Let me begin by saying that I am not talking about narcissism or self-absorption here. I am talking about your garden variety vanity. Frankly, I think it gets a bum wrap. Many of the things we do that will help us to live healthier, longer lives are really outgrowths of vain behavior.
For instance, say a woman is concerned about sun spots and wrinkles. She therefore uses a moisturizer with sunscreen in it, tries not to tan, and regularly visits the dermatologist. These behaviors will help prevent skin cancer and/or catch it in an early, preventable stage.
Another example would be that a man who is concerned about getting paunchy, so he watches what he eats and goes to the gym. These behaviors help reduce, among other things, high blood pressure and cholesterol, and the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.
I think we all need a little vanity in our lives. After all, if you don't care about how you look, well, then frankly, no one else will care about you either. Harsh, I know, but true.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Thursday, January 22, 2009
And now for something (slightly) different.
As my friends continue to point out, I am indeed most slack about this blog. Therefore, I have worked to devise a plan of recourse. On the one hand, one of my new year's resolutions is to try new things, which should provide some excellent fodder for posts. On the other hand, I intend to focus on doing short recommendations of various forms of entertainment that I have enjoyed. I'm not quite sure how this will all work out, but do intend to try.
So to start the recommendations off on a great foot I am going to start with something very old school. Home Entertainment Center by Steven Banks. I sadly do not own this in it's original format. However, someone has very kindly put it up in it's entirety on YouTube. Years and years ago, my sister's high school boyfriend had taped this off of HBO and it stayed at our house for roughly a year, during which time I watched it repeatedly. It is hysterically funny. If you don't think so then 1)something is wrong with you and 2)what on earth are you reading my blog for? Click on the link only if you have time to watch the whole thing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62EePXzshX8
So to start the recommendations off on a great foot I am going to start with something very old school. Home Entertainment Center by Steven Banks. I sadly do not own this in it's original format. However, someone has very kindly put it up in it's entirety on YouTube. Years and years ago, my sister's high school boyfriend had taped this off of HBO and it stayed at our house for roughly a year, during which time I watched it repeatedly. It is hysterically funny. If you don't think so then 1)something is wrong with you and 2)what on earth are you reading my blog for? Click on the link only if you have time to watch the whole thing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62EePXzshX8
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Pithy observations
1. There is no dignified, let alone graceful, way to exit the back of a mini-van as an adult. Once you are too tall to stand upright in it and walk out you proceed into the realm of comedy.
2. Knee highs are the single most unattractive article of clothing that is regularly worn. Sure, sock garters are seriously dorky, but really, who actually wears those? And don't say panty hose because have you seen some of the styles in the Victoria's Secret catalog? Oh my! No, it is the knee high that wins the most unattractive award.
3. I wish there was a way to fast forward hair growth. I am currently trying to grow out the previously mentioned pixie cut and it is taking forever! And what is worse, there is the danger of developing a slight mullet. Alas and alack.
2. Knee highs are the single most unattractive article of clothing that is regularly worn. Sure, sock garters are seriously dorky, but really, who actually wears those? And don't say panty hose because have you seen some of the styles in the Victoria's Secret catalog? Oh my! No, it is the knee high that wins the most unattractive award.
3. I wish there was a way to fast forward hair growth. I am currently trying to grow out the previously mentioned pixie cut and it is taking forever! And what is worse, there is the danger of developing a slight mullet. Alas and alack.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
5 by 5
Five Things that I am really tired of:
1. Hot weather. It is almost Halloween, and the temperatures in the afternoons here are in the 80s. It's not like I live in Miami! Let it be fall good and proper, and not just in the mornings. Please!
2. Cooking for one. This is maddening. Even if you cut recipes in half it still makes too much. Fresh fruit and other produce tends to go bad before it can be eaten. So aggravating.
3. Mosquitoes. This goes along with the hot weather. They are a scourge. If I could keep a bat house I would, but they aren't allowed in the city limits. The Old Farmer's Almanac has promised a cold, severe winter. Bring it on and kill these nasty things.
4. Tooting your own horn. I know, I know, this isn't supposed to be a bad thing. But it always feels weird to me, and sadly it has become a necessity where I work.
5. Election campaigns. Why oh why isn't it November yet? I'm so sick of both sides getting up and talking crap. They are all dishonest and overly ambitious. That's why they are politicians. It goes with the territory. The trick is to find the one who is the least dishonest. We desperately need campaign reform that prevents them from a lot of what they do in ads. Makes me sick.
5 things I am enjoying right now.
1. Dillard's. I don't know if this is true at every Dillard's, but the last few times I have been shopping there it has been a wonderful experience. The staff in all of the departments I visited were very helpful and I found a lot of things that I really liked. They even have call buttons in the dressing rooms. It was a lot like the way I imagine shopping in the 50's was, when customer service actually existed.
2. The woman's magazine Lucky. Most magazines that focus on fashion and style are filled with things that normal people cannot possibly afford. Lucky is different. Sure, there are some high end items in each article, but there is a much wider ranges of prices. What's more, they feature clothing that you can actually wear. They also have a whole section in the back of the magazine with the Lucky deal's. These are products or companies that will give you a discount on select merchandise online if you put in the codes from the section. And every issue comes with a sheet of page tabs so that you can mark what you like. How fun!
3.Pushing Daisies. I will admit to having missed the first two episodes of this season because I was watching Bones which airs at the same time. However, thanks to baseball, I was able to watch last night and I was reminded of how much I enjoy that show and how adorable Lee Pace is. Must get my Tivo working!
4. Progressive Dinner. To be fair, it really isn't a "progressive" dinner since we don't advance from house to house. It's more of a communal dinner, but that sounds funny. Recently, a group of my friends started having dinner together once a month. We pick a theme and each party prepares part of the meal. It is a lot of fun, and hopefully we will be able to continue with it. Food prices get a little scary.
5. Pandora. For those of you who don't know Pandora is an online radio station that allows you to heavily tailor the type of music that is played. I absolutely love it and I have found a lot of really cool music through it. It has a few problems; occasionally a song will stop and skip to the next one, and you can't replay a song, and of course, not everything is in their music library. But it is free and totally worthwhile. So thanks Squirrel for telling me about it!
1. Hot weather. It is almost Halloween, and the temperatures in the afternoons here are in the 80s. It's not like I live in Miami! Let it be fall good and proper, and not just in the mornings. Please!
2. Cooking for one. This is maddening. Even if you cut recipes in half it still makes too much. Fresh fruit and other produce tends to go bad before it can be eaten. So aggravating.
3. Mosquitoes. This goes along with the hot weather. They are a scourge. If I could keep a bat house I would, but they aren't allowed in the city limits. The Old Farmer's Almanac has promised a cold, severe winter. Bring it on and kill these nasty things.
4. Tooting your own horn. I know, I know, this isn't supposed to be a bad thing. But it always feels weird to me, and sadly it has become a necessity where I work.
5. Election campaigns. Why oh why isn't it November yet? I'm so sick of both sides getting up and talking crap. They are all dishonest and overly ambitious. That's why they are politicians. It goes with the territory. The trick is to find the one who is the least dishonest. We desperately need campaign reform that prevents them from a lot of what they do in ads. Makes me sick.
5 things I am enjoying right now.
1. Dillard's. I don't know if this is true at every Dillard's, but the last few times I have been shopping there it has been a wonderful experience. The staff in all of the departments I visited were very helpful and I found a lot of things that I really liked. They even have call buttons in the dressing rooms. It was a lot like the way I imagine shopping in the 50's was, when customer service actually existed.
2. The woman's magazine Lucky. Most magazines that focus on fashion and style are filled with things that normal people cannot possibly afford. Lucky is different. Sure, there are some high end items in each article, but there is a much wider ranges of prices. What's more, they feature clothing that you can actually wear. They also have a whole section in the back of the magazine with the Lucky deal's. These are products or companies that will give you a discount on select merchandise online if you put in the codes from the section. And every issue comes with a sheet of page tabs so that you can mark what you like. How fun!
3.Pushing Daisies. I will admit to having missed the first two episodes of this season because I was watching Bones which airs at the same time. However, thanks to baseball, I was able to watch last night and I was reminded of how much I enjoy that show and how adorable Lee Pace is. Must get my Tivo working!
4. Progressive Dinner. To be fair, it really isn't a "progressive" dinner since we don't advance from house to house. It's more of a communal dinner, but that sounds funny. Recently, a group of my friends started having dinner together once a month. We pick a theme and each party prepares part of the meal. It is a lot of fun, and hopefully we will be able to continue with it. Food prices get a little scary.
5. Pandora. For those of you who don't know Pandora is an online radio station that allows you to heavily tailor the type of music that is played. I absolutely love it and I have found a lot of really cool music through it. It has a few problems; occasionally a song will stop and skip to the next one, and you can't replay a song, and of course, not everything is in their music library. But it is free and totally worthwhile. So thanks Squirrel for telling me about it!
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Onward to London! (or rather Vancouver)
Yes, despite the fact that during the closing ceremonies of the Beijing games they passed the Olympics onto London, the next Olympic games will be the winter Olympics in Vancouver in 2010. I'm still not sure how I feel about having the winter Olympics moved to a different year. Yes, it is nice to spread it out, but were the 1994 games truly an Olympics when an Olympiad had not passed since the previous games? It's a puzzle.
For those who don't know, or couldn't guess, I thoroughly enjoy the Olympics. I like to see the sports that aren't televised when there isn't an Olympics going on, or that aren't shown much during the "off" years. Overall I found the Beijing Olympics to be very well done, and with the exception of the horrible murder that kicked them off, one of the least scandal filled Olympics in my life time.
There were many things to applaud about the Olympics this year. Very few doping incidents. Only one or two incidents of suspect scoring. Records set left and right. Great weather and beautiful scenery. But being me, I can't help but notice a few things that could stand some improvement.
The first thing is not so much the Olympics themselves, but rather how NBC shows them. The coverage this year was a mixture of taped and late night live action. But instead of showing us finals of events that had been taped they instead showed us round after round of qualifying of taped events, or the entire men's marathon because it was live. What? Qualifying heats should only be shown if something unusual happens: someone who is a predicted medal contender doesn't qualify, someone gets hurt, or a record is broken. That sort of thing. The first week of coverage was much better than the second. I don't know what needs to be done to get them to move out of their box like thinking. Ah well.
Age Limits. Much ado was made over the suspected age requirement violations of the Chinese women's gymnasts. I think both the FIG and the IOC handled that badly, but if a government is willing to cheat (and I'm not saying that China did, although it looks like) you can't really prove it. Age violations are nothing new. The Soviet block countries did it all the time in the 1980s. I'm not condoning it. I disagree with the age limit rule, but a rule is a rule and everyone should have to abide by it. I'm sure the Russians would have loved to have Alina Mustafina on their team this year. What I really have a problem with is the age limit is only in place for women's gymnastics. If it isn't safe for a 14 year old girl to do acrobatic tricks, it isn't safe for a 14 year old boy to launch himself head first off the equivalent of a three story building. Yet, that is okay. If there is going to be a minimum age for one sport then that should be the rule for all sports. Personally, I think if you are good enough to make it onto an Olympic team at the age of 14 more power to you. Fourteen seems old enough to me.
Tie Breakers. I can understand why the IOC implemented tie-breakers for judged sports. The medals aren't cheap to make and a host country shouldn't have to stock up on them in case the judges are wishy washy. I don't even mind breaking a tie based on execution score in gymnastics. The person who did their routine the cleanest should come out on top. However, if two, or more, people have the same difficulty score and execution score the tie should stand. You don't move on to an additional decimal point, or re-average their scores or any other stupidness. In 2000 during the men's 50 meter freestyle event there was a tie for the gold medal and it stood. They allow ties during round robin play in soccer and other sports. With the new scoring system in gymnastics it is very rare for two people to receive the same score when they have the same difficulty level and execution score. Let the tie stand.
Road racing. This is either a team sport or individual. A country with more depth shouldn't be allowed to have it's lesser athletes go out hard in order to tire out the competition and then drop out themselves so that their countryman can win. That's totally unfair.
Limiting qualifiers. Ages ago, in order the level the playing field in certain sports they restricted the number of athletes each country could send, or have advance to finals, so that the strongest countries couldn't dominate. Well, with the exception on China in diving and men's gymnastics, the field is darn close to level. Or as level as any playing field can be given the differences in population, coaching, and resources between countries. The Olympics should be about the best competing against the best. Shouldn't there be an footnote for someone who medals in a event when the person with the third fastest posted time can't compete because he or she has two teammates faster than him or her on Olympic trial day? Sure, I wanted someone to beat the Soviets or Romanians or East Germans but not because those teams were handicapped. This is a rule that needs to be scrapped ASAP.
Dropping Baseball and Softball. The premiere international competition for these sports was the Olympics. And they are dropped? What the? And tennis, whose entire season is international events, remains? Why? Oh yes, because the Cubans and the Americans were too good. They didn't get rid of men's gymnastics when Japan won five in a row. They didn't get rid of women's gymnastics when the Soviets won 10 of the 11 contested bewteen 1952 and 1992. (The only one they didn't win was 1984 when they boycotted) It's ridiculous.
For those who don't know, or couldn't guess, I thoroughly enjoy the Olympics. I like to see the sports that aren't televised when there isn't an Olympics going on, or that aren't shown much during the "off" years. Overall I found the Beijing Olympics to be very well done, and with the exception of the horrible murder that kicked them off, one of the least scandal filled Olympics in my life time.
There were many things to applaud about the Olympics this year. Very few doping incidents. Only one or two incidents of suspect scoring. Records set left and right. Great weather and beautiful scenery. But being me, I can't help but notice a few things that could stand some improvement.
The first thing is not so much the Olympics themselves, but rather how NBC shows them. The coverage this year was a mixture of taped and late night live action. But instead of showing us finals of events that had been taped they instead showed us round after round of qualifying of taped events, or the entire men's marathon because it was live. What? Qualifying heats should only be shown if something unusual happens: someone who is a predicted medal contender doesn't qualify, someone gets hurt, or a record is broken. That sort of thing. The first week of coverage was much better than the second. I don't know what needs to be done to get them to move out of their box like thinking. Ah well.
Age Limits. Much ado was made over the suspected age requirement violations of the Chinese women's gymnasts. I think both the FIG and the IOC handled that badly, but if a government is willing to cheat (and I'm not saying that China did, although it looks like) you can't really prove it. Age violations are nothing new. The Soviet block countries did it all the time in the 1980s. I'm not condoning it. I disagree with the age limit rule, but a rule is a rule and everyone should have to abide by it. I'm sure the Russians would have loved to have Alina Mustafina on their team this year. What I really have a problem with is the age limit is only in place for women's gymnastics. If it isn't safe for a 14 year old girl to do acrobatic tricks, it isn't safe for a 14 year old boy to launch himself head first off the equivalent of a three story building. Yet, that is okay. If there is going to be a minimum age for one sport then that should be the rule for all sports. Personally, I think if you are good enough to make it onto an Olympic team at the age of 14 more power to you. Fourteen seems old enough to me.
Tie Breakers. I can understand why the IOC implemented tie-breakers for judged sports. The medals aren't cheap to make and a host country shouldn't have to stock up on them in case the judges are wishy washy. I don't even mind breaking a tie based on execution score in gymnastics. The person who did their routine the cleanest should come out on top. However, if two, or more, people have the same difficulty score and execution score the tie should stand. You don't move on to an additional decimal point, or re-average their scores or any other stupidness. In 2000 during the men's 50 meter freestyle event there was a tie for the gold medal and it stood. They allow ties during round robin play in soccer and other sports. With the new scoring system in gymnastics it is very rare for two people to receive the same score when they have the same difficulty level and execution score. Let the tie stand.
Road racing. This is either a team sport or individual. A country with more depth shouldn't be allowed to have it's lesser athletes go out hard in order to tire out the competition and then drop out themselves so that their countryman can win. That's totally unfair.
Limiting qualifiers. Ages ago, in order the level the playing field in certain sports they restricted the number of athletes each country could send, or have advance to finals, so that the strongest countries couldn't dominate. Well, with the exception on China in diving and men's gymnastics, the field is darn close to level. Or as level as any playing field can be given the differences in population, coaching, and resources between countries. The Olympics should be about the best competing against the best. Shouldn't there be an footnote for someone who medals in a event when the person with the third fastest posted time can't compete because he or she has two teammates faster than him or her on Olympic trial day? Sure, I wanted someone to beat the Soviets or Romanians or East Germans but not because those teams were handicapped. This is a rule that needs to be scrapped ASAP.
Dropping Baseball and Softball. The premiere international competition for these sports was the Olympics. And they are dropped? What the? And tennis, whose entire season is international events, remains? Why? Oh yes, because the Cubans and the Americans were too good. They didn't get rid of men's gymnastics when Japan won five in a row. They didn't get rid of women's gymnastics when the Soviets won 10 of the 11 contested bewteen 1952 and 1992. (The only one they didn't win was 1984 when they boycotted) It's ridiculous.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Ack! It's almost September and I'm only at 45!
I take part in a 50 book challenge on Shelfari, and while the group bills itself at 50 books you can make your own challenge whatever you want. I had done 61 last year and so I set myself a loftier goal of at least 75. I would be reading more, except, the Olympics have me entranced at night, although not right now as NBC has been totally blowing the programming during the taped portion. Show us finals! Not qualifying rounds unless something major happens! But I digress. (There will be an Olympic blog at the conclusion of the games btw.)
I would really like to read 100 books this year, but I don't know if I can achieve it. I shall do my best though and see what I can accomplish. If anyone has any book suggestions please let me know!
I would really like to read 100 books this year, but I don't know if I can achieve it. I shall do my best though and see what I can accomplish. If anyone has any book suggestions please let me know!
Monday, August 4, 2008
Martha Brockenbrough just doesn't get it
I read an article by the aforementioned Martha Brockenbrough (aka Cinemama, no I am not making that up) that questioned the value of the Twilight series. http://movies.msn.com/movies/pmg/twilight/ I would say debated the merits of the series, but that isn't what she achieved. I don't have a problem with people not enjoying the same books I do (although at times I do question their taste depending on what book they don't like) because reading is a deeply personal thing and not everyone enjoys everything. But I have a serious problem with Ms. Brockenbrough's article and arguments.
Let me be perfectly frank. I think romance novels are escapist fantasy, and that is what the Twilight series ultimately is; a paranormal young adult romance. I also happen to think that there is a place for romance novels. Sure, there is an awful lot of tripe in the genre, but then again, there is an awful lot of junk published across the board. I don't think that the Twilight series, however much I enjoy it, is a paragon of great literature, but it is darn good and certainly entertaining. So here is the rub.
There are many reasons for me to disagree with Ms. Brockenbrough. She claims that she enjoys the books and in fact has read the first three installments twice. But despite her enjoyment of the books she does not want her daughters to read them. This in my view, qualifies her as a hypocrite. Despite her purported familiarity with the texts she filled her article with factual errors. I can think of four of the top of my head, which is pretty shabby for a two page article where a portion of it was written by someone else. She also calls the books creams puffs and yet fails to offer a single suggestion of books that are "better." But never mind all of those factors. The purpose of this post is not to dissect her writing capabilities or take her to task for these failings. Ms. Brockenbrough does have one valid point. Edward and Bella's relationship is unequal, not just because of their biology (Edward is a vampire after all) but because of their financial status (the Cullens are loaded). This is a fairly typical trait of romance novels, it creates an internal level of tension that the couple has to deal with. It is not unique to Twilight. This imbalance bothers Ms. Brockenbrough immensely though, because in her eyes, it makes Bella a weak character.
This conclusion is faulty. Yes, she is physically weaker than supernatural beings, she is human after all, and comparing her to Hermione is an apples to oranges comparison. (So is comparing her to Buffy as one responder did on the message boards because Buffy was also not a strictly human girl). Writing Bella off for being human is unfair, and discrediting her for not bringing anything to her relationship with Edward demonstrates an absence of thought on the part of the reader. Bella is a hugely humanizing influence on Edward and his family. She is a loyal friend and daughter, intelligent, brave, and frequently makes very mature and difficult decisions. She also accepts the consequences of her justified "bad behavior" without complaint. But this is apparently not good enough for Cinemama. She thinks Bella sets a bad example for teenage girls. She sees no reason for Edward or Jacob (a werewolf)to be interested in this human girl accept that it brings out the hero complex in them. Please.
What is more dangerous? A story where a normal girl gets an extraordinary guy? Or a story where an extraordinary girl gets an extraordinary guy? How is the Twilight series any more dangerous or unrealistic than Pride & Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility, Jane Eyre and the like? All three of these books feature unequal relationships where the female is in the inferior societal position. Where is the bile for Jane Austen and the Brontes? Oh wait, those books are literature whereas the Twilight series is young adult fluff. (I cannot abide a double standard).
Why do so many feminists espouse this concept that any female who does not adhere to their ideals is somehow not just inferior, but dangerous? Ms. Brockenbrough just loves Hermione, waxes poetic about her virtues, but completely disregards her short comings. (And she does have them. That's why she is a complex character). Reading about Hermione will empower young girls according to Ms. Brockenbrough. Reading about Bella, on the other hand, will cause teenage girls everywhere to sit around waiting for a boy to bite them on their neck. Thank you so much Ms. Brockenbrough, for insulting the entire female population. Do people not realize, that when you criticize entertainment for "giving girls the wrong idea" (not factual errors mind you, or promoting genuinely dangerous behaviors, but more abstract concepts) that you are implying that girls are too stupid to make critical judgments about their lives? Do they seriously think that a perfectly well-adjusted girl is going to watch Grease and think "that's it! I'll compromise myself to fit in with his friends!"? And if a young woman isn't well-adjusted it has to do with way more than a fondness for romance novels or musicals. (Notice that no one gets up in arms over My Fair Lady because Eliza changes for the better). No one says these things about Batman. Think how absurd they would sound if they went around saying things like "Bruce Wayne is a psychologically damaged character and young men shouldn't be exposed to this sort of thing, or they will emulate him."
Yes, the media does influence us, but more often than not it is subtly, a slow permeation if you will. But instead of criticizing the media for the sexualization of pre-teens and teenagers, the glorification of trashy behavior, and the promotion of the self-serving sense of entitlement that is so prevalent in today's society, Ms. Brockenbrough chooses to dump on a popular series of books because the heroine isn't "tough" enough. How is that helpful? Women having been worrying about adhering to their society's ideals for millennia. This is nothing new. Putting down a character who is very much like your average teenage girl only makes it worse. Because what Ms. Brockenbrough has just said in her article is that the girls in this world who relate more to Bella than Hermione aren't good enough as they are and that it doesn't make sense to her that a guy would be interested in a girl like that. And frankly, I do not hold with that. That attitude, especially in another woman, a mother, and one would gather from her sentiments someone who considers herself to be a feminist, is far more damaging and dangerous than any romance novel could ever be.
Let me be perfectly frank. I think romance novels are escapist fantasy, and that is what the Twilight series ultimately is; a paranormal young adult romance. I also happen to think that there is a place for romance novels. Sure, there is an awful lot of tripe in the genre, but then again, there is an awful lot of junk published across the board. I don't think that the Twilight series, however much I enjoy it, is a paragon of great literature, but it is darn good and certainly entertaining. So here is the rub.
There are many reasons for me to disagree with Ms. Brockenbrough. She claims that she enjoys the books and in fact has read the first three installments twice. But despite her enjoyment of the books she does not want her daughters to read them. This in my view, qualifies her as a hypocrite. Despite her purported familiarity with the texts she filled her article with factual errors. I can think of four of the top of my head, which is pretty shabby for a two page article where a portion of it was written by someone else. She also calls the books creams puffs and yet fails to offer a single suggestion of books that are "better." But never mind all of those factors. The purpose of this post is not to dissect her writing capabilities or take her to task for these failings. Ms. Brockenbrough does have one valid point. Edward and Bella's relationship is unequal, not just because of their biology (Edward is a vampire after all) but because of their financial status (the Cullens are loaded). This is a fairly typical trait of romance novels, it creates an internal level of tension that the couple has to deal with. It is not unique to Twilight. This imbalance bothers Ms. Brockenbrough immensely though, because in her eyes, it makes Bella a weak character.
This conclusion is faulty. Yes, she is physically weaker than supernatural beings, she is human after all, and comparing her to Hermione is an apples to oranges comparison. (So is comparing her to Buffy as one responder did on the message boards because Buffy was also not a strictly human girl). Writing Bella off for being human is unfair, and discrediting her for not bringing anything to her relationship with Edward demonstrates an absence of thought on the part of the reader. Bella is a hugely humanizing influence on Edward and his family. She is a loyal friend and daughter, intelligent, brave, and frequently makes very mature and difficult decisions. She also accepts the consequences of her justified "bad behavior" without complaint. But this is apparently not good enough for Cinemama. She thinks Bella sets a bad example for teenage girls. She sees no reason for Edward or Jacob (a werewolf)to be interested in this human girl accept that it brings out the hero complex in them. Please.
What is more dangerous? A story where a normal girl gets an extraordinary guy? Or a story where an extraordinary girl gets an extraordinary guy? How is the Twilight series any more dangerous or unrealistic than Pride & Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility, Jane Eyre and the like? All three of these books feature unequal relationships where the female is in the inferior societal position. Where is the bile for Jane Austen and the Brontes? Oh wait, those books are literature whereas the Twilight series is young adult fluff. (I cannot abide a double standard).
Why do so many feminists espouse this concept that any female who does not adhere to their ideals is somehow not just inferior, but dangerous? Ms. Brockenbrough just loves Hermione, waxes poetic about her virtues, but completely disregards her short comings. (And she does have them. That's why she is a complex character). Reading about Hermione will empower young girls according to Ms. Brockenbrough. Reading about Bella, on the other hand, will cause teenage girls everywhere to sit around waiting for a boy to bite them on their neck. Thank you so much Ms. Brockenbrough, for insulting the entire female population. Do people not realize, that when you criticize entertainment for "giving girls the wrong idea" (not factual errors mind you, or promoting genuinely dangerous behaviors, but more abstract concepts) that you are implying that girls are too stupid to make critical judgments about their lives? Do they seriously think that a perfectly well-adjusted girl is going to watch Grease and think "that's it! I'll compromise myself to fit in with his friends!"? And if a young woman isn't well-adjusted it has to do with way more than a fondness for romance novels or musicals. (Notice that no one gets up in arms over My Fair Lady because Eliza changes for the better). No one says these things about Batman. Think how absurd they would sound if they went around saying things like "Bruce Wayne is a psychologically damaged character and young men shouldn't be exposed to this sort of thing, or they will emulate him."
Yes, the media does influence us, but more often than not it is subtly, a slow permeation if you will. But instead of criticizing the media for the sexualization of pre-teens and teenagers, the glorification of trashy behavior, and the promotion of the self-serving sense of entitlement that is so prevalent in today's society, Ms. Brockenbrough chooses to dump on a popular series of books because the heroine isn't "tough" enough. How is that helpful? Women having been worrying about adhering to their society's ideals for millennia. This is nothing new. Putting down a character who is very much like your average teenage girl only makes it worse. Because what Ms. Brockenbrough has just said in her article is that the girls in this world who relate more to Bella than Hermione aren't good enough as they are and that it doesn't make sense to her that a guy would be interested in a girl like that. And frankly, I do not hold with that. That attitude, especially in another woman, a mother, and one would gather from her sentiments someone who considers herself to be a feminist, is far more damaging and dangerous than any romance novel could ever be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
