#also them bringing up her age is ageism and calling her old and when she is only 38 is super nasty | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

365days365movies · 4 years ago

Text

March 7, 2021: Onward (2020) (Part One)

Finding Nemo.

That’s my favorite Pixar film. Real talk, no arguments, and today’s movie? NOT dethroning it. This movie is so hard-wired into my brain, that the second I typed the words of the title, the theme song ran through my head, where it lives rent-free. It will be a cold day when I don’t find an excuse to shout “NEMOOOO!!!! I HAVE TO FIND MY SON!!” at any opportune moment. I will never stop swimming. Whenever I catch a Chinchou or Lanturn in a Pokémon game, I name it “Goodfeeling’sgone”.

SHARK BAIT OOH HA HA

YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE DEPTHS OF MY LOVE FOR THIS MOVIE.

...Ahem. So, yeah, I love FInding Nemo. For the record, the sequel ain’t bad. And also for the record, there’s only one Pixar movie that I consider to be bad, and it’s the one you’d think. You know, the one about ageism. The one where somebody dies by torture? The bad spy movie?

...the second one about cars?

Which means, YES. I DON’T THINK The Good Dinosaur IS THAT BAD! Not exactly good, but its gorgeous, and just kinda boring, not outright terrible. That Styracosaurus, though...that dude is great.

Anyway, off of Pixar for a sec, huh? What about fantasy? I’m a big tabletop RPG nerd, and I’m currently the GM for a Pathfinder campaign, a Pokémon RPG, and a Mutants and Masterminds game, while also playing in a Pathfinder game as well. Yeah, I’m a busy dewd. But what I’m saying is, this movie should be preaching to the choir for me. I’m a Pixar lover who plays RPGs. I’m ready for this. I’m ready for CGI Bright. Which is another way of saying, I’m ready for a version of Bright that doesn’t suck.

So, why haven’t I seen it until now? I mean...COVID-19. This film got FUCKED. But, no matter! It’s on Disney Plus, I’ve got Disney Plus, so let’s get this baby STARTED! Let’s get updated on some Pixar! SPOILERS AHEAD!!!

Recap (1/2)

OK, immediately digging the soundtrack over the Disney logo as we jump in here! Very ethereal, very fantasy, very LotR, I LIKE it, I LIKE it! And then...long ago, the world was full of wonder!

We get a view of the world of olde, with magic and many mystical, mythical creatures living together and adventuring. However, as magic wasn’t the easiest thing in the world to use, it eventually gave way to technology, fading away in a world now very similar to ours.

Basically, it’s about the same as our world, except for a few different races, and the fact that dragons are basically dogs, and unicorns are basically raccoons, which is fuckin’ fantastic.

We enter the home of teenage elf Ian Lightfoot (Tom Holland) and introverted now-16-year-old who lives with his mother, Laurel (Julia Louis-Dreyfus) and his older brother Barley (Chris Pratt). Barley’s a tabletop RPG nerd who’s also a fan of the magical past. Said obsessions cause a strain on his relationship with Ian, and with that of his mother’s boyfriend, centaur policeman Colt Bronco (Mel Rodriguez).

After a discussion about Barley’s recent attempt to protect an old magical monument from destruction, he accidentally damages the sweatshirt that Ian is wearing, which was owned by their late father, Wilder. Ian rushes out, flustered, despite Barley’s attempts to bond with him. Well, looks like we have a sense of the plot for this one.

On his way to school, Barley stops to get some food when he meets Gaxton (Wilmer Valderrama), an old college friend of his father’s. From Gaxton, he learns things about his father that he never knew, like that he was bold and standout. From there, Barely pledges to try and be more self-confident, like his father.

Whiiiiiiich, doesn’t exactly work once he gets to school. He fails to stand-up to a jerky guy at school, he fails in his driving class, and he fails to ask other high school kids to his birthday party. But to be fair, Barley helps a bit with that last one when he shows up with Guinevere, his busted-ass van with a unicorn painted on the side. Which is supposed to be uncool...but I kinda dig it, not gonna lie.

After that, Ian completely flubs the invitation bit, confusing the people he was talking to, and disappointing himself in the process. He gets a ride home with Barley, and goes home to talk to a tape recording of his dad. Which is...beautifully sad, and somehow very easy to identify with. So, yeah, it’s gonna be that kind of Pixar movie.

Ian talks to his mom about his father at his age, asking if he was ever unsure. She says yes, but couples this with a surprise: a gift from his late father, who died of a terminal illness shortly after Ian’s birth. The gift is for both Ian and Barley, and was meant to be opened when they were both over 16.

She gets it from the attic, and they unwrap it, where it’s revealed to be a wizard’s staff. Which is weird, because Wilder was an accountant. In a pocket of the wrapping cloth, there’s a letter written by Wilder with the narration from the beginning of the film (that “Long ago” bit).

Also included is a spell, written by Wilder so that he could see who his sons grew up to be. This “Visitation Spell” would appear to be a way to bring Wilder back for 24 hours. Barley, being the magic-lover that he is, tries multiple times to cast the spell with the staff, but fails to do so, much to his and Ian’s great disappointment.

However, when Ian tries to read the spell out of curiosity later, the staff begins to react, and the spell begins to work. Barley comes in as this is happening, and the spell works...halfway. It starts to fail, and Barley offers to help, but Ian pulls the staff away, and the spell stops as the Phoenix crystal inside it shatters.

Looks like another bust, but it’s not a complete failure. And if you’ve seen literally any trailer for this movie, you know what happens.

Although it’s just his legs and feet, it’s still Wilden Lightfoot (Kyle Bornheimer...technically). The boys decide to try and complete the spell, but need another Phoenix Gem to do so. According to Barley’s “historically accurate” TTRPG, Quests of Lore, they will be able to find one by accepting a quest from the place where all quests start: the Manticore’s Tavern. And so, the quest begins!

The brothers and their half-dad board Guinevere and drive to the Manticore’s Tavern. On the way, Barley convinces Ian to practice some spells from the games rulebook, but they don’t work because Ian’s not invoking his passion (or his “heart’s fire”, as Barley calls it). Meanwhile, Laurel figures out where they’re headed, but doesn’t know exactly why...yet.

After the journey, they make it to the Manticore’s Tavern, which is now essentially a themed Chuck E. Cheese’s restaurant, owned and managed by Corey (Octavia Spencer), a very overworked manticore. Which is pretty great, not gonna lie.

They try to get the actual map to the Phoenix’s Gem from her in order to conjure their Dad, but she no longer sends adventurers on dangerous quests, mostly because she doesn’t want to get sued by any injured adventurers. When Ian argues with her about this, she IMMEDIATELY DIVES INTO AN EXISTENTIAL CRISIS/MID LIFE CRISIS!

It’s, uh...it’s kind of amazing. Having completely lost it at this point, she basically tears down the entire building with her bare hands and fire-breath. Unfortunately, the map to the Phoenix Gem is burnt in the process of Corey’s literal meltdown. However, as Wilden’s about to be crushed by a couple of falling beams, Ian taps into his heart’s fire.

Nice. They get out of there, and head out for the Gem, using a child’s placemat replica of the real map to make their way to a place called Raven’s Point. However, rather than just follow the goddamn map, Barley decides to go on much more dangerous road known as the “Path of Peril”, once again following the “call of adventure” and his gut.

Which...yeah, Barley’s not really considering the reality of this whole situation, which fits his personality. He’s a dreamer, despite the rational and reasonable solution in front of him. And, in case you weren’t sure, I’m pretty sure that isn’t a good thing.

Ian points out the correct point that what actually matters is that they send enough time with their father, and they do indeed take the straightforward path. Good! Barley listened to Ian’s suggestion after all. However, they hit another snag when the car breaks down, completely out of gas. Problem.

Meanwhile, Laurel makes her way to the Manticore’s place, only to find it on fire! She meets Corey, who tells her that she’s met her boys, and told them about everything...except the curse. Also, there’s a curse. Laurel, who is the best movie Mom ever, tricks a policeman interviewing Corey to diverting his attention away from her, and smuggles her into her car to help find (and maybe rescue) her sons.

Stuck off the freeway without gas, a desperate Ian asks Barley if there are any spells that can get them more gas. They concoct a plan involving a shrinking and growing spell, but that immediately goes wrong as Barley tries to instruct Ian, only frustrating him further, and causing him to fumble the spell and hit Barley with it, making him tiny.

They decide to head to a gas station, where a group of pixie bikers has just arrived. This backfires when Barley, lacking basically any common sense, ends up insulting the biker leader, Dewdrop (Grey Griffin) and her ancestors. Nice one, Barley. As they escape from the pissed off pixies, the tiny Barley is unable to drive, forcing the driver’s anxiety-riddled Ian to drive, overcoming his fears from earlier by force, being chased by the pixies all the way. It’s a pretty good sequence, to be honest.

youtube

Well, they escape the Pixies...but not the cops. And I think that’ll be a good place to pick up in the next part! See you there!

13 notes · View notes

savegraduation · 5 years ago

Text

“But being a minor is only temporary!”

On the old Fourth Turning forum one day, a teacher who called herself TeacherOfMillies ("Millie" being a diminutive of "Millennial" popular on the board) started a thread in which she wrote about telling her son that he needs to "respect adults". Adina, a Millennial on the board, accused her of ageism. TeacherofMillies' response was:

Adina: Recognizing that minors have different capacities from adults and therefore do not deserve the same rights cannot be put in the same category as racism or sexism. A minority group is a group (such as sex, race or religion) whose membership is normally permanent. People who are born black stay black for life. Adolescence is not permanent. There is no discrimination here.

Then there was the old Pagan message board at AOL, where Brocéliande, a Joneser Wiccan with a 12-year-old son, told me that teens were not a minority group, because a minority group was by definition permanent, with the implied reasoning that discrimination on the basis of age was therefore acceptable.

It happens again and again when youth rights is brought up. Someone will bring up the -isms: sexism, racism, classism, ableism, and by extension, ageism. Someone will then bring up Murray and Herrnstein's The Bell Curve or other ostensibly scientific claims that some demographic groups are statistically more likely than others to be wise or have a higher IQ. Someone might say, "Statistics show that Asians are, on the average, worse drivers", or "Simon Baron-Cohen showed that men are better than women at systemizing tasks and women are better than men at empathizing tasks", or even, turning the tables, "Statistically, women are less likely than men to start wars; does this mean we should deny all men the right to positions of world leaders, even the gentler men, so the world will be safe from the risk of blowing ourselves up?" And then she or he will ask, "If it's not right to deny freedoms to deserving ethnic minorities, or deserving women, or deserving men, just because a large number of other people in their demographic aren't qualified -- it would be discrimination -- why is it OK to deny a mature 17-year-old the right to vote or drink just because some other people her/his age are immature?" And then some defender of the anti-YR position will fumble to defend it by arguing, "Being a minor is only temporary, so age is different from race, gender, or religion!"

Before I go any further into rebutting this argument, let's play this on an honest ground with our terms here. I prefer the term "demographic group" to "minority group". A group does not have to be a minority group to be discriminated against. Males are not a minority group, and the draft discriminates against males. Blacks are not a minority group in South Africa, where only 10% of the population is White, and apartheid discriminated against the Black majority. But males and Black South Africans are demographic groups, and prejudicial treatment against them is discrimination. Discrimination simply means treating someone wrongly differently because of her or his demographic group. And no one can argue with the fact that teens are a demographic group (as are seniors, for what it's worth!) When you say "minority group", you're really saying "demographic group that has traditionally been at a social disadvantage in the society/civilization in question" (in this case, the United States, or the West). So it's not "minority group", but "demographic group" that's the relevant concept here.

The first problem with this argument is that the impermanence of being a minor ("An American who was born Black could never wake up one day and be White all of a sudden!"), while making this different from other forms of discrimination, is not really relevant to the issue of whether discrimination is justified. One can pull up interesting differences when comparing two things, but just because those differences exist, it does not necessarily follow that said differences are relevant to right and wrong. For example, one might argue that in England, committing murder with a knife is different from committing murder with a gun because knives are legal to own in England, just not to use for murder, whereas guns are outright illegal to so much as possess. While this as a fact in and of itself is true, is this difference in any way germane to whether an Englishman killing someone with a knife is morally acceptable, or whether it should be legal to murder someone with a knife in England? Exactly how does the temporariness of membership in a group make discrimination defensible? I don't think that if that person became White one day and was finally allowed to vote because of it in the pre-1860's world, he or she would forgive and forget all the needless discrimination in the past!

Secondly, being mistreated during one's teen-age years will stay with a person for life. Your world does not become a clean slate again once you reach the legal age to do something; rather, the pain of discrimination from the past carries on.

A butterfly that flaps its wings when you are 13 will still have the ripple effect going when you are 40. For example, if 15-year-old Rachel's parents restrict her from taking the courses that competitive colleges like by refusing to sign her course selection form until it is whittled down to the dumbed-down classes that satisfy their anti-intellectualism, Rachel will have a very hard time getting into the colleges she wants by the time she's applying for colleges her senior year. As an adult, her opportunities will be limited against her will because of the choices her parents made for her against her will as a teen-ager.

In 2016, a 16-year-old boy named Gary Ruot was diagnosed with Leber hereditary optic neuropathy (LHON), an ocular disease that causes rapid degeneration and ultimately leads to blindness. The only hope for Ruot was a treatment called gene therapy, for which GenSight Biologics was running a trial for the treatment of LHON. However, the FDA had only approved the gene therapy LHON trial for patients over 18. By the time Ruot would turn 18, it would be too late, and he would be blind. Ruot's relative, Avery Wilson, posted a petition on Change.org, demanding the FDA lower the age for this trial to 16. Less than three months later, the FDA did the right thing and lowered the age for the trial, and Gary Ruot was saved. But what if the FDA had not reduced the age to 16? By the time Ruot was 18, he would be blind, and it would be too late for the gene therapy to save him. He could turn 21, 25, 30, 50, 75, and 100, and he would still be blind.

And what if your parents take you to get a circumcision before you are old enough to legally say no to an operation? Your foreskin isn't going to magically grow back once you reach the age of medical consent (which, in the U.S. varies depending on your jurisdiction, from 15 in Oregon to 19 in Alabama). Judging by the arguments ageists use against 12-year-old boys being allowed to say no to circumcision, you’d think they were convinced a boy’s foreskin will magically regenerate on his eighteenth birthday! Similarly, we're now hearing news stories about teens who live in states where under18s may not get vaccinated without their parents' permission researching vaccination on the Internet and often driving (or, if under 16, being driven by a friend) into states where minors do not need parental permission to be vaccinated. If some teen's Christian Scientist parents say no to a vaccination, and then s/he is exposed to the bacterium Bordetella pertussis or the rubella virus at 16, and catches pertussis or rubella, the teen will most likely die before her/his eighteenth birthday of a preventable disease -- are you seriously then going to defend this with the "But being a minor is only temporary!" argument?

The emotional enscarment that comes from being hurt by age-discriminatory laws will also last for the rest of one's life. If someone goes through a gulag school where he is subject to waterboarding, electroshock therapy, straitjacketing, and sensory deprivation, he may eventually be out of it as an adult, but by then the damage will be done. He will suffer the trauma for the rest of his life. Survivors of conversion therapy may be past conversion therapy, but by now they're 8.9 times as likely as their peers to consider suicide. Since I was 6, I suffered from a mental disorder called logaesthesia, where I taste words and have the sensations of swallowing them. The words I don't like I have to "purge" out by scraping my nails against my groin and then "vomiting" them up by carrying my nails over my abdomen, chest and throat. All the "socialization" I received in high school, all the being forced to do things, all the fascist comments that my behavior was "inappropriate" or "socially unacceptable", haunt me to this very day. I'm 39 now. Every day I still think back weekly to run-ins with authoritarian teachers that happened during my school years over both logaesthesia and other conflicts that came up. I have flashbacks, I bite myself, I slam my fist against my head, and punch my abdomen as if slicing open a watermelon, I yell. If I had only been given the chance to stop going to school, to live away from my parents, to move to Berkeley, I may have been able to get away from it before too much damage was done.

People who have been arrested under status laws may feel the effects of the arrest for the rest of their lives. Many employers would not hire a 30-year-old if they dug in his records and found he had been arrested for underage drinking at age 19. In California, where Proposition 21 eliminated the automatic sealment of one's juvenile record upon reaching 18, a conviction for breaking a city's curfew law at age 15 could put off potential employers. And the social stigma will attach to the arrested ex-minor from many people who know, firsthand or secondhand, about the arrest.

And what if you die during your teens? Then your adolescence will indeed become permanent. If you die before age 18, you will never have the chance to vote for or against a president. If you abided by the law stating no one is to drink alcohol until his or her twenty-first birthday, then you got drafted and went to war rather than dodging the draft, and got killed in war at the age of 20, you would die without ever having the chance to try alcohol. You think a belated "sorry" is going to make that OK?

The choices adults make for minors may even last beyond their terrene life and carry beyond the grave. For example, a recently deceased 17-year-old may have his organs harvested for donation against his consent. Or imagine that Blebdahism is the one true religion, that God is a Blebdahist and believes anyone who betrays Blebdahism is sentenced to Hell. But one young person who believes in Blebdahism deep down in his heart may have parents who are Sporgalists. In the United States, the parents may, by law, force their child to practice Sporgalism even though it is wrong, which would thereby condemn not only the parents, but also their child, to Hell for refusing to practice the rituals of Blebdahism. Since no one knows God's exact sentiments, one could not promise children that God would understand if they betrayed their religion only because they were forced; it could very well be that God thinks conforming to parental force is no excuse for not following Blebdahism, even for part of one's life, and still refuses to let those youth into Heaven, regardless. Of course, it may very well be that God understands people who betray their religion because of coercion by authority, that several religious paths lead to "Heaven", or even that Heaven does not really exist . . . but what if those aren't the case? Or suppose, arguendo, that God does let people into Heaven who practiced Sporgalism as minors but converted to Blebdahism as adults, but not people who were still practicing Sporgalism when they died. What if the child of Sporgalist parents who wants to practice Blebdahism gets hit by a truck at age 15? She'll never get another chance at practicing Blebdahism, and will be stuck spending an eternity in Hell. And the Blebdahist child of Sporgalist parents will probably be buried, in accordance with her parents' wishes, in a Sporgalist cemetery, where her body will lie forever . . . and ever . . . and ever.

Thirdly, lost time is never found again. Everyone only has a finite time to live -- at least until human life extension technology is invented, and we don't know how soon that will be. If the first 18 years of a 90-year life are spent in chains, that's one whole fifth of your life -- lost forever. Say a girl named Danielle wants to wear dreadlocks starting at the time she begins high school in September of 2016, at the age of 14 years and 6 months, but her school clamps down and forbids her to wear dreadlocks because they are against the dress code. Danielle graduates in June of 2020 at the age of 18 years and 3 months. She is then free to wear dreadlocks, until she dies the day after her eightieth birthday. She got 61 years and 9 months to wear her dreadlocks, but if her high school hadn't disallowed them it would have been 65 years and 6 months of her life. God is not going to magically add 3 years and 9 months to her life, allowing her to live to 83.75, to make up for the years she could have spent dreadlocked but was wrongly denied the right to.

An election only comes once. A person born in 1980 would not get to vote until 1998, and the thousands of decisions voted on in 1996 and 1997 did not have that person's say. He may get to vote on 1998 propositions or in the 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, and 2020 elections, but it is already too late for him to vote in the Clinton-Dole election of 1996, which is lost forever in the annals of history. For any of the bad decisions of voters leading up to the current day, there’s a possibility it could have been avoided being passed had more young people, those who were 16 and 17, been allowed to vote.

Fourthly, ethnicity is the platonic prototype of a demographic variable and racism of discrimination, and every other demographic variable about humans has something about it that makes it different from race and unique from other demographic variables.

Take gender and sexism, for instance. Gender is a universally recognized trait; the gender someone is assigned at birth would be the same across the world in more than 99% of cases. Someone's race may be labeled as Mulatto or Mestizo or Black in Cuba but Hispanic in the United States. In one society, having sex with another person of your gender automatically makes you gay, whereas in another society, it is viewed as natural to experiment even if you are straight, and a third society may have no concept of "sexual orientation” whatsoever. The legal ages for things differ from country to country. Someone with epilepsy is viewed as disabled in modern countries but as having special, supernatural powers in the Hmong culture, and what is seen as ADD in the context on one culture is "normal" in a traditional nomadic culture. But everywhere around the world, someone with a penis and testicles is assigned male at birth and someone with a vagina and ovaries is assigned female at birth. (Defining someone by their karyotype -- XX vs. XY vs. various trisomies and polysomies like Klinefelter's syndrome -- is a twentieth and twenty-first century development, and even then, fewer than 1% of births are ambiguous or "intersex" when external genitalia, gonads, and chromosomes are taken into account.) Some people turn out trans, and there are some special gender categories, such as the berdaches/Two-spirit people in Native American cultures or the Thai kathoey, or ladyboys, in some cultures, but even then the person's biological sex is still acknowledged. Even in the relatively trans-friendly United States, the Selective Service system still has laws on the books requiring transfemales to register but denying transmales registry, because gender assigned at birth is so hardwired into the law. In 2002, in the case of In re Estate of Gardiner, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that a man and a transwoman could not marry, because the transwoman was male before the law and Kansas did not recognize same-sex marriages at the time.

Religion and religious discrimination are unique because unlike other demographic variables, people choose their religion. No one chooses to be male, or Chinese, or gay, or 23 years old, or disabled (unless they deliberately stab their eyes out or jump off a height to make themselves paraplegic). But people have control over what religion they practice, and this makes religion different.

Sexual orientation and homophobia are different because sexual orientation revolves around certain behaviors, and behaviors that certain factions and individuals believe are immoral at that. No one gets arrested for the mere condition of being African-American, or female, or teen-age. No one believes that blind people will burn in Hell. But many nations still have sodomy laws on the books making gay sex illegal (this included several U.S. states as late as 2003). Many churches teach that LGBT people will burn in Hell after they die. There are no controversial behaviors that are defining of Blackness, or defining of womanhood, or defining of adolescence. But sexual orientation is about what someone does just as much as what she or he is.

Disability and ableism are different because a disability can render someone by definition unable to do something. An example would be paraplegics being unable to do work that requires you to walk on feet. Men are generally stronger than women, but there are amazonian women and plenty of weak men. Stating that 20-year-olds are too immature to drink but 21-year-olds are mature enough to drink is a loose generalization. Some psychologists, most notably the White Charles Murray and the Jewish Richard J. Herrnstein, in The Bell Curve, make claims that average IQ of African-Americans is lower than that of Whites, which is in turn lower than the average IQ of Asians. There are disputes as to whether these statistics come from culturally biased IQ tests written by upper-middle-class White males, and many people believe there is no difference in intelligence among ethnic groups at all. Others believe that different ethnic groups and different genders have different tendencies towards strengths and weaknesses, such as Dr. Simon Baron-Cohen's theory of female empathizing and male systemizing. Whether the Bell Curve statistics are legitimate or not, though, no one can deny you find bright people and dim people -- even a few autistic savants with extremely lopsided abilities -- in all racial/ethnic groups. But blind people driving? This form of discrimination based on disability is recognized as "bona fide discrimination", and actually is legal in certain cases in many jurisdictions across the world. On the other hand, forbidding an epileptic to become a lawyer or refusing to let someone with cerebral palsy into your cake shop would most certainly not be bona fide discrimination, and pointing out this way disability is different from other demographic variables would not be an acceptable argument.

Socioeconomic class and classism are different because class is mutable (yes, possibly temporary!) in some societies but not in others. If you live in present-day Nashville or Los Angeles, you can rise to the top echelons just by being a great singer or actor. If you lived in Edwardian England, on the other hand, being a prole pretty much meant you were stuck being a prole, all your lower-class ways and mannerisms hard-wired into your identity. Rising in social class was very difficult.

Every rights movement has its own hurdles to overcome, and people who shout, "But this is different!" cause every rights movement to have to start at square one. A good example is Martin Luther King's niece, Alveda King, who fights against the gay rights movement and argues that homosexuality flies in the face of "family values" and therefore cannot be compared to the Civil Rights movement. Youth rights, like women's rights, LGBT rights, disability rights, and civil rights for ethnic and religious minorities, are human rights, and human rights supporters today don't say that being free from anti-Islamic discrimination isn't a human right because people choose their religion, or that being free from sexism isn't a human right because sex is a biological reality instead of just a social construct.

Finally, the transience of temporary pain or damage has never excused hurting people. As someone on the forum for National Youth Rights Association (NYRA) once wrote about people you argue that discrimination against teens is acceptable because minority is temporary: "Someone should give them a hard punch in the face. After all, it will only hurt for a little while". Damage can be temporary (even though damage caused by ageism is NOT always temporary), such as the 7-year-old who gives his baby sister a bad haircut, knowing it will grow back. But, as Martin Luther King famously stated in 1963 in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, "Justice too long delayed is justice denied". Perhaps no infliction of suffering should be illegal because life itself is only temporary, and therefore all of a person's suffering will one day come to an end?

"But!", you say, "What about the definition? You can't deny that a minority group is a permanent group, like female, or Chinese, or lower-class, or Hindu, and therefore teens are not a minority group!"

Putting aside the "minority group" vs. "demographic group" issue, the problem is this: what you've got here is an ad hoc definition. It's what logicians call the definist fallacy. Let's look at the definition of "minority" (definition 3a) in Merriam Webster's Webster's Unabridged: "A part of a population differing from others in some characteristics and often subjected to differential treatment". No mention of the membership in that group being permanent. Next, Wiktionary defines "minority group" as: "A group that forms only a small part of the population, whether it be for ethnic or other reasons". Still no mention of being permanent. Finally, for something different, let's look at the Collins COBUILD dictionary's definition (definition 2): "A minority is a group of people of the same race, culture, or religion who live in a place where most of the people around them are of a different race, culture, or religion". This excludes age, but this definition is so narrow that it also excludes such undisputed minorities as lesbians, transgender people, and the blind! Does that mean the U.S. government should feel free to round up gay people or people with bipolar disorder, since they're not protected by the definition of "minority group"?

As a matter of fact, some published, professional authors have referred to youth as a minority group. In 1971, Edward Sagarin edited a book titled The Other Minorities, which consisted of essays concerning the minority status of non-ethnic minorities: there are essays on women, gays, teens, the elderly, the disabled, criminals, and even intellectuals as minority groups. From pages 95 to 107 is Edgar Z. Friedenberg's essay "The Image of the Adolescent Minority". In it, Friedenberg writes: "In the most formal sense, then, the adolescent is one of our second-class citizens. But the informal aspects of minority status are also imputed to him. The 'teen-ager', like the Latin or Negro, is seen as joyous, playful, lazy, and irresponsible, with brutality lurking just below the surface and ready to break out into violence. All these groups are seen as childish and excitable, imprudent and improvident, sexually aggressive, and dangerous, but possessed of superb and sustained power to satisfy sexual demands. West Side Story is not much like Romeo and Juliet, but it is a great deal like Porgy and Bess." Friedenberg recognizes how facile stereotypes of teen-agers are about as respectful as the old "minstrel show" stereotype of African-Americans.

"But!", you object, "I'm just saying teens aren't a minority group!" Then if the question of whether teens are a minority group isn’t relevant to whether anti-youth discrimination is acceptable (and it isn't, given all the other problems with the "temporariness" argument), then why are you even bringing it up?

Teens are a (very often) oppressed demographic group. Discrimination against teens is still discrimination. The fact that unless you die before your twenty-first birthday you will not be underage forever does not justify your parents dictating what high school courses you will take, or you being denied the rights to medical consent, or you getting arrested for breaking curfew or underage drinking, or you being denied the vote at 16. So please don't use this argument.

2 notes · View notes

mugsywrites · 6 years ago

Note

Can’t believe you predicted Carzekiel before Khartoum was even cast. You are not of this world, Queen.

You know, I like to joke about my powers of prophecy but it was actually a pretty logical and obvious storyline at the end of season 6 if you’ve read the comics. Which is why I don’t understand some people calling it forced or out of the blue. Ezekiel has a relationship with Michonne that eventually ends tragically, but having a romance with a key member of TF is still an important element to his character’s story. Season 6 ended with Michonne happily coupled with Rick while a newly single Carol was being taken to the Kingdom. Aside from that I wanted Carol to be happy in Fables and in love, and obviously I don’t ship her with Daryl or Rick (who I’d argue are two closest male friends, or were until after her Kingdom arc with Morgan) Tobin was a nice “rebound” for her but too boring and beige to be her endgame. Morgan would have been interesting and they obviously have a deep connection but I never got a romantic spark from them either. So I thought Ezekiel would be an interesting pairing, especially given how over the top and cheerful he is compared to Carol.

I think I’ve said it here before, but when Khary was cast my first thought was, “Well, I guess *that’s* not going to happen now,” because of how much younger he is than MMB. Because Abe’s freckled ass is able to get with two beautiful warrior angels who are young enough to be his daughters but heaven fucking forbid a middle-aged woman who is allowed to *look* her age get with a younger man. I mean, there are people who think she’s too old for *Daryl*, and to frank Khary is younger and better looking than Norman. (sn: I don’t think it applies to all or most people who don’t like C@ryl, but I do think shippers have a point that a lot of it *is* ageism) But I was pleasantly surprised by her first meeting with Ezekiel and went from a mild “I want Carol to be happy with a guy worthy of her” to “God-tier OTP, stuff of legends, up there with Richonne, Gleggie, and Desus”. Despite tired ageism tropes about older women, it’s clear that Ezekiel is immediately smitten and sees her as a romantically desirable woman. Also the way they’re introduced to each other screams “romance”, at least by TWD standards. Compare to how the rest of the Atlanta Five met their lobsters:

First off with Gleggie: Pre-Gimple, but still similar to later relationships. The audience and Rick has already met Maggie, but her introduction to the rest of the group that includes her future involves her charging in dramatically on horseback, with close ups of her mount and the bat she carries. After she scoops up Lori she speaks directly to Glenn, ignoring Carol, Daryl, and Andrea. We see Daryl’s brief, hostile reaction to her but we mostly focus on Glenn’s reaction.

(sn: forgive the quality of screencaps)

Next with Richonne it’s even more dramatic despite being way more subtle at the same time. No dramatic entrance on horseback, no nail-biting stakes where a character is being actively attacked and at risk of death, yet it still hits you every bit as hard. Like Maggie, the audience already knows Michonne as do a few other characters, but this is the first time she’s seen by the group that includes her future husband. What’s interesting to me is that no one but *Rick* sees her off in the (hella unrealistic) distance. We see Rick’s reaction to what he’s seeing long before we realize who it is; in this episode the last time we saw Michonne she was far from the prison and we had no reason to expect her. The other characters aren’t far away but Rick is totally alone the first time he sees Michonne.

(sn: while grabbing caps for this scene I re-watched the part in the next episode when they bring her into the prison and you see little Carl asking Rick if they should help her and I started crying. Burn in hell, Gimple.)

Carnid’s introduction is far less epic (as befitting a teen romance) but there are still some similarities--namely Carl being the first to see her, and we see his *reaction* before we see *her*. Other characters are present but this scene is mostly about Carl.

Finally we get to Carzekiel’s introduction, and it’s hard for me to say which is better--this one or Richonne’s. Morgan has met Ezekiel but we, the audience, hasn’t. Which is an interesting choice, since if what was important was just “flabbergasted reaction to crazy guy calling himself a King” then Morgan could have been the one to give it. But instead it’s *Carol’s* reaction that is important in this scene. Our first glimpse of Ezekiel is from far away, and we see Carol *reacting* to him before we clearly see him. Morgan and Jerry are both in the scene and interact but the real focus is between Ezekiel and Carol.

(sn: This entire scene is fucking amazing, and the most amazing bits are MMB’s facial expressions. Woman is incredible. In particular the last one, because you can see the transition from her honest, gut reaction of “Are you *shitting* me?” to her “tee hee, I’m a helpless housewife la di da this is amazing!” fake reaction)

P.S. Just for funsies because tragically it’s never going to happen but I still need to stay On Brand™, here’s how Daryl met Jesus. Rick’s there and is the one Jesus actually ran into but the focus is mainly on how Daryl reacts to him:

#Anonymous

13 notes · View notes

easyobsession · 8 years ago

Text

DWTS24: WEEK 1 (Lo Recaps)

WHAT IS UP YOU DANCE-LOVING BASTARDS? I WAS IN A CAR DURING THE PREMIERE TRAVELING HOME 13 HOURS FROM THE GODDAMN HAPPIEST PLACE ON EARTH AND ALAS, HERE I SIT TO TYPE THIS VERY POST. YOU ASKED FOR WEEKLY RECAPS, I WAS FLATTERED AND THEREFORE FELT OBLIGATED, AND NOW I’M GOING TO GET THIS DONE SO I CAN DRINK A DR. PEPPER AND TAKE MY PILLS LIKE THE 80 YEAR OLD I REALLY AM INSIDE. JESUS CHRIST, IT’S SEASON 24.

THIS RECAP STARTS RIGHT NOW.

NORMANI AND VAL. QUICKSTEP. 7677=27/40.

Instantly, she’s the first one out of the gate so you know she’s gonna be lowballed. What shocked me was just how low they went- that was a theme of the entire night for me, actually. I thought for sure we’d see some 8s and maybe one or two 7s at most. I liked it, myself. Fun, fast paced, and it seemed to match her personality and turn a stuffy quickstep into something cool and funky to bring her fanbase into the show. I thought her form was pretty damn good and considering that Val doesn’t water shit down, Normani held her own.

NANCY AND ARTEM. VIENESSE WALTZ. 7777=28/40.

This was pretty much what I expected. It was nice, it was fairly clean and pretty and an awesome starting point. Artem riding in shirtless on a Zamboni and making them both super uncomfortable was a highlight of the night for me. On a completely different note, a lot of people are comparing Nancy her to fellow Olympic skaters and DWTS champions Meryl Davis and Kristi Yamaguchi. This is the portion of the review where I share why I find this to be complete and utter bullshit: Number one, Meryl is/was an ice dancer and competed her entire life with not only a male partner, but the same male partner. Big difference. Next! Number 2. Kristi yes, did compete as a singles skater as well and yes, is only a mere 2 years younger than Nancy. HOWEVER. THE KEY FACTOR HERE IS THAT KRISTI COMPETED ON SEASON 6 OF THIS STUPID SHOW. IN 2008. NINE DAMN YEARS AGO. If my math is correct (which is probably isn’t) she won when she was around 34 years old. Nancy is 45. AGE IS A FACTOR. IT ISN’T AGEISM, IT’S FACT. GIVE THE WOMAN A BREAK. I thought she looked nervous as hell, but really lovely. I think now that she’s got the jitters out, she’ll only go up.

CHRIS AND WITNEY. CHA CHA. 5444=17/40.

He… oh my lord. Don’t get me wrong, he seems nice enough. But aside from the obvious, things got so awkward after it was over and it was just uncomfortable. I think he was trying too hard to be funny and he was so nervous on top of it all and it just all didn’t add up. And god love him, he knew. He knew and them saying it just made it so much worse. The poor guy. I’m leaving it at that. He gave it his best effort and I can never give anyone less than a solid and sincere applause for that. Good for him for doing it.

BONNER AND SHARNA. CHA CHA. 6556=22/40.

Here’s where I walk boldly in front of the firing squad and take my stance without shame. You all know how much I hate a showmance when it’s not my own idea, and DWTS overdoes them like the blackened fish thing on the menu I saw on vacation. He’s insane for what he does, but it makes him happy and I can support that. But I’m already annoyed with this gimmick. If they have the chemistry, we’ll notice, but don’t try to force it just as an attempt to make us forget the obvious eye-fucking last season despite James having a girlfriend. I’m just sayin’. Overall it was alright. It felt a little too Magic Mike for me. He’s stiff and he was off count almost the entire time, which I basically already assumed he would be. He’ll never be great but he looks like Jackson Rathbone and I like how Sharna calls him “Bonnah,” so if they quit with the forced gimmick and just let shit happen naturally I’d probably be the captain of this goddamn ship. Next.

CHARO AND KEO. SALSA. 6555=21/40.

THIS. WAS. SO GODDAMN FUCKING MUCH BETTER THAN I EVER COULD HAVE DREAMED. She remembered a good portion of the steps, she SOMEWHAT KEPT UP WITH HIM, she’s 66 goddamn years old- GOOD FOR HER. I cannot wait to see the shit Keo has to go through and the wide-eyed gazes he’ll have along the way. For what it was, I honestly can’t complain. Good on you.

NICK AND PETA. CHA CHA. 6666=24/40.

I got so pissed when I watched this, I swear to god, because I really wanted him to suck so bad that I could just rag on him until I was blue in the face but it was ACTUALLY NOT FUCKING BAD AT ALL. HE ACTUALLY HAS A LITTLE BIT OF RHYTHM. Peta is a national treasure, obviously, but this asshole, like… fuck, man. Honestly though, enough of the You’re In Love thing though, because literally NOBODY BELIEVES IT. INCLUDING YOU OR VANESSA. We all get it, we’ll put on our shocked emoji when you suddenly break-up after your contract allotted engagement period is over. You want attention. Just go into porn or something like you’ve still got some dignity and quit being annoying.

Ahh… it’s so good to be back. :D

HEATHER AND MAKS. VIENESSE WALTZ. 7777=28/40.

*singing* Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuullshit. I hate everyone. Go home. I already am home. Thank god, walking almost 30 miles in 4 days damn near killed me. Whatever. You could tell she was surprised and that she was upset not with the scores, but with herself for not getting better scores, which I hate. I’m hoping this is more of a strategy by TPTB for a Progressing Each Week storyline as opposed to Simone’s copycat The Best Since Night One story that mirrors Laurie’s. (No disrespect to Simone- but I’ll get to that later) Anyway, I thought it was amazing. Flawless? No. She was nervous just like everyone else, but she was far more comfortable up there than a lot of the rest and she and Maks looks fucking incredible together. Also she’s a knockout in yellow. I adore her. What else is new? Moving on.

DAVID AND LINDSAY. 7777=28/40.

I’m going to quickly say that it’s horse shit that Heather got the same score as him. BUT STICK WITH ME FOR A MINUTE. Heather was underscored like I under exaggerate when I say I’m kind of a nervous person sometimes, but this guy totally earned those 7s with a heart clap on the back. I was blown away in the best sense of the word. I had no clue who the hell this man is because the only thing I know about baseball is Mike Lawson and Ginny Baker (#Bawson WADDUP FAM) so I went in 100% blank and I really truly did enjoy this performance. I like his partnership with Lindsay, I love his attitude, and to top it all off he actually appears to be somewhat capable. I’m for it and look forward to more. YES.

ERIKA AND GLEB. SALSA. 6666=24/40.

Again, I thought she was lowballed. Since they are in no way alike, obviously I will now compare her to Amber Rose from last season, who I also thought would be pretty comfortable in front of the camera and shaking her booty like a boss if nothing else. Except Erika actually DID IT. She went out there and didn’t hold back and IT MADE A DIFFERENCE IN THE PERFORMANCE. Did she know every single step? Nope. Was her form flawless? Nope. Could you tell she was nervous? Yup. Did she make plenty of mistakes? Absolutely. But she sold it and that makes all the difference. I like her. I like her hair. I like her sass. “Who doesn’t wake up every day wanting to win in life? You gotta put these people on notice. I’M HERE. HI.” Apparently I love the raunchy because I love it. Bring it fucking on, girlfriend. Werk.

RASHAD AND EMMA. CHA CHA 8788=31/40.

Good? Yes. A surprise? Kind of, considering he’s another athelete and therefore blank slate for me. Worthy of second place? Debatable. Worthy of beating out some of his competition like he did on the leaderboard? No. I’m sorry but no. He seems like a lot of fun and like a pretty nice guy, so I’m definitely a million times more willing to try than I was with Antonio or Von or Calvin because Rashad is far more inviting and approachable and easier to connect with. I’m optimistic. And congrats to Emma for finally getting a hunk to dance with! Enjoy the eye candy, girl! Apparently your and Sasha’s wedding gift is neither of you getting a shitty partner this season. I approve.

MR. T AND KYM. CHA CHA. 5555=20/40.

….It was so sweet to see Robert in the audience. They’re very cute. And Mr. T… played the part well. And he… had a great costume. And he really tried. But worth a better score than Chris? Eeeeeeehhh. Not lower, of course, but 3 points higher? Really? Let’s all call a spade a spade, quit with the catchphrase, and move on with our lives, yeah?

SIMONE AND SASHA. TANGO. 8888=24/40.

…sigh. Okay. Let me explain this. I love her. Of course I love her. How could you not? She’s adorable. She’s a little awkward, kinda shy, super sweet, giggly, giant grin, complete doll that has skills for days. Her partnership with Sasha is incredible and she lights up the room. ….but other than her being 19 instead of 16…. It’s not even that I’m against her story, which I realize she can’t control regardless, but that’s not it anyway. It’s just that it was LAST DAMN SEASON. You have to put a break between them or it’s just unfair to everyone involved. And I’m going to be mad all season on her and Sasha’s behalf because of it, and I’m gonna be pissed as hell when all of her fans throw a royal fit in three months when she loses. Because I told you so. Someone get me a goddamn job at ABC, I’ll have this thing running like a well oiled machine within a few weeks. With Derek and Brooke gone, aside from Carrie Ann and the singers, the worst of the worst have already been tossed out on their ass. I’LL MAKE THIS PLACE WORTH MILLIONS, MILLIONS I TELL YA.

Okay, that’s it. I’m not even proofing this shit. I’m tired.

HMU on social media. @lauthom93 because I’m cool. The end.

Love, hugs, and my middle finger because it’s my life and my future employers hopefully never discover this blog,

Dueces.

#dwts #dancing with the stars #lo talks #valdaya #opinion piece #dwts24 #lo recaps things

46 notes · View notes

atypical60 · 5 years ago

Text

There! I said it and in doing so made up a new word. “Fuckeduptedness”. There’s no need to explain the word either.

It’s a time of reflection for me because in less than three months I’ll reach my 65th birthday. It’s a weird age, it is—because it signifies the true entryway to Senior Citizenship. When you are between the ages of 60 through 64, it still sounds a bit young. 65 is that magic age. Smack between the early sixties and…seventy!

I may be getting older but I know how to rock!

And other than the usual neurotic thinking such as in 65 years from now I won’t be around—which kills me because I want to be; and the fact I am a failure in my career because I was never able to re-enter the workforce in the type of job I had in NYC, gives me a never-ending pity party. it really ain’t too bad!

…but not yet! I gotta squeeze a lotta life out first!

We—our generation is a more youthful bunch of old people. We are not our grandmothers or grandfathers either. We be cool! We are fun! We do what we want.

And They hate it!!

Who’s they? I’ll explain. They are the experts (In their own minds) who pontificate about how we are to dress. How to wear our hair. How we are to live. They make up the rules we have to follow.

And therein lies the fuckeduptedness of being old.

I’ll give some examples.

When you are old, or if someone younger feels you are old, oftentimes are spoken down to. It’s almost “old people baby talk”. For some reason people seem to think as you age you no longer hear nor can you comprehend even the simplest sentence such as “Have a pleasant day.” We may have aged but we have become smarter and wiser so stop speaking down to us. For God’s sake, I didn’t even speak that idiotic baby-talk to my children when they were babies! Just stop it!

Ugh. If any adult ever spoke to me in baby talk, he or she would have huge welt across their face!

People also have a tendency to speak LOUDER to you? Why is this? I’m the loudest person I know—please do not try to compete with my loudness or I’ll bust your eardrums! You takin’ to me? I hope not because you don’t sound to bright.

OMG!! There is NO reason to shout at me. I can hear you!!!!!!!!! Stop it!

The “anti-age” factor. This is bullshit. I want to bitch slap the marketing idiot who created that term because he or she needs to be thrown into a jail cell. Age needed to be celebrated! Many don’t make it to their fifties or older. My brother was one so don’t even get me started!

Airbrushed, photoshopped and anti-aged. Ageing is a horrific experience to be ashamed of–isn’t it?

The second you leave mommy’s love canal; you begin to age. Does anti-age mean that we should all stay a few hours old? Because that’s basically what it means? Why not pro-age? We’re happy to have those birthdays. We’ve accomplished great things. Why anti-it? Which brings me to….

The Beauty Industry. This they despise us. This industry views us as cows out to pasture.

True dat! The Beauty Industry treats us lder ladies like cows put to pasture. And these are French cows that I hung out with a few years back while hanging out in the Burgundy countryside. We got along well–we related to each other!

They will use late-teen to twenty-something models in their “anti-aging” campaigns. And worse yet, will advertise foundations, concealers, primers “made” for us and use those same young models. There’s plenty of gorgeous mature women with lines, creases and wrinkles on their faces. How come they aren’t used?

Kendall Jenner featured in Estée Lauder’s 2015 campaigns.

Yes. This is twenty-something Kendall Jenner. Estee Lauder, a cosmetics company that the “Mature” customer could relate to, now has to look at younger models to figure out just how the hell any makeup will look on their older skin. This is the fuckeduptedness of old!

It drives me nuts too because this is an industry that thinks it’s so “forward” by using gay men wearing make up to prove how diverse they are. No. You aren’t diverse. And neither are ads with one obligatory young white girl, one obligatory black girl, one obligatory Asian girl, one obligatory Latina and one said gay guy diverse or inclusive. Show me the seventy-year old woman of all colors and show me that old gay guy and only then will you be truly diverse.

Where the fuck is the old lady–or old man–or the physically disabled person. No. You are NOT diverse until everyone is included. Go find a wrinkled person.

They, the Village Green Fashion Policing Society: How many times? How many magazine articles? How many internet postings do we have to be tortured with when it comes to what we should and shouldn’t wear. I can’t even with this one.

I will wear my skinny jeans, my mini skirts and above-the-knee dresses. Hoop earrings will continuously remain dangling from my ear lobes. Over-the-knee boots will continue to be worn. And nobody will or should dictate how anyone should dress. Especially the older demographic.

I will continue to wear my leather pants with pointy-toed boots..

I will continue to wear my miniskirts with boots..

As an old, shriveled, wrinkled old prune of the pro-age, I’ll keep my ripped jeans thank you!

And I will wear those glittery heels.

And I’ll continue to wear my hair long. Even if it IS fake!

It saddens me to see that women my age, mid 60’s and in their 50’s and even older fall into that misconception that they need to dress like an unstylish, unattractive wallflower. Why? Why can’t a woman who is of the pro-age, boomer generation dress as wonderfully as she feels. Wait. Some women don’t feel wonderful. And it’s because many women have given up. And no wonder. Fashion magazines are splayed with clothing brands that only advertise young, nubile women in clothing that the older woman can wear and wear well. It is an absolute disgrace and one of the reasons I haven’t bought a fashion magazine in over a year. I’ve not renewed any fashion or beauty magazine and have no desire to pick one up. In fact, I’ve allowed my Allure subscription to expire because they never followed up on their promise to stop using the phrase “anti-age”.

The very last Vogue magazine I read was when Wintour placed Kim and Kanye West on the cover. If I want to read about celebrities, I’ll buy Star or People. Fashion magazines have become trash. Bring back the actual models and get rid of the celebrities. Better yet, showcase the magazine’s true demographic of the “over 40” woman!

The Corporate “They”. This is a touchy and personal one. Perhaps for you too, or someone you know. Life events happen. Some are great. Some aren’t. And somewhere along the line, many of us, regardless of the life situation, have to re-enter the workforce.

Sad but true. Due to corporate closures I’ve lost a couple of jobs and I’ve never recovered the earnings that I’m worth. Think about that one–that’s the story of almost every person over 50 who has reentered the workforce and it is shameful and sad!

Corporate America and Small Businesses do not want to hire anyone over a certain age. It’s bad enough to seek employment over 50 but to seek employment over the age of 60 is a near-impossible feat.

three people over age 50 are holding up signs that tell stories about ageism they faced in the workplace

It’s all true.

And it sucks. It sucks because our generation has such a stellar work ethic. We come from backgrounds where we were taught how important values are. Granted, many of us aren’t technically gifted the way younger people are, but we are quick learners. The amount of information and computer skills I’ve learned from each job I’ve had is invaluable. As a whole, we are open to new ideas. We are excellent workers. We don’t call out sick on a Monday due to excessive partying over the weekends. We won’t need a day or seven off when the kids are off from school or if they are ill. We are there 100 percent.

It’s incredible because corporations get tax breaks for hiring the disabled but they don’t get anything for hiring the mature demographic. Perhaps they should, then maybe more of us would have the jobs we deserve!

They think we aren’t cool. Oh yeah. Ever get the eye-roll, side eye or smirk from someone younger? I’m sure you have. Perhaps it’s happened when you listened to the current top 40 music. Or discussing a movie or book or …. basically anything. It’s because they think we aren’t cool.

Wise words. No generation will ever be as cool!

Let me tell you something about “cool”. We are of the coolest generation ever.

That boho look? We started it back in the late 1960’s. We had the Summer of Love. Our demographic got politically involved. The Youth Movement protested. We questioned. We wore clothing that our parents disapproved of.

My favorite Beatle, George Harrison and Patti Boyd, hanging around playing guitar and smoking at the same time. Now THAT’S a feat!

Why—I remember the most beautiful pair of Madras plaid hot pants I purchased with babysitting money. I wore them to go out and my parents made me go back upstairs to change. Those were the days alright. We wore miniskirts and tattered and patched jeans. We had “head shops” where those who did not use bongs and roach clips could buy peasant tops and patchouli or ylang ylang oil.

Show me a modern-day fashion designer as cool as Mary Quant. Her iconic Mod look changed everything. And we had her! And she’s still influencing how women dress!

We had the slick cool of Jimi Hendrix and the raspy cool of Janice Joplin. I do not think there is anyone currently in the music industry as cool or as talented as they were. I’m biased but it’s true.

NEW YORK – JUNE 1970: Blues singer Janis Joplin on the roof garden of the Chelsea Hotel in June 1970 in New York City, New York. (Photo by David Gahr/Getty Images)

The sad thing is that she never got the chance to pro-age..

….and neither did Jimi. That’s anti-aging. They never made it to pro-age.

We danced.

And dance we did!

We partied.

And partied hearty, I might add. Booge. Oogie. Oogie!

We enjoyed life. And we still do those things. It’s just that we do them at a more measured pace!

And at her age, she can light up whenever she wants!

And therein lies the fuckeduptedness of old. It’s not how we perceive ourselves it is how they perceive us. And as pro-agers rather than anti-agers, maybe it’s time to start a new movement!

Others see me as the figure on the left. An old, grumpy, unstylish old woman who should be thrown to pasture. I see me as I am on the right. Stylish, pro-aging, and only grumpy when I’m in rush-hour traffic!

What say you? Do you feel the same way that I do? Do you find yourself being ignored or shoved aside due to aging? Do you think we aren’t respected the way we should be? I’m really curious to find out! Do you like my new word??????

The Fuckeduptedness of Being “Old” There! I said it and in doing so made up a new word. “Fuckeduptedness”. There’s no need to explain the word either.

0 notes

sirost1-blog · 5 years ago

Text

Second Half of the Semester Highlights...

Module 5: Sexual Health

Sexual health is a crucial field of knowledge that everyone should place importance on. Without this knowledge, we would continue to lose people at a high rate due to infections and diseases such as HIV/AIDS. An article that spoke to me from this module was written by Maanvi Singh, and is titled “Sex Ed Works Better When It Addresses Power In Relationships”. This article spoke to me because it gave me immediate flashbacks to my experience during sex education. I was in 6th grade and attended a relatively large public school in Southern California. We used one of our class periods to have our gym teacher and regular teacher talk to us as a class, so we remained in our classes of 35 kids or so, we were not brought into an auditorium for an assembly or anything. Although I cannot remember the exact words, I can remember the topics talked about, and more importantly, wasn’t talked about…

We were given a brief talk about the anatomy of a vagina and penis as our teachers pinned some basic anatomical posters on the wall of each of the body parts. They described to us what sex was, and that pregnancy could be a result if we didn’t use protection. For some reason they really pushed the idea that pregnancy would result if we didn’t use a condom, there was little to no mention of birth control, and absolutely no mention of an IUD- but perhaps that’s because this discussion was practically a decade ago. As I stated above, I remember what we weren’t told, and what I wish I was told about sex. I wish they would have told us girls that it hurts. I wish they would have taught us about consent. Simply educating us on the physical motions of how sex works only prepares us for a tiny bit of what sex actually is. I wish they would have told us to wait for the right person, and to not be in a hurry to lose it. I wish they would have told us that it is okay if you are homosexual, and what you are learning about right now

might not pertain to you as a result.

As I read through this article by Maanvi Singh, it pulled me back into that classroom on the day of sex ed, and started answering the questions and giving me the information I wish I would have learned in sex ed. Through skimming through the article I realized that I didn’t want traditional sex education, I wanted empowerment based sex ed. Singh tells us that, “Knowing how to communicate and negotiate with sexual partners, and knowing how to distinguish between healthy and abusive sexual relationships, are as important as knowing how to put on a condom” (Singh 2015). In the article we are walked through how one of these empowerment based sex ed classes work. Children (age unmentioned) are taught the basics of sex ed: contraceptives, disease prevention, and anatomy. But then, they segway into a topical discussion about how to talk about safe sex with their partners, especially if they are in a relationship where they may be in a dis-empowered position. Singh goes into detail about the program when she says, “They play out, for example, how do they negotiate with their sex partner, particularly if they’re in a dis-empowered relationship, and maybe their boyfriend doesn’t want to use a condom and is threatening to leave, to hurt her… The goal is to help young women feel empowered to ask for what they want from their sexual partners. And to feel good about themselves, so if they decide they want to be assertive with their partner, they can do that” (Singh 2015).

I have considered being an educator, and if I don’t end up loving what I do with my Communication and Organizational Leadership degree, I am not afraid to go back to school and pursue a career in education. Therefore, if I ever go into a field of education, I can use this information and reference my poor experiences with sexual education to bring a better place of education for children in the future. Chances are that the kids I sat in sex ed with have experienced abusive relationships, and have not been taught on how to bring about a better power dynamic within a relationship. After all, a study by Huffpost states that, “nearly 60 perfect of young women have experienced abuse” (Glamour 2011). Additionally, Safe Horizon argues that “1 in 7 men are in abusive relationships” (Safe Horizon 2019). With these statistics in mind, I plan to use this information in the future to not only educate children if I go into a field of teaching, but to encourage those in my life to make sure that their relationship dynamics are healthy, and to encourage a conversation about safe, consensual sex.

_______________________________________________________

Module 6

This module was centered around the topic of Disability, Aging, and Sexuality. It was here that we gained a foundational understanding for disability, both as a theory and as a concept that we will all one day have to deal with. We were then educated on the definition of ageism, and applied this concept to the popular show of Grace and Frankie.

My favorite part of this module was writing and responding to other peer’s discussion board posts. After watching the assigned episodes of Netflix’s Grace & Frankie, many stereotypes about women aging and their sexuality were brought to light. It was a shock to me that one of the first examples of the two women being shamed for talking about their sexuality came from someone super close to them- their own children. Grace’s daughter went as far as to call the two “filthy women” for engaging in a conversation that I guess Grace’s daughter deemed to be too young of a topic for them to still be allowed to discuss. It also appeared that our discussion about the topic of constructionism could be looped into these episodes of Grace and Frankie. Social constructionism discusses shared concepts of reality, whereas age-constructionism happens as people develop stigmas of the older generation as a whole, rather than examining the behaviors and attitudes of elders as individuals. This is exactly what the women’s children were doing by condemning them for talking about their sex lives; they just assumed they were just a couple of old ladies too old for that talk, and didn’t stop to think about their mothers desires and feelings.

One of the most important concepts I took away from this module and included in my discussion was the concept of “fearless aging”. As Health Gerontologist Pat Sanborn puts it, “everybody is aging, and it’s better not to have a fear around it” (Sanborn 0:37). Sanborn explains to us that, “When people are looking at the opportunity for fearless aging, they are considering options, they are gaining insights, and they are helping other people and they are not buying into ageism” (Sanborn 1:15). In the case of Grace and Frankie, Frankie continuously reminded, and taught her friend Grace that she still has an entitlement to enjoy her sexuality, regardless of her age, or what others have to say. It was also really inspiring to watch the show and see these two women continue to gain insight and want to help other women as they get into the vibrator business and even make their own lube. My goal for society is that we too can one day practice fearless aging, like Grace and Frankie. We should all be aiming to end the stigma that sex has to stop at a certain age! As I take what I have learned from this module outside of class, I want to first start by reminding my Grandmother that she is not defined by her age (which is 83). I know that she has struggled in the past with slowing down because she doesn’t want to be labeled an “old lady”, so I will remind her that that term, at least within our house, does not have to be a derogatory term. I will also make sure to encourage those around me way down the line to “go with the flow”. As Pat Sanborn states, age is something completely natural, so we should not be condemning ourselves for letting nature take its course!

_______________________________________________________

Module 7

Our last module revolved around the topics “Pornography, Erotica, Pleasure, and Resistance” (Watson Module 7). Our goal by the end of reading through and interacting with the module was to be able to connect how resistance plays a role in women’s sexuality, especially when it comes to marginalized groups. We were also tasked with gaining an understanding the role of intersectionality, which is looking at categories like sex, gender, race, and class, and applying them to an individual group to see if they create any overlapping or interdependent cases of discrimination or advantage.

In this module, the piece that stood out to me the most was a TED Talk by Christopher Ryan titled, “Are we designed to be sexual omnivores?”. It is here that Ryan examines the extent of our sexual nature all while relating it back to our origins, and argues that humans shouldn’t penalize themselves so heavily for their natural desires. Ryan first talks about the agricultural revolution. Before that time, we were foraging, and sharing all that we had, making sure that the women and the children came first. In a way, these items (meat, shelter, protection) were all being traded in exchange for women’s sexual fidelity. As he analyzed this sharing behavior, he related it back to sexuality. He states that, “human sexuality has essentially evolved, until agriculture, as a way of establishing and maintaining the complex, flexible social systems, networks, that our ancestors were very good at, and that’s why our species has survived so well” (Ryan 1:07).

Another common occurrence within relationships nowadays is the concept of monogamy. For some it is something that they actively seek out in a relationship, and for others it is considered a deal breaker if their partner desires it. And, although it has become common within our society to seek our monogamy, Ryan argues that it goes against our ancient desires, since we are so closely related to chimps and bonobos. He paints for us a picture of his parents; they have been monogamously married for 52 years! But does that mean that the exchanging of wedding vows was also an instant repellent of attraction for people outside of his parents marriage? No. Chances are his father sees hot women in the streets and has occasional fantasies, or his mother goes to see a movie and falls in love with the lead role actor. This is because human’s don’t stop desiring sex with others just because they have a commitment to one another. As Ryan puts it, “to argue that our ancestors were sexual omnivores is no more a criticism of monogamy than to argue that our ancestors were dietary omnivores is a criticism of vegetarianism. You can choose to be a vegetarian, but don’t think that just because you’ve made that decision, bacon suddenly stops smelling good” (Ryan 4:57).

Ryan further argues his point that humans are sexual omnivores when he brings up the topic of female menstruation. He states that, “humans are among the only species on the planet where the female is available for sex throughout the menstrual cycle, whether she’s menstruating, whether she’s post-menopausal, whether she’s already pregnant. This is vanishingly rare among mammals. So it’s a very interesting aspect of human sexuality” (Ryan 5:47). It is very hard to argue his point when evidence is brought about like this. If we were not designed to be sexual omnivores, we would not be so sexually active, and our bodies wouldn’t be designed to be capable of such great sexual activity. After all, Ryan told us that the average human has sex roughly 1,000 times per birth. Meanwhile, other typical mammals like gorillas and orangutans have sex only roughly 12 times per birth. He wraps up his point by urging us to move away from the classic saying “men are from Mars, women are from Venus. Because, the reality of this situation is that, “men are from Africa and women are from Africa” (Ryan 11:44).

This talk spoke to me so greatly because I really feel it as though it will help me with my relationships moving forward. Ryan talks about how families are continuously ruined by our false vision of human sexuality, all because we have engineered this idea that monogamy ultimately ends our sexual desires for others, while our history does nothing but strengthen our sexual desires beyond those who we are in a relationship with. Moving forward, if, say, for example, my parents were to get into a fight because my dad looked at a lady in the parking lot for a little too long, I will aim to understand his sexual nature rather than retaliating with a comment such as “ew, gross, you’re married to Mom!”. In the end, your relationship status doesn’t end your sexual desires, and we should stop making it seems as though it does. Like Ryan said, when someone becomes vegetarian we do not assume that bacon stops smelling good to them- so we need to end this mindset and false assumptions about the aftermath of monogamy.

________________________________________________________________

Works Cited

Ryan, Christopher. “Are We Designed to Be Sexual Omnivores?” TED Talk, Feb. 2013, https://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_ryan_are_we_designed_to_be_sexual_omnivores.

Glamour. “Shocking Number Of Young Women Have Experienced Relationship Abuse.” HuffPost, HuffPost, 17 Nov. 2011, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/glamour-relationship-abuse_n_857472.

“Domestic Violence Statistics & Facts.” Safe Horizon, https://www.safehorizon.org/get-informed/domestic-violence-statistics-facts/#our-impact/.

Singh, Maanvi. “Sex Ed Works Better When It Addresses Power In Relationships.” NPR, NPR, 17 May 2015, https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/05/17/407063066/sex-ed-works-better-when-it-addresses-power-in-relationships?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20150517 https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/facts-american-teens-sources-information-about-sex.

Sanborn, P. (Director). (2017). Fearless Aging - What is Ageism? [Motion picture]. Vimeo. Retrieved from https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/attitudes-about-sexuality-and-aging.

Kauffman, M., Morris, H. J., Fonda, J., Tomlin, L., Taylor, T., Weinstein, P., Goldberg, D., Ellison, D., Ross , M., Junge, A. (Producers), & Kauffman, M. & Morris, H. J. (Directors). (2016). Grace and Frankie [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.netflix.com

0 notes

topmixtrends · 6 years ago

Link

AS READERS OF POETRY, we consistently commit the same act of self-deprivation — we associate literary quality with longevity. This emerges from a sort of reverse ageism, wherein the pillars of national canons are often authors who have remained prolific across several decades, the assumption being that great poets return to the anvil. Coupled with longevity is visibility, the extent to which a poet is seen to be successful. While the canonizing influence of visibility has always been present, it has been reinforced in an age of social media–enabled posturing. To be a great writer, then, it would seem one must be both productive and visible — a trend that suggests that we have forgotten how to listen when words might vouch for themselves, how to recognize literary greatness when it creeps up on us, quiet and unassuming.

Literary greatness, whatever that might be, should have more to do with language than anything else — great writers should speak for us as readers, they should articulate what we cannot. Some readers have the good fortune of growing up with voices that treat the very same generational contexts with which they struggle. I remember, while still in my teens, being first introduced to the work of a poet I greatly respect. I was sitting in a petrol station outside Killarney, when a magazine piece on her work caught my eye — the first thing I noted was that she too was a teenager, and so considering her success, was surely worth a read. I was not disappointed — her words were those I could never find, and I took comfort in the knowledge that she would find them for me. My assumption was that we would grow together as author and reader, that I would face the trials of adulthood in the same fashion as I faced those of my youth, with words, many of them hers, as catharsis. But this isn’t what happened, and her subsequent collections were alien to me.

It is a strange feeling when one becomes detached from one’s literary idols — while I have always possessed a critical appreciation of this particular poet’s mastery of form, I no longer feel her words in my gut. For me, a piece of poetry either punches me in the gut, or I have no use for it. I don’t know why this is, in that I will endure a drawn-out novel or film, I will listen to an entire album even though I favor specific tracks, but with poetry, I want intensity, pure and instant. When your idols fade, you fear that it will be hard to find a new source of gratification. And yet, greatness does creep, and readers who feel detached from the page can quickly find themselves back in the mire, steeped in the addictive reaction that good words can bring.

Ireland’s literary scene is thriving, but it is also changing, in that the new greats are emerging, or, better still, have already emerged. There is no point in being excited about the future greats — literary potential is a curious thing in that it is often founded on nothing more than a fortuitous comment thrown out at the right time in the right circles — particularly when we have fresh greatness in abundance. There is no old generation, new generation, and next generation; there are only dead poets and living poets, contemporaries and legacies. I say this because I do not want to fall into the trap of constructing the work of three young Irish poets as just that, the work of “young” poets — that they are young is inconsequential, and what they might go on to accomplish should not distract us from what they are doing right now. Repetition should not be a necessity when determining greatness. In Elaine Cosgrove, Roisin Kelly, and Annemarie Ní Churreáin — whose debut collections were released over the past 24 months — we find Ireland’s strongest contemporary voices. Not the strongest young voices, not the strongest potential voices — the strongest voices.

They have not yet achieved longevity, nor have they built their reputations on Twitter and Facebook — but they are great. And whether or not they will go on to have great careers, they are, at this present moment, the authors of three of the greatest collections of poetry that the Irish canon has to offer. They are not the future of Irish poetry, they are its present — their greatness is that they have penned the anthems of a forgotten generation — and what is greatness if not that?

Irish poet Vona Groarke, on the occasion of her recent induction to the Hennessy Hall of Fame, claimed that those seeking change should stand for election — poems, she argues, are not an inherent part of the political process. And there is something to that position, particularly if one considers the extent to which many writers now “rush into rhetoric,” as Groarke so aptly puts it. But if change is to happen, people need to be inspired. Only very recently did Ireland become a country in which women have access to safe, legal abortion, and the campaign which surrounded that referendum demonstrated that a deep conservatism persists throughout the island. This conservatism, and indeed, the rampant quietism that leads most people to shy away from growing socio-cultural disparity and marginalization, are precisely what literature must play a central role in shifting — what could be more political?

At this year’s annual Cork International Poetry Festival, organized by the Munster Literature Centre, I had the good fortune of hearing these three poets read: their words had weight, their words were political, and they all have something of that rock-star quality. The latter remark may seem reductive, but it is hugely important because there were teenagers in the audience, and teenagers listen to what rock stars have to say. These voices have made poetry that is inter-generationally appealing, and in doing so, have restored my faith in the social utility of words. Ní Churreáin, who is a particularly fierce presence when at a mic, had a young girl, no more than 15, on the edge of her seat — there is the politics in literature, and its significance should not be underestimated. Readers who grew up in literary households might think all this trivial, but a poet who can draw the attention of someone half their age is a powerful instrument. Without getting detained by Heideggerian and Eliotic notions on the utility of literature, if poetry is to serve any social function and help us to better understand ourselves and the world around us, people — particularly those who might not otherwise be drawn to the form — need to be compelled to listen.

The three collections in question — Rapture (Kelly), Bloodroot (Ní Churreáin), and Transmissions (Cosgrove) — suggest a revival of minimalist realism, with everyday experiences made new through literary interrogation. Examining the lived experiences of day-to-day life is one of literature’s oldest tricks, but the popular revival of avant-garde sentiments has skewed this process, privileging style over a utilitarian appeal to readers. This is not to say that these collections are artificially accessible, but that their authors demonstrate a deep understanding of the real value of language, balancing style and substance to craft collections that reject those templates — most notably, those rich in symbolism and fragmentation — developed by some of Ireland’s dominant literary movements. There is no mysticism in these pages. They are filled with songs sung from alleys, with poems one recites while watching the rain gather among the cobbles on Fort Street — they are like reflections in window panes, and they are beautiful because their words are known to us before we have read them.

The urban and the pastoral, the familial and nostalgic, the political and the private, complicated love and complicated sex — these all find a place, as one would expect of gritty contemporary poetry, in the work of Cosgrove, Kelly, and Ní Churreáin. But Ireland’s old literary foes — nation, language, and religion — are present, too, and treated with such fine craft that even on the most political and sensitive of topics, the critique never loses its power by descending into verbosity.

Ní Churreáin’s “Wall” is exemplary in this regard, a prose poem whose speaker details the many patriarchal barriers faced throughout her life. The speaker, joining her brothers in the building trade, is asked in the concluding line what she could possibly know about walls. The language, as replicated throughout Bloodroot, is intense and localized:

There are the wall boys who want in under your bra with their cold fingers […] There is the wall that goes up inside you the first time you’re called a slut […] There is the wall of grinning wet-lipped farmers that gathers around the teenage girls at the local beauty pageant show, as you, in a borrowed dress, are herded into the ring.

That Ní Churreáin can condense the prototypical life of a young Irish woman into half a page while sustaining the poem’s impact is testament to her ability as a storyteller, the vividness of her language, and the universality of the portraits she is painting. “Wall” is a poem in which the trans-generational frustrations of Irish women are condensed into a selection of rich, powerful lines. The form of the piece thoughtfully mirrors the subject: a wall of text on the page. I say “thoughtfully” in response to the revival of concrete techniques, so often rendered without much intention.

The language is equally as vivid in Kelly’s “October, Cork City,” where the author’s skill presses the mood so that it delivers the aforementioned punch to the gut — this is a poem about lingering, about wondering, maybe regret. Kelly’s language is suitably multi-sensory, drawing readers toward the familiar “smell of coffee” as it “mingles with rain.” Set in the city where Rapture is published, the poem drags grandeur down to the streets of Cork, juxtaposing Mars, Venus, and Orion with a local cafe containing stars of its own: “[A] candle burns on every little table.” Of the three collections, Kelly’s is undoubtedly the most thematically consistent, operating as something of a coming-of-age montage defined by a central relationship — it is, in many respects, a book of love poems. But that is a terribly superficial account of its deeply poignant execution — Rapture is hard to read, because we’ve been where this painful collection insists on taking us. Kelly, as great writers do, compels her readers to engage, and for readers of Rapture, that engagement is with the past. What is striking about Kelly’s writing is that she intentionally situates herself within Ireland’s literary tradition, frequently drawing on Yeatsian images like the rose. She is unswerving, however, in her desire to draw romance and realism together, and Kelly revives the symbols of old so that they might be re-spoken in a brazen, drunken voice: “I carried a single rose to your home. / When I arrived you were still at the pub / so your friends and I smoked in the kitchen […] We kept drinking. The rose fell out / of my hair. A girl tore at it with her teeth.” Kelly’s poetry is at once tender and savage, steeped in tradition yet brave in expression — she takes readers where they don’t want to go, a feat which most writers attempt, but few achieve.

Borrowing the words of Elaine Feeney, Cosgrove is also a “true apprentice of the vast tradition that has gone before.” As with Kelly, her respect for that tradition — and command of all that it offers — does not distract the voices she creates in Transmissions. Cosgrove’s collection is all about tone — this is a book you want set to some steel string guitar, phrases like “brush-drum rattle,” “frost-spiked grass, giggling,” and “shoes sole-slicking tanned bags” just a sample of the text’s rhythmic undercurrent. Cosgrove’s literary world is as gritty as those of her contemporaries, full of smoke and spirits. Transmissions resides at the juncture between Bloodroot and Rapture, containing everything from unrequited drunken text messages, as in “Cupid’s Text Arrow,” to “Motorway’s” complex examination of the self. Again, the author’s skill is in her ability to do so much with so little: “Using both eyes and thumbs to guide me, / ‘I think I like you,’” she writes, opening the floor beneath her readers’ feet. But Cosgrove’s true talent lies in her ability to encapsulate the urban space, which she does with a skill rivaled by few in Ireland at present. We find evidence of this in “Hush and Fall Asleep to Fantasy,” where the speaker braves Galway city on a race night: “I’m annoyed at our West for / mashing chips into the cobbled streets, / picking up littered hearts that shout somatic / are ya single, ya fookin’ ride?” Again, there is nothing verbose, only “chip shop vomit” and “Girls who wear assholes’ ties around their necks” — scenes we all know, set from experience. Readers typically encounter two Irelands in poetry: the idealized Eden, or the corrupted state. Cosgrove writes of places we actually go, of less lofty, but consequently more important, everyday things. Our canon needs more of that.

We often hear of authors who are “making Ireland new,” but new is nothing if it stands alone, beyond the utility of any real readership. Ireland is changing, at last, but we need writers who can represent that change in a way that goes beyond the superficiality demanded if one is to make their name within the literary community at present. Returning to the notion of greatness, if I were to compile a list of contemporary Irish poetry’s essential readings, these three collections would form a part of that list, not because they are doing what others are not, but because they are doing what everyone else is doing, but better. These are poems you want to read at a house party, poems you want to hear bellowed from a lectern — Irish literature has long needed some new pillars, so we are fortunate that Cosgrove, Kelly, and Ní Churreáin have emerged. Whatever the future paths and significance of these authors, their words as they exist right now have articulated contemporary concerns that have either been neglected or less skillfully expressed — they are, and I do not say this lightly, great poets who are speaking for a generation.

James O’Sullivan (@jamescosullivan) lectures at University College Cork (National University of Ireland). His most recent collection of poetry is Courting Katie (Salmon, 2017).

The post “Places We Actually Go”: Three Irish Poets’ Debuts appeared first on Los Angeles Review of Books.

from Los Angeles Review of Books https://ift.tt/2OEIFuZ

#Los Angeles Review of Books #topmixtrends

0 notes

njawaidofficial · 7 years ago

Text

33 TV Shows Everyone In Their Twenties Should Watch

https://styleveryday.com/2018/03/04/33-tv-shows-everyone-in-their-twenties-should-watch/

33 TV Shows Everyone In Their Twenties Should Watch

“The Mindy Project gave me the confidence to be myself and go for what I want.”

Gilmore Girls (2000–2007)

“It’s about a young woman starting to make some pretty big life decisions, it shows you that not everything turns out the way you expect it to. It’s a very eye-opening show for someone who is of similar age to Rory Gilmore.” —jackiea4d43ea2d7

Stream it now on Netflix.

Warner Bros.

The WB

Friends (1994–2004)

“Definitely not overrated at all and so relatable. I recently started re-watching the series and have only now come to realize how much I can relate to a lot of the things that happen on the show.” —lisan42873496f

Stream it now on Netflix.

NBC

How I Met Your Mother (2005–2014)

“Every twentysomething should watch How I Met Your Mother. It deals with a lot of situations that we all go through at this age, like finding your place in life after college, having a quarter-life crisis, thinking you’ve found the one, actually finding the one, and sadly even dealing with the death of parent. It’s a hilarious sitcom, but also a show I believe we can all relate to at some point.” —niak3

Stream it now on Hulu.

CBS

Jane the Virgin (2014–present)

“The representation of a relatable family and their values really hit home with me when it first came out. I was 21 and kind of lost on my own journey and trying to be in control of everything. The show taught me that no matter how much you plan things out, life happens and things change.” —milkteapapi

Stream it now on Netflix.

The CW

The Bold Type (2017–present)

“It is the most groundbreaking, feminist, and relatable show on TV.” —alexas11

Stream it now on Hulu.

Freeform

Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997–2003)

“The main theme of the show is about learning how to be an adult. I watched Buffy for the first time at 23 and am not exaggerating when I say it inspired me to move across the country and completely change my life.” —kyleighn

Stream it now on Hulu.

The WB

Insecure (2016–present)

“It’s such a relatable, realistic, and absolutely hilarious show. I’m dying for more episodes. It shows that it’s okay to struggle when you’re trying to become a functional adult. Such a welcome reprieve from my own troubles!” —mermaidveggal

Stream it now on HBO Go.

HBO

Younger (2015–present)

“All of the Younger characters are so relatable. I love the ageism topics that this show explores, for both younger and older generations.” —sarahf4bc74a8bc

Stream it now on Hulu.

TVLand

Broad City (2014–present)

“It’s funny as hell and super relatable. It reminds you that it can take a while to figure things out. Having a good life doesn’t necessarily mean having it all together, you know?” —marieannmarie

Stream it now on Hulu.

Comedy Central

Crazy Ex-Girlfriend (2015–present)

“It deals a lot with mental health and is way too relatable. It shows how relationships with your parents can mold the relationships you create, even as an adult. It’s just a hilarious show, but it also takes moments to be very deep and meaningful.” —maryk4f1b865b3

Stream it now on Netflix.

The CW

Sex and the City (1998–2004)

“It’s full of relationship advice, friendship struggles, and multiple points of view regarding the independence all women should have in their lives, especially in their twenties.” —raquelg47e88a21c

Stream it now on HBO Go.

HBO

Queer Eye (2018–present)

“It’s one of the most inspirational shows I’ve ever seen. They attack issues that everyone deals with, make you laugh, and inspire you to be your best self.” —sayani

Stream it now on Netflix.

Netflix

Parenthood (2010–2015)

“Being in your twenties, you need to realize how important your family is, especially your parents. Your parents are getting older along with you, so it’s important to appreciate them. It also revolves a lot around sibling relationships and learning to appreciate those too.” —sabrinag45fab1008

Stream it now on Hulu.

NBC

The Mindy Project (2012–2017)

“It was so relatable to me. She looked like a real person and she knew her worth. She gave me the confidence to be myself and go for what I want.” —samanthah47d5ffb80

Stream it now on Hulu.

Hulu

The Golden Girls (1985–1992)

“This prepared me for the reality of adulthood and taught me how to keep a good sense of humor when dealing with life’s problems.” —amif3

Stream it now on Hulu.

NBC

How to Make It in America (2010–2011)

“It’s about two friends, Ben and Cam, who, after a few personal and professional failures, become tired of sitting back and watching their friends achieve their dreams. So, they decide to start up a denim line. If you’re in a creative field, or want to be, you’ll definitely relate to their struggle and hustle to be successful.” —faceghostta

Stream it now on HBO Go.

HBO

The Office (2005–2013)

“If you’re working or have ever worked in an office, you’ll realize how relatable this show is. It deals with issues like figuring out where your life is headed, finding a partner, and workplace friendships.” —skipnees

Stream now on Netflix.

NBC

New Girl (2011–present)

“I think it really embodies what it is like to be in your twenties. All of the characters go through struggles like searching for a job, getting fired, struggling financially, and of course, finding love. I love that it covers such a wide range of topics but still approaches everything with light-hearted humor!” —georgiaq

Stream it now on Netflix.

Fox

NBC

Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt (2015–present)

“I had just moved to a new city when that show came out and I was extremely homesick and insecure, but then I watched Kimmy and felt all of her inspiring positivity.” —cryslibs

Stream it now on Netflix.

Netflix

Showtime

Halt and Catch Fire (2014–2017)

“It’s a realistic portrayal of the tough decisions that either bring us closer to our friends or push us further away. As a twentysomething just beginning my career, it really inspired me. The show helped me deal with the fact that I’ve had to make some tough personal decisions in my twenties.” —akadiscospider

Stream it now on Netflix.

AMC

Girls (2012–2017)

“It’s realistic because it shows that things don’t always end up according to plan. It covers so many ‘wake-up call’ moments people experience when becoming an adult!” —jessh40bc35850

Stream it now on HBO Go.

HBO

Steven Universe (2013–present)

“It’s really heartwarming, funny, and cute, as well as heartbreakingly sad at times. It delves deep into issues of friendship, ethics, self-love, and the really meaningful aspects of being human with finesse, warmth, and humor. Every single character is relatable and layered, and the cast is diverse and amazingly talented.” —elsab4278daa9f

Stream it now on Hulu.

Cartoon Network

Seinfeld (1989–1998)

“It’s so iconic and the comedy holds up so well. I watched it when I was a kid, but my boyfriend and I started watching it now and it’s even more relatable. It’s so hilarious and a good escape on bad days.” —shelbys4c49fd0c1

Stream it now on Hulu.

NBC

This Is Us (2016–present)

“You learn about how people experience the same things differently and it’s just really good.” —marisaa4ed676004

Stream it now on Hulu.

NBC

Desperate Housewives (2004–2012)

“This is the show that every single person in the world should watch at some point or another, not only because it’s a lot of fun, but also because the narratives are wise as hell and extremely relatable. They tackle friendship, love, mistakes, pain, grief, and even vengeance. It gives a lot of good advice on every little thing you have to face trough the years.” —Dénes Nagy on Facebook

Stream it now on Hulu.

ABC

The Wonder Years (1988–1993)

“It made me truly value all the relationships in my life and come to terms with what it means to grow and mature!” —angelar443efb95e

You can purchase on iTunes or Amazon.

ABC

NBC / ABC

Roseanne (1988–1997)

“I started watching Roseanne right after college and it’s a comedy series everyone should watch. Not only was it one of the first sitcoms to really show a dysfunctional, normal family, but Roseanne was ahead of its time. The series tackles birth control, abortion, gay marriage, domestic abuse, and so much more.” —noradominick

Stream it now on Amazon Prime.

ABC

Imposters (2017–present)

“As a 23-year-old trying to find myself, watching the characters find themselves really spoke to me.” —theresag46c7a972a

Stream it now on Netflix.

Netflix

BoJack Horseman (2014–present)

“It perfectly encapsulates what it feels like to never be good enough, to never feel like you are enough for yourself, which sums up a lot of my twenties. It doesn’t always end on a happy note, which I think is refreshing, and BoJack really feels proud of small accomplishments which, honestly, same.” —lsanders2016

Stream it now on Netflix.

Netflix

Note: Submissions have been edited for length and/or clarity.

0 notes

cinephiled-com · 8 years ago

Text

New Post has been published on Cinephiled

New Post has been published on http://www.cinephiled.com/interview-thomas-sadoski-shirley-maclaine-ageism-hollywood-last-word/

Interview: Thomas Sadoski on Shirley MacLaine, Ageism in Hollywood, and ‘The Last Word’

In Mark Pellington’s The Last Word, Oscar winner Shirley MacLaine plays Harriet Lauler, a once successful businesswoman in tight control of every aspect of her life. As she reflects upon her accomplishments, she’s suddenly inspired to engage a young local writer, Anne Sherman (Amanda Seyfried), to pen her obituary before the fact. When the initial result doesn’t meet Harriet’s expectations, she sets out to reshape the way she is remembered, with Anne dragged along as an unwilling accomplice. As the journey unfolds, the two women develop a unique bond which alters not only Harriet’s legacy, but also Anne’s future. In one of the film’s surprising developments, Harriet gets a job as a DJ on the radio where she impresses the music-loving station manager (Thomas Sadoski) with her expertise. The Last Word also stars Anne Heche and AnnJewel Lee Dixon. I sat down with Sadoski (The Newsroom, Life in Pieces) to discuss what it was like working with the talented and formidable MacLaine.

Danny Miller: I have to say what a thrill it was for me, being a classic movie lover, to see Shirley MacLaine back in a true starring role that is worthy of her talents.

Thomas Sadoski: Absolutely! It was amazing working with her — when you’re in the presence of true greatness, you know it. My God, she is special.

Do have a favorite Shirley MacLaine film?

I mean, how can you even choose? The Apartment, Sweet Charity, Terms of Endearment, Steel Magnolias, I couldn’t possibly pick a favorite, it’s non-stop with her. If I started down that road, I’d starting going “Oh, but wait…oh, but wait!” And all of that history walks into the room with her.

I always got the impression from MacLaine that she is not someone who suffers fools —

AT ALL! She’s definitely a commanding force on set but she’s earned that. And the thing is, why should ANY of us suffer fools gladly? Isn’t that how we ended up in our current political situation? We’ve been suffering fools for a while now instead of saying, “Oh, that’s just dumb, let’s move on.”

What do you think you most learned from working with Shirley MacLaine?

Shirley is very self-possessed. It’s an extraordinary thing to witness and I learned so much from her because of it. There’s something so great about her attitude of “Life is too short to waste time on this, let’s talk about something else.”

Even though Hollywood still worships the youth culture, I have to say it’s been exciting to see people from MacLaine’s generation get more juicy roles lately. Like Jane Fonda and Lily Tomlin starring in Grace and Frankie, it’s a good sign!

Yes, goddammit, let’s bring out Jane and Lily and Shirley while we have them, let’s get every last bit of artistic exploration that these people can give us, why would we waste that opportunity?

I go nuts whenever I hear movie executives talking about that coveted 18-24 demographic — and the implication that such people never want to see older actors in important roles, it’s ridiculous.

I agree, and I don’t think it’s ever been true. Except for the fucking MBA asshole graduates from the Wharton School of Business who took over the studios. I miss the David O. Selznicks of the world who understood that audiences appreciate quality. When it all becomes a bean counting game, the opportunities for great people to do great work evaporates.

And yet that kind of thinking still exists — as if young people can’t bear to look at anyone over 40 on the screen.

I never understood that crap either. When I was 18 years old, the actors that I looked up to artistically, the actors I knew that were going to give me extraordinary performances were people like Spencer Tracy, Katharine Hepburn, Shirley MacLaine — I was watching the movies that they had made. I was a huge fan of Jimmy Stewart, Cary Grant, Marlene Dietrich, these were the people I wanted to watch even if they were no longer getting opportunities. The closest thing I was seeing in my own generation were people like Daniel Day-Lewis and Meryl Streep, and occasionally when they would “allow” people like Shirley to star in a film it would be really special. I didn’t give two shits about going to see movies starring people my age.

At least that ageism is somewhat better on the stage where you’ve done so much great work. Have you had the chance to work with some of the greats from past generations?

Yes, so many wonderful actors. Stockard Channing, Linda Lavin, Lois Smith who is just an extraordinary creature of the theater. Then you go back and say, “Oh, there she is in Rebel Without a Cause!” I’ve worked with a lot of them and I loved every second of it, I was in heaven doing that stuff, these are extraordinary people who have a hell of a lot of stories to tell and they do it brilliantly. Being onstage with Stockard and Linda going toe-to-toe with each other during Other Desert Cities was the highlight of my career. And then Stacy Keach would wander in every once in a while and also be incredible.

Was it Amanda Seyfried who brought you onto this film?

Yes! Someone else was supposed to do it originally but he had to pull out at the last minute, right before they were supposed to start shooting. I happened to be in L. A. working on my series and Amanda said, “Tommy’s here, let’s just get him for that part,” and they were like, “Oh yeah, that guy from The Newsroom?” so they called me up and asked if I could make it happen with my schedule. I jumped on board.

Does playing the manager of this radio station who is so knowledgeable about music fit your profile in real life?

A little, but I think I have yet to do the role that is really close to who I am. If ever do that, it will probably be in the theater and something from the Tennessee Williams or Eugene O’Neil world!

Oh, interesting! Do you have one of their plays in mind when you say that?

Well, Alison Pill and I just did a staged reading of Williams’ A Night of the Iguana at the Pasadena Playhouse a few nights ago and it has been a lifetime goal of mine to get my mouth around those words. It was every bit as frustrating and inspiring and challenging as I thought it would be. Good God, could that man could write! That’s the kind of stuff I most want to do.

You’ve done such great work on the stage and in small, quirky films. Were you surprised to find yourself in a network sitcom?

Yes! I want to be doing independent film and theater that pushes the boundaries, things that are honest human experiences. But then somebody said, “Hey, have you ever considered doing a half-hour comedy on CBS?” I never had, but I was getting very sick of hearing things like, “Well, the director and writer love you but the studio says you’re not famous enough so we can’t hire you.” I was so fucking sick of that horrible cycle and I thought, “How do you get beyond that?” So I took a look at the script for Life in Pieces and thought it was really funny. Then they said Dianne Wiest and James Brolin will play your parents,” and I said, “Holy shit, what am I waiting for?” I never thought I could do something like this so it was a real challenge. And I’m learning a lot from those people.

Everything you do, including that series The Slap and that amazing Sarah Silverman film, I Smile Back, always rings so true. I hope you get a chance to do a full production of that Tennessee Williams play.

You and me both, my friend, you and me both!

youtube

#Interviews #What's Hot

0 notes

topmixtrends · 7 years ago

Link

TEMPTED TO SKIP OVER anything to do with aging? You’re not alone. Few respectable philosophers have tackled the topic since Cicero in 45 BCE. So hats off to eminent scholars Martha C. Nussbaum and Saul Levmore for stepping into the breach. Good news for the extra-averse: the authors are quick to assure us that their new book, Aging Thoughtfully: Conversations about Retirement, Romance, Wrinkles, and Regret, “is certainly not about dying, gracefully or otherwise.”

The book’s form was inspired by Cicero’s De Senectute (On Aging), a conversation between the philosopher and his best friend, Atticus, when both were in their 60s. In Aging Thoughtfully, eight pairs of essays tackle various aspects of later life, from the nature of friendship and family relationships to the loss of physical and mental control. Drawing on high culture and low, the authors make no attempt to be definitive or detached. Nussbaum, a renowned philosopher, focuses on issues of ethics and emotional life, while Levmore, a lawyer-economist, takes a more pragmatic tack.

Ancient Greeks and Romans could expect to live to around 35, compared to almost 79 for Americans today. Our grandchildren may well become centenarians. This is new ground, culturally and biologically. Roles, institutions, and attitudes have yet to catch up, so it behooves us to come out of our don’t-want-to-think-about-it foxholes, reflect on the terrain ahead, and help to shape it. To that end, this erudite and entertaining book offers an abundance of guidance. Few of us, as the authors point out, feel comfortable talking about how to pass on property to our children, or how our bodies are changing, or how we hope to be remembered. Aging Thoughtfully ventures deliberately into such awkward terrain.

The book tackles a wide range of topics: bequests, retirement, plastic surgery, philanthropy, and May-December romance, among others. “We have tried to bring fresh approaches to these and other subjects,” the authors write, “to show that thinking and arguing about them is not only practical, but also one of the great pleasures of aging.” It is, indeed, because aging is living, and good conversation is one of life’s delights. Thinking about aging also makes good sense: the more we know about the process, the less terror it holds, and the better prepared we are for the old age we want.

Some chapters consist of Levmore responding to Nussbaum, or vice versa. Sometimes the two square off, as in the chapter on retirement policy. Levmore makes a persuasive case for reinstating a mandatory retirement age, which he argues could reduce rather than encourage discrimination against older workers. Nussbaum counters fiercely, calling mandatory retirement “one of the great moral evils of our times” and citing Mill’s justification for ending discrimination against women: “namely, the advantage of basing central social institutions ‘on justice rather than injustice.’”

As Nussbaum notes, it took a revolution to raise consciousness about the effects of sexism on women’s lives. When it comes to ageism, that revolution is only now gathering steam, so perhaps it’s unfair to critique the authors for not fully reckoning with their own negative — largely unconscious — feelings about age and aging. Age prejudice affects us all, of course, but if we are to age not just thoughtfully but as equal citizens to the end, we must move beyond our ingrained biases. As they grapple with the meanings of our march through life, Nussbaum and Levmore make clear how far we still have to go.

Part of the problem is semantic: the authors “see aging as a time of life, just like childhood, young adulthood, and middle age.” But aging is lifelong, not something that kicks in somewhere north of 40. Better, then, to call that stage “late life” or “elderhood,” and to refrain from using the word “aging” to describe activities and feelings that are age-independent, as the overwhelming majority are. Aging is heterogeneous, as the authors establish early on: the longer we live, the more different from each other we become. Better, then, to reject terms like “the aged” and “the elderly,” which imply the opposite — membership in some homogenous group — and which people never use to describe themselves.

Another overarching characteristic of aging, acknowledged early and often by both authors, is that it is stigmatized. That stigma is rooted in denial — our insistence that we’re “not old,” even as we enter our final decades. “Us versus them” thinking underlies all prejudice; the greatest irony of ageism is that the “other” is our own future selves. At 70 and 64, respectively, Nussbaum and Levmore are writing not about them (“the aged,” the frail, the bingo-players at the senior center), but about us: everyone with more road behind them than ahead. In an ageist world, to acknowledge and even embrace our aging — to challenge its representation as decline alone — is a radical act. Aging thoughtfully involves it, and age equity demands it.

A primary source of age stigma, as the authors address in Chapter Four, is the fact that older bodies, especially women’s, are perceived as unattractive and even repulsive. That distaste should feel familiar; all marginalized people have heard that it’s “natural” for others to be physically repelled by them. As Nussbaum writes, “the idea that the female body is disgusting [is] a staple of misogyny the world over.” She acknowledges that this bias, a physical demotion that awaits us all, perpetuates inequality. Yet, distressingly, she posits that, because evolution favors the reproductively fit, there’s an “element of truth in the stereotype.” Older people are indeed closer to death, but even if revulsion at physical decline is partly to blame for the stigma, why should we give it a pass? Ageism is no more embodied or “natural” than other forms of prejudice, ableism in particular. All such “-isms” are socially constructed, as Nussbaum acknowledges. They’re not about biology, they’re about power. Unless social oppression is called out, we experience that lesser life as “just the way it is.” The reason hundreds of thousands of buff boomers can’t land a job interview isn’t because they have one foot in the grave, it’s because they face entrenched discrimination. Hearteningly, Nussbaum ends the chapter with a rousing call “to oppose this type of immoral — and in many nations illegal — discrimination […] [and join] a movement against self-disgust.” Huzzah!

Chapter Five, “Looking Back,” discusses the nature and purpose of retrospection, comparing the perils of living in the past with the emptiness of inhabiting a hedonistic eternal present. Citing Eugene O’Neill’s Long Day’s Journey into Night, whose characters are immersed in their painful memories, Nussbaum writes, “Whatever retrospective emotions an aging life admits and even seeks, surely this way of avoiding present accountability is both futile, accomplishing nothing good, and ethically heinous.” Her discussion is relevant to all of life, not just old age. In O’Neill’s great play, both parents and offspring are trapped, waking up a day older into an “aging life.”

Levmore rises to the defense of self-absorbed retirees who opt for an eternal present among others of similar age and background. “If this segregation seems like a step back in time, we ought not blame it on real-estate developers,” he writes. Agreed — how about blaming it on a culture that ushers older people out of sight? Given that the most important component of a good old age is a robust social network, what are the downsides to having friends only of one’s own age? If diversity in life is a good thing, why isn’t age a criterion just like race and class, and why shouldn’t older people benefit from this multiplicity as well?

“Why does age matter in romance?” asks Chapter Six, which is packed with insights into how gender and class shape love in late life. Nussbaum’s essay compares a middle-aged woman’s romance with a vapid teenager in Richard Strauss’s Der Rosenkavalier to the love between Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra. As long as both parties are grown-ups and full participants, she observes, “[a]ge difference in itself means little or nothing.” She concludes by critiquing “the staggering lie […] that love arrives only in neat couples, and that a person can love only one person at a time.” This is a radical thought and an eminently sensible one. Consider sharing!

In Chapter Seven, Levmore offers a raft of economic proposals to assist the (regrettably labeled) “elderly poor,” but he frames them in a deeply problematic way. Arguing that retirees won’t benefit from paid parental leave and a higher minimum wage, for example, ignores the fact that families are multigenerational and that a viable social compact for longer lives should support transfers of all kinds across generations. By the same token, older people should pay school taxes, not only for the greater good but so the guy delivering their oxygen tanks can read the instructions. Yet Levmore disagrees. While praising the effectiveness of programs such as early childhood intervention and job training for young adults, he claims that “it is impossible to make such a case for programs or transfers aimed at the elderly.” And, even more bluntly: “There are superior moral and economic claims when it comes to needy children, and while those arguments and sentiments do not preclude helping the elderly poor, they form a serious barrier in a world with limited resources.” In a book about dealing sensibly with longevity, an argument like this is more than confounding — it’s shocking.

Such zero-sum reasoning pitting generations against each other should always be challenged, not least for ethical reasons — and not only because a robust social safety net benefits everyone sooner or later. In theory at least, we no longer allocate resources by race or gender; why should it be acceptable to weigh the needs of the young against the old? Resources are not inherently scarce, and there are plenty of ways to finance programs that support younger and older people, such as raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations, hiking the capital gains tax, eliminating the carried interest loophole, and cutting military spending. It should be said that Levmore redeems himself in the last chapter with terrific advice on how and when to part with resources. (Hint: Deferral is unwise.)

Nussbaum counters with a welcome — and thoroughly idealistic — approach that focuses not on incapacity but its opposite: “what people can actually do and be.” This agenda requires a set of policies that recognize the extreme diversity of older people and the way we age, combats ageist stereotypes, and supports and protects agency around such priorities as end-of-life choices, privacy, sexual safety and choice, and access to culture. Isn’t this the world we all hope to inhabit to the end, no matter what our circumstances might be?

“The pervasive feeling that capability losses in aging are just ‘natural’ is a huge impediment to the debate we badly need,” Nussbaum writes. Yes, it is, and yes, we do. We have a unique and unprecedented opportunity to exploit the human capital of millions of healthy, educated adults like never before in history. Of course, much about aging is difficult, but much of the difficulty is constructed or compounded by ageism. Of course, aging involves loss, but it also deeply enriches. Let’s tell both sides of the story, and work toward a world where no one ages out of having value as a human being. Aging Thoughtfully advances that goal, portraying the aging process as both universal and utterly idiosyncratic, and urging us to learn from each other and our shared history.

Ashton Applewhite is the author of This Chair Rocks: A Manifesto Against Ageism (2016) and a leading spokesperson for a movement to mobilize against discrimination on the basis of age.

The post A Stigma Rooted in Denial: On Ageism and “Aging Thoughtfully” appeared first on Los Angeles Review of Books.

from Los Angeles Review of Books http://ift.tt/2yo7cQH

#Los Angeles Review of Books #topmixtrends

0 notes