The two single roommates dancing around the room to the song "She's in Love" from The Little Mermaid on Broadway, and just as the chorus starts:
"She's in lo-o-ove, she's in lo-ove"
Our third roommate walks into the room in a daze to announce her boy loves her.
Irony is sublime.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
On Strength and Sexuality
Don't worry, I won't get too explicit.
As part of studying for the GRE, I am reading the Norton Anthology of Women Writers. I know the editors, so I suppose I should have expected what I got--a fairly comprehensive set of feminist complaints about male domination. I will admit these women have a point, but I find myself wanting to disagree with them simply because I am ticked. Perhaps I would give them a more fair reading if they didn't constantly belittle my gender by insisting on our never-ending victimhood. To read a feminist history, one would suppose that all women were oppressed sows who have no more desire in life than to bare the breast and neck to our subhuman male oppressors, except for the few, lucky, educated and wealthy women who manage to break the glass crucifix and put them men-folk in their place. I personally object to this.
Anyhow, I disgress in my manifestation of dislike of feminist literary criticism. Two things really stood out to me especially in their examination of medieval literature. First, the introduction claimed that women were oppressed by the threat of childhood, a threat brought to them solely by their demanding husbands and clerics who insisted their only salvation was through childbirth. Goodness knows, I read history, kings tortured wives in the quest for a son. Priests told women it was their duty to bear children and bear sons, and yes, girls got married at 12. But then, the average time of a woman's death was 40, they had to live twice as fast as modern women. As to "threat of childbirth" disease, bad sanitation, incompatible blood types, poverty, and all manner of things killed children and mothers at great rates, aside from spontaneously discovering most of modern technology, I can't see off-hand what the men could have done to save their wives, apart, perhaps, from total celibacy, which may have had a negative effect on the population. Also, women were constantly threatened by childbirth, what about the men? The men who were constantly threatened with war, death by overwork, and disease? How about the dreadful oppression of men by the women who insisted on getting pregnant and raising children and thus forcing the men to work to even feed them?
As to the second, thing--Female sexuality. The authors both condemn the men for showing women as divine, arguing that this makes them mere objects, even if they are objects of worship. It also bashes the men of the times for portraying women as overly sexual. Using their sex in bestial, man-like, or aggressive ways--examples being Lady Macbeth and Chaucer's Wife of Bath. These women also bash men for their excessive misogyny and exercising their right to physically manhandle and abuse their women. And in this, I think the feminists have made one good point, women use sexuality as a weapon throughout time. The only difference, is now we call it femine power, free love, or otherwise using men for our pleasure. Men, as they point out, constantly face the temptation to misuse their greater strength, only now, where women are given a license to seduce, men are drugged, caged, and coached out of any ability or desire to use their strength in any way. Perhaps in the medieval age, they were merely honest enough to point out the greatest weapon of both genders and condemn the abuse of it as wrong, while modern women are not strong enough to admit they may be wrong and need to be strong enough to control their power.
As part of studying for the GRE, I am reading the Norton Anthology of Women Writers. I know the editors, so I suppose I should have expected what I got--a fairly comprehensive set of feminist complaints about male domination. I will admit these women have a point, but I find myself wanting to disagree with them simply because I am ticked. Perhaps I would give them a more fair reading if they didn't constantly belittle my gender by insisting on our never-ending victimhood. To read a feminist history, one would suppose that all women were oppressed sows who have no more desire in life than to bare the breast and neck to our subhuman male oppressors, except for the few, lucky, educated and wealthy women who manage to break the glass crucifix and put them men-folk in their place. I personally object to this.
Anyhow, I disgress in my manifestation of dislike of feminist literary criticism. Two things really stood out to me especially in their examination of medieval literature. First, the introduction claimed that women were oppressed by the threat of childhood, a threat brought to them solely by their demanding husbands and clerics who insisted their only salvation was through childbirth. Goodness knows, I read history, kings tortured wives in the quest for a son. Priests told women it was their duty to bear children and bear sons, and yes, girls got married at 12. But then, the average time of a woman's death was 40, they had to live twice as fast as modern women. As to "threat of childbirth" disease, bad sanitation, incompatible blood types, poverty, and all manner of things killed children and mothers at great rates, aside from spontaneously discovering most of modern technology, I can't see off-hand what the men could have done to save their wives, apart, perhaps, from total celibacy, which may have had a negative effect on the population. Also, women were constantly threatened by childbirth, what about the men? The men who were constantly threatened with war, death by overwork, and disease? How about the dreadful oppression of men by the women who insisted on getting pregnant and raising children and thus forcing the men to work to even feed them?
As to the second, thing--Female sexuality. The authors both condemn the men for showing women as divine, arguing that this makes them mere objects, even if they are objects of worship. It also bashes the men of the times for portraying women as overly sexual. Using their sex in bestial, man-like, or aggressive ways--examples being Lady Macbeth and Chaucer's Wife of Bath. These women also bash men for their excessive misogyny and exercising their right to physically manhandle and abuse their women. And in this, I think the feminists have made one good point, women use sexuality as a weapon throughout time. The only difference, is now we call it femine power, free love, or otherwise using men for our pleasure. Men, as they point out, constantly face the temptation to misuse their greater strength, only now, where women are given a license to seduce, men are drugged, caged, and coached out of any ability or desire to use their strength in any way. Perhaps in the medieval age, they were merely honest enough to point out the greatest weapon of both genders and condemn the abuse of it as wrong, while modern women are not strong enough to admit they may be wrong and need to be strong enough to control their power.
It's Snowing!
I know, it is kind of obvious. But hey! Someone has to uphold tradition somewhere.
I love the feeling of slowly coming back to life. The cold saps your feeling, there is no life to your cheeks, nose, fingers, if it is cold enough, legs and arms, and then you come inside. The blood moves quicker, the heat hits your face, and slowly, creepingly, sometimes painfully, every nerve in the frozen areas wakes up, smiles, and proclaims "I'm Alive!" There is no better way I know of to remind myself that I am alive, and it is good.
I love the feeling of slowly coming back to life. The cold saps your feeling, there is no life to your cheeks, nose, fingers, if it is cold enough, legs and arms, and then you come inside. The blood moves quicker, the heat hits your face, and slowly, creepingly, sometimes painfully, every nerve in the frozen areas wakes up, smiles, and proclaims "I'm Alive!" There is no better way I know of to remind myself that I am alive, and it is good.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
On Incredible Spy Kids
If you ever want your brain to implode, or, you want to give yourself a great deal of impetus to be a good parent, I suggest you watch The Incredibles and Spy Kids back to back. It was quite the contrast. First, you have the fathers. Mr. Incredible is a smart, talented, and compassionate man who in his good moments is a dedicated family man, and in his bad moments seeks to re-live the glory days. He is blessed, his life clearly loves him, his children respect and obey him, and like all good American heroes, his boss despises him. Through the film he is refined and his selfishness is shown as such, and his love for his family is shown as good. He learns to serve and allow himself to be served, and in such, he becomes a man. Compare this to Gregorio Cortez. Gregorio Cortez is a smart and successful former spy, who makes it plain that "he is a consultant, not a spy" entirely, of course, for the sake of the children. Yet, as soon as a chance to dive back into the action is offered, he throws caution, parental responsibility, and sense to the winds in the chance to go "be a man!"
In even greater contrast, stands the ladies of the house. Ingrid Cortez' maternal affection is confined to the rose-tinted realm of telling her romance to her daughter and worrying incessently about them when she thoughtlessly abadons them to go be the sexy, secret agent. In contrast, there is Elastigirl, who moves rapidly from insisting she is at the top of her game and she will never give that up to have a family, to marriage, to suburban house-wife. She vacuums, she births mutliple children, she cares for and instructs her children, and when she thinks her husband is unfaithful and in danger, she considers the matter, and rushes to his rescue. He may be a creep, but he is her husband, and she loves him.
Finally, there are the kids. The spy kids start the movie as infernal brats. Not so surprising, every movie needs drama, the trouble arises when you realize that they end the movie, not grown, but vindicated. They begin the movie as bratty children--left home while their parents go off to war, and only begin their career as spies to save their parents when kidnappers come to call. They end the movie as the adults. They are asked to go on adventures it is is they who take dominance and set the moral of the story as they insist that "no, we will not go unless you let our parents come along too." Essentially, "family is important, so we insist you acknowledge our parents at our level." Violet and Dash of the Incredibles also start the movie as your typical bratty children. Violet has a temper and a crush on the local teen-age hottie, and Dash is a prankster with a taste for tormenting his sister. But, even at the beginning their is a depth to their relationship with each other and their parents that is totally absent in Spy Kids. For one thing, the kids respect their parents authority. Not perfectly, but they obey and honor them. To the Spy Kids, learning of their parent's achievements as spies earned their professional, if not personal respect. To the Incredible children, seeing their parents in action impresses them far less than watching their father confess that he did wrong and go forth and do rightly. For another thing, the kids love and affirm each other. Dash mocks his sister's crush, and Violet thinks her brother is an annoying creep, but there is no evidence of the constant belittling that is the sound track of Spy Kids, and the children work well in partnership when the pressure is on. Indicating that they have a trusting and stable relationship the rest of the time. In Spy Kids, the children bungle and funble their way to survival because they have no basis of trust, affection, or mutual competance on which to build.
Spy Kids shows that everyone should have the freedom to do what they think right, the result is the family is upside down with the parents are the bottom. The Incredibles insists that everyone has the duty to do the right thing, both to the family and to the community, and the movie ends with a bond of love, respect and authority. Spy Kids confirms my idiot notion that only the insane bear children, and The Incredibles makes me believe that "children are a blessing, he who has a quiver full of them is fortunate."
In even greater contrast, stands the ladies of the house. Ingrid Cortez' maternal affection is confined to the rose-tinted realm of telling her romance to her daughter and worrying incessently about them when she thoughtlessly abadons them to go be the sexy, secret agent. In contrast, there is Elastigirl, who moves rapidly from insisting she is at the top of her game and she will never give that up to have a family, to marriage, to suburban house-wife. She vacuums, she births mutliple children, she cares for and instructs her children, and when she thinks her husband is unfaithful and in danger, she considers the matter, and rushes to his rescue. He may be a creep, but he is her husband, and she loves him.
Finally, there are the kids. The spy kids start the movie as infernal brats. Not so surprising, every movie needs drama, the trouble arises when you realize that they end the movie, not grown, but vindicated. They begin the movie as bratty children--left home while their parents go off to war, and only begin their career as spies to save their parents when kidnappers come to call. They end the movie as the adults. They are asked to go on adventures it is is they who take dominance and set the moral of the story as they insist that "no, we will not go unless you let our parents come along too." Essentially, "family is important, so we insist you acknowledge our parents at our level." Violet and Dash of the Incredibles also start the movie as your typical bratty children. Violet has a temper and a crush on the local teen-age hottie, and Dash is a prankster with a taste for tormenting his sister. But, even at the beginning their is a depth to their relationship with each other and their parents that is totally absent in Spy Kids. For one thing, the kids respect their parents authority. Not perfectly, but they obey and honor them. To the Spy Kids, learning of their parent's achievements as spies earned their professional, if not personal respect. To the Incredible children, seeing their parents in action impresses them far less than watching their father confess that he did wrong and go forth and do rightly. For another thing, the kids love and affirm each other. Dash mocks his sister's crush, and Violet thinks her brother is an annoying creep, but there is no evidence of the constant belittling that is the sound track of Spy Kids, and the children work well in partnership when the pressure is on. Indicating that they have a trusting and stable relationship the rest of the time. In Spy Kids, the children bungle and funble their way to survival because they have no basis of trust, affection, or mutual competance on which to build.
Spy Kids shows that everyone should have the freedom to do what they think right, the result is the family is upside down with the parents are the bottom. The Incredibles insists that everyone has the duty to do the right thing, both to the family and to the community, and the movie ends with a bond of love, respect and authority. Spy Kids confirms my idiot notion that only the insane bear children, and The Incredibles makes me believe that "children are a blessing, he who has a quiver full of them is fortunate."
Thursday, January 22, 2009
I suddenly understand why it is so hard to pick a name for your child. I sit here, suveying my new friend and responsibility, Mr. or Ms. Laptop, and I have no idea what kind of entity it is. Will it be like my first computer, named Jaundice (please guess why!), or will it be more like my schizophrenic-but-loyal laptop who gyrated between being Lady Jane Grey and Ivan the Terrible? I don't even know what its gender is!! But, saint or sinner, my baby has arrived and now I must figure out who and what it is and how to deal with it in a sane and responsible manner.
Any name ideas?
Any name ideas?
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
"Smart People"
In Shakespeare class we had to read articles by all sorts of mindnumbingly brilliant people who nonetheless managed to write 20 page articles of things of absolutely no importance: like, say, why there is a bear in one .2 second scene, or why it was imperative that Juliet kill herself with a specific dagger. It never really made sense. I suggest:
1) It is the day of the resume. It is not enough to be " a smart person." This requires evidence on hard copy. So, you must do "smart things": play chess, read the right books, sneeer at the right topics, etc. In the case of these articles, you must find points that no one else has ever discovered before, or, cite umpteen "smart books" to back up a point everyone else has noticed, just to prove that you, in fact, read "the smart books."
2) It is a pragmatic era. It is not enough to be a documented "smart person." You have to be a useful smart person. So, not only must you have a 20 page paper to document a 5 page point on a Shakespeare play. You have to justify the fact that you both read Shakespeare and wrote a paper about it. Therefore, any original comment you have managed to dredge out of Shakespeare must be pertinent to a percentage of modern society: Ethnic groups, feminists, the racism question, gays, even Christians. You have to prove to them that you are the smart person who brought them yet more fuel in their battle to prove They are top school of thought.
3) Data breeds. So, papers must prove you are smart and be pragmatic. Also, there is space, endless space. Back in the day, knowledge proliferation was limited by such simple factors as cost of paper, circulations difficulties, and lack of readership. Now, in the era of mass manufacturing and endless internet space, there is no block on the amount of verbage a single individual can produce except the strength of his fingers. So, papers that could be cut to a single page carry, rambling on, for five, ten, and twenty pages. We have no reason to believe anymore that "brevity is the soul of wit." So, pointless verbage, like this blog post, go on forever with no salvation in sight.
1) It is the day of the resume. It is not enough to be " a smart person." This requires evidence on hard copy. So, you must do "smart things": play chess, read the right books, sneeer at the right topics, etc. In the case of these articles, you must find points that no one else has ever discovered before, or, cite umpteen "smart books" to back up a point everyone else has noticed, just to prove that you, in fact, read "the smart books."
2) It is a pragmatic era. It is not enough to be a documented "smart person." You have to be a useful smart person. So, not only must you have a 20 page paper to document a 5 page point on a Shakespeare play. You have to justify the fact that you both read Shakespeare and wrote a paper about it. Therefore, any original comment you have managed to dredge out of Shakespeare must be pertinent to a percentage of modern society: Ethnic groups, feminists, the racism question, gays, even Christians. You have to prove to them that you are the smart person who brought them yet more fuel in their battle to prove They are top school of thought.
3) Data breeds. So, papers must prove you are smart and be pragmatic. Also, there is space, endless space. Back in the day, knowledge proliferation was limited by such simple factors as cost of paper, circulations difficulties, and lack of readership. Now, in the era of mass manufacturing and endless internet space, there is no block on the amount of verbage a single individual can produce except the strength of his fingers. So, papers that could be cut to a single page carry, rambling on, for five, ten, and twenty pages. We have no reason to believe anymore that "brevity is the soul of wit." So, pointless verbage, like this blog post, go on forever with no salvation in sight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)