anger more, she says. “They are more proactive and use more problem-solving approaches in discussing a problem with a person they are angry with,” says Tangney.

And what makes ordinary women angry day-to-day? In 1993, Thomas conducted the Women’s Anger Study, a large-scale investigation involving 535 women between the ages of 25 and 66. The study revealed three common roots to women’s anger: powerlessness, injustice and the irresponsibility of other people.

While research has not yet suggested that different factors trigger men’s anger, researchers continue to uncover differences in how men and women experience it. Such was that case for Raymond DiGiuseppe, PhD, chair of the psychology department at St. John’s University in New York, in his research to develop a new anger disorder scale. In a survey of 1,300 people ages 18 to 90, DiGiuseppe investigated 18 subscales of anger, including how individuals experience their anger, how long the anger lasts and what they get angry about. While he found that differences in men’s and women’s total anger scores were not significant, he did find differences in the way they experience anger. Specifically, men scored higher on physical aggression, passive aggression and experiences of impulsively dealing with their anger. They also more often had a revenge motive to their anger and scored higher on coercing other people.

Image result for Anger

Women, on the other hand, were found to be angry longer, more resentful and less likely to express their anger, compared with men. DiGuiseppe found that women used indirect aggression by “writing off” a higher number of people–intending to never speak to them again because of their anger.

Anger slowly decreases with age, DiGiuseppe found, and differences in the domains of anger between the sexes decreases for those older than 50, although men are still more likely to be aggressive and women are still more likely to have longer episodes of anger. DiGiuseppe’s research will be published this year by Multi-Health Systems, a Canadian publisher of psychological tests.

Future directions

Thomas has expanded the scope of her research and replicated some of her studies on American women’s anger with women from different countries, such as France and Turkey. She has also conducted a study aimed at understanding the meaning of men’s anger. Her research is awaiting publication in the APA journal Psychology of Men and Masculinity.

Anger researchers Deborah Cox, PhD, Patricia Van Velsor, PhD, and Joseph Hulgus, PhD, are working to validate an anger diversion model. Cox first developed the model with Sally Stabb, PhD, and Karin H. Bruckner, authors of “The Anger Advantage” (Broadway, 2003). The model holds that when individuals bypass awareness of their anger, the diversion process can cause anger symptoms. In support, the team has found women who either try to mask their anger, or externalize and project their anger irresponsibly, were at higher risk for anxiety, nervousness, tension and panic attacks.

Cox, a Southwest Missouri State University psychologist and assistant professor, hopes that researchers will also apply the anger diversion model to men and boys. “It may be that men are more reinforced for using certain diversion forms over others–and more than women,” Cox says. “However, it seems that the underlying process may be the same across genders, and it’s one that could be translated, ‘Your anger is wrong and should be gotten rid of as soon as possible.'”

To get at such complexities, researchers may need to try new approaches, Cox says. “Much of what we must do demands that we talk to women and men and get their stories about anger, versus testing them in a paper-and-pencil type of format,” she explains. “Only through getting people’s verbatim stories can we get a real sense of how they interpret their own anger.”

How Are Men And Women Perceived When Anger?

Image result for Anger

Why Don’t We Trust Angry Women?

In a study that won several prizes, Arizona State University psychologist Jessica Salerno, with University of Chicago-Illinois psychologist Liana Peter-Hagene (2015), investigated what happens when women and men become angry during jury deliberations. In these situations, jurors often find themselves needing to sway the opinions of others. The stakes are high: The jury’s decision will decide the fate of another human being, and if they get it wrong, an innocent man or woman may be sentenced, or a guilty party go scot-free. Emotions run high and speeches can be very passionate.

If women and men are perceived differently when they express their anger in impassioned speeches, then their influence on fellow jurors should reflect these impressions. If you’re taken seriously when you get angry, you may persuade others to change their mind; if you’re viewed as a lightweight, you’ll be ignored.

To create a scenario that would reproduce what juries do in a controlled experimental setting, Salerno and Peter-Hagene recruited an ethnically diverse sample of 210 undergraduates (about two-thirds of them female) to participate in a computer simulation of the deliberation process. Participants read transcripts from an actual murder trial, saw photographs of the crimescene, and viewed several other photos that weren’t from the trial but gave the scenario greater credibility. The evidence was sufficiently ambiguous to lead participants in a prior study to vote for conviction only 62% of the time; in the present study, 43% of participants arrived at a guilty verdict.

After deciding on their verdict, participants encountered the simulated jury deliberation. They read scripts from other jurors in which one “holdout” refused to go along with the majority opinion. The holdout was identified by name as either a male or a female, and their arguments contained anger (“Seriously, this just makes me angry”), fear (“It scares me to think about how…”), or no emotion at all.

The fear condition was important because the researchers needed to control for the expression of any emotion. If fear and anger produced the same reaction, then one could argue that the effects were due to emotional arousal rather than the specific effects of anger.

Image result for Measuring the influence of juries

Salerno and Peter-Hagene measured the influence on jurors of being exposed to these conditions by having them rate the confidence they had in their initial verdict both before and after reading the scripts from the holdouts. The key question would be whether the participants became less confident in their verdict after reading what the holdout had to say.

The team‘s findings presented clear evidence that men and women have differing influence when they express opinions in an angry manner. Participants were more likely to doubt their initial judgments after hearing what an angry male holdout had to say, but were more confident in their own judgments after reading the angry woman’s arguments. Everything in the two conditions was the same—except the holdout’s gender.

As Salerno and Peter-Hegene observed (p. 9), “Expressing anger created a gender gap in influence that did not exist before the holdout started expressing anger or when the holdouts expressed fear or no emotion.” This effect was specific to anger, not fear. Further analyses revealed the reason for this gender gap: Participants regarded an angry woman as more emotional, which made them more confident in their own opinion.

Continue To Part II Next Wednesday

Understanding, Controlling, Repairing, And Manipulating Emotions Part I Of VI

This is how your brain constructs emotions

Book excerpt: How emotions are made

By Lisa Feldman Barrett March 7, 2017

Image result for This is how your brain constructs emotions


Where do your feelings come from? Lisa Feldman Barrett explains with neuroscience in How Emotions Are Made.

Houghton Mifflin Harcourt

The following is excerpted from How Emotions Are Made by Lisa Feldman Barrett.

For my daughter’s twelfth birthday, we exploited the power of simulation (and had some fun) by throwing a “gross foods” party. When her guests arrived, we served them pizza doctored with green food coloring so the cheese looked like fuzzy mold, and peach gelatin laced with bits of vegetables to look like vomit. For drinks, we served white grape juice in medical urine sample cups. Everybody was exuberantly disgusted (it was perfect twelve-year-old humor), and several guests could not bring themselves to touch the food as they involuntarily simulated vile tastes and smells. The pièce de résistance, however, was the party game we played after lunch: a simple contest to identify foods by their smell. We used mashed baby food—peaches, spinach, beef, and so on—and artfully smeared it on diapers, so it looked exactly like baby poo. Even though the guests knew that the smears were food, several actually gagged from the simulated smell.

Related image

Simulations are your brain’s guesses of what’s happening in the world. In every waking moment, you’re faced with ambiguous, noisy information from your eyes, ears, nose, and other sensory organs. Your brain uses your past experiences to construct a hypothesis—the simulation—and compares it to the cacophony arriving from your senses. In this manner, simulation lets your brain impose meaning on the noise, selecting what’s relevant and ignoring the rest.

The discovery of simulation in the late 1990’s ushered in a new era in psychology and neuroscience. Scientific evidence shows that what we see, hear, touch, taste, and smell are largely simulations of the world, not reactions to it. Forward-looking thinkers speculate that simulation is a common mechanism not only for perception but also for understanding language, feeling empathy, remembering, imagining, dreaming, and many other psychological phenomena. Our common sense might declare that thinking, perceiving, and dreaming are different mental events (at least to those of us in Western cultures), yet one general process describes them all. Simulation is the default mode for all mental activity. It also holds a key to unlocking the mystery of how the brain creates emotions.

Image result for bee bouncing lightly on the petal of a fragrant white flower

Outside your brain, stimulation can cause tangible changes in your body. Let’s try a little creative simulation with our bee. In your mind’s eye, see the bee bouncing lightly on the petal of a fragrant white flower, buzzing around as it searches for pollen. If you’re fond of bees, then the utter of imaginary wings is right now causing other neurons to prepare your body to move in for a closer look—preparing your heart to beat faster, your sweat glands to fill, and your blood pressure to decrease. Or if you have been badly stung in the past, your brain may ready your body to run away or make a swatting motion, formulating some other pattern of physical changes. Each time your brain simulates sensory input, it prepares automatic changes in your body that have the potential to change your feeling.

Your bee-related simulations are rooted in your mental concept of what a “Bee” is. This concept not only includes information about the bee itself (what it looks and sounds like, how you act on it, what changes in your autonomic nervous system allow your action, etc.), but also information contained in other concepts related to bees (“Meadow,” “Flower,” “Honey,” “Sting,” “Pain,” etc.). All this information is integrated with your concept “Bee,” guiding how you simulate the bee in this particular context. So, a concept like “Bee” is actually a collection of neural patterns in your brain, representing your past experiences. Your brain combines these patterns in different ways to perceive and flexibly guide your action in new situations.

Image result for Using your concepts,  Mountain and Hills

Using your concepts, your brain groups some things together and separates others. You can look at three mounds of dirt and perceive two of them as “Hills” and one as a “Mountain,” based on your concepts. Construction treats the world like a sheet of pastry, and your concepts are cookie cutters that carve boundaries, not because the boundaries are natural, but because they’re useful or desirable. These boundaries have physical limitations of course; you’d never perceive a mountain as a lake. Not everything is relative.

Your concepts are a primary tool for your brain to guess the meaning of incoming sensory inputs. For example, concepts give meaning to changes in sound pressure so you hear them as words or music instead of random noise. In Western culture, most music is based on an octave divided into twelve equally spaced pitches: the equal-tempered scale codified by Johann Sebastian Bach in the seventeenth century. All people of Western culture with normal hearing have a concept for this ubiquitous scale, even if they can’t explicitly describe it. Not all music uses this scale, however. When Westerners hear Indonesian gamelan music for the first time, which is based on seven pitches per octave with varied tuning, it’s more likely to sound like noise. A brain that’s been wired by listening to twelve-tone scales doesn’t have a concept for that music. Personally, I am experintally blind to dub-step, although my teenage daughter clearly has that concept.

Related image

Concepts also give meaning to the chemicals that create tastes and smells. If I served you pink ice cream, you might expect (simulate) the taste of strawberry, but if it tasted like sh, you would find it jarring, perhaps even disgusting. If I instead introduced it as “chilled salmon mousse” to give your brain fair warning, you might find the same taste delicious (assuming you enjoy salmon). You might think of food as existing in the physical world, but in fact the concept “Food” is heavily cultural. Obviously, there are some biological constraints; you can’t eat razor blades. But there are some perfectly edible substances that we don’t all perceive as food, such as hachinoko, a Japanese delicacy made of baby bees, which most Americans would vigorously avoid. This cultural difference is due to concepts.

Every moment that you are alive, your brain uses concepts to simulate the outside world. Without concepts, you are experintally blind. With concepts, your brain simulates so invisibly and automatically that vision, hearing, and your other senses seem like re- exes rather than constructions.

Now consider this: what if your brain uses this same process to make meaning of the sensations from inside your body—the commotion arising from your heartbeat, breathing, and other internal movements?

Related image

From your brain’s perspective, your body is just another source of sensory input. Sensations from your heart and lungs, your metabolism, your changing temperature, and so on, are like ambiguous blobs. These purely physical sensations inside your body have no objective psychological meaning. Once your concepts enter the picture, however, those sensations may take on additional meaning. If you feel an ache in your stomach while sitting at the dinner table, you might experience it as hunger. If flu season is just around the corner, you might experience that same ache as nausea. If you are a judge in a courtroom, you might experience the ache as a gut feeling that the defendant cannot be trusted. In a given moment, in a given context, your brain uses concepts to give meaning to internal sensations as well as to external sensations from the world, all simultaneously. From an aching stomach, your brain constructs an instance of hunger, nausea, or mistrust.

Now consider that same stomach-ache if you’re sniffing a diaper heavy with pureed lamb, as my daughter’s friends did at her gross foods birthday party. You might experience the ache as disgust. Or if your lover has just walked into the room, you might experience the ache as a pang of longing. If you’re in a doctor’s office waiting for the results of a medical test, you might experience that same ache as an anxious feeling. In these cases of disgust, longing, and anxiety, the concept active in your brain is an emotion concept. As before, your brain makes meaning from your aching stomach, together with the sensations from the world around you, by constructing an instance of that concept.

Continue With Part II Of VI

The New Apple Launch And No “Beats”??? Is Apple Trying To Get Rid Of This Icon Music Listening Device???

Does Apple still care about Beats?

The Apple subsidiary is getting competition from its parent company

Apple’s big fall iPhone event is tomorrow, but if you’ve been hoping for something new from Beats, prepare to be let down. The company does not plan to announce any new hardware from Beats, the largest premium headphone company in the world, a source close to the situation tells The Verge. In fact, any and all evidence surrounding new headphones from the company points toward new products directly from Apple. There’s a strong chance that we’ll see an updated pair of AirPods. There has also been talk about Apple producing its own over-the-ear headphones, which would presumably compete against options from Beats, the headphone company Apple spent $3 billion acquiring.

There’s a good chance 2018 will end with no new products from Beats at all, which is uncharted territory for the headphone maker. Since Apple bought Beats Electronics in 2013, its subsidiary has released either a new pair of headphones or a speaker every year until now. That may seem like a jarring shift at first, but upon closer inspection, you’ll notice that Beats has largely only made iterative updates: it’s on the third edition of its Solo, Studio, and Powerbeats lines, all of which have received minor updates over the years instead of releasing truly new and innovative products. The last new headphones it introduced were the BeatsX back in 2016, and those have yet to receive an iterative update.

What Beats has done extremely well is leverage its position as a staple of youth, sports, and fashion culture. You’ll see Beats headphones being worn by many of the top athletes in the world and in a number of music videos from major artists in order to sell the same headphones over and over again, despite the lack of new hardware. Beats consistently releases new colorways of its headphones (a marketing strategy popularized by Jordan Brand and employed throughout the sneaker and fashion industry) to keep its brand relevant. But one would think Apple spent billions on Beats for more than its engineering team that helped create Apple Music and some periodically repainted headphones.

To be fair, that strategy has worked: Beats just inked a deal to be the official headphones of the NBA and USA Basketball; it has signed major celebrities like LeBron James, Neymar, Colin Kaepernick, and Serena Williams as brand ambassadors; and, by most metrics, it owns nearly 50 percent of the premium headphone market. But it could be argued that this isn’t necessarily due to the quality of the products — the Studio 3s are good headphones, but not the best in the industry, as Vlad Savov noted in his review — but more so because of the company’s exceptional marketing team.

So what would happen if Apple actually developed products for Beats as more than an afterthought? We may never know. Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman reported that Apple is preparing its own over-the-ear headphones that would compete directly with the Studio 3 and Solo 3 headphones, the bread and butter of its subsidiary. Apple’s standalone audio history has been up and down recently; it found success with its wireless AirPods, but it’s had a much tougher time with its HomePod smart speaker making inroads against Amazon’s Echo and the Google Home speaker.

In his report, Gurman noted that the upcoming over-the-ear headphones from Apple are designed to compete for the high-end headphone market, an area that Beats has targeted with its Beats Pro (which also haven’t received an update in years). And Apple’s AirPods have already claimed a large portion of the wireless headphone market, which will likely exclude Beats from entering into that forum. Apple is going after both the high-end headphone market and the wireless market without utilizing the headphone company it purchased. If Apple doesn’t release new products from Beats unless they are iterative updates to existing products — let us not forget the Beats Pill, which hasn’t been updated since 2015 — what space does that leave for Beats to evolve as more than a sideshow for Apple’s self-branded products?

Jordan Brand earns most of its cache from the retro shoe colorways it created in the ‘80s and ‘90s, but it still releases a pair of new shoes every year for athletes and customers who want the latest and greatest in sneaker technology and comfort, despite competing against its parent company Nike in nearly every respect. The relationship has become symbiotic, benefiting both parties for the greater good of the organization. But from the outside looking in, the relationship between Apple and Beats is seemingly parasitic, with Apple siphoning off what it needs from Beats at will — be it a music streaming service or engineers to build a new pair of wireless headphones. That isn’t uncommon when acquisitions take place, but, normally, those companies are merged within the parent organization, not kept around at arm’s length while maintaining their own identity.

Back in 2014 when Apple acquired Beats, I wrote that part of the reason for the deal was that Apple needed an in to black culture, an area it would harness when it came time to launch its streaming music service. And it has done just that: nearly every major hip-hop release on the service pulls in more streams than Spotify, which has over 100 million more users. Apple leveraged the culture that Beats brought with it along with its own excellent marketing teams to build a service that has become the go-to place for hip-hop fans. But just because Apple has reached this point with Apple Music doesn’t mean it should neglect Beats, which is still one of the main aspects that connects Apple to the youth and urban markets besides iPhones.

Apple has its eyes set on the high-end audio market to compete against the likes of Audio-Technica, Bose, and a rapidly improving headphone ecosystem. But neglecting the team that has been able to sell slightly above-average headphones at a breakneck pace for nearly a decade doesn’t seem like a smart business move for either party. If you are the official headphone company for United States Basketball, it seems wise to continue releasing new headphones. And if you are Apple — and your history with headphones and speakers has precisely one win, despite many attempts — you should lean on the company you own that hasn’t missed yet.

Max Fleischer: The History And Unveiling Of The Cartoon Betty Boop Part II Of II

Image result for Betty Boop Made Her Debut

Betty Boop Made Her Debut

Fleischer created a number of firsts with his brother, including the “bouncing-ball” sing along cartoons, which were silent but synchronized to the cinema orchestras. His cartoon “Song Car-Tune” was the first cartoon with a soundtrack, and was produced in 1924. Betty Boop was the first female cartoon star, making her debut in 1930. She was the girlfiend of an unpopular character named Bimbo, who starred in Dizzy Dishes, and she soon had her own series. The Fleischer brothers’ creation was a sexy woman in the form of a cartoon character. Gary Morris recalled her appearance in Bright Lights Film Journal, “Betty is best remembered for her red-hot jazz baby persona. With a head like a giant peanut, vast mascara’d eyes, too-kissable lips, baby-doll voice (courtesty of singer Mae Questel), flattened marcelled hair, and mere threads of a dress exposing miles of hot flesh, she was the perfect celluloid sex toy.”

A far cry from the wholesome characters being created at the Disney Studios, Betty Boop not only appeared sexy but acted the part. She was often shown undressing and kissing clowns, cats, and other creatures. While other cartoons of the time were focusing on the charming lives of adorable animals, the Fleischers had Betty running around in her slinky costumes, living the life of a provocative young woman. The general trend in movies and cartoons was more respectable, and Betty Boop was bucking this trend. Amelia S. Holberg discussed the differences between Disney and the Fleischers in American Jewish History, “By the time Pinocchio was released, Disney had redefined animation as a children’s genre. The very adult Betty Boop, on the other hand, was a flapper, a flashy city party girl, not a respectable lady and definitely not an appropriate character for children’s films.” The Hays office Production Code was instituted in 1934, and censors transformed Betty Boop into an all-American girl, clothing her more fully and temporarily banning her garter. The series ended in 1939, but there was a Betty Boop revival in the 1970s. She starred in a touring film festival, “Betty Boop’s Scandals,” and was featured in Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade in 1984. 1985 saw Betty Boop’s network television debut, and her sixtieth birthday was celebrated in the animated special, “Betty Boop’s Hollywood Mystery.”

Image result for Popeye the Sailor ManÂ

Popeye the Sailor Man

Max and Dave Fleischer followed up their Betty Boop success with another popular character’s introduction in 1933. Popeye was a result of stiff competition among animation studios. A key part of the studios’ business strategies was the development of cartoon characters whose popularity would guarantee bookings by major theater chains. Disney’s Donald Duck and Goofy were developed from smaller roles in Mickey Mouse cartoons, and Warner Bros. created Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck after their initial success in films featuring other animated animals. E.C. Segar created a comic strip called “Thimble Theater” in 1919. He introduced Popeye into the strip as a temporary character, but when Segar attempted to write Popeye out, fans complained and he returned as Olive Oyl’s love interest. Max Fleischer requested the right to use Popeye from Hearst’s King Features Syndicate and was granted permission two years after Betty Boop’s debut.

Due to the very satisfying quality of the first Popeye production, the agreement between Fleischer and King Features was extended to a five-year term even before the film’s release. The movie, entitled Betty Boop Presents Popeye the Sailor, marked the beginning of Popeye’s highly successful series. Within five years, Popeye was the most popular American cartoon character. Fleischer was so confident, he attempted to convince film distributor Paramount to back a feature-length Popeye movie, but the shorts they created were the most profitable Popeye productions.

Disney moved into feature films in 1937 with the success of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, forcing the Fleischers into entering this new arena. They produced the feature-length cartoons Gulliver’s Travels and Mr. Bug Goes To Town in 1938 and 1941, both of which bombed. Their expansion, which involved enlarging their staff to produce the features, proved unsuccessful. In 1942 Paramount forced the brothers out of their own studio. Amidst this disappointment, the Fleischers premiered the first Superman short in 1941.

Max Fleischer went on to direct films, which include 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Dr. Doolittle, Compulsion, Tora Tora Tora, and The Jazz Singer. After Paramount bought his studio, Fleischer worked for that company as production chief of cartooning until he retired in the 1960s. Fleischer died of heart failure on September 11, 1972, in Woodland Hills, California. He was survived by his wife, Essie, and two children.

One after another, voice actors appeared before the judge. This was no ordinary courtroom testimony—they were there to squeak Betty Boop’s signature “boop-boop-a-doop.” It was 1934, and Betty Boop was on trial. (

Image result for betty boop

Betty Boop

The cartoon vixen was an unlikely candidate for a lawsuit—and for popularity. She “was never intended to be a continuing character,” says animation historian Ray Pointer, author of The Art and Inventions of Max Fleischer. In fact, the original 1932 version of Betty Boop, created by Fleischer Studios, wasn’t even human. Rather, she was a talking, singing French poodle with long, floppy ears.

Animator Max Fleischer. (Credit: Science History Images/Alamy Stock Photo)
Animator Max Fleischer. (Credit: Science History Images/Alamy Stock Photo)

But soon, Betty’s ears became earrings and she was reinvented as a human being. The new Betty Boop was a vivacious flapper who drove a car, did popular dances and showed plenty of skin. Her wide eyes and sexy looks were a hit with audiences—as was the fact that she was a clear parody of popular singer Helen Kane. The squeaky-voiced jazz singer was known for her sexy lyrics and baby-like singing, and Betty Boop delivered a spot-on imitation.

Kane’s delivery—including her signature “boop-boop-a-doop”—was “a theatrical staple going back years,” says Pointer. Like the vaudeville performers that preceded her, Kane used her little-girl voice to deliver lyrics that would have been shocking in the mouth of another singer.

The New York Times called her “the most menacing of the baby-talk ladies”—a reference to a vaudeville phenomenon also used by performers like Fanny Brice and Irene Franklin. Two years before Betty Boop’s debut, Kane had skyrocketed to fame with the song “That’s My Weakness Now,” which used the phrase “boop-boop-a-doop” as shorthand for sex.

The original caption to these images claimed that Betty Boop was based on Helen Kane, before the lawsuit in May.
The original caption to these images claimed that Betty Boop was based on Helen Kane, before the lawsuit in May.

Audiences would have recognized the send-up of Kane, now a Paramount star. But so did Kane herself—and when she experienced economic hardship due to a layoff, she took legal action against the animation studio. She sought $250,000 in damages and no further showings of Betty Boop cartoons—and claimed that phrases like “boop-boop-a-doop, boop-boopa doop, or boop-boopa-do, or boop-a-doop or similar combinations of such sounds or simply boop alone” were her own—part of what she called her “baby vamp” act.

But Max Fleischer, the animation pioneer who owned the studio, didn’t back down. He brought three women to court who had voiced Betty Boop—each of whom claimed they hadn’t imitated Kane and did their Betty Boop voices to prove it. The judge watched footage of Fleischer cartoons and Kane performances.

Eventually, says Pointer, “the court stenographer threw up his hands. Some of the testimony became almost hilarious.” The press had a field day with the concept of a performer attempting to protect her popular “boops.”

It seemed like Kane had a legitimate case—and her lawsuit made it all the way to the New York Supreme Court. But it stalled there, thanks to the origins of her signature sound. The Fleischers trotted out a number of witnesses who claimed they’d heard “boops” and baby talk in nightclubs, cabarets and vaudeville theaters before Kane became famous.

Image result for betty boop esther

The Betty Boop Show, 1971. (Credit: AF archive / Alamy Stock Photo)
The Betty Boop Show, 1971. (Credit: AF archive / Alamy Stock Photo)

And then came talk of Baby Esther, the stage name of an African-American performer named Esther Jones. Baby Esther’s manager claimed that Kane and her manager had seen Jones perform in 1928, then copied her style. This was corroborated by Kane’s manager, says Pointer. Baby Esther herself was not available to testify, presumably because she was dead. But Fleischer Studios provided a screen test—now lost—of Jones that convinced the judge Kane had copied the singer.

To this day, there are no confirmed photos or recordings of Jones, and Jones herself never testified in the lawsuit. Nevertheless, says Pointer, “It was just so silly they wanted to get on with it,” bringing the lengthy lawsuit to a close without staging a widespread search for Jones. Kane lost the case, and Betty Boop kept on booping. A vindictive Max Fleischer even gathered his Betty Boop voice actors on camera to make fun of the lawsuit during a newsreel—and not long after, Betty Boop herself appeared in a cartoon called “Betty Boop’s Trial.”

As for Kane, she faded from popularity. When she died in 1966, the New York Times recalled her as a “once giggly, wiggly brunette”—and told the story of how she squandered her fortune on a failed clothing company.

(Moviestore collection Ltd/Alamy Stock Photo)
(Moviestore collection Ltd/Alamy Stock Photo)

A Boop-related lawsuit may have seemed silly, but it pointed to the outrageous popularity of Betty Boop. Her sexually suggestive dancing, squeaky voice and seductive costume, complete with garter, captivated audiences. Her songs were racy enough to raise eyebrows, but not explicit enough to make the cartoons unacceptable. “That’s why they were fun,” says Pointer. Even though she was given a more modest makeover after the passage of the Hays Code in 1934, she stayed popular until she was discontinued in 1939. The dog-turned-doll-like heroine has lived on through syndication and merchandising since television’s early days.

Though the flapper age was over by the time Betty Boop took to the screen, she was beloved by Depression-era audiences. “The public embraced her because [she] reminded them of the carefree days of the 1920s,” says Pointer. And as the most unique human woman cartoon character of her day, she became a fan favorite.

For Pointer, she’s important for another reason: her music. “The cartoons helped to promote and expose the public to jazz and swing,” he recalls. And Betty Boop’s cartoons help preserve America’s long-gone vaudeville tradition—one that was based, in large part, on the contributions of unacknowledged African-American performers.(

More Betty Boop Throughout History

The journey of the first sex symbol in cartoon history. Sounds…interesting. But also weird, right? It’s complicated. Betty Boop was created by Max Fleischer and drawn by Grim Natwick in the early 1930s for an animated short entitled “Dizzy Dishes.” She was a nightclub singer, and an object of the attentions of lustful men (yep, it sure was the 1930s). Audiences loved her, and Paramount Studios took notice of the people clamoring for more cartoons “with that girl in them.”

Image result for Max Fleischer with that girl in them

Betty Boop was one of the most successful cartoon characters of the early 1930s. Even as the Great Depression cast the nation into decidedly unsexy times, Betty’s image could be seen on everything from playing cards to nail polish to cigarette cases. Her appeal was real, even if she was…well, a cartoon.

In 1934’s Poor Cinderella, Betty appeared in color for the first time, as a redhead:

That same year, the Hayes office (Hollywood’s official censor) introduced a new production code imposing rigid standards on sexual suggestion in film. Betty’s backless dress was replaced with a much longer dress with sleeves and a collar; her garter belt was never seen again. Betty was now portrayed as a schoolteacher, secretary, and babysitter…not so much as a nightclub singer. In 1939, Fleischer Studios released the swan song of the original Betty Boop series: “Yip Yip Yippy.”

Image result for Max Fleischer“Yip Yip Yippy.

But in the 1980s, Betty Boop returned (nostalgia was big back then). Check out “The Romance of Betty Boop” from 1985 — the full-length cartoon was set during the Great Depression, and even featured a Cab Calloway song as a throwback to the originals

And of course, in 1988’s Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Betty makes a cameo in a sultry scene that we have to assume is the most meta homage to the sexualization of cartoons in film history.

Related image

So much for the Hayes office’s pearl-clutching censorship. So what does the legacy of Betty Boop mean today? Well, for one thing, it means we have a rich, complicated, and very Woolly cultural framework to ponder with our next show, Collective Rage: A Play in Five Boops.

We hope you’ll join us. Boop boop a doop. (

Image result for Max Fleischer  Death & Legacy

Death & Legacy

After years of battling with Paramount, Fleischer’s health began to deteriorate. During that time, he fought to regain the title to Betty Boop, a battle he eventually won by the time if his death. When Fleischer passed away on September 11, 1972 from arterial sclerosis of the brain, Time magazine referred to him as “Dean of Animated Cartoons.” His son Richard, a film director, wrote Out of the Inkwell: Max Fleischer and the Animation Revolution (University Press of Kentucky), a biography about his father which was released in 2005. The Art and Inventions of Max Fleischer (McFarland, 2016) by Ray Pointer also covers the Fleischer’s life and pioneering work. (/

Max Fleischer: The History And Unveiling Of The Cartoon Betty Boop Part I Of II

Image result for max fleischer

Max Fleischer Biography

Inventor, Cartoonist (1883–1972)

Max Fleischer was an animator, director and inventor of some 30 patents for animation production. He is best known for creating animated cartoons featuring popular characters including Betty Boop, Popeye the Sailor Man and Superman. He is considered one the three major pioneers of American animation of the 20th Century, along with Winsor McCay and Walt Disney.

Early Years

Max Fleischer was born on July 18, 1883, in Krakow, in the province of Galicia under the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and arrived in New York City at age five. His father established a successful tailoring shop which catered to wealthy clients. Fleischer attended public school, and after graduating from Evening High School, he attended The Mechanics and Tradesman School, The Art Students League and Cooper Union, where he received a commercial art degree. His career began at The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, where he worked his way up from running errands to the positions of photographer and staff cartoonist while still in his teens. He began drawing single panel political cartoons for “fillers,” and later drew two daily comic strips, Little Algy and E.K. Sposher, the Camera Fiend.

In 1909, Max and his family moved to Syracuse, New York, where he was a catalog illustrator for the Crouse-Hinds Company. A year later, he moved back to New York and became art editor for Popular Science Magazine. It was during this period that Max became involved in animation at the suggestion of his boss, Waldemar Klaempffert. Having seen a crudely produced animated cartoon at a movie the previous evening, he suggested that Max find a way of improving animation through the application of photography and mechanics. The result was The Rotoscope, a combination of a film projector and easel, designed to trace figures from motion picture footage to produce fluid, realistic animation. After two experiments, he filmed his younger brother, Dave in his Coney Island clown costume for an original subject.

The result led to his being hired by John R. Bray as production manager and producer of a series of monthly releases titled, “Out of the Inkwell.”

Image result for Bray Studios

Animation Pioneer

The first releases (1918-1921) were produced at the pioneering Bray Studios, included in the Bray-Goldwyn Pictograph film magazine series. The series was popular with movie audiences due to its clever combinations of animation with live action, showing Fleischer drawing the clown and interacting with him. The climax of each film would involve the animated character “crossing the fourth wall” and pulling some prank or act of revenge in the real world.

In addition to entertainment novelty series such as “Out of the Inkwell,” Fleischer produced several educational films during the silent era, beginning with a series for the U.S. Army during World War I on subjects including “Contour Map Reading,” and “Firing the Stokes Mortar.” Fleischer also produced a number of films on astronomy, including All Aboard for the Moon and Hello, Mars.

Image result for inkwell studios

The Inkwell Studio

Max Fleischer formed Out of the Inkwell Films, Inc. with his brother, Dave in 1921, and continued with technical advancements, including the Rotograph technique, an early optical process that allowed for the re-photographing of live action film footage with animation cels. His invention was the precursor to the aerial image process used widely in the 1960s and 70s for compositing titles over live action background footage. In 1924, Fleischer invented the “bouncing ball” sing-along films, first known as Song Car-tunes, and later Screen Songs. Several of the early Song Car-tunes were released with soundtracks between 1926 and 1927, prior to the official start of the “talkie era” and preceding Walt Disney’s Steamboat Willie as the first sound cartoon by two years. It was in this period that the “Fleischer Clown” became known as “Ko-Ko the Clown,” (a.k.a. Koko the Clown). Image result for Max Fleischer  Animation Pioneer

In 1923, Fleischer produced two important 20-minute science films, Evolution and Relativity, both using live action and animation special effects to demonstrate these theories.

Image result for Fleischer Studios and the Sound Era

Fleischer Studios and the Sound Era

With talking motion pictures taking hold by 1929, Fleischer had a secure financial/distribution arrangement with Paramount Pictures and its large network of theaters. Then in 1930, Fleischer found great success in what started as a cameo character, who transformed very quickly into its most successful character at that time, Betty Boop. In 1934, popular singer, Helen Kane sued Fleischer and Paramount over the Betty Boop character, only to lose when it was proven that Kane had stolen the singing style from an African-American performer, “Baby” Esther Jones. The law case in it’s entirety explained later in this blog 

Fleischer’s greatest business move came with securing the screen rights to the E.C. Segar comic strip character, Popeye the Sailor. The huge success of the Popeye series propelled Fleischer’s studio into unheralded success. And the continued demand for Popeye cartoons led to a major labor strike in 1937.

Fleischer was at the zenith of his career with his most impressive technical development in the Stereoptical Process shown to great affect in the Color Classics series and most importantly in the two-reel Popeye specials — Popeye the Sailor Meets Sindbad the Sailor (1936) and Popeye the Sailor Meets Ali Baba and his Forty Thieves (1937).

Image result for max fleischer

Miami Period

Following the settlement of the strike, Fleischer announced plans to relocate to Miami, Florida with a new production schedule of short subjects and features. Fleischer’s gradual move toward longer animated films paved the way for animated features, allowing for the success of Walt Disney’s Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs,Paramount backed Fleischer on his first full-length feature, Gulliver’s Travels(1939).

Fleischer’s next major business move was with the Superman screen rights, which propelled his studio into relevance in the 1940s with its science fiction fantasy content. While Superman was an instant hit, it came too late. The working relationship between Max and Dave Fleischer had deteriorated during the production of Gulliver’s Travels, and Fleischer’s organization came under reorganization following Paramount’s losses over their final feature, Mr. Bug Goes to Town (1941). While set for release as Paramount’s 1941 Christmas film, Mr. Bugwas plagued with problems. It was rejected by theater operators, and its release was further complicated by the national panic set off by the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

Due to continued losses, Max Fleischer resigned and Fleischer Studios reorganized as Famous Studios on May 27, 1942. Fleischer parlayed his experience producing educational and industrial films into a new position as head of the animation department at The Jam Handy Organization, which required him to move to Detroit, Michigan where he remained until 1956. His career came full circle as he returned to The Bray Studio as production manager and developed pilots for educational television series, including Imagine That!

In 1956, Fleischer sued Paramount for $2,750,000 over the sale of the cartoons produced under his contracts and won the lawsuit. In 1958, he resurrected his old company, Out of the Inkwell Films, Inc. to bring Koko the Clown to television. And in 1960, 100 new color cartoons were produced by Max’s former animator, Hal Seeger.

Related image

Max Fleischer Facts

A pioneer of film animation, cartoonist Max Fleischer (1883-1972) created cartoon characters Betty Boop and Popeye. He is also remembered for his more than 20 motion picture production inventions, particularly the rotoscope.

Max Fleischer was born into a family of inventors on July 17, 1883, in Vienna, Austria. His mother immigrated with him to the United States when he was four years old, and he was raised on the Lower East Side of New York City. Fleischer was one of five sons. Animator Dave Fleischer was his younger brother.

Fleischer didn’t finish high school, but attended numerous trade schools and art programs in his youth. He worked for the Brooklyn Daily Eagle as a cartoonist, photographer, and photo-engraver before becoming art director for the magazine Popular Science. Fleischer’s animation career began at Joseph Randolph Bray’s studio, where he made instructional films during a short World War I commission.

Image result for Rotoscope

Invented the Rotoscope

Fleischer were granted a patent in 1917 for the rotoscope, a mechanism used for transferring live action film into animated cartoon through tracing. Still used in modern animation and video game production, this process involves the projection of single frames of film onto a drawing surface for tracing. Re-photographing the sequence of drawings results in very lifelike animation. Image result for Rotoscope

This invention was prompted by Fleischer’s frustration with cel animation, which didn’t allow a realistic enough product. Creating their first rotoscoped cartoon character, the Fleischer brothers shot a normal filmstrip of a body in motion. Dressed as a clown, Dave was the body. Using the rotoscope, the Fleischer’s then magnified each frame of the filmstrip onto a piece of glass. The next step involved tracing Dave’s changing positions onto celluloid frame by frame, changing his features into those of their new character, Koko the Clown. The final stage was photographing each piece of celluloid onto a single frame of motion picture film. The finished product was the first Koko the Clown filmstrip, in which the star’s body reflected all of the subtle changes made by a moving human form. Fleischer was quoted in ‘s Fleischer biography as calling rotoscoping “the greatest achievement in pen-and-ink production.” The brothers’ invention caught the attention of animator John R. Bray, who hired them to work in Paramount’s New York studios.

Fleischer and his brother, Dave, founded Out of the Inkwell Films, Inc. in 1921. They renamed the business Fleischer Studios in 1928. Their “Out of the Inkwell” cartoon series, featuring Koko the Clown, was their first series of films and was produced through 1929. Fleischer continued to experiment with cartoon mechanics and soon developed the rotograph. Using this method the animators could draw characters in real-world settings. A live action film was projected to the underside of the artist’s table, and Koko the Clown was drawn into each frame. This system was a trailblazer for films like Mary Poppins (1964) and Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988).

Image result for who framed roger rabbit

Fleischer never grew tired of experimenting, and he was always trying out new color, sound, and optical tricks in his films. His constant tinkering didn’t allow him to refine these new processes, so Fleischer’s films lacked consistency. His audiences were always entertained, and his rivals were always worried about his next invention. Fleischer’s major rival was Walt Disney. While Fleischer clearly had the most ingenuity, Disney shone in showmanship, discipline, and vision. While Disney slowly built on each success, Fleischer was always moving forward and rarely looking back. Howard Beckerman discussed their relationship in Back Stage, “Both Fleischer and Disney had a great deal of respect for each other. The older man had pioneered many of the early innovations in the medium. The younger man, Disney, had wanted to be another Fleischer (Max had a mustache first).” Disney recognized the importance of Fleischer’s discoveries and was quoted in ‘s Fleischer biography as saying, “Without his pioneering spirit and additions to the technology of animation, few, if any of us, would be where we are today.”

Continue To Part II