Valentine's Day is such a bloated and strange holiday. For years I have written blogs on that day, celebrating my singledom (or trying my darndest). This year I had a Valentine, a real Valentine, and my expectations...well, let's just say things didn't go as planned.
The Valentines I have had ranged from textbook romantic to....well, hardly romantic at all. The longest-running Valentine always felt the need to top himself and buy me jewelry and other expensive trinkets. I love jewelry, so I loved that about him. I have always imagined romance to be light, airy, and perfect. A cloud of pink and white, fluffy teddy bears and jewelry, flowers and candy. I blame the media.
This year, Valentine's Day coincided with our halfaversary (hey, the half-year mark seems legitimate. It's legitimate, right?) so we decided to combine them into a love extravaganza. However, my wonderful man decided to split them up anyway, which made me feel simultaneously bad for him but great for me, because I caught myself a good one! For our halfaversary, he got me a film I'd always mentioned I enjoyed and a stuffed animal. At the stuffed animal, I got a little taken aback.
Under the pink tissue, in the cute flower bag I'm sure he felt embarrassed purchasing, my boyfriend had gently laid a teddy bear face-down. I peered into the bag and saw pink material with red hearts. I cooed, pulled it out of the bag to face me...and gasped.
The stuffed animal had a skeleton on its face. A SKELETON. And not only on its face, I discovered. Its adorable body was overlaid with an eery skeleton over its legs. Taken aback, I laughed strangely and considered its face. I can't sleep with this thing, I decided. It's going to kill me in my sleep. I'm not going to be able to look at it, it's so creepy! My boyfriend was crestfallen. Here I am, his girlfriend of 6 months, afraid of his gift. I laughed it off, he offered to take it back, I jokingly yell at him for suggesting the thought, and I go home with the strangest thoughts in my head.
Who would think a skeleton stuffed animal is cute? I pulled it out of my bag on the way home and put it up on my dashboard, its frightening face in my direction. I named it Skullden, Skully for short, and call my boyfriend to thank him again for the wonderful gift.
On Valentine's Day, we spent a very low-key day together. We hung out in the morning watching TV on DVD. He made me breakfast and bought me flowers from CVS, which had red carnations and an already-wilting rose. I loved it.
Gift time. I had bought him little things, since we put a limit on our spending (Christmas got out of hand quickly). Most of the things I got had some sort of significance, which I thought was better than any expensive present. Then it was my turn.
Out of the bag comes a pink hoodie. I love pink, and I love sweatshirts, so I was automatically excited. I looked at the front, and there on the left side is TGS in red and orange bubbles, and the name Liz in script below. It was a hoodie from 30 Rock, my absolute favorite show of all time. Squealing with delight, I put it on and decided I would never take it off. I virtually didn't for weeks after that. I also got a flowering tea set, complete with a beautiful little glass teapot. He knew I wanted one, and it was thrilling.
I sleep with Skully next to me now. He has joined the other stuffed animals my boyfriend has gotten me...well, stuffed things. For Christmas, he got me stuffed animal sushi. They line up next to me and watch me sleep. I'm getting over the creepiness factor.
I was afraid to wash my TGS hoodie, afraid that the softness would fade, but finally gave in today. As soon as I opened my dryer, a sweet scent wafted toward me and I knew that I had washed my load of laundry with a cherry chapstick. Swearing loudly and repeatedly, I pulled everything out and threw them in the basket. Dark pink stains were splotched all over my precious hoodie. Still swearing and cursing my mother for not purchasing Spray 'n Wash, I ran upstairs and grabbed my toothbrush, ran downstairs and started going to work on my sweatshirt with detergent. The stains still haven't come out. I'll have to wash it again.
I know that after I wash it for the third time, the softness will virtually be gone. That's okay. I'm not sad about it anymore. Because this is the lesson I learned about love this Valentine's Day:
I love that he bought me a skeleton bear. I love that mistakes are made, things turn out disasterously wrong sometimes, and he is not a follower of traditions. He's better than that: he's himself. His mind works in mysterious ways, ways that I hardly have a grasp on but can't wait to discover. He doesn't do things because others have done it before, and he doesn't do things because he thinks I'll like them: he does them because he knows I will. He knows me, and he knows himself. And I love him for it.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
Children of Anarchy
I didn't read comic books as a kid, even though my uncle worked for Marvel Comics and wrote issues of Wolverine and Conan the Barbarian. I have always been a lover of words and not images--I think most of the thrill of reading lies in the not knowing. However, a trend in the movie industry has been to adapt comic books and graphic novels to the screen rather than create original pieces of cinematic art. One of my favorites is the film V for Vendetta, and I had always heard the graphic novel was better than the movie. The main differences make for intriguing thoughts.
Many of the issues in the graphic novel and film are similar, such as fascism, mind control, the targeting of the "other" such as homosexuals and minorities. The biggest difference between the two is the idea behind them, which is ironic considering the main character, V, is just that: an idea. In the film, V fights for freedom, an American ideal. In the graphic novel, V fights for anarchy.
Uh oh, that's scary. Anarchy. Lawlessness. While there is a tone of bad-assery which lends itself gracefully to the graphic novel genre, it also brings up an issue which people seem to be scared to face. Let's explore this by asking a question: why did the film turn V from an anarchical antihero into a democracy-lovin' fool? Ignore the fact that the film was set in Britain but was American-produced. V, a character who seems so inspirational and thrilling in the film alone, pales in comparison to the ruthless murderer and vigilante of the graphic novel. V loses his power in the translation.
I'm not saying that anarchy is the way to be. Democracy seems to work out decently enough. But here's the deal: in a world where everything is controlled, everything is watched, it would be nearly impossible for the transition from dictatorship to democracy to happen without chaos. Ideas and empires are not built automagically, they are the result of rebellion and unrest.
Think of the film now. While the end of the film is inspirational in its show of solidarity against "the man," it must also be observed that the people basically transition from following one person to another. V is an amazing and attractive character, but he also becomes a sort of second dictator. Sure, his ideas are inspiring and earnestly wish for freedom and equality for all men, but the crowd in the film is just as easily led to his ideas as they were to the Big Brother regime. There might have been stirrings of feeling, but not the passion it would take to overthrow a military dictatorship. In some ways, people need chaos and lawlessness to figure out a path for themselves, free of other peoples' perscription of right and wrong.
Anarchy seems like a scary, insurmountable thing. Our country is huge, and if lawlessness ruled the day we would have a very difficult time getting along, to be sure. However, it would offer something which hasn't been available to us since the American Revolution, and it is this: independent thought. Today, we are swayed so often by other peoples' opinions, the news, pundits, our government, and other people in "authority" that we don't know how to think for ourselves. It's so difficult to keep a rational mind when there is so much irrationality being spewed. Our government was built upon ideals of the Enlightenment, but that sensibility has disappeared to be replaced with arguments between people whose thoughts are rarely even their own. Anarchy offers a clean slate, a break from the safety of clear answers and the ability to hang out in the grey zone.
I'm not saying that we should be anarchists. I'm saying that democracy is only truly valid if the people participating in the system are really thinking about what "freedom" means. It shouldn't be something we listen to others about or accept as truth, but something we fight for and fight to understand every day. Only when we are actively participating in an insightful discussion which can lead to productive ends will our system of government work.
Many of the issues in the graphic novel and film are similar, such as fascism, mind control, the targeting of the "other" such as homosexuals and minorities. The biggest difference between the two is the idea behind them, which is ironic considering the main character, V, is just that: an idea. In the film, V fights for freedom, an American ideal. In the graphic novel, V fights for anarchy.
Uh oh, that's scary. Anarchy. Lawlessness. While there is a tone of bad-assery which lends itself gracefully to the graphic novel genre, it also brings up an issue which people seem to be scared to face. Let's explore this by asking a question: why did the film turn V from an anarchical antihero into a democracy-lovin' fool? Ignore the fact that the film was set in Britain but was American-produced. V, a character who seems so inspirational and thrilling in the film alone, pales in comparison to the ruthless murderer and vigilante of the graphic novel. V loses his power in the translation.
I'm not saying that anarchy is the way to be. Democracy seems to work out decently enough. But here's the deal: in a world where everything is controlled, everything is watched, it would be nearly impossible for the transition from dictatorship to democracy to happen without chaos. Ideas and empires are not built automagically, they are the result of rebellion and unrest.
Think of the film now. While the end of the film is inspirational in its show of solidarity against "the man," it must also be observed that the people basically transition from following one person to another. V is an amazing and attractive character, but he also becomes a sort of second dictator. Sure, his ideas are inspiring and earnestly wish for freedom and equality for all men, but the crowd in the film is just as easily led to his ideas as they were to the Big Brother regime. There might have been stirrings of feeling, but not the passion it would take to overthrow a military dictatorship. In some ways, people need chaos and lawlessness to figure out a path for themselves, free of other peoples' perscription of right and wrong.
Anarchy seems like a scary, insurmountable thing. Our country is huge, and if lawlessness ruled the day we would have a very difficult time getting along, to be sure. However, it would offer something which hasn't been available to us since the American Revolution, and it is this: independent thought. Today, we are swayed so often by other peoples' opinions, the news, pundits, our government, and other people in "authority" that we don't know how to think for ourselves. It's so difficult to keep a rational mind when there is so much irrationality being spewed. Our government was built upon ideals of the Enlightenment, but that sensibility has disappeared to be replaced with arguments between people whose thoughts are rarely even their own. Anarchy offers a clean slate, a break from the safety of clear answers and the ability to hang out in the grey zone.
I'm not saying that we should be anarchists. I'm saying that democracy is only truly valid if the people participating in the system are really thinking about what "freedom" means. It shouldn't be something we listen to others about or accept as truth, but something we fight for and fight to understand every day. Only when we are actively participating in an insightful discussion which can lead to productive ends will our system of government work.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Make War, Not Love
I confess that I'm not intellectual enough to keep up with documentary films--most of them honestly seem really boring, and there are too many good movies out there to sit through a snoozefest. However, I recently Netflixed the documentary "This Film Is Not Yet Rated," which explains the motion picture rating system...or rather, explains that their ratings are almost completely arbitrary and therefore unexplainable. It's an interesting look into the MPAA, apparently one of the most secret organizations in the United States. But I digress.
The most intriguing topic which was breached by the documentary was the issue of sex versus violence in the media. For instance, many grisly movies packed with violence and gore are granted R ratings, while more sexually-driven movies (not pornography, merely sexual) are given NC-17 ratings. While every documentary must be viewed with a grain of salt, I'd say that overall, violence seems to be more acceptable to watch on the screen than sex. And that, well, that just really doesn't make sense.
The thing about sex that nobody really seems to think about is its basic human element. I'm going to tell you a dirty secret: penises, vaginas, and breasts occur naturally on the human body, and I'll venture to say that most of us have at least one. Oh no, did I just say penis? And vagina? I mean, these things aren't alien to the human condition! They're not swear words! Most likely, if you don't have one, you have the other. And a large, large portion of the population, once they reach sexual maturation, use them in sexual play. It's not wrong to have sex, is it? I mean, that's how we procreate, correct? People can argue that sex is only for procreation, while others believe that it should be strictly for recreation, but I'd venture a guess that lots of people believe something somewhere in the middle.
Violence (and I'm not talking about self-defense or hunting here, I'm talking shooting people in the face) isn't a necessary part of humanity. Aggression happens naturally, sure, but the violence portrayed in the media isn't what I would call "normal" violence. Liam Neeson's ass-kicking in "Taken," for example. Totally awesome? Maybe. Normal? Not at all. So why is it okay? Why is it okay to show someone maiming and/or killing people before it's okay to show a normal human function?
Not all sex is normal, of course. Bestiality, rape, child molestation: these topics are heavy, and as far as I'm concerned, belong in a different catagory. It isn't lovemaking between two consenting adults. It's the denial of admitting this aspect of human life that is really confusing.
Our culture is afraid of something, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Our own sexualities? Each other's sexualities? We are undersexed, we're oversexed, we talk about sex too much, we talk about it too little. I think the problem lies in the extreme overemphasis of sex as an issue. Sex as an issue is complex, it's intriguing, and I think the most important aspect of it right now is that its an untabooed taboo. All anyone can talk about is sex, but we're not really supposed to talk about it. And really, sex isn't that big of a deal.
Sure, it's pleasurable. It can result in children. It can result in the spread of disease. It can result in heartbreak. But come ON, it happens all the time! It's not some sort of momentous event that only happens to certain people of certain races and ages when the moon is full and the temperature's right! It happens pretty much everywhere, pretty much all the time. It's important to be informed about health concerns, but when isn't that important under any circumstance?
I would venture to say that most people are better acquainted with sex than violence, yet establishments such as the MPAA decree that violence is more acceptable than sex in a media outlet. And I have a theory:
For some of us, violence is a concrete idea, and that's a terrible thing. For people like me, though, violence is more abstract. I've never been shot, or stabbed, or hurt in really any way by someone wishing malicious harm. However, sex is closer to us. Many of us participate in it, to make babies or make love. Perhaps it's because sexuality is so real that seeing it affects us in a more profound way than violence. Who knows if that's a good or bad thing?
Not me.
The most intriguing topic which was breached by the documentary was the issue of sex versus violence in the media. For instance, many grisly movies packed with violence and gore are granted R ratings, while more sexually-driven movies (not pornography, merely sexual) are given NC-17 ratings. While every documentary must be viewed with a grain of salt, I'd say that overall, violence seems to be more acceptable to watch on the screen than sex. And that, well, that just really doesn't make sense.
The thing about sex that nobody really seems to think about is its basic human element. I'm going to tell you a dirty secret: penises, vaginas, and breasts occur naturally on the human body, and I'll venture to say that most of us have at least one. Oh no, did I just say penis? And vagina? I mean, these things aren't alien to the human condition! They're not swear words! Most likely, if you don't have one, you have the other. And a large, large portion of the population, once they reach sexual maturation, use them in sexual play. It's not wrong to have sex, is it? I mean, that's how we procreate, correct? People can argue that sex is only for procreation, while others believe that it should be strictly for recreation, but I'd venture a guess that lots of people believe something somewhere in the middle.
Violence (and I'm not talking about self-defense or hunting here, I'm talking shooting people in the face) isn't a necessary part of humanity. Aggression happens naturally, sure, but the violence portrayed in the media isn't what I would call "normal" violence. Liam Neeson's ass-kicking in "Taken," for example. Totally awesome? Maybe. Normal? Not at all. So why is it okay? Why is it okay to show someone maiming and/or killing people before it's okay to show a normal human function?
Not all sex is normal, of course. Bestiality, rape, child molestation: these topics are heavy, and as far as I'm concerned, belong in a different catagory. It isn't lovemaking between two consenting adults. It's the denial of admitting this aspect of human life that is really confusing.
Our culture is afraid of something, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Our own sexualities? Each other's sexualities? We are undersexed, we're oversexed, we talk about sex too much, we talk about it too little. I think the problem lies in the extreme overemphasis of sex as an issue. Sex as an issue is complex, it's intriguing, and I think the most important aspect of it right now is that its an untabooed taboo. All anyone can talk about is sex, but we're not really supposed to talk about it. And really, sex isn't that big of a deal.
Sure, it's pleasurable. It can result in children. It can result in the spread of disease. It can result in heartbreak. But come ON, it happens all the time! It's not some sort of momentous event that only happens to certain people of certain races and ages when the moon is full and the temperature's right! It happens pretty much everywhere, pretty much all the time. It's important to be informed about health concerns, but when isn't that important under any circumstance?
I would venture to say that most people are better acquainted with sex than violence, yet establishments such as the MPAA decree that violence is more acceptable than sex in a media outlet. And I have a theory:
For some of us, violence is a concrete idea, and that's a terrible thing. For people like me, though, violence is more abstract. I've never been shot, or stabbed, or hurt in really any way by someone wishing malicious harm. However, sex is closer to us. Many of us participate in it, to make babies or make love. Perhaps it's because sexuality is so real that seeing it affects us in a more profound way than violence. Who knows if that's a good or bad thing?
Not me.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
The Lost Generation 2.0
I recently read the book The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway, which is one of his most famous novels about the "Lost Generation" of expatriates who felt they didn't have a home after World War I. I can't claim to know exactly how these young writers and intellectuals felt about the world they lived in: I know for a fact, though, that my generation is at least as lost as that generation, without the added bonus of family money to keep us afloat.
My age group recently graduated from college and was thrust into one of the most tumultuous economic times in U.S. history. Most of us haven't been granted the luxury of getting wonderful jobs on the merit of our bachelor degrees and internships alone--we were simply thrown into an economy which does not seem to want us. It unsettles me to think about sometimes. I imagine an America which in 10 years may have less experience and education than the generation before it. Many people my age dropped out of college for one reason or another, and those who did complete their educations are having a difficult time finding work in their discipline or even the opportunity for a higher education because there simply isn't room.
I don't want to talk much about the economy though: the topic has been absolutely discussed to death. What I do want to comment on is the seeming correlation between the current economic and political climate and the shocking rise in young marriage and motherhood.
Quite a leap, isn't it? I suppose it might be, but I see them as 100% intertwined. In the past year alone, I have seen at least 50 of my past friends and acquaintances become engaged, get married, have a baby, or any one of those combinations, all of them under the age of 25. Where pictures of college parties once stood in the profile pictures of my peers are now baby bellies, infants in their new homes, and close-up shots of diamond rings. It seems to be an epidemic of epic proportions.
I won't say that I think it's wrong. I'm in my early 20's, as many of my friends are, and that is not so young. It isn't unheard of for people to be married by my age: my mother was married and had her first child by the time she was my age. On the other hand, my mother also dropped out of college to marry my father at the age of 20, and that is fairly young. And it wasn't completely risky, either. They got married in the 80's, one of the most prosperous times in U.S. history as far as I'm aware. And here we are, in the 21st century, the technology explosion gaining momentum at every turn, and many, many girls my age are...having babies? Getting married? Does not compute.
Let it be known right now: I will cherish the day I marry the love of my life, and I can't wait to hold my babies in my arms for the first time. Even as a cynical single, inside my heart of hearts I want to be loved and receive love. The birth of a child is a blessed event, and marriage still holds a magic which is unsurpassed by most traditions of its time. These are facts to me.
However, I'm also acutely aware of the following facts: 1. I have only known my current partner, love of my life, and eventual fiance and husband for one year. 2. Even with a bachelor's degree and years of experience under my belt, it is nearly impossible to find a stable job with benefits in this job market. 3. I am 22 years old. I have time.
These facts deter me from starting a family, and these facts are similar to other girls my age. Some may be in a better situation financially, or may have families who are more likely to help them should they need it, but by and large people my age are lacking in experience, both in the workforce and with relationships. Yet at least once or twice a month someone new is engaged, or married, or expecting. Which is where my theory of the Lost Generation comes into play.
With the prospects of a career job sometimes years away, and a general lack of direction or idea of life's true challenges clouding their every move, I honestly believe many young people of my generation are starting families because, well, why the heck not? There isn't much else to do nowadays. I know that every single one of the people I know who have gotten married, engaged, or become parents recently are at least marginally happy in their lives, some of them ecstatically so. They are entering into matrimony or motherhood with hope, excitement, and determination. However, it seems to me that they are also entering into a situation which means "forever," something of which a person in their early 20's really has no concept.
The man who you have known for 5 months, or 2 years, or maybe even 6, who you just said "I do" to? Yeah, that's the guy you'll be waking up to every single day for the next SIXTY YEARS, and that's if you're lucky. That cute, precious angel who is your baby? They will grow up, learn to think for themselves, and present challenges to you for the rest of your life. Forever. Marriage and raising children is work, it's difficult, and sometimes you're going to want to give up, but you can't because it's your life. Is this the burden girls my age want to take on? We have barely moved out of our parents' houses, and some of us still haven't! It is an incredibly strange phenomena, and one which I'm interested to see play out for the next decade as people grow and change.
I'm not making judgments on these girls: I have absolutely no right because I am not engaged, married, pregnant, or a mother. I simply wonder what the future holds for my generation, and where we will find the direction we need to make the future something we want to live.
My age group recently graduated from college and was thrust into one of the most tumultuous economic times in U.S. history. Most of us haven't been granted the luxury of getting wonderful jobs on the merit of our bachelor degrees and internships alone--we were simply thrown into an economy which does not seem to want us. It unsettles me to think about sometimes. I imagine an America which in 10 years may have less experience and education than the generation before it. Many people my age dropped out of college for one reason or another, and those who did complete their educations are having a difficult time finding work in their discipline or even the opportunity for a higher education because there simply isn't room.
I don't want to talk much about the economy though: the topic has been absolutely discussed to death. What I do want to comment on is the seeming correlation between the current economic and political climate and the shocking rise in young marriage and motherhood.
Quite a leap, isn't it? I suppose it might be, but I see them as 100% intertwined. In the past year alone, I have seen at least 50 of my past friends and acquaintances become engaged, get married, have a baby, or any one of those combinations, all of them under the age of 25. Where pictures of college parties once stood in the profile pictures of my peers are now baby bellies, infants in their new homes, and close-up shots of diamond rings. It seems to be an epidemic of epic proportions.
I won't say that I think it's wrong. I'm in my early 20's, as many of my friends are, and that is not so young. It isn't unheard of for people to be married by my age: my mother was married and had her first child by the time she was my age. On the other hand, my mother also dropped out of college to marry my father at the age of 20, and that is fairly young. And it wasn't completely risky, either. They got married in the 80's, one of the most prosperous times in U.S. history as far as I'm aware. And here we are, in the 21st century, the technology explosion gaining momentum at every turn, and many, many girls my age are...having babies? Getting married? Does not compute.
Let it be known right now: I will cherish the day I marry the love of my life, and I can't wait to hold my babies in my arms for the first time. Even as a cynical single, inside my heart of hearts I want to be loved and receive love. The birth of a child is a blessed event, and marriage still holds a magic which is unsurpassed by most traditions of its time. These are facts to me.
However, I'm also acutely aware of the following facts: 1. I have only known my current partner, love of my life, and eventual fiance and husband for one year. 2. Even with a bachelor's degree and years of experience under my belt, it is nearly impossible to find a stable job with benefits in this job market. 3. I am 22 years old. I have time.
These facts deter me from starting a family, and these facts are similar to other girls my age. Some may be in a better situation financially, or may have families who are more likely to help them should they need it, but by and large people my age are lacking in experience, both in the workforce and with relationships. Yet at least once or twice a month someone new is engaged, or married, or expecting. Which is where my theory of the Lost Generation comes into play.
With the prospects of a career job sometimes years away, and a general lack of direction or idea of life's true challenges clouding their every move, I honestly believe many young people of my generation are starting families because, well, why the heck not? There isn't much else to do nowadays. I know that every single one of the people I know who have gotten married, engaged, or become parents recently are at least marginally happy in their lives, some of them ecstatically so. They are entering into matrimony or motherhood with hope, excitement, and determination. However, it seems to me that they are also entering into a situation which means "forever," something of which a person in their early 20's really has no concept.
The man who you have known for 5 months, or 2 years, or maybe even 6, who you just said "I do" to? Yeah, that's the guy you'll be waking up to every single day for the next SIXTY YEARS, and that's if you're lucky. That cute, precious angel who is your baby? They will grow up, learn to think for themselves, and present challenges to you for the rest of your life. Forever. Marriage and raising children is work, it's difficult, and sometimes you're going to want to give up, but you can't because it's your life. Is this the burden girls my age want to take on? We have barely moved out of our parents' houses, and some of us still haven't! It is an incredibly strange phenomena, and one which I'm interested to see play out for the next decade as people grow and change.
I'm not making judgments on these girls: I have absolutely no right because I am not engaged, married, pregnant, or a mother. I simply wonder what the future holds for my generation, and where we will find the direction we need to make the future something we want to live.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)