I went through the drive-through at Wendy's tonight to grab a baked potato and a frosty. When I got up to the window, the girl gave me a rote, "How are you tonight?" I responded with, "Not too bad. How about you?" I got back nothing but a blank stare. Not a "pretty good, " or an, "okay." Not even a shrug or a smirk. She made it completely obvious that she did not, in fact, care how I was. The same thing happened to me at Burger King recently. That time, the cashier didn't even give me a courtesy "how are you?" She just stood there and let me do all the talking without even saying so much as, "may I take your order" or "thank you." And you know what? That really pisses me off.
Honestly, few things irk me more than a lack of friendliness from people in the retail and service industries. To me, that's such a basic part of the job that ignoring it is just as bad, if not worse, than getting my order wrong or over-charging me. And it's the easiest part of the job by far. I don't care how much you hate being at your job. I don't care how little you're getting paid. If you can't put on a fake smile and pretend to have some sort of basic people skills for a few hours a day, then you don't need to be in the work force. My job at Toys [backwards]R Us gets tedious or stressful some days and there are times when it's the last place I want to be, but one thing I've never failed to do is smile and greet the customer and thank them for their purchase. I may seem unimportant, but it's not. Think about it. How much better do you feel about a store when you have a real conversation with an employee or share a joke with the cashier? It makes you want to go back. And more than that, it makes you feel good for at least a brief moment of your day. I'm not claiming to have talked people off of ledges or saved wives and children from abuse. All I'm saying is that as long as I'm collecting a paycheck, I'm going to do my job to the best of my ability. And part of that means being friendly and personable even on days when I don't feel like it. Even when I'm not on the clock, I still smile and attempt to be friendly with people. It's part of who I am, not something I have to think about, and I can't understand why some people find it so difficult.
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Monday, July 24, 2006
a long-winded response
After reading my last blog, my friend Austin, posted an interesting response. I like what he had to say and I feel like I owe him a well-thought out response, so here's his comment followed by my thoughts.
Again, I completely agree with you on "the one" concept. I was just wondering, though, how big the difference is between saying, "I just know he's the one," and, "I just know He's the one." It seems to me that both statements employ a blind faith in the service of relenting any doubt that the object of that faith will fail. I guess if you believe that there is a sovereign governing power controlling the life that may house the changes, imperfections, and variable outcomes you mention then there is no worry associated with those experiences, and a person consequently submits to God, Providence, etc. That said, I do think it's important to believe in something larger than oneself and one's total ambient experience or to, as it were, allow oneself to be convinced of the extraordinary, the sacred, the divine mystery. In order to do so, though, it often helps to have empirical evidence rather than an interpretation of an occurrence or action. Of course, I don't want my entire experience of things like love and passion to stem from science. Though it's blasphemous to say this as a writer, there are many things I'd prefer to simply feel and not understand or be able to articulate. I do, however, suspect anything based entirely on a feeling someone has, in spite of the romantic notion that a gut feeling will determine the correct answer and save the day. I guess it just seems that the only ultimate defense of a belief in religion is, "You just have to believe/trust/have faith" or, in other words, "I just know. Because the Bible, or my physiological response to pheromones says so."
AT
And sorry to offend your many Christian readers, as well as you; I have the utmost respect for your (collective) belief.
You're right of course that despite any evidence we might have of God's existance, it does take a leap of faith at some point to move beyond that to belief. However, I don't think it's as complicated as people make it out to be sometimes. Faith isn't some mystical, magical thing. We use it every day, in every aspect of life. To quote Memento, "I have to believe that when my eyes are closed, the world's still there." When I sit in a chair, I have faith that it's going to hold me. When I flip a light switch, I have faith that there will be light. If you're talking to a friend and he walks into another room, do you sit there and contemplate whether he still exists or not? I highly doubt it. Faith is nothing more than making assumptions based on the evidence at hand and what's happened in the past. Let's take my friend Britney for example. We met online. I've read her blogs and seen her pictures and we've chatted over AIM, but we've never met in person. If you were to provide me with enough evidence, you might could convince me that Britney's not who I think she is. Maybe the pictures she posts are of a friend. Maybe her name's not really Britney. Maybe she's actually a thirty-seven-year old bald man from Queens. But somebody wrote those blog entries and somebody typed to me over AIM, so the person I know as Britney does, in fact, exist. The same could be said for God. I've seen His creation. I've felt His prescence. And I've seen His hand working in my life. Maybe my concept of Him isn't perfect, but He most definitely exists.
I don't have a problem with someone asserting that their significant other exists. I don't think it makes you crazy to believe in Thomas Jefferson or Julius Ceasar. How is believing in God any different? And if I do believe in Him, then why wouldn't I worship and praise the being who created everythings and gave me life? I don't think it's wrong to have faith or make assumptions. When I flip that light switch, unless there's a power outage I don't know about, it's pretty safe to assume that the light will turn on. I could probably guess when my roommates will come home tonight with some degree of success. If a really crappy football team was playing a really great one, I could probably predict the winner. Making educated guesses is different from claiming certainty though, and predicting what will happen five minutes from now is different than claiming I can see thirty years into the future. Maybe I'm using semantics or splitting hairs, but it seems to me that having faith in God and having faith in some fairy tale life with a significant other are two entirely different things.
Again, I completely agree with you on "the one" concept. I was just wondering, though, how big the difference is between saying, "I just know he's the one," and, "I just know He's the one." It seems to me that both statements employ a blind faith in the service of relenting any doubt that the object of that faith will fail. I guess if you believe that there is a sovereign governing power controlling the life that may house the changes, imperfections, and variable outcomes you mention then there is no worry associated with those experiences, and a person consequently submits to God, Providence, etc. That said, I do think it's important to believe in something larger than oneself and one's total ambient experience or to, as it were, allow oneself to be convinced of the extraordinary, the sacred, the divine mystery. In order to do so, though, it often helps to have empirical evidence rather than an interpretation of an occurrence or action. Of course, I don't want my entire experience of things like love and passion to stem from science. Though it's blasphemous to say this as a writer, there are many things I'd prefer to simply feel and not understand or be able to articulate. I do, however, suspect anything based entirely on a feeling someone has, in spite of the romantic notion that a gut feeling will determine the correct answer and save the day. I guess it just seems that the only ultimate defense of a belief in religion is, "You just have to believe/trust/have faith" or, in other words, "I just know. Because the Bible, or my physiological response to pheromones says so."
AT
And sorry to offend your many Christian readers, as well as you; I have the utmost respect for your (collective) belief.
You're right of course that despite any evidence we might have of God's existance, it does take a leap of faith at some point to move beyond that to belief. However, I don't think it's as complicated as people make it out to be sometimes. Faith isn't some mystical, magical thing. We use it every day, in every aspect of life. To quote Memento, "I have to believe that when my eyes are closed, the world's still there." When I sit in a chair, I have faith that it's going to hold me. When I flip a light switch, I have faith that there will be light. If you're talking to a friend and he walks into another room, do you sit there and contemplate whether he still exists or not? I highly doubt it. Faith is nothing more than making assumptions based on the evidence at hand and what's happened in the past. Let's take my friend Britney for example. We met online. I've read her blogs and seen her pictures and we've chatted over AIM, but we've never met in person. If you were to provide me with enough evidence, you might could convince me that Britney's not who I think she is. Maybe the pictures she posts are of a friend. Maybe her name's not really Britney. Maybe she's actually a thirty-seven-year old bald man from Queens. But somebody wrote those blog entries and somebody typed to me over AIM, so the person I know as Britney does, in fact, exist. The same could be said for God. I've seen His creation. I've felt His prescence. And I've seen His hand working in my life. Maybe my concept of Him isn't perfect, but He most definitely exists.
I don't have a problem with someone asserting that their significant other exists. I don't think it makes you crazy to believe in Thomas Jefferson or Julius Ceasar. How is believing in God any different? And if I do believe in Him, then why wouldn't I worship and praise the being who created everythings and gave me life? I don't think it's wrong to have faith or make assumptions. When I flip that light switch, unless there's a power outage I don't know about, it's pretty safe to assume that the light will turn on. I could probably guess when my roommates will come home tonight with some degree of success. If a really crappy football team was playing a really great one, I could probably predict the winner. Making educated guesses is different from claiming certainty though, and predicting what will happen five minutes from now is different than claiming I can see thirty years into the future. Maybe I'm using semantics or splitting hairs, but it seems to me that having faith in God and having faith in some fairy tale life with a significant other are two entirely different things.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
the one part 3
To finally finish this stupid rant, I had to cover the one thing that bothers me most about the idea of "the one." What I hate the most is the phrase that so often accomponies it. I absolutely can't stand it when people, referring to the person they're dating, say, "I just know." You've heard it before. "I know I just met this guy and I know I said this about my last three or four boyfriends, but it's different this time. He has to be the one. I just know it." Or almost as bad is when people try to use seemingly happily married couples as proof for their fatalistic ideas. "My uncle and aunt only knew each other fifty-seven minutes before they got married and they're still married forty-two years later. When you know, you know." As far as I'm concerned that's better proof for the idea that there are lots of people out there who you could be happy with. So your aunt and uncle or your parents or whoever were young and dumb like you once and they made a rash decision that happened to work out for them. Does that mean you should use it as the model for your life? Because someone you know happened to get lucky and be compatible with a stranger or because they were determined enough to work through any hardships and make things work despite some compatibility issues? That's great for them, but I wouldn't try to emulate it if I were you.
Let's break this down. What do people actually mean when they say, "I just know." For the most part, they're saying, I have strong feelings for this person, we seem compatible so far, and I don't see any major issue that could keep us from being happy together. Well, that's great. Good for you. But are any of those things a good indicator of what's going to happen in the future? Can you predict what's going to happen with your feelings? How many other times in life does this concept work? Did you know what college you were going to or what job you were going to have years in advance based on your feelings? Can you successfully predict when friends and loved ones are going to die by closing your eyes and feeling things? Can you tell me what's going to happen at the end of a movie you haven't seen based on how you feel about the characters? People claim to have premonitions about things occasionally, but nowhere is it as widespread as it is in the dating scene, where practically everybody says they know. Sure, you have some say in the outcome of your relationship, but things happen. Stuff changes. If there's anything you can guarantee about life, it's that it's unpredictable.
And you know what? When you say you "just know," it comes off as an insult to the rest of us. It's a slap in the face to anyone who's ever felt the same way you're feeling, to those that have been "in love" and hoped it would last forever. You're saying your feelings are different, that you're smarter, or closer to God, or some sort of psychic. That's why it pisses me off so much. Because if I can't see the future, then neither can you. If my feelings aren't enough to make things work out, then neither are yours.
It's not that I don't like seeing people get together. I generally rejoice for my friends when they find someone that makes them happy. All of you out there in good relationships, I wish you well and hope things work out. I don't like seeing things fall apart. But I know they do sometimes, despite our best intentions and intense feelings. By all means, be positive. Be happy. Hope for the best. Just don't tell us you know something the rest of us don't.
Let's break this down. What do people actually mean when they say, "I just know." For the most part, they're saying, I have strong feelings for this person, we seem compatible so far, and I don't see any major issue that could keep us from being happy together. Well, that's great. Good for you. But are any of those things a good indicator of what's going to happen in the future? Can you predict what's going to happen with your feelings? How many other times in life does this concept work? Did you know what college you were going to or what job you were going to have years in advance based on your feelings? Can you successfully predict when friends and loved ones are going to die by closing your eyes and feeling things? Can you tell me what's going to happen at the end of a movie you haven't seen based on how you feel about the characters? People claim to have premonitions about things occasionally, but nowhere is it as widespread as it is in the dating scene, where practically everybody says they know. Sure, you have some say in the outcome of your relationship, but things happen. Stuff changes. If there's anything you can guarantee about life, it's that it's unpredictable.
And you know what? When you say you "just know," it comes off as an insult to the rest of us. It's a slap in the face to anyone who's ever felt the same way you're feeling, to those that have been "in love" and hoped it would last forever. You're saying your feelings are different, that you're smarter, or closer to God, or some sort of psychic. That's why it pisses me off so much. Because if I can't see the future, then neither can you. If my feelings aren't enough to make things work out, then neither are yours.
It's not that I don't like seeing people get together. I generally rejoice for my friends when they find someone that makes them happy. All of you out there in good relationships, I wish you well and hope things work out. I don't like seeing things fall apart. But I know they do sometimes, despite our best intentions and intense feelings. By all means, be positive. Be happy. Hope for the best. Just don't tell us you know something the rest of us don't.
Sunday, July 16, 2006
npr for dummies
Nobody really complained about my last post. In fact, I had nothing but support from the female community both here and on my MySpace. It could be that a few of you were offended and didn't feel like getting into an argument with me. That's okay too. I realize I'm mean. Obviously I don't think we should totally ban Romantic Comedies. That would sort of go against my free speech stance a few posts ago. I'm a bit of a hypocrite because, not only do I have Can't Hardly Wait listed as one of my favorite movies, but I tend to scoff when people in the media or congress attack movies or video games for causing violence (even though I almost ran over a homeless guy one time after playing too much Grand Theft Auto). Truth is, movies do affect us, whether we realize it or not. I was glad to know that several of the women I know do realize the effect that movies can have and are careful not to take them too seriously. Kudos, ladies. And as for us guys, as I briefly mentioned, and as my friend Austin explained in more detail, movies definitely affect guys too. I wonder if people were less screwed up before recorded fiction.
At any rate, I'm going to attack something today that shouldn't anger anybody. What can I say? I like easy targets.
You've all been there. You get tired of whatever cd you have in and flip on the radio, hoping to hear some decent music. Little did you realize that it's before noon. Instead of hearing a song, you discover people talking. About nothing. On the air. Is this the news? The dj killing time between songs? Are they having a contest? No, it's everybody's favorite, a morning show.
The format is pretty simple. There's two guys or a guy and a girl or two guys and a girl and they sit around talking about random crap. It's basically water cooler conversation. They'll discuss the latest world news and celebrity gossip in a manner not unlike you and your friends would, if your friends were ignorant, middle-aged douche bags. If you come across the morning show on, let's say, an oldies station, it's all very genial. Just nice folks discussing life and talking about what's going on in the community. "Ooh...there's a watermelon festival in Aiden? That sounds exciting." On the more rock oriented stations, however, they've taken a page from Howard Stern. Not only do they mock and make crude comments about whatever celebrities are in the news, but they have listeners call in and they make fun of them too. Here's how the typical conversation goes:
caller: I think my husband may be cheating on me. What should I do?
DJ #1: Divorce him, ya' stupid slut.
caller: But I'm not really sure that he's cheating on me.
DJ #2: If you suspect it, he's probably cheating on you. That's how guys are.
caller: I love my husband though. We've been married five years.
DJ #2: Look, ya' stupid whore, slash his tires, throw all of his stuff away and then divorce him because he definitely doesn't love you, skank.
caller: But, but...
DJ #1: He's right. Your husband's probably cheating on you because you've gained weight. You're fat, aren't you?
DJ #2: Yeah...I'll bet she packed on a bunch of weight and doesn't give it up anymore. Isn't that right, fatty?
caller: Actually, I only weigh about 110 and I get hit on by guys all the time.
DJ #1: Oh really? Honey, I'd like to help you get back at your husband. Stay on the line while we go to commercial.
You get the idea. They treat their callers like they're idiots and dispense Dr. Philesque "keep it simple, stupid" advice that's probably hurts more people than it helps. They're perfectly happy bashing whoever's on the phone (usually some well-meaning person who is upset and actually needs advice) for the sake of laughs and ratings. I caught a few minutes of the local rock station's morning show of choice the other day and I was appalled. Whoever they were talking to on the phone was a regular caller apparently. He informed the hosts (Lex and Terry I think it is) that, after several treatments for lung cancer in the past, it looks like he's finally going to die this time. As usual, they showed absolutely no sympathy. "Good." "About time." "That'll teach you." Now I don't really listen to the show for more than a minute or two at a time, so I have no idea who this caller was. Maybe he's a jerk. Maybe he was only joking. He sounded serious to me though and he didn't sound too happy about the whole thing. I've always said that if something's funny then it doesn't offend me and, when it comes to humor, it takes a lot to piss me off. There was nothing funny about that though. Even if it was all just made up, what about the listeners out there who might have cancer themselves or who might have a loved one with cancer? What purpose is this show serving? Who flips on the radio hoping to hear a dj making fun of people who are hurting and saying, "good riddance," to someone dying? It must get ratings or they wouldn't keep it on the air, but who listens to this crap? Again, I'm not a fan of censorship and I guess it's no worse than "Jerry Springer" or "Cops" or a lot of the other trash that passes for entertainment, but it really worries me that people enjoy that. When did being a jerk to everybody become an acceptable way to make a living?
At any rate, I'm going to attack something today that shouldn't anger anybody. What can I say? I like easy targets.
You've all been there. You get tired of whatever cd you have in and flip on the radio, hoping to hear some decent music. Little did you realize that it's before noon. Instead of hearing a song, you discover people talking. About nothing. On the air. Is this the news? The dj killing time between songs? Are they having a contest? No, it's everybody's favorite, a morning show.
The format is pretty simple. There's two guys or a guy and a girl or two guys and a girl and they sit around talking about random crap. It's basically water cooler conversation. They'll discuss the latest world news and celebrity gossip in a manner not unlike you and your friends would, if your friends were ignorant, middle-aged douche bags. If you come across the morning show on, let's say, an oldies station, it's all very genial. Just nice folks discussing life and talking about what's going on in the community. "Ooh...there's a watermelon festival in Aiden? That sounds exciting." On the more rock oriented stations, however, they've taken a page from Howard Stern. Not only do they mock and make crude comments about whatever celebrities are in the news, but they have listeners call in and they make fun of them too. Here's how the typical conversation goes:
caller: I think my husband may be cheating on me. What should I do?
DJ #1: Divorce him, ya' stupid slut.
caller: But I'm not really sure that he's cheating on me.
DJ #2: If you suspect it, he's probably cheating on you. That's how guys are.
caller: I love my husband though. We've been married five years.
DJ #2: Look, ya' stupid whore, slash his tires, throw all of his stuff away and then divorce him because he definitely doesn't love you, skank.
caller: But, but...
DJ #1: He's right. Your husband's probably cheating on you because you've gained weight. You're fat, aren't you?
DJ #2: Yeah...I'll bet she packed on a bunch of weight and doesn't give it up anymore. Isn't that right, fatty?
caller: Actually, I only weigh about 110 and I get hit on by guys all the time.
DJ #1: Oh really? Honey, I'd like to help you get back at your husband. Stay on the line while we go to commercial.
You get the idea. They treat their callers like they're idiots and dispense Dr. Philesque "keep it simple, stupid" advice that's probably hurts more people than it helps. They're perfectly happy bashing whoever's on the phone (usually some well-meaning person who is upset and actually needs advice) for the sake of laughs and ratings. I caught a few minutes of the local rock station's morning show of choice the other day and I was appalled. Whoever they were talking to on the phone was a regular caller apparently. He informed the hosts (Lex and Terry I think it is) that, after several treatments for lung cancer in the past, it looks like he's finally going to die this time. As usual, they showed absolutely no sympathy. "Good." "About time." "That'll teach you." Now I don't really listen to the show for more than a minute or two at a time, so I have no idea who this caller was. Maybe he's a jerk. Maybe he was only joking. He sounded serious to me though and he didn't sound too happy about the whole thing. I've always said that if something's funny then it doesn't offend me and, when it comes to humor, it takes a lot to piss me off. There was nothing funny about that though. Even if it was all just made up, what about the listeners out there who might have cancer themselves or who might have a loved one with cancer? What purpose is this show serving? Who flips on the radio hoping to hear a dj making fun of people who are hurting and saying, "good riddance," to someone dying? It must get ratings or they wouldn't keep it on the air, but who listens to this crap? Again, I'm not a fan of censorship and I guess it's no worse than "Jerry Springer" or "Cops" or a lot of the other trash that passes for entertainment, but it really worries me that people enjoy that. When did being a jerk to everybody become an acceptable way to make a living?
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
another chance to make every woman I know hate me
I have a bone to pick, not with a person, but with an entire category of film. If you know me at all, you can probably guess that I'm talking about the genre of films known as Romantic Comedy.
Let's forget for a moment that the word "comedy" usually connotes humor of some sort. While Romantic Comedies sometimes cause those in the audience to chuckle or smile and say, "that's cute," the rarely illicit real actual laughter. In fact, a good portion of the movie is usually so focused on the romance part of the equation that the film-makers don't even attempt to be funny. But in the classic Greek sense, comedy merely means a story with a happy ending, so we'll let the genre slide on that one.
Then there's the fact that men are so often forced to watch these so-called comedies when they could be watching movies that would actually serve as entertainment. We've all forced women to watch cheesey action movies and fart joke comedies though, so we'll ignore that one too.
Where does that leave us, you ask? It leaves us with the irreparable damage that Romantic Comedies do and have done to women's psyche. I know that sounds really overdramtic, and it is, but hear me out. First, there's the fact that they propogate the idea of "the one." I think I've made the reasons that I'm against "the one" concept fairly clear, so I won't get into them again here. Let's just assume for the sake of argument that it's a bad thing. From the time they're born, women's heads are filled with fairytales. They're told that they're princesses in disguise and their prince will come along on a white horse someday and rescue them from their real lives. Then, once they're old enough to watch adult movies, they get fed the same exact garbage. The hooker with the heart of gold is saved from her life of crime by the charming, wealthy businessman. Or the self-confident, overly cold and secretly lonely businesswoman is saved from a life of successful business relationships but short and meaningless personal relationships by the charming scoundrel with the heart of gold. It's the same motif over and over again. And when they end up together, it's not because they took the time to cultivate a strong friendship, which led to a deep lasting relationship based on trust and mutual respect. No, it's because fate put them together and they were powerless to stop it. (For a textbook example of this, see Serendipity, which I actually sort of enjoy. John Cusack, Jeremy Piven and superhot Kate Beckinsale...what's not to like?)
That leads directly to our next point. The characters in Romantic Comedies are usually completely wrong for each other. You know how the plot works. It's that whole "opposites attract" thing. The male and female leads can't stand each other at the beginning of the movie and they fight constantly. But for some reason, despite the fact that they're completely different in every way and have no common interests or opinions, there's some sort of animal magnetism there. They try to stay away, but they just can't do it. By the third act, they've given up and decided that all the fighting was merely a cover-up for their true feelings. After watching this play out on the screen for years, some women can't help but think that life really works that way. Instead of dating a guy who has similar interests and a compatible personality, some girls intentionally go for guys who are their complete opposite. It's one of the reasons so many women like "bad boys," the boys that usually end up breaking their hearts, if not their bones. And even if they don't end up with a jerk, it's hard to build a relationship when you have nothing in common.
My final issue is a big one, at least to me. It's that Romantic Comedies give women (and a lot of men too actually) the wrong idea about what romance is. They discount small gestures and long-term commitment and focus on superficial gifts and surprises. They make women expect fountains and doves and endless mounds of rose petals. And those things are fine in moderation. It's cool if that's what you're into. But that's not romance. That's not real love.
Romance is being there every day. It's calling because you want to hear her voice, not because you have to. It's struggling to find words to tell her how much she means to you. It's buying her dinner with your last twenty dollars. Romance is letting her cry on your shoulder when her dog dies, telling her she looks beautiful on a day when she doesn't feel beautiful. Romance isn't about making a show. It's about being real and honest and letting her see how much she means to you. I understand that those things don't make good cinema, but they're a million times more important than flowers or candy or last second airport proposals.
Again, it's not that I'm against buying flowers or kissing in the rain or picnics in the park. Those things can be fun. And when they're from the heart, they can be special. It's when they're expected that I have a problem, when a guy has to preen and pose and go out of his way to impress a girl just to get her to appreciate him. If you're basing your relationship on some fake bull crap, on how good of a show a guy can put on, then you're going to run into problems somewhere down the line. Guys, by all means, buy her nice things sometimes, take her out to fancy dinners and plan fun little outings. But do it when and how you want to, because you want to. And girls, it's okay to enjoy those things, but don't forget that there are so many other ways a guy can show you that he cares.
There you have it. Three big reasons why Romantic Comedies should be outlawed. Contact your local movie studio at once.
Now, ladies, feel free to take issue with my ideas. If you're passionate about Sleepless in Seattle and think it's a spectacular piece of movie magic that's good for the soul, then don't be shy about telling me why. Just, please, don't take this post to mean that I think all women are idiots. Far from it. I know that many of you don't fall into the mindsets I talked about and I don't think the ones that do are stupid becuase of it. Any time you're constantly pummelled by the same concepts over and over again, they're going to affect you in some way. You think that the aforementioned cheesey action movies and dumb comedies haven't led to an increase in men that think violence is the best solution to all their problems and that it's funny to ask someone to pull their finger? Think again. We're all victims here. I'm just calling it like I see it and waiting for the backlash.
Let's forget for a moment that the word "comedy" usually connotes humor of some sort. While Romantic Comedies sometimes cause those in the audience to chuckle or smile and say, "that's cute," the rarely illicit real actual laughter. In fact, a good portion of the movie is usually so focused on the romance part of the equation that the film-makers don't even attempt to be funny. But in the classic Greek sense, comedy merely means a story with a happy ending, so we'll let the genre slide on that one.
Then there's the fact that men are so often forced to watch these so-called comedies when they could be watching movies that would actually serve as entertainment. We've all forced women to watch cheesey action movies and fart joke comedies though, so we'll ignore that one too.
Where does that leave us, you ask? It leaves us with the irreparable damage that Romantic Comedies do and have done to women's psyche. I know that sounds really overdramtic, and it is, but hear me out. First, there's the fact that they propogate the idea of "the one." I think I've made the reasons that I'm against "the one" concept fairly clear, so I won't get into them again here. Let's just assume for the sake of argument that it's a bad thing. From the time they're born, women's heads are filled with fairytales. They're told that they're princesses in disguise and their prince will come along on a white horse someday and rescue them from their real lives. Then, once they're old enough to watch adult movies, they get fed the same exact garbage. The hooker with the heart of gold is saved from her life of crime by the charming, wealthy businessman. Or the self-confident, overly cold and secretly lonely businesswoman is saved from a life of successful business relationships but short and meaningless personal relationships by the charming scoundrel with the heart of gold. It's the same motif over and over again. And when they end up together, it's not because they took the time to cultivate a strong friendship, which led to a deep lasting relationship based on trust and mutual respect. No, it's because fate put them together and they were powerless to stop it. (For a textbook example of this, see Serendipity, which I actually sort of enjoy. John Cusack, Jeremy Piven and superhot Kate Beckinsale...what's not to like?)
That leads directly to our next point. The characters in Romantic Comedies are usually completely wrong for each other. You know how the plot works. It's that whole "opposites attract" thing. The male and female leads can't stand each other at the beginning of the movie and they fight constantly. But for some reason, despite the fact that they're completely different in every way and have no common interests or opinions, there's some sort of animal magnetism there. They try to stay away, but they just can't do it. By the third act, they've given up and decided that all the fighting was merely a cover-up for their true feelings. After watching this play out on the screen for years, some women can't help but think that life really works that way. Instead of dating a guy who has similar interests and a compatible personality, some girls intentionally go for guys who are their complete opposite. It's one of the reasons so many women like "bad boys," the boys that usually end up breaking their hearts, if not their bones. And even if they don't end up with a jerk, it's hard to build a relationship when you have nothing in common.
My final issue is a big one, at least to me. It's that Romantic Comedies give women (and a lot of men too actually) the wrong idea about what romance is. They discount small gestures and long-term commitment and focus on superficial gifts and surprises. They make women expect fountains and doves and endless mounds of rose petals. And those things are fine in moderation. It's cool if that's what you're into. But that's not romance. That's not real love.
Romance is being there every day. It's calling because you want to hear her voice, not because you have to. It's struggling to find words to tell her how much she means to you. It's buying her dinner with your last twenty dollars. Romance is letting her cry on your shoulder when her dog dies, telling her she looks beautiful on a day when she doesn't feel beautiful. Romance isn't about making a show. It's about being real and honest and letting her see how much she means to you. I understand that those things don't make good cinema, but they're a million times more important than flowers or candy or last second airport proposals.
Again, it's not that I'm against buying flowers or kissing in the rain or picnics in the park. Those things can be fun. And when they're from the heart, they can be special. It's when they're expected that I have a problem, when a guy has to preen and pose and go out of his way to impress a girl just to get her to appreciate him. If you're basing your relationship on some fake bull crap, on how good of a show a guy can put on, then you're going to run into problems somewhere down the line. Guys, by all means, buy her nice things sometimes, take her out to fancy dinners and plan fun little outings. But do it when and how you want to, because you want to. And girls, it's okay to enjoy those things, but don't forget that there are so many other ways a guy can show you that he cares.
There you have it. Three big reasons why Romantic Comedies should be outlawed. Contact your local movie studio at once.
Now, ladies, feel free to take issue with my ideas. If you're passionate about Sleepless in Seattle and think it's a spectacular piece of movie magic that's good for the soul, then don't be shy about telling me why. Just, please, don't take this post to mean that I think all women are idiots. Far from it. I know that many of you don't fall into the mindsets I talked about and I don't think the ones that do are stupid becuase of it. Any time you're constantly pummelled by the same concepts over and over again, they're going to affect you in some way. You think that the aforementioned cheesey action movies and dumb comedies haven't led to an increase in men that think violence is the best solution to all their problems and that it's funny to ask someone to pull their finger? Think again. We're all victims here. I'm just calling it like I see it and waiting for the backlash.
Sunday, July 09, 2006
a man for all seasons
I was reading someone else's blog earlier today and she was talking about David. You know...the guy from the Old Testament. She was talking about how David is always referred to as "a man after God's own heart" and how, as Christians, we all can and should be Davids. I agree of course.What I've always loved about David, though, is how human he seems. Maybe it's because we're told more about him, but he seems to come to life more and seem more human than most of the other figures in the Bible. I've always loved in general how, when we're told about the lives of the great men in the Old Testament, there's almost always a story of sin included too. David had his soldier killed so he could steal the man's wife, Moses doubted God and struck the rock, Abraham lied and said his wife was his sister, and Noah got drunk and acted like an idiot. While we see them doing great, amazing things for God, we also see them being human and screwing up. That's always meant a lot to me. Some days I don't feel like dancing in the street or fighting giants. Some days I don't feel like I'll ever be a strong leader or a good father. Some days I don't have the courage to follow God when no one else is. But I lust and I sell out my friends. I doubt God. I lie. I act like an idiot. So if I'm just like David and Noah on their worst days, then I can be just like David and Noah on their best days. Because it has nothing to do with me. It's God in me. Just like it was God in them.
Monday, July 03, 2006
a colossal waste of time
I've been meaning to finish my rant on "the one," but I keep getting distracted. This is another one of those distractions.
Every few years (usually in an election year, coincedentally), congress decides they'd like to once again discuss the possibility of creating an ammendment that prohibits flag burning. And every time I hear about the discussion, it pisses me off. I mean, it's obviously neccessary. You know...'cause people burn flags all the time. To paraphrase an Eddie Vedder rant I heard years ago, I can't even go to get a cup of coffee and a paper in the morning without running into a flag burning. I took for granted that most clear-thinking, intelligent people would see the idiocy and inherent contradiction behind the proposed ammendment, but apparently not. Apparently, some of my otherwise rational friends are all for the ban. So I figured I should come here and tell you all why they're very, very wrong.
When I was discussing the issue in my living room last night and mentioned that I thought congress was wasting time by even discussing the bill since flag burning happens so rarely, my Limbaugh-loving roommate immediately responded with, "Well then they should stop discussing and pass it." Obviously, that's not the way our legislature works. Even if everyone was unanimous about wanting a bill, there would still be a ton of nuances to discuss and it would take time to figure out the proper wording among other issues. Beyond that, since the law would be going against the previously established Bill of Rights, it would have to be an ammendment rather than just a federal law. If I still remember my ninth grade civics correctly, all new ammendments have to be voted on by the American public before they can be ratified. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like holding a vote on that or adding it to the ballot would cost quite a bit of money. So there's your first argument: it's a huge waste of time and money to create a law prohibiting something that, in this country at least, is an extremely rare occurence.
But even if our legislature could instantly create a suitable new ammendment for free, it would still be a horrible idea. First of all, it's not in the government's job description to create a law like that. The government's job is to protect its citizens from physical harm and loss of property. You can debate about the existance of social programs and whether they fall under that category or not, but either way, it's not the government's job to legislate morality and/or keep people from being offended. "Well maybe it should be," my friend responded. Sure. That sounds lovely, doesn't it? We'll have niceness police patroling, making sure nobody swears at old ladies or lies to their mother or gets drunk and acts like an idiot. We'll create our own little Utopia. Problem is, who decides what's moral? While people with similar moral beliefs as you may be in power right now, who's to say they will be in the future? What if one day, someone decides that your behavior is immoral? My friend chrisbaker pointed out that, if we have a liberal president and/or legislature sometime soon, it's very possible that they could pass a "hate speech" law. Again, it sounds nice, but it could be trouble for the conservative Republicans who are all behind the flag burning law. Preachers who tell their congregation that homosexuality is biblically wrong could find themselves in jail. People who protest abortions could be accused of hate crimes. Doesn't sound like a world most conservative Christians would want to live in.
Above everything else, there's one reason to denounce the proposed flag burning law that seems so obvious to me that it amazes me that anyone could ignore it. Clearly, any law that prohibited burning the flag would be a huge violation of the first ammendment. Not only do Americans have freedom of speech (which includes nonverbal communication), but we also have the right to protest. Those rights have been guaranteed to all of us since pretty close to the beginning of this "grand experiment." Generally, I hate it when people tell me that America is this or America stands for that. America is flawed, just like every other country, and our founding fathers weren't the perfect heroes we sometimes make them out to be. But if there's one thing that this country has always stood for at least at its heart, it's that freedom of speech. This country was built by protestors. People like Thomas Payne and Samuel Adams took to the public squares and made their opinions about the British government known. They didn't let some misplaced idea of patriotism stop them from seeking changes and eventually seeking a new government all together. Telling people that they can't speak out, that they can't protest in whatever way they see fit, as long as it doesn't harm someone else, goes against the spirit this country was founded on. Outlawing flag burning would be in direct opposition the very things the flag is supposed to stand for.
And you know what? A flag is just a piece of cloth. It's a symbol. And that's what people do with symbols. They use them to make a point. The few people in this country who burn flags generally do so because they're trying to make a point, because they have something to say and want attention for their cause. Maybe you don't think it's the best way for them to make their statement, but so what? Stupidity isn't illegal. My previously mentioned friend asked me if I'd feel the same way if people were out there burning Bibles or crosses. I told her that yes, I would in fact feel the exact same way. If someone was burning a cross in my lawn, I'd call the cops and get them to leave. But if they want to do so on their own property or in a public place with a permit, then they're more than welcome to as far as I'm concerned. What people choose to do with pieces of wood, paper and leather that they bought and paid for is none of my business and honestly doesn't concern me. There's nothing magical about a Bible or a cross. They're just symbols and symbols only have power if you allow them to. That doesn't mean that I don't understand why people are offended by stuff like that and it doesn't mean I don't understand why people are offended by flag burning. It doesn't mean I think the people who burn flags or Bibles or crosses or whatever else are right or clever for doing so. What it does mean is that I know that my opinion on whether their causes are just or their methods are the best doesn't matter at all. It doesn't matter whether they're burning a flag to protest a war, support the draft, or celebrate a world cup victory. It doesn't matter how much or little thier actions offend me or anyone else. I may not agree with every protestor out there, but I have to support their freedom of speech if I expect anybody to support mine.
Every few years (usually in an election year, coincedentally), congress decides they'd like to once again discuss the possibility of creating an ammendment that prohibits flag burning. And every time I hear about the discussion, it pisses me off. I mean, it's obviously neccessary. You know...'cause people burn flags all the time. To paraphrase an Eddie Vedder rant I heard years ago, I can't even go to get a cup of coffee and a paper in the morning without running into a flag burning. I took for granted that most clear-thinking, intelligent people would see the idiocy and inherent contradiction behind the proposed ammendment, but apparently not. Apparently, some of my otherwise rational friends are all for the ban. So I figured I should come here and tell you all why they're very, very wrong.
When I was discussing the issue in my living room last night and mentioned that I thought congress was wasting time by even discussing the bill since flag burning happens so rarely, my Limbaugh-loving roommate immediately responded with, "Well then they should stop discussing and pass it." Obviously, that's not the way our legislature works. Even if everyone was unanimous about wanting a bill, there would still be a ton of nuances to discuss and it would take time to figure out the proper wording among other issues. Beyond that, since the law would be going against the previously established Bill of Rights, it would have to be an ammendment rather than just a federal law. If I still remember my ninth grade civics correctly, all new ammendments have to be voted on by the American public before they can be ratified. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like holding a vote on that or adding it to the ballot would cost quite a bit of money. So there's your first argument: it's a huge waste of time and money to create a law prohibiting something that, in this country at least, is an extremely rare occurence.
But even if our legislature could instantly create a suitable new ammendment for free, it would still be a horrible idea. First of all, it's not in the government's job description to create a law like that. The government's job is to protect its citizens from physical harm and loss of property. You can debate about the existance of social programs and whether they fall under that category or not, but either way, it's not the government's job to legislate morality and/or keep people from being offended. "Well maybe it should be," my friend responded. Sure. That sounds lovely, doesn't it? We'll have niceness police patroling, making sure nobody swears at old ladies or lies to their mother or gets drunk and acts like an idiot. We'll create our own little Utopia. Problem is, who decides what's moral? While people with similar moral beliefs as you may be in power right now, who's to say they will be in the future? What if one day, someone decides that your behavior is immoral? My friend chrisbaker pointed out that, if we have a liberal president and/or legislature sometime soon, it's very possible that they could pass a "hate speech" law. Again, it sounds nice, but it could be trouble for the conservative Republicans who are all behind the flag burning law. Preachers who tell their congregation that homosexuality is biblically wrong could find themselves in jail. People who protest abortions could be accused of hate crimes. Doesn't sound like a world most conservative Christians would want to live in.
Above everything else, there's one reason to denounce the proposed flag burning law that seems so obvious to me that it amazes me that anyone could ignore it. Clearly, any law that prohibited burning the flag would be a huge violation of the first ammendment. Not only do Americans have freedom of speech (which includes nonverbal communication), but we also have the right to protest. Those rights have been guaranteed to all of us since pretty close to the beginning of this "grand experiment." Generally, I hate it when people tell me that America is this or America stands for that. America is flawed, just like every other country, and our founding fathers weren't the perfect heroes we sometimes make them out to be. But if there's one thing that this country has always stood for at least at its heart, it's that freedom of speech. This country was built by protestors. People like Thomas Payne and Samuel Adams took to the public squares and made their opinions about the British government known. They didn't let some misplaced idea of patriotism stop them from seeking changes and eventually seeking a new government all together. Telling people that they can't speak out, that they can't protest in whatever way they see fit, as long as it doesn't harm someone else, goes against the spirit this country was founded on. Outlawing flag burning would be in direct opposition the very things the flag is supposed to stand for.
And you know what? A flag is just a piece of cloth. It's a symbol. And that's what people do with symbols. They use them to make a point. The few people in this country who burn flags generally do so because they're trying to make a point, because they have something to say and want attention for their cause. Maybe you don't think it's the best way for them to make their statement, but so what? Stupidity isn't illegal. My previously mentioned friend asked me if I'd feel the same way if people were out there burning Bibles or crosses. I told her that yes, I would in fact feel the exact same way. If someone was burning a cross in my lawn, I'd call the cops and get them to leave. But if they want to do so on their own property or in a public place with a permit, then they're more than welcome to as far as I'm concerned. What people choose to do with pieces of wood, paper and leather that they bought and paid for is none of my business and honestly doesn't concern me. There's nothing magical about a Bible or a cross. They're just symbols and symbols only have power if you allow them to. That doesn't mean that I don't understand why people are offended by stuff like that and it doesn't mean I don't understand why people are offended by flag burning. It doesn't mean I think the people who burn flags or Bibles or crosses or whatever else are right or clever for doing so. What it does mean is that I know that my opinion on whether their causes are just or their methods are the best doesn't matter at all. It doesn't matter whether they're burning a flag to protest a war, support the draft, or celebrate a world cup victory. It doesn't matter how much or little thier actions offend me or anyone else. I may not agree with every protestor out there, but I have to support their freedom of speech if I expect anybody to support mine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
