If I can be bothered to update this thing regularly at all, it will be to participate in a new special feature entitled "GIFs from shit I liked last week"
I even made these myself! They're a little slow, but I'm learning.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
-_-
To those of you with slow internet connections: I'M SORRY
There has been a whole lot of text in between this post and the bottom of the page. I like colors and things, so here are some GIFs.
There has been a whole lot of text in between this post and the bottom of the page. I like colors and things, so here are some GIFs.
How much of the 60's do we want back in our lives?
This post was inspired by a comment I left on a thread over at Pajiba. I was so pleased with myself I decided to re-post a more filled-out version over here, apropos of this being my blog and a more appropriate forum for going out on tangents.
With regards to Pan Am and The Playboy Club, I'm fairly certain that the initial feeling of many people, after learning that these shows were to premier this fall, was that they were trying to capitalize on the Mad Men phenomenon. People without extended cable may have never seen Mad Men, but they've surely heard of it winning tons of Emmys and influencing fashion by re-introducing several flourishes reminiscent of the 1960's. My immediate concern was that these shows would capture all of the visual flair of Mad Men without any of the depth or critique of the era. The review of the two shows, appropriately written as one comparative piece, more or less confirms my suspicions but allows Pan Am the distinction of being the better show.
Without having watched the pilots, what strikes me about the descriptions of both shows is how much they give away about their protagonists in the first episode. One thing that I love about Mad Men is how each episode helps to review a new detail about the character, but it's a very small detail. You have to look at the show cumulatively to even come close to understanding him or her. These shows have taken the much more flashy approach of "she's married, but they're both gay!" and "she's a stewardess, but she's actually a spy!" which, though immediately interesting, is ultimately superficial and causes writers to work backwards and fill in details behind the already big reveal.
Ultimately, the popularity of either The Playboy Club or Pan Am could be an interesting case study in what works on American network television. Though anyone who actually brought their brain with them to a remedial high school course analyzing media and/or literature could see that Mad Men is a better show, it wouldn't be in the least surprising if the instant-gratification aspect of the new network shows garners them more immediate success.
That success could, as a feminist and as someone interested in social commentaries, be frustrating or even devastating. It is too early to tell if either The Playboy Club or Pan Am is going to sacrifice the dignity of its female characters and racial/ethnic minority characters by glamorizing an era which was, as we generally understand now, pretty unapologetically shitty to those classes of people. What Mad Men does right is that it allows us the visual pleasure of looking back in time, but it certainly doesn't valorize the social and cultural mores of the time. It's pretty frank in its portrayal of how women and people of color were openly treated as second-class citizens (compared to today, in which explicit racism and sometimes sexism are unacceptable, but insidious forms of both still shape our culture.) I'm unsure that the network shows will be able to be as constructively critical. That they are network is damning enough, as much of network television tends to be superficial and banking on cheap thrills. The fact that both shows are ostensibly set in particularly oppressive fields for women at the time doesn't help matters, even if marketing wants us to believe that the female protagonists are "empowered" despite their subjugated positions in the workforce. Protip: sexualizing your character is not the same as making her "sexual." The former objectifies her; the latter gives her personal agency and generally respects her as a human being. There is time yet to see if these shows can get it right, but in the meantime I won't be holding my breath.
With regards to Pan Am and The Playboy Club, I'm fairly certain that the initial feeling of many people, after learning that these shows were to premier this fall, was that they were trying to capitalize on the Mad Men phenomenon. People without extended cable may have never seen Mad Men, but they've surely heard of it winning tons of Emmys and influencing fashion by re-introducing several flourishes reminiscent of the 1960's. My immediate concern was that these shows would capture all of the visual flair of Mad Men without any of the depth or critique of the era. The review of the two shows, appropriately written as one comparative piece, more or less confirms my suspicions but allows Pan Am the distinction of being the better show.
Without having watched the pilots, what strikes me about the descriptions of both shows is how much they give away about their protagonists in the first episode. One thing that I love about Mad Men is how each episode helps to review a new detail about the character, but it's a very small detail. You have to look at the show cumulatively to even come close to understanding him or her. These shows have taken the much more flashy approach of "she's married, but they're both gay!" and "she's a stewardess, but she's actually a spy!" which, though immediately interesting, is ultimately superficial and causes writers to work backwards and fill in details behind the already big reveal.
Ultimately, the popularity of either The Playboy Club or Pan Am could be an interesting case study in what works on American network television. Though anyone who actually brought their brain with them to a remedial high school course analyzing media and/or literature could see that Mad Men is a better show, it wouldn't be in the least surprising if the instant-gratification aspect of the new network shows garners them more immediate success.
That success could, as a feminist and as someone interested in social commentaries, be frustrating or even devastating. It is too early to tell if either The Playboy Club or Pan Am is going to sacrifice the dignity of its female characters and racial/ethnic minority characters by glamorizing an era which was, as we generally understand now, pretty unapologetically shitty to those classes of people. What Mad Men does right is that it allows us the visual pleasure of looking back in time, but it certainly doesn't valorize the social and cultural mores of the time. It's pretty frank in its portrayal of how women and people of color were openly treated as second-class citizens (compared to today, in which explicit racism and sometimes sexism are unacceptable, but insidious forms of both still shape our culture.) I'm unsure that the network shows will be able to be as constructively critical. That they are network is damning enough, as much of network television tends to be superficial and banking on cheap thrills. The fact that both shows are ostensibly set in particularly oppressive fields for women at the time doesn't help matters, even if marketing wants us to believe that the female protagonists are "empowered" despite their subjugated positions in the workforce. Protip: sexualizing your character is not the same as making her "sexual." The former objectifies her; the latter gives her personal agency and generally respects her as a human being. There is time yet to see if these shows can get it right, but in the meantime I won't be holding my breath.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Cement blocks for feet
I think my body and mind might be at war with each other, and within themselves. I've been getting in better shape, slowly, but every day is still a struggle to get in the gym and to stay in the gym for long enough to get a decent workout.
This is my body: Flabby, out of shape, too big for most of my pants. That is, in a nutshell, both my motivation to work out and a source of my difficulty in working out. I just can't do what I used to.
This is my mind: I know that fitness is important. I know that the health benefits of exercise are innumerable. But I hate working out. If I could afford to go back to dance class, I would. Even though I would suck, because (technical) dance isn't just something you can drop and pick back up again, and even though it would be endlessly frustrating to be so crappy at something I used to be pretty decent at, I'd enjoy it. I wouldn't have a problem working at it. But for now, I've got this whole self-demotivation complex and even thinking about going to the gym is endlessly torturous.
Also? I have this recurring dream. It's that I'm playing soccer, but I'm slower than everyone else. I get the ball, everything seems great, and then all the sudden the ball is too fast for me and I can't keep up. The defense takes it away from me, every time, and I let down my team again. Is this trying to tell me something? I mean, I'm no professional dream analyist, but the most literal interpretation I can think of is that my body is incapable of doing what I want.
This is my body: Flabby, out of shape, too big for most of my pants. That is, in a nutshell, both my motivation to work out and a source of my difficulty in working out. I just can't do what I used to.
This is my mind: I know that fitness is important. I know that the health benefits of exercise are innumerable. But I hate working out. If I could afford to go back to dance class, I would. Even though I would suck, because (technical) dance isn't just something you can drop and pick back up again, and even though it would be endlessly frustrating to be so crappy at something I used to be pretty decent at, I'd enjoy it. I wouldn't have a problem working at it. But for now, I've got this whole self-demotivation complex and even thinking about going to the gym is endlessly torturous.
Also? I have this recurring dream. It's that I'm playing soccer, but I'm slower than everyone else. I get the ball, everything seems great, and then all the sudden the ball is too fast for me and I can't keep up. The defense takes it away from me, every time, and I let down my team again. Is this trying to tell me something? I mean, I'm no professional dream analyist, but the most literal interpretation I can think of is that my body is incapable of doing what I want.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Doublethink
There is a pretty consistent rhetoric that is inexorably present in mass media coverage of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment cases, which is that the "incident" itself is but a moment in time, therefore short-lived and easily brushed aside; meanwhile, the accusation itself of committing such an atrocity follows the unfortunate soul throughout the rest of his/her life, branding them for all of society to scorn and dismiss them at will.
This argument makes no sense.
In order for the latter to be true, that is, that being accused of such a crime carries with it the implication that the person may have done something unforgivable, the former must not be true. In other words, if being raped, or sexually assaulted, or sexually harassed is not a big deal, then being accused of rape, or sexual assault, or sexual harassment should also be not a big deal, because the crime itself is not a big deal.
This is rape culture.
This is the type of cognitive dissonance that we absorb and dispense when we treat victims of these crimes as if they are the true criminals for having the gall to accuse someone of harming them.
This argument makes no sense.
In order for the latter to be true, that is, that being accused of such a crime carries with it the implication that the person may have done something unforgivable, the former must not be true. In other words, if being raped, or sexually assaulted, or sexually harassed is not a big deal, then being accused of rape, or sexual assault, or sexual harassment should also be not a big deal, because the crime itself is not a big deal.
This is rape culture.
This is the type of cognitive dissonance that we absorb and dispense when we treat victims of these crimes as if they are the true criminals for having the gall to accuse someone of harming them.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Mainstream niche
Full disclosure: the following post is probably going to be at least a little bit hipstery and douchey.
I'm not the first person on the internet to write about this, but it is something that I find a little bit amusing. There is this phenomenon where there are certain things that are pretty damn popular and mainstream, that people for some reason treat like they are eccentric or unique tastes. A popular example that comes to mind is Star Wars. I hear people all the time say things like, "Oh, I'm such a geek -- I love Star Wars!" It always makes me think, "Dude, EVERYONE likes Star Wars. It's not exactly offbeat and geeky if EVERYONE likes it." Which isn't to say that people shouldn't like it, because obviously Star Wars is awesome. It's just that I don't necessarily think liking it earns you geek cred. And I also think it's kind of weird in general that people are clamoring all over themselves to earn geek cred. Didn't it used to be that being a geek was kind of a weird thing? Does real geekery even exist anymore if geek = mainstream? Does it even matter? People have been fighting against "labels" for so long, mostly by reclaiming tarnished labels, that maybe in the end the thing that makes the most sense is for people to be mainstream and geeky, popular and nerdy, weird and cool, all at the same time.
Another one is Daft Punk. A performance group used a Daft Punk track from the Tron: Legacy soundtrack on So You Think You Can Dance last week, and I read a few responses online implying how unexpected and awesome it was that a Daft Punk tune appeared on the show. My reaction was like, "First things first -- Daft Punk is an insanely popular group. Pretty much every oxygen-breathing organism on this planet has heard of them. Secondly, you're talking about a song from a very well-known, heavily marketed, rather successful Disney movie as if no one will have any idea what it is." Foolishness, I tell you! And given what I wrote up there, I guess it really doesn't matter whether they're "popular" and "mainstream" or not. I just can't help but laugh a little to myself when people treat these very popular entities as if they have some kind of subcultural cache.
Anyway, so this will be one of those posts that really doesn't have much of a point to it, other than being my less-funny version of a standup routine where they make all of these humorous observations about life and people's little oddities.
I'm not the first person on the internet to write about this, but it is something that I find a little bit amusing. There is this phenomenon where there are certain things that are pretty damn popular and mainstream, that people for some reason treat like they are eccentric or unique tastes. A popular example that comes to mind is Star Wars. I hear people all the time say things like, "Oh, I'm such a geek -- I love Star Wars!" It always makes me think, "Dude, EVERYONE likes Star Wars. It's not exactly offbeat and geeky if EVERYONE likes it." Which isn't to say that people shouldn't like it, because obviously Star Wars is awesome. It's just that I don't necessarily think liking it earns you geek cred. And I also think it's kind of weird in general that people are clamoring all over themselves to earn geek cred. Didn't it used to be that being a geek was kind of a weird thing? Does real geekery even exist anymore if geek = mainstream? Does it even matter? People have been fighting against "labels" for so long, mostly by reclaiming tarnished labels, that maybe in the end the thing that makes the most sense is for people to be mainstream and geeky, popular and nerdy, weird and cool, all at the same time.
Another one is Daft Punk. A performance group used a Daft Punk track from the Tron: Legacy soundtrack on So You Think You Can Dance last week, and I read a few responses online implying how unexpected and awesome it was that a Daft Punk tune appeared on the show. My reaction was like, "First things first -- Daft Punk is an insanely popular group. Pretty much every oxygen-breathing organism on this planet has heard of them. Secondly, you're talking about a song from a very well-known, heavily marketed, rather successful Disney movie as if no one will have any idea what it is." Foolishness, I tell you! And given what I wrote up there, I guess it really doesn't matter whether they're "popular" and "mainstream" or not. I just can't help but laugh a little to myself when people treat these very popular entities as if they have some kind of subcultural cache.
Anyway, so this will be one of those posts that really doesn't have much of a point to it, other than being my less-funny version of a standup routine where they make all of these humorous observations about life and people's little oddities.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Beer blog problem - fixed!
Well, in a way. The way I "fixed" it was just to port everything over here, to blogger.
So if you're actually interested in reading my beer musings (including the incredibly hilarious aspect of me trying to pick apart scents and flavors,) feel free to head on over and comment too, if you wish!
http://alwaysanswerbeer.blogspot.com/
So if you're actually interested in reading my beer musings (including the incredibly hilarious aspect of me trying to pick apart scents and flavors,) feel free to head on over and comment too, if you wish!
http://alwaysanswerbeer.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
You suck at puns
Okay, here's something really quick, given my propensity to be ranting about something at any given time:
I see this a lot and it makes me squirm. I know that young progressives hate Fox News, but when you're trying to capture the intellectual upper ground, PLEASE don't go for the low-hanging fruit and call it "Faux News." For one thing, it's so old hat. For another thing, you guys do know how to pronounce "faux," right? It's just not a successful play on words if it requires you to willfully mispronounce the word to get the joke.
I see this a lot and it makes me squirm. I know that young progressives hate Fox News, but when you're trying to capture the intellectual upper ground, PLEASE don't go for the low-hanging fruit and call it "Faux News." For one thing, it's so old hat. For another thing, you guys do know how to pronounce "faux," right? It's just not a successful play on words if it requires you to willfully mispronounce the word to get the joke.
Wow
Oh my god, can you believe I last published in April? I knew it had been awhile, but I had no idea it was that long ago that I last sat down and gave myself the pleasure of hearing my own e-voice at length.
So, what's new around here?
I finally made it to Europe with Casper, a trip I was looking forward to for years. I enjoyed meeting his grandparents, who were genuinely wonderful people, with a FANTASTIC foliage-filled backyard. I hope someday to cultivate a green thumb like his grandfather's.
I'm still chugging away at school with no publications in sight. It was at this time a year ago that I was in the thick of my first big project, which unfortunately turned up no meaningful results in early 2011, forcing me to approach my data at another angle. That "other angle" is also turning out to be a royal pain. One of my assays is hopelessly unreliable and I've just been testing conditions to get it to work for the last two months. I'm not even actually using my sample set yet, just testing small batches! It's quite frustrating, but I'm closer than ever to having good working conditions, so hopefully in the next few weeks I'll actually be able to begin the real work and start seeing usable results.
I took the written portion of my qualifying exam in the beginning of June, which explains some of my radio silence on here -- I spent a good portion of May studying for this thing, and though I didn't divorce myself from the Internet entirely, I was too drained to devote a lot of brain energy to blogging. Thankfully, I found out a few weeks ago that I passed! So that part is done and over with, but I still have to complete the oral portion at some time in September. This part basically requires that I do a grant-style proposal for my thesis project to my committee of advisors. So that should be interesting. I obviously know my project very well, but I do tend to panic and freeze when I am put on the spot. Public speaking training much?
I'm also finding myself potentially having to move AGAIN. My current roommate has decided to take the plunge and move in with her boyfriend, so while I'm hoping to find someone to move in here and take her spot, I'm not getting a lot of interest yet and may unfortunately have to clear out of here and find myself an affordable one bedroom or studio. GOOD LUCK! And too bad, because I really am quite settled here. I don't want to move too far away from where I am now. I really like my location and have grown very attached to some of my neighborhood spots (Eagle Rock Brewery, I'm looking at you!)
That seems to be as good of a summary as possible of my little life since April. I can't promise anything, but maybe I'll get back into some more interesting commentary when I'm done with qualifying exams round 2.
So, what's new around here?
I finally made it to Europe with Casper, a trip I was looking forward to for years. I enjoyed meeting his grandparents, who were genuinely wonderful people, with a FANTASTIC foliage-filled backyard. I hope someday to cultivate a green thumb like his grandfather's.
I'm still chugging away at school with no publications in sight. It was at this time a year ago that I was in the thick of my first big project, which unfortunately turned up no meaningful results in early 2011, forcing me to approach my data at another angle. That "other angle" is also turning out to be a royal pain. One of my assays is hopelessly unreliable and I've just been testing conditions to get it to work for the last two months. I'm not even actually using my sample set yet, just testing small batches! It's quite frustrating, but I'm closer than ever to having good working conditions, so hopefully in the next few weeks I'll actually be able to begin the real work and start seeing usable results.
I took the written portion of my qualifying exam in the beginning of June, which explains some of my radio silence on here -- I spent a good portion of May studying for this thing, and though I didn't divorce myself from the Internet entirely, I was too drained to devote a lot of brain energy to blogging. Thankfully, I found out a few weeks ago that I passed! So that part is done and over with, but I still have to complete the oral portion at some time in September. This part basically requires that I do a grant-style proposal for my thesis project to my committee of advisors. So that should be interesting. I obviously know my project very well, but I do tend to panic and freeze when I am put on the spot. Public speaking training much?
I'm also finding myself potentially having to move AGAIN. My current roommate has decided to take the plunge and move in with her boyfriend, so while I'm hoping to find someone to move in here and take her spot, I'm not getting a lot of interest yet and may unfortunately have to clear out of here and find myself an affordable one bedroom or studio. GOOD LUCK! And too bad, because I really am quite settled here. I don't want to move too far away from where I am now. I really like my location and have grown very attached to some of my neighborhood spots (Eagle Rock Brewery, I'm looking at you!)
That seems to be as good of a summary as possible of my little life since April. I can't promise anything, but maybe I'll get back into some more interesting commentary when I'm done with qualifying exams round 2.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)