I was bored (and suffering from temporary stupidity, apparently) so I watched the movie I Spy. Now, I've never seen the 60s television show the movie was (loosely) based on (I don't like Bill Cosby because of his attitude toward children...long story.), but my parents watched it, so I know a little about it. And what I know about the television show is what irked me about the movie. You see, the television show was more enlightened, racially speaking, than the movie - at least in premise.
In the show, Cosby's character was the experienced spy - his cover was as trainer to Culp's less experience spy, who was posing as a tennis star. In the movie, Eddie Murphy is a boxer, and not any kind of spy, who is supposed to provide cover to Owen Willson's spy. Gee, great, from experienced spy to boxer, that's really a step forward. Not.
Now, the movie was also boringly predictible, but it was the changes in the characters that left a bad taste in my mouth. -_-
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Friday, March 28, 2008
Blog Against Torture
It’s sad that in the twenty-first century, in the supposedly civilized world, I’m blogging against torture. Sad because this shouldn’t be necessary. We should have gotten it through our collective skulls that it doesn’t work, and even if it did, it would be wrong because it presumes facts not in evidence and because, well, damn it, it’s wrong. And yet, here I am. Or rather, here we are, since this affects everyone.
It doesn’t work. That is to say, information obtained under torture is highly suspect. This should practically be common sense. If someone was mock-drowning you, or stripping you naked and implying that they were going to rape you, or keeping you awake for days on end, or causing you physical pain, or otherwise torturing you, wouldn’t you say just about anything to get them to stop? Maybe not right away, but eventually. Be honest. You would. I would. Anyone would. Mind you, I said “anything,” I didn’t say “the truth.”
People have confessed to strange and bizarre (and quite untrue) things under torture or even highly threatening police interrogations because they thought it was what their tormenters wanted to hear. They thought it would end the situation. Look at history, at the witch hunts, at the confessions of the Templars, look at the various people who’ve been exonerated after confessing to crimes. It doesn’t work.
But pretend for a moment that does. Would it be okay to use it then?
No, because it presumes facts not in evidence. Torture (supposing it worked) only makes sense if you have the right people in your torture chamber. And there is no way to know that for sure. None. You might think you have the right people, but you could be quite wrong. Even if you sort of have the right person, say a terrorist you just caught in a terrorist meeting room filled with bomb making materials and all that good evidence stuff, that terrorist still might not have the information you want. And that’s assuming you didn’t accidentally capture the pizza delivery guy by mistake.
That famous scenario that proponents of torture throw around? The one with the terrorist who knows the location of the bomb that threatens your family? It’s a fantasy. It’s the fantasy that the entire torture debate rests on. This is why people want to use torture – they believe this scenario is possible. And, of course, they believe torturing this theoretical terrorist who you somehow know is exactly the person to tell you where the bomb is or how to defuse it or whatever is going to result in their honest confession. The problem is, torture doesn’t work, and you never actually know for certain that you have the right person and they have the information you want. You would have to have telepathy to know that, and if you did, why the hell would you bother with torture when you could just take the information from their mind while you were at it? So the famous scenario goes poof.
Then, of course, there’s still the moral issue. This is something of a personal thing, as morals always are, but I say that torture is just plain wrong. We are supposed to be the good guys, yes? (Yes, of course, the real world is not black and white, good and evil, whatever our current administration may think, but we do, nonetheless consider ourselves the good guys.) Why would we then commit an act that most people consider evil? Even if torture worked and we had the right people, wouldn’t we have lost in winning? Honestly, what is torture if not individually aimed terrorism? Aren’t we becoming the very thing we’re supposedly waging a war on?
Of course, here in reality where torture doesn’t work and we can’t know for certain that they people we’re torturing are even terrorists, torture reaches an even greater level of immorality. It becomes the infliction of harm on people for no certain end and possibly the infliction of harm on those who are innocent of any wrongdoing. How can that not be wrong? We cannot abandon our morals for vengeance and we cannot abandon our morals if doing so could result in us harming innocent people. Torture is forbidden by the Geneva Convention for a reason, folks. Let’s try abiding by that, shall we?
Sunday, March 9, 2008
I wish I could combine the two MMOs I play
And not because it would save me $15 dollars every month (which would also be nice). There are aspects of both games that I really, really like, and aspects that I dislike, but a game with the best of both would be the most awesome MMO ever. Well, in my opinion, anyway.
I play City of Heroes/Villains and World of Warcraft. CoH/V wins for character customization, but WoW wins for world design and crafting/professions. Game play is a tough call, since both games have rather a lot of kill X missions (or, in WoW loot X missions, which amount to the same thing), though both games also give you some missions that don't necessarily involve fighting and both occasional give you talk to so-and-so missions (though WoW gives you far more of those - I sometimes think half the world's populous must be engaged in grade school style feuds). Over all, though, I think CoH/V characters are slightly higher powered compared to their enemies, which means it's much easier to take on multiple foes without face-planting, but, at the same time, it has more of a death penalty than WoW (which is mainly a corpse run). If given a choice, though, I'd take CoH/V's slightly higher power and WoW's death penalty - mainly because I solo a lot and would rather not have to out-level missions or find help. (That would go in the category of why really shy people shouldn't play MMOs.) But the game play isn't the issue - I wouldn't play either game if I didn't enjoy it - it's the color, the extras, the stuff that turns people into addicts that the two games need to learn from each other on.
In CoH/V, you design your character's looks in pretty damn good detail. You not only pick their face (and adjust it with facial feature sliders if you so choose), their build, and, of course, their gender, but design their costume as well. You can create a superhero (or villain) who looks like you, or who looks like your idea of an alien from some other dimension. You also have a space to write a brief biography or description of your character, which other players can read. You even have a fair amount of choice when it comes to your powers - sure there are "classes," each of which gives you access to a different list of powersets, but with each class having primary and secondary powersets to choose from, you end up with a lot of variety. You also can add other powers (travel powers, for example) as you level up, and the powers in your powerset aren't dependent on one another, so you can skip one's you aren't interested in without effecting your later choices. This means that you end up with a character that seems very much like your own creation. Yes, there are limits, and, of course, players long to create things the game won't allow, but my CoH/V characters feel like my characters in a way that my WoW characters do not.
WoW feels a bit more like fantasy Barbie. I dress up the dolls and play with them, but they aren't mine. I still role play them (in my head - I'm far too shy to do so with other people), but not to the degree that I do my CoH/V characters. Fantasy Barbie (or GI Joe or other pre-made story doll) is still fun, but it's a far cry from having computer equivalents to pen and paper RPG characters. And, yes, I know there are people who role play in WoW and who do create back-stories and all of that for their characters. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that the game doesn't make that kind of thing as easy as CoH/V does.
On the other hand, WoW offers a beautiful, varied world to explore. Oh, sure, it's a cartoony world, but that doesn't keep it from being a very, very pretty world (at least to me). Sure, the zones in CoH/V are different, too, but only a few of them aren't simply different takes on "city." The names of the games pretty much sum up the difference here - World of Warcraft, City of Heroes/Villains. And, at least for me, a world is automatically more interesting to explore than a mere city. WoW also did a better job with its crafting and professions, probably because they weren't tacked onto the game the way they have been in CoH/V. If I'm going to engage in crafting, I would rather run around picking different flowers, mining veins, skinning the wildlife I kill, or disenchanting items I have no use for than hoping what I need drops at random. (Yes, yes, there's some random dropping of items for crafting in WoW, but in CoH/V it's all random. Not fun.) WoW also did a better job with their crafting by naming everything you craft - not having non-rare crafted items simply be "crafted item." Sure, the basic crafted enhancements in CoH/V are better than the dropped enhancements, but I'm not going to replace neat looking and neat named items with boring looking "invention damage" or whatever. It ruins the flavor and look of the enhancement screen. (Yeah, I'm picky. :P)
While I long for a game that really does have the best of both worlds, I guess I'll have to just keep playing the games I have, even if I long for World of Heroes/Villains (or something).
I play City of Heroes/Villains and World of Warcraft. CoH/V wins for character customization, but WoW wins for world design and crafting/professions. Game play is a tough call, since both games have rather a lot of kill X missions (or, in WoW loot X missions, which amount to the same thing), though both games also give you some missions that don't necessarily involve fighting and both occasional give you talk to so-and-so missions (though WoW gives you far more of those - I sometimes think half the world's populous must be engaged in grade school style feuds). Over all, though, I think CoH/V characters are slightly higher powered compared to their enemies, which means it's much easier to take on multiple foes without face-planting, but, at the same time, it has more of a death penalty than WoW (which is mainly a corpse run). If given a choice, though, I'd take CoH/V's slightly higher power and WoW's death penalty - mainly because I solo a lot and would rather not have to out-level missions or find help. (That would go in the category of why really shy people shouldn't play MMOs.) But the game play isn't the issue - I wouldn't play either game if I didn't enjoy it - it's the color, the extras, the stuff that turns people into addicts that the two games need to learn from each other on.
In CoH/V, you design your character's looks in pretty damn good detail. You not only pick their face (and adjust it with facial feature sliders if you so choose), their build, and, of course, their gender, but design their costume as well. You can create a superhero (or villain) who looks like you, or who looks like your idea of an alien from some other dimension. You also have a space to write a brief biography or description of your character, which other players can read. You even have a fair amount of choice when it comes to your powers - sure there are "classes," each of which gives you access to a different list of powersets, but with each class having primary and secondary powersets to choose from, you end up with a lot of variety. You also can add other powers (travel powers, for example) as you level up, and the powers in your powerset aren't dependent on one another, so you can skip one's you aren't interested in without effecting your later choices. This means that you end up with a character that seems very much like your own creation. Yes, there are limits, and, of course, players long to create things the game won't allow, but my CoH/V characters feel like my characters in a way that my WoW characters do not.
WoW feels a bit more like fantasy Barbie. I dress up the dolls and play with them, but they aren't mine. I still role play them (in my head - I'm far too shy to do so with other people), but not to the degree that I do my CoH/V characters. Fantasy Barbie (or GI Joe or other pre-made story doll) is still fun, but it's a far cry from having computer equivalents to pen and paper RPG characters. And, yes, I know there are people who role play in WoW and who do create back-stories and all of that for their characters. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that the game doesn't make that kind of thing as easy as CoH/V does.
On the other hand, WoW offers a beautiful, varied world to explore. Oh, sure, it's a cartoony world, but that doesn't keep it from being a very, very pretty world (at least to me). Sure, the zones in CoH/V are different, too, but only a few of them aren't simply different takes on "city." The names of the games pretty much sum up the difference here - World of Warcraft, City of Heroes/Villains. And, at least for me, a world is automatically more interesting to explore than a mere city. WoW also did a better job with its crafting and professions, probably because they weren't tacked onto the game the way they have been in CoH/V. If I'm going to engage in crafting, I would rather run around picking different flowers, mining veins, skinning the wildlife I kill, or disenchanting items I have no use for than hoping what I need drops at random. (Yes, yes, there's some random dropping of items for crafting in WoW, but in CoH/V it's all random. Not fun.) WoW also did a better job with their crafting by naming everything you craft - not having non-rare crafted items simply be "crafted item." Sure, the basic crafted enhancements in CoH/V are better than the dropped enhancements, but I'm not going to replace neat looking and neat named items with boring looking "invention damage" or whatever. It ruins the flavor and look of the enhancement screen. (Yeah, I'm picky. :P)
While I long for a game that really does have the best of both worlds, I guess I'll have to just keep playing the games I have, even if I long for World of Heroes/Villains (or something).
Friday, March 7, 2008
The Fates Are Against Me
My parents have been trying to visit for over a month now, only to be thwarted every time. Work issues, snow, inconvenient illnesses, and now their Jeep's radiator blew up. -_- Damn it. I look forward to seeing them all week, only to have Friday bring some disaster that prevents them from visiting. And, of course, because I think I have plans for the weekend, I don't make any with friends. It's not that a weekend at home with books, the internet, and my cat is terrible, mind, but it's getting old. What gods do I need to appease? Do I need to make an offering to the travel fairies? What?
And no, I can't go visit them. My car needs work before it can make it over the mountains to the other side of the state. Actually, it needs work, period. *sigh*
Well, now I feel really whiny.
And no, I can't go visit them. My car needs work before it can make it over the mountains to the other side of the state. Actually, it needs work, period. *sigh*
Well, now I feel really whiny.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Sad News for Gamers
Gary Gygax died today. I never played the original D&D, although a friend did give me his old original books (I've forgotten why), but I've certainly played 2nd and 3rd edition, and any number of other role playing games that probably wouldn't exist if it hadn't been for D&D. As a gamer geek, I am sad. Sure, D&D in it's many incarnations has been criticized for being too complicated (THAC0 anyone), too aimed at teenage boys, and responsible for too many bad fantasy books that sound suspiciously like novelizations of D&D sessions, but it was the original role playing game and I have a fondness for it. So, thank you, Gary, wherever you are, for giving us sci-fi/fantasy fans yet another fun geeky hobby for our weekends. One with really awesome dice. Perhaps I'll see if I can find those old books and see if my gaming group can figure out how to run an original D&D game in tribute.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Ah, prejudice...how far we haven't come.
I have something of an addiction to old books, which is why I bought an obscure mystery novel from 1929 a couple days ago. I'd never heard of the authors or the book before (and googling them didn't make much difference), but I have old book addiction so I bought it and read it. Card 13 was an all right story, but suffered rather from blatant sexism and racism, which may explain why it and its authors have vanished into the ether. The love interest gives up all thought of career when she falls in love with the main character. The murder is pinned on a dead Chinese immigrant to save the (also dead) murderer's family from scandal. All Chinese people are involved in Chinese Gangs. People casually use ethnic slurs. People from India are mysterious and mystical. Basically, the book had a bad case of "we haz prejudice, yay."
And yet, when I thought about it, I realized that the book was also a great example of "the more things change, the more they stay the same." The main character actually came off far less ethnically prejudiced than his world - he didn't seem entirely comfortable with the framing of the dead immigrant (who the book portrayed as more a victim of circumstances) and he was the only character who treated the Indian as a person, not just a mystical odd bit. Disturbingly, I think the book could be re-written slightly (drop the ethnic slurs and re-phrase a line here or there) and no one would notice. Women in books still give up their desire for a career when they find love, Chinese immigrants still tend to be portrayed as members of Chinese Mafia groups (and/or have super martial arts skills just 'cause), and the mystical Indian stereotype is also still alive and well.
In a way, the blatant prejudice in this old book is easier to deal with than the more subtle prejudices in modern books, precisely because it is so blatant. You can't miss it. You can't not acknowledge that it's there. You have to address it. Subtle prejudice can slip under the radar and color one's thoughts in ways one is less aware of. Oh, I'm not saying that anyone should start slathering their prejudices all over the printed page or that we should bring back ethnic slurs or anything like that. Those are all bad, bad things. But so are the subtle prejudices that haven't gone anywhere. Or rather, I'm afraid the prejudices haven't gotten more subtle over the years - what's gotten more subtle are the words used to transmit those prejudices. Honestly, the book did a better job of pointing out what's so bad about using stereotypes than any modern book (that I can think of) could. Not that the book meant to, of course.
I know I have prejudices, I think everyone does, but I don't want to spread them. Hell, I try very hard to squelch them in myself when I do stumble across them. After reading Card 13, I'll be trying even harder. And, considering stereotypes (which are damn hard to kill), I think I'll add an ethnic stereotype test to my gender stereotype test. "Would I write this character this way if they were of a different ethnicity?" (To go with "Would I write this character this way if they were of a different gender?")
It's still funny that it took an old book's blatant prejudices for me to see just how bad stereotypes are. Not that I ever thought they were good, mind you, but there are different levels of bad. And the damned things haven't improved in 80 years! 80 years!
And yet, when I thought about it, I realized that the book was also a great example of "the more things change, the more they stay the same." The main character actually came off far less ethnically prejudiced than his world - he didn't seem entirely comfortable with the framing of the dead immigrant (who the book portrayed as more a victim of circumstances) and he was the only character who treated the Indian as a person, not just a mystical odd bit. Disturbingly, I think the book could be re-written slightly (drop the ethnic slurs and re-phrase a line here or there) and no one would notice. Women in books still give up their desire for a career when they find love, Chinese immigrants still tend to be portrayed as members of Chinese Mafia groups (and/or have super martial arts skills just 'cause), and the mystical Indian stereotype is also still alive and well.
In a way, the blatant prejudice in this old book is easier to deal with than the more subtle prejudices in modern books, precisely because it is so blatant. You can't miss it. You can't not acknowledge that it's there. You have to address it. Subtle prejudice can slip under the radar and color one's thoughts in ways one is less aware of. Oh, I'm not saying that anyone should start slathering their prejudices all over the printed page or that we should bring back ethnic slurs or anything like that. Those are all bad, bad things. But so are the subtle prejudices that haven't gone anywhere. Or rather, I'm afraid the prejudices haven't gotten more subtle over the years - what's gotten more subtle are the words used to transmit those prejudices. Honestly, the book did a better job of pointing out what's so bad about using stereotypes than any modern book (that I can think of) could. Not that the book meant to, of course.
I know I have prejudices, I think everyone does, but I don't want to spread them. Hell, I try very hard to squelch them in myself when I do stumble across them. After reading Card 13, I'll be trying even harder. And, considering stereotypes (which are damn hard to kill), I think I'll add an ethnic stereotype test to my gender stereotype test. "Would I write this character this way if they were of a different ethnicity?" (To go with "Would I write this character this way if they were of a different gender?")
It's still funny that it took an old book's blatant prejudices for me to see just how bad stereotypes are. Not that I ever thought they were good, mind you, but there are different levels of bad. And the damned things haven't improved in 80 years! 80 years!
Friday, February 8, 2008
How To Offend Everyone In One Simple Article
Lori Gottlieb's Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough in the March issue of Atlantic Monthly is the most offensive writing on relationships that I've encountered since The Rules. Not many people can write something that is so thouroughly offensive to both men and women (and, by denial of their very existance, anyone who isn't straight and cisgendered). In fact, the article is so offensive I can barely write coherently about it. What I really want to do is put her child in a good home and sentence her to counseling and ten years community service in a battered spouse's shelter - as a janitor. I wouldn't want her talking to anyone there; they'd kill her.
In this poorly thought out screed, Lori, who has a child via sperm donation, bemoans her lack of a husband, mainly, it seems, because raising a child is hard work. No shit. I'm single, childless, and have no siblings, but I know that. How sheltered do you have to be to not realize that until you actually have a child? Then again, this woman seems to think that sit-coms and romantic movies are a good guide to reality, so I think I can safely say that she wins the sheltered person award.
She also thinks she has psychic powers. She declares that "every woman I know—no matter how successful and ambitious, how financially and emotionally secure—feels panic, occasionally coupled with desperation, if she hits 30 and finds herself unmarried," realizes that there might be some women out there who'd argue and dismisses them with this: "And all I can say is, if you say you’re not worried, either you’re in denial or you’re lying. In fact, take a good look in the mirror and try to convince yourself that you’re not worried, because you’ll see how silly your face looks when you’re being disingenuous."
Say what? She knows that, just because I have a uterus and am over the age of 30, I'm worried about the fact that I'm single. And if I don't think I am, I'm in denial? Really? I couldn't possibly be happily single and happily childless? I can't even assume that she'd dismiss me since I'm, ah, genderqueer or something along those lines, because I really don't think she realizes people like me exist. She'd probably think I was in denial about my femininity, too. I don't even want to know what she thinks of lesbians. I'm sure they're mythical unicorn people to her.
Ignoring the fact that at least 10 percent of women will never, ever, ever, want a man, she goes on to advise people to solve their terrible single status by settling for whatever man next wanders across our path. The basis for this advice is her analysis of the relationships on sit-coms and her theories about what happens if you do marry someone you love ("many of those who marry with great expectations become more disillusioned with each passing year," she tells us, having, I assume, used the same crystal ball that told her I desperately want a husband and kids). Love, of course, having nothing to do with marriage in her mind, anyway. It's all about finances and an extra pair of hands.
She talks for a bit about women having too high a standards. And, for this part of the article, it's not too gag worthy. I can believe that there are people out there who have a ten-mile long list of qualifications that the man of their dreams absolutely must have. What I can't believe is that many of those people are over 18. Well, other than Lori, herself, who quickly drifts from sensible "settling" (dumping qualifications like unblemished handsomness or height) to serious what the fuckage.
"Take the date I went on last night. The guy was substantially older. He had a long history of major depression and said, in reference to the movies he was writing, “I’m fascinated by comas” and “I have a strong interest in terrorists.” He’d never been married. He was rude to the waiter. But he very much wanted a family, and he was successful, handsome, and smart. As I looked at him from across the table, I thought, Yeah, I’ll see him again. Maybe I can settle for that. But my very next thought was, Maybe I can settle for better. It’s like musical chairs—when do you take a seat, any seat, just so you’re not left standing alone?"
I think there may be some very good reasons why this man has never been married. Not that there aren't good, decent people who struggle with depression, who write scripts about comas and terrorists, or even who are rude to waiters, but all of the above, put together, doesn't leave me with a good feeling. And I'm a mystery writer. But there's an even bigger issue with this. This woman actually looks at marriage as a game of musical chairs. Who the chair is doesn't matter, she just wants one, badly. This offends my belief that people should never be means to ends.
She goes on to talk about all the books out there about snagging a man once you've become an old maid. It's difficult to tell how bad the books are because we're only given them through her distorted vision. One contains "tales of professional, accomplished women happily dating a plumber, a park ranger, and an Army helicopter nurse." According to her "The moral is supposed to be 'Don’t be too picky,'" but I have a feeling the moral is actually supposed to be "don't just look in the usual places," but Lori assumes its about settling, not finding love somewhere other than the executive lounge. Not only is she sheltered, she's a snob.
At this point in the article, she starts whining about how tough it is to be a single mother. A privileged single mother, mind. One who can afford babysitters and online dating services. But the poor dear never gets a night off, like a divorced mother would. A well-off divorced mother who has shared custody with her ex-husband, that is. She really is the most sheltered twit in the world.
Her brief discussion of thirty-something single men doesn't help. "Everyone knows," she reports a single male friend of hers as saying "that a single middle-aged man still has appealing prospects; a single middle-aged woman likely doesn’t. And he’s right." So, single middle-aged men (and when was thirty-something middle aged? Isn't that forties and fifties?) know they're not appealing prospects? Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't seem likely, unless they've got self esteem problems. And if they aren't appealing prospects, why should anyone marry them? Also...who said you had to marry someone your own age? Or of the oposite sex?
By the end of the article, she admits that there are problems with settling in "middle age," especially for people with children. "It’s one thing to settle for a subpar mate; it’s quite another to settle for a subpar father figure for my child," she says. Apparently failing to remember that, had she settled for a subpar mate, she would have had children with said subpar mate, since a baby was such a must-have for her that she had one without any mate. Which should mean, of course, that settling at any time has this problem.
But no, Ms. Privileged Sheltered Twit sees this as proof that one should settle and settle young. I suppose she thinks this would at least make dating easier, should your marriage of convenience end in divorce, since the poor sap you settled for would be shelling out child support payments and watching the kidlets while you date. Yes, Lori, all men are checkbooks and possibly helping hands, and all women are willing to whore themselves to get the money and aid. Not.
Now, excuse me while I go puke.
In this poorly thought out screed, Lori, who has a child via sperm donation, bemoans her lack of a husband, mainly, it seems, because raising a child is hard work. No shit. I'm single, childless, and have no siblings, but I know that. How sheltered do you have to be to not realize that until you actually have a child? Then again, this woman seems to think that sit-coms and romantic movies are a good guide to reality, so I think I can safely say that she wins the sheltered person award.
She also thinks she has psychic powers. She declares that "every woman I know—no matter how successful and ambitious, how financially and emotionally secure—feels panic, occasionally coupled with desperation, if she hits 30 and finds herself unmarried," realizes that there might be some women out there who'd argue and dismisses them with this: "And all I can say is, if you say you’re not worried, either you’re in denial or you’re lying. In fact, take a good look in the mirror and try to convince yourself that you’re not worried, because you’ll see how silly your face looks when you’re being disingenuous."
Say what? She knows that, just because I have a uterus and am over the age of 30, I'm worried about the fact that I'm single. And if I don't think I am, I'm in denial? Really? I couldn't possibly be happily single and happily childless? I can't even assume that she'd dismiss me since I'm, ah, genderqueer or something along those lines, because I really don't think she realizes people like me exist. She'd probably think I was in denial about my femininity, too. I don't even want to know what she thinks of lesbians. I'm sure they're mythical unicorn people to her.
Ignoring the fact that at least 10 percent of women will never, ever, ever, want a man, she goes on to advise people to solve their terrible single status by settling for whatever man next wanders across our path. The basis for this advice is her analysis of the relationships on sit-coms and her theories about what happens if you do marry someone you love ("many of those who marry with great expectations become more disillusioned with each passing year," she tells us, having, I assume, used the same crystal ball that told her I desperately want a husband and kids). Love, of course, having nothing to do with marriage in her mind, anyway. It's all about finances and an extra pair of hands.
She talks for a bit about women having too high a standards. And, for this part of the article, it's not too gag worthy. I can believe that there are people out there who have a ten-mile long list of qualifications that the man of their dreams absolutely must have. What I can't believe is that many of those people are over 18. Well, other than Lori, herself, who quickly drifts from sensible "settling" (dumping qualifications like unblemished handsomness or height) to serious what the fuckage.
"Take the date I went on last night. The guy was substantially older. He had a long history of major depression and said, in reference to the movies he was writing, “I’m fascinated by comas” and “I have a strong interest in terrorists.” He’d never been married. He was rude to the waiter. But he very much wanted a family, and he was successful, handsome, and smart. As I looked at him from across the table, I thought, Yeah, I’ll see him again. Maybe I can settle for that. But my very next thought was, Maybe I can settle for better. It’s like musical chairs—when do you take a seat, any seat, just so you’re not left standing alone?"
I think there may be some very good reasons why this man has never been married. Not that there aren't good, decent people who struggle with depression, who write scripts about comas and terrorists, or even who are rude to waiters, but all of the above, put together, doesn't leave me with a good feeling. And I'm a mystery writer. But there's an even bigger issue with this. This woman actually looks at marriage as a game of musical chairs. Who the chair is doesn't matter, she just wants one, badly. This offends my belief that people should never be means to ends.
She goes on to talk about all the books out there about snagging a man once you've become an old maid. It's difficult to tell how bad the books are because we're only given them through her distorted vision. One contains "tales of professional, accomplished women happily dating a plumber, a park ranger, and an Army helicopter nurse." According to her "The moral is supposed to be 'Don’t be too picky,'" but I have a feeling the moral is actually supposed to be "don't just look in the usual places," but Lori assumes its about settling, not finding love somewhere other than the executive lounge. Not only is she sheltered, she's a snob.
At this point in the article, she starts whining about how tough it is to be a single mother. A privileged single mother, mind. One who can afford babysitters and online dating services. But the poor dear never gets a night off, like a divorced mother would. A well-off divorced mother who has shared custody with her ex-husband, that is. She really is the most sheltered twit in the world.
Her brief discussion of thirty-something single men doesn't help. "Everyone knows," she reports a single male friend of hers as saying "that a single middle-aged man still has appealing prospects; a single middle-aged woman likely doesn’t. And he’s right." So, single middle-aged men (and when was thirty-something middle aged? Isn't that forties and fifties?) know they're not appealing prospects? Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't seem likely, unless they've got self esteem problems. And if they aren't appealing prospects, why should anyone marry them? Also...who said you had to marry someone your own age? Or of the oposite sex?
By the end of the article, she admits that there are problems with settling in "middle age," especially for people with children. "It’s one thing to settle for a subpar mate; it’s quite another to settle for a subpar father figure for my child," she says. Apparently failing to remember that, had she settled for a subpar mate, she would have had children with said subpar mate, since a baby was such a must-have for her that she had one without any mate. Which should mean, of course, that settling at any time has this problem.
But no, Ms. Privileged Sheltered Twit sees this as proof that one should settle and settle young. I suppose she thinks this would at least make dating easier, should your marriage of convenience end in divorce, since the poor sap you settled for would be shelling out child support payments and watching the kidlets while you date. Yes, Lori, all men are checkbooks and possibly helping hands, and all women are willing to whore themselves to get the money and aid. Not.
Now, excuse me while I go puke.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
