A.A. asks, "Dear Miss Kitty,
I hope you are meeting the heat and humidity with a healthy dose of conditioned air.
Do you know we lub you and if so, do you know we lub you *this* much?
Thanks as always,
AA"
My air is as nicely conditioned as my hair, and I owe my hair to Lamas. Not Lorenzo. Though he had nice hair back in the day, too, but I doubt he used this stuff 'cuz I don't think it was around then. But side note: I recently got about seven inches chopped off of my hair and my stylist was floored by how healthy it was, all the way to the tips, with no dye or product or extensions or anything in it. Which I took to mean, I grow good hair. And condition it well.
Anyway. I digress.
I have to admit, I was a bit puzzled by your question, as I'm not necessarily up with all of the hip lingo the youngsters are using these days. I was working on a film not too long ago with a group of kids who all thought it was kitschy that I use the word "groovy." It's coming back, man, just you wait. So I had to look up what "lub" means. In large part to make sure you didn't just forget the "e" on the end, in which case, this is a much more personal question than we should probably be posting on the interweb. And according to the Urban Dictionary, "lub" is one of those totally non-committal words that wusses use when they don't have the balls to tell someone how they really feel. Or when they're too afraid to admit how they feel. It's described as being something between like and love, which in my day, we referred to as like-liking someone. As in, "I like him, but I don't like-him-like-him, so I said no when he asked me to Homecoming."
Now, I know you're married to a lovely woman, which may explain the usage of "lub" as opposed to "like" or "love," but you also say, "we," which leads me to believe I have a lot of sort-of-timid-non-committal friends which is mildly disturbing. I'd like to think the sentiment behind the message was a sweet one, but I'm just sort of left feeling like I'm stuck in limbo, not knowing where I really stand with anyone. And apparently, these are very strong non-committal feelings. I don't even know how that works. Did I do something to offend you all? How is it that I'm sitting on the fence between like and love and y'all can't make up your minds? If I was taller, would that help? Or if I gave everybody kittens for Christmas? Hell, I'd even call you all really mean names so I'd move over into hate territory because even that is clearer than this whole "lub" thing.
I need to lie down now.
Thank you, A.A. for your question. Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Showing posts with label confusion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label confusion. Show all posts
Monday, July 11, 2011
Friday, February 11, 2011
Facebook Parents
D.N. asks, "I read the following on an old high school friend's Facebook status update this week.
'My daughter just came home from school and ran to her room, slamming the door. Even though she's got the music turned up pretty loud, I can still hear her heartbreaking sobs of anguish through her door. I try and I try to get her to talk to me, but she just asks me to leave her alone no matter how many times I tell her to confide in me. All I can think is that something horrible happened to her at school today. Doesn't she know that I went to high school too and could probably solve whatever her silly little problem is? Somebody please tell me what to do!'
What followed was an exceptionally long list of comments, all of which empathized with the mother before going off on their own kids' selfish behavior.
No one, especially the mom in this case, stopped to think that, gee maybe something horrible DID happen at school that day. Maybe it was all the young woman could do to simply 'hold it together' until the end of the day where she could (supposedly) seek refuge in the only 'safe' place she has to go to. Maybe the only thing that could be possibly WORSE than whatever happened is to have her mom -- IN A PUBLIC FORUM -- THAT HER 'FRIENDS' FROM SCHOOL CAN EASILY ACCESS -- complain about her level of distress and her supposed selfishness for not wanting to immediately share the 'silly' details of her 'silly' problem.
My question, I guess, is this. Are Facebook parents the most narcisistic generation of parents in the history of the world? Or are we just the dumbest?
D. N."
Hi, D.N.
I don't think this is necessarily a case of Narcissism or stupidity. Let me explain. No, there is too much; let me sum up. Buttercup is marry Humperdink in little less a half an hour. All we have to do is get in, break up the wedding, steal the princess, and make our 'scape. After I kill Count Rugen.
Sorry, got a little distracted there. Back on track.
I think we need to look at this in the proper context. Parents today have to deal with all sorts of things that parents of previous generations didn't have to think about at all. The whole concept of "adolescence" is only about 100 years old - prior to that, you were a kid who became an adult. That's it. And the more we explore adolescence, the more confusing it becomes. Nowadays, you're Satan's Mistress if you spank your child, but not so long ago, children received regular beatings all in the name of "teaching them good manners." Children used to go to school and then come directly home to help out with the chores on the farm (or around the house) instead of sleeping through classes and then coming home to play World of Warcraft for six hours before bed. I'm not saying things like drugs and alcohol and sex weren't as big a deal back then, but the way we handle our children and their problems is different now. The way our children behave in school is different than it used to be, too. How many girls do you see in photographs from the 1880's wearing cut-off t-shirts and mini skirts? Not so many, right? But the way girls dress now invites all kinds of fun new slurs, taunting remarks, and derogatory terms. And we, as parents, need to learn how to help our kids through the torture chamber known as the public education system.
So your friend's kid came home all upset about something and not wanting to talk about it. Okay. Your friend wanted to talk to her kid and try to help and that is a good thing. She should be commended for her impulse. The kid should not be lambasted for her choice to not want to talk to her mom. What if the problem is that the other kids at school were teasing her for some rumor that the mom is a slut? Or what if she was found in the janitor's closet with a varsity football player and neither of them was wearing any pants? These are not the sort of things you want to talk to your mom about. In the case of the first thing, nobody wants to have to ask their mom if she is a slut because neither answer is a good one. If she's not, you look like an ass for asking in the first place and if she is, you get to have nightmares for the rest of your natural born life. And no teenage girl wants to talk to her mom about her super secret sex life for fear her mother will chime in with some story about her super secret sex life when she was a teenager and we're back to having nightmares for the rest of your natural born life again.
I guess it is possible that the issue at school was something that might not be completely mortifying to talk to one's own mother about. Maybe she got a bad grade on a test or tripped on her own shoelace walking down the hall. But what the mom needs to realize is that everyone processes things in their own way. Maybe what the kid needs is to curl up in bed and listen to music for a while until the embarrassment dies down a bit and she can talk about it. The simple fact that the mother considers whatever is causing her daughter's "heartbreaking sobs of anguish" is a "silly little problem," means that there is some sort of disconnect happening here. And maybe the daughter knows her mom will think the problem is silly and wants to be a little more composed before they chat about it so she can show her mom that really, she is fine as opposed to her mom laughing it off with, "I was in high school once, too, you know."
And the other thing about the "I was in high school once, too, you know," defense. Yes, you were. But you have not been in high school for several years. You may remember that "the love of your life" dumped you two weeks before the prom, but since that time, you met your husband who proved to be the real love of your life and you've had kids and you have a mortgage now and have been to seventeen fancy dress fundraisers so the whole prom thing isn't that big of a deal anymore. It's called "healing and moving on." Yes, you lived through it and came out on the other side. No, you don't actually remember what it was like when it happened. You have the luxury of looking at the event through Detachment Glasses. When you remember it, you look back on a younger version of yourself who you know has great things in store. But you have forgotten what it felt like to not see good things in store for you down the line. So in order to understand what your daughter is going through, you need to put it in terms of your own life where you are now. Maybe her boyfriend dumped her. Imagine your husband came home one day, packed a suitcase, and left you for his secretary. That is how she's feeling now. Empathize with that, as opposed to minimizing her problem as some silly high school trifle.
Which brings us back around to Facebook. I think the mom has the right to ask her friends for help in this situation, because I'll let you in on a little secret: none of us know what we're doing. Parents (the good ones, anyway) always think they're going to fuck up their kids and that is the most terrifying thought in the world. Your friend is wondering if she's a bad mom for letting her daughter cry, or if she's a bad mom for trying to force her daughter to talk. It feels like a no-win situation. She wants to help and doesn't know how. So she asks her friends for advice. I think that's okay. I think the problem is that the friends take sides. They should know better than to bash a kid on Facebook for having a bad day.
So to answer your question, Facebook parents are not narcissistic, nor are they dumb. They're confused and lost and reaching out for help, just like the rest of us. And no, the daughter is not being selfish because she wants to process her horrible day in her own way. The mom is right to be concerned, but at the moment, it probably best for her to let her daughter know that she is there, she loves her no matter what, and then wait for the daughter to come talk to her in her own time. But yeah, the mom's friends are probably making things worse in their attempts to comfort the mom. They should watch that.
Thank you, D.N. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
'My daughter just came home from school and ran to her room, slamming the door. Even though she's got the music turned up pretty loud, I can still hear her heartbreaking sobs of anguish through her door. I try and I try to get her to talk to me, but she just asks me to leave her alone no matter how many times I tell her to confide in me. All I can think is that something horrible happened to her at school today. Doesn't she know that I went to high school too and could probably solve whatever her silly little problem is? Somebody please tell me what to do!'
What followed was an exceptionally long list of comments, all of which empathized with the mother before going off on their own kids' selfish behavior.
No one, especially the mom in this case, stopped to think that, gee maybe something horrible DID happen at school that day. Maybe it was all the young woman could do to simply 'hold it together' until the end of the day where she could (supposedly) seek refuge in the only 'safe' place she has to go to. Maybe the only thing that could be possibly WORSE than whatever happened is to have her mom -- IN A PUBLIC FORUM -- THAT HER 'FRIENDS' FROM SCHOOL CAN EASILY ACCESS -- complain about her level of distress and her supposed selfishness for not wanting to immediately share the 'silly' details of her 'silly' problem.
My question, I guess, is this. Are Facebook parents the most narcisistic generation of parents in the history of the world? Or are we just the dumbest?
D. N."
Hi, D.N.
I don't think this is necessarily a case of Narcissism or stupidity. Let me explain. No, there is too much; let me sum up. Buttercup is marry Humperdink in little less a half an hour. All we have to do is get in, break up the wedding, steal the princess, and make our 'scape. After I kill Count Rugen.
Sorry, got a little distracted there. Back on track.
I think we need to look at this in the proper context. Parents today have to deal with all sorts of things that parents of previous generations didn't have to think about at all. The whole concept of "adolescence" is only about 100 years old - prior to that, you were a kid who became an adult. That's it. And the more we explore adolescence, the more confusing it becomes. Nowadays, you're Satan's Mistress if you spank your child, but not so long ago, children received regular beatings all in the name of "teaching them good manners." Children used to go to school and then come directly home to help out with the chores on the farm (or around the house) instead of sleeping through classes and then coming home to play World of Warcraft for six hours before bed. I'm not saying things like drugs and alcohol and sex weren't as big a deal back then, but the way we handle our children and their problems is different now. The way our children behave in school is different than it used to be, too. How many girls do you see in photographs from the 1880's wearing cut-off t-shirts and mini skirts? Not so many, right? But the way girls dress now invites all kinds of fun new slurs, taunting remarks, and derogatory terms. And we, as parents, need to learn how to help our kids through the torture chamber known as the public education system.
So your friend's kid came home all upset about something and not wanting to talk about it. Okay. Your friend wanted to talk to her kid and try to help and that is a good thing. She should be commended for her impulse. The kid should not be lambasted for her choice to not want to talk to her mom. What if the problem is that the other kids at school were teasing her for some rumor that the mom is a slut? Or what if she was found in the janitor's closet with a varsity football player and neither of them was wearing any pants? These are not the sort of things you want to talk to your mom about. In the case of the first thing, nobody wants to have to ask their mom if she is a slut because neither answer is a good one. If she's not, you look like an ass for asking in the first place and if she is, you get to have nightmares for the rest of your natural born life. And no teenage girl wants to talk to her mom about her super secret sex life for fear her mother will chime in with some story about her super secret sex life when she was a teenager and we're back to having nightmares for the rest of your natural born life again.
I guess it is possible that the issue at school was something that might not be completely mortifying to talk to one's own mother about. Maybe she got a bad grade on a test or tripped on her own shoelace walking down the hall. But what the mom needs to realize is that everyone processes things in their own way. Maybe what the kid needs is to curl up in bed and listen to music for a while until the embarrassment dies down a bit and she can talk about it. The simple fact that the mother considers whatever is causing her daughter's "heartbreaking sobs of anguish" is a "silly little problem," means that there is some sort of disconnect happening here. And maybe the daughter knows her mom will think the problem is silly and wants to be a little more composed before they chat about it so she can show her mom that really, she is fine as opposed to her mom laughing it off with, "I was in high school once, too, you know."
And the other thing about the "I was in high school once, too, you know," defense. Yes, you were. But you have not been in high school for several years. You may remember that "the love of your life" dumped you two weeks before the prom, but since that time, you met your husband who proved to be the real love of your life and you've had kids and you have a mortgage now and have been to seventeen fancy dress fundraisers so the whole prom thing isn't that big of a deal anymore. It's called "healing and moving on." Yes, you lived through it and came out on the other side. No, you don't actually remember what it was like when it happened. You have the luxury of looking at the event through Detachment Glasses. When you remember it, you look back on a younger version of yourself who you know has great things in store. But you have forgotten what it felt like to not see good things in store for you down the line. So in order to understand what your daughter is going through, you need to put it in terms of your own life where you are now. Maybe her boyfriend dumped her. Imagine your husband came home one day, packed a suitcase, and left you for his secretary. That is how she's feeling now. Empathize with that, as opposed to minimizing her problem as some silly high school trifle.
Which brings us back around to Facebook. I think the mom has the right to ask her friends for help in this situation, because I'll let you in on a little secret: none of us know what we're doing. Parents (the good ones, anyway) always think they're going to fuck up their kids and that is the most terrifying thought in the world. Your friend is wondering if she's a bad mom for letting her daughter cry, or if she's a bad mom for trying to force her daughter to talk. It feels like a no-win situation. She wants to help and doesn't know how. So she asks her friends for advice. I think that's okay. I think the problem is that the friends take sides. They should know better than to bash a kid on Facebook for having a bad day.
So to answer your question, Facebook parents are not narcissistic, nor are they dumb. They're confused and lost and reaching out for help, just like the rest of us. And no, the daughter is not being selfish because she wants to process her horrible day in her own way. The mom is right to be concerned, but at the moment, it probably best for her to let her daughter know that she is there, she loves her no matter what, and then wait for the daughter to come talk to her in her own time. But yeah, the mom's friends are probably making things worse in their attempts to comfort the mom. They should watch that.
Thank you, D.N. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Star Signs
This will be a question and answer in many parts. Think of it as a play in three acts, if you'd like. If you don't like, just think of it as someone who blathered out many variations on a theme all in one email answered by someone who is trying her damdest to make sure she doesn't miss anything.
R.J. asks, "Dear Miss Kitty,
What sign am I?"
I don't know - when were you born?
"What with the discovery of a 'new' 13th sign (which I still don't fully understand; please explain!) throwing all of the previous star signs out of alignment, does this mean if I'm a former fire sign that all my years of tempestuous temper and passionate lovemaking have been a sham? And if I'm a former earth sign does this mean my years of fiscal responsibility have been a lie?"
Okay, this bit is confused, and I don't just mean me.
First of all, the 13th sign isn't new. It was there, right at the beginning with the rest of them until the Babylonians decided to chuck it. They got bored and felt like throwing things away. They could have gone clubbing, but nobody had invented the disco ball yet, so eliminating a zodiac sign sounded like a much more fun way to spend a Friday night. Plus, doing so had the added benefit of making twelve signs to go with twelve months in a year (and avoiding that scary, scary number 13). Though why they couldn't line up the months with the signs has always been a little puzzling to me. If Aries is supposed to be the first sign that starts on the vernal equinox, why not just say, "April starts on the vernal equinox, so anyone born between April 1 and April 30 is an Aries?" That might make this whole thing a little easier to digest. Until you want to throw Ophiuchus back into the mix and you get, "Okay, anyone born in the first two weeks of November is a Scorpio, anyone born in the third week is an Ophiuchus, and anyone born in the last week of November or anytime in December is a Sagittarius." Like there isn't enough crap going on in November and December to begin with. And while we're on that, if the start of the zodiac calendar is the vernal equinox, what's with this whole "New Year's Day is January 1" thing? I honestly think this whole thing could be straightened out if people had just sat down for a moment, had some tea, and thought about things logically. But they were probably burning too much "incense" at the time and the dragon people told them to make it all as confusing as possible.
You know that time and calendars are man-made constructs, right? And that the calendar we use in the West is not the only one that exists? You've heard of Rosh Hashanah and the Chinese New Year, yes? Not everyone keeps time the same way, so keep that in mind, too, as you try to muddle your way through all of this date-based stuff.
But what is kind of striking to me about these questions is that you don't seem to know if you are/used to be a fire sign or an earth sign. There are a million websites out there that will tell you what you are if you know when you were born and you seem the sort who can navigate the interweb even just a little, seeing as you emailed me. This confusion could also seem to indicate that you are a passionate, yet fiscally responsible person, so you could be the sort who generally laughs in the face of all of this astrological mumbo-jumbo anyway, in which case, your current panic is kind of funny.
I'm sorry. I don't mean to chuckle. But chuckling is fun.
"As a former Libra, has my interest in balancing the forces of good and evil merely been an inappropriate hobby? What is happening? I feel as if the cornerstones of my personality are being torn asunder!
R. J."
What is happening here, is that you're taking this WAY too seriously. Especially if you live/were born in the Western hemisphere. See, over here in the West, we tend to rely on Western Astrology, wherein the signs of the zodiac are aligned with the seasons, as opposed to actual sun positions. In which case, nothing has changed. Absolutely nothing. Though I will say, as an aside, it's been bothering me for a few years now that the seasons seem to be off from the calendar by about a month. It doesn't really get cold until January or February, and it doesn't really start to warm up again until about May or June, which would put the seasons off by about a month, too, in which case, you would have to worry. Or, we could just have a "redo" of a particularly bad month so we could just reset things. I'd pick February of 2010. That was not one of my favorites. Anyway.
I think it is also important to note that all of this astrology stuff depends on when you were born. As in, the time and date you were physically expelled from your mother's womb and what was going on in the heavens at that exact moment. Meaning if you are more than a year old, I don't think this whole shift should apply to you. Think of it as a "grandfather clause." At the time you were born, astrology said you were a certain sign, so you shall remain a certain sign. Just like the ethnicity you were born is the ethnicity you will remain your entire life. If Kenya invaded America, I wouldn't suddenly become Kenyan-American on census forms. I would still have to mark myself down as "Caucasian - Non-Hispanic." Because that's what I am. That's how I was born.
Or, if you want to overload your brain to the point where you just don't care anymore, look up your birth date in the Chinese zodiac, the tropical zodiac, the sidereal zodiac, the Indian zodiac, numerology, and make sure to find out your sun signs and your moon signs and your elementals in all of the above. Read about all of your potential personality traits. You'll start to see that there is the potential for just about anything in any one person born at any given time on any given date. You just need to figure out who you are, what is important to you, and what your favorite color is and use those things as the cornerstones of your personality.
Thank you, R.J. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
R.J. asks, "Dear Miss Kitty,
What sign am I?"
I don't know - when were you born?
"What with the discovery of a 'new' 13th sign (which I still don't fully understand; please explain!) throwing all of the previous star signs out of alignment, does this mean if I'm a former fire sign that all my years of tempestuous temper and passionate lovemaking have been a sham? And if I'm a former earth sign does this mean my years of fiscal responsibility have been a lie?"
Okay, this bit is confused, and I don't just mean me.
First of all, the 13th sign isn't new. It was there, right at the beginning with the rest of them until the Babylonians decided to chuck it. They got bored and felt like throwing things away. They could have gone clubbing, but nobody had invented the disco ball yet, so eliminating a zodiac sign sounded like a much more fun way to spend a Friday night. Plus, doing so had the added benefit of making twelve signs to go with twelve months in a year (and avoiding that scary, scary number 13). Though why they couldn't line up the months with the signs has always been a little puzzling to me. If Aries is supposed to be the first sign that starts on the vernal equinox, why not just say, "April starts on the vernal equinox, so anyone born between April 1 and April 30 is an Aries?" That might make this whole thing a little easier to digest. Until you want to throw Ophiuchus back into the mix and you get, "Okay, anyone born in the first two weeks of November is a Scorpio, anyone born in the third week is an Ophiuchus, and anyone born in the last week of November or anytime in December is a Sagittarius." Like there isn't enough crap going on in November and December to begin with. And while we're on that, if the start of the zodiac calendar is the vernal equinox, what's with this whole "New Year's Day is January 1" thing? I honestly think this whole thing could be straightened out if people had just sat down for a moment, had some tea, and thought about things logically. But they were probably burning too much "incense" at the time and the dragon people told them to make it all as confusing as possible.
You know that time and calendars are man-made constructs, right? And that the calendar we use in the West is not the only one that exists? You've heard of Rosh Hashanah and the Chinese New Year, yes? Not everyone keeps time the same way, so keep that in mind, too, as you try to muddle your way through all of this date-based stuff.
But what is kind of striking to me about these questions is that you don't seem to know if you are/used to be a fire sign or an earth sign. There are a million websites out there that will tell you what you are if you know when you were born and you seem the sort who can navigate the interweb even just a little, seeing as you emailed me. This confusion could also seem to indicate that you are a passionate, yet fiscally responsible person, so you could be the sort who generally laughs in the face of all of this astrological mumbo-jumbo anyway, in which case, your current panic is kind of funny.
I'm sorry. I don't mean to chuckle. But chuckling is fun.
"As a former Libra, has my interest in balancing the forces of good and evil merely been an inappropriate hobby? What is happening? I feel as if the cornerstones of my personality are being torn asunder!
R. J."
What is happening here, is that you're taking this WAY too seriously. Especially if you live/were born in the Western hemisphere. See, over here in the West, we tend to rely on Western Astrology, wherein the signs of the zodiac are aligned with the seasons, as opposed to actual sun positions. In which case, nothing has changed. Absolutely nothing. Though I will say, as an aside, it's been bothering me for a few years now that the seasons seem to be off from the calendar by about a month. It doesn't really get cold until January or February, and it doesn't really start to warm up again until about May or June, which would put the seasons off by about a month, too, in which case, you would have to worry. Or, we could just have a "redo" of a particularly bad month so we could just reset things. I'd pick February of 2010. That was not one of my favorites. Anyway.
I think it is also important to note that all of this astrology stuff depends on when you were born. As in, the time and date you were physically expelled from your mother's womb and what was going on in the heavens at that exact moment. Meaning if you are more than a year old, I don't think this whole shift should apply to you. Think of it as a "grandfather clause." At the time you were born, astrology said you were a certain sign, so you shall remain a certain sign. Just like the ethnicity you were born is the ethnicity you will remain your entire life. If Kenya invaded America, I wouldn't suddenly become Kenyan-American on census forms. I would still have to mark myself down as "Caucasian - Non-Hispanic." Because that's what I am. That's how I was born.
Or, if you want to overload your brain to the point where you just don't care anymore, look up your birth date in the Chinese zodiac, the tropical zodiac, the sidereal zodiac, the Indian zodiac, numerology, and make sure to find out your sun signs and your moon signs and your elementals in all of the above. Read about all of your potential personality traits. You'll start to see that there is the potential for just about anything in any one person born at any given time on any given date. You just need to figure out who you are, what is important to you, and what your favorite color is and use those things as the cornerstones of your personality.
Thank you, R.J. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Monday, January 10, 2011
Laws
H.J. asks, "Dear Miss Kitty,
I recently read that Hugh Heffner announced via Twitter his preparations to marry for a third time. Aren't there laws against this?
H.J."
Which part? Getting married, being Hugh Heffner, or announcing things via Twitter?
Actually, in all three cases, the answer is "no."
Unfortunately, the only thing that could stop Hugh Heffner from getting married would be if he announced his plans to marry the houseboy, instead of the housebunny, and even that would only stop him in certain states. No, while Harry cannot have one husband, Liz is allowed eight. It's sad, but it is good protest sign fodder.
There is also no law against being Hugh Heffner. Unless you are not Hugh Heffner and you run around telling people that you are him. Especially if you take his credit cards and social security card and stuff and buy all sorts of things. Which he could totally afford, but still. That might land you in jail, but will most likely not get him in a whole load of trouble.
And Twitter...well, there should be laws against Twitter but there aren't. Nor are there laws preventing people from announcing things there. There is a sort of unwritten rule of douchebaggery that states "If the party of the first part is unaware of the happenings in the life of the party of the second part, the party of the second part retains all rights and privileges associated with being put out that the party of the first part could not be bothered to read the Twitter account of the party of the second part. The party of the second part will not be held liable for the party of the first part missing out on any super groovy social activities due to the general disinterest of the party of the first part in not reading Twitter because, dude, I only posted it up there, like, ten times between 2 and 3am after we hit the burrito stand. What do you mean you went home and went to sleep? It's not my fault you're a wus. If you want to know what's going on, you have to read my Twitter - I'm not going to tell you otherwise, because then what would be the point of posting it on Twitter?"
Or something like that.
So, as there are no laws to prevent it, I wish Heff and his new wife all sorts of joy as they embark on this lifelong journey together. And no, she is not a gold digger.
Thank you, H.J. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
I recently read that Hugh Heffner announced via Twitter his preparations to marry for a third time. Aren't there laws against this?
H.J."
Which part? Getting married, being Hugh Heffner, or announcing things via Twitter?
Actually, in all three cases, the answer is "no."
Unfortunately, the only thing that could stop Hugh Heffner from getting married would be if he announced his plans to marry the houseboy, instead of the housebunny, and even that would only stop him in certain states. No, while Harry cannot have one husband, Liz is allowed eight. It's sad, but it is good protest sign fodder.
There is also no law against being Hugh Heffner. Unless you are not Hugh Heffner and you run around telling people that you are him. Especially if you take his credit cards and social security card and stuff and buy all sorts of things. Which he could totally afford, but still. That might land you in jail, but will most likely not get him in a whole load of trouble.
And Twitter...well, there should be laws against Twitter but there aren't. Nor are there laws preventing people from announcing things there. There is a sort of unwritten rule of douchebaggery that states "If the party of the first part is unaware of the happenings in the life of the party of the second part, the party of the second part retains all rights and privileges associated with being put out that the party of the first part could not be bothered to read the Twitter account of the party of the second part. The party of the second part will not be held liable for the party of the first part missing out on any super groovy social activities due to the general disinterest of the party of the first part in not reading Twitter because, dude, I only posted it up there, like, ten times between 2 and 3am after we hit the burrito stand. What do you mean you went home and went to sleep? It's not my fault you're a wus. If you want to know what's going on, you have to read my Twitter - I'm not going to tell you otherwise, because then what would be the point of posting it on Twitter?"
![douchebaggery](http://img1.tvloop.com/img/showpics/0d/57/l33c16eec0001_2_23265.jpg"){kind=link}
Or something like that.
So, as there are no laws to prevent it, I wish Heff and his new wife all sorts of joy as they embark on this lifelong journey together. And no, she is not a gold digger.
Thank you, H.J. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Gay Scientologists
S.B. asks, "Dear Miss Kitty,
I am torn. Part of me wants to lend actor John Travolta my heartfelt support in coming out of the closet. This part is, of course, at war with the part of me that wants to mock him out for belonging to the Church of Scientology. Which part should win?
S.B.
Mockery. Mockery always wins.
See, the thing is, I'm not terribly versed in the tenants of Scientology, but from what I can tell, homosexuality is not really, um, celebrated within the Church. So if a gay man chooses to believe in Xenu over allowing himself to be who he is...well, I'm not really in a position to judge anyone, but that sounds kind of unhealthy to me. And/or, if a person feels the need to repress such an integral part of his own personality so that he will be accepted by a bunch of people who are happy to take his money as long as he insists that he likes banging women...again, I'm not one to judge. And/or if a person subscribes to a belief system that does not allow him to be who he is...I think you get my point.
Now, there are, apparently, some gay Scientologists who say L. Ron didn't really mean it when he called homosexuals "sexual perverts," "skulking coward[s]," "far from normal and extremely dangerous to society," and "quite physically ill," or that those terms were taken out of context, or that the Church has eased up on the whole homosexuality debate since L. Ron wrote "Dianetics" in 1950. But really, you have to wonder about homosexuals who find themselves drawn to a way of life that so obviously hates them. Do they hate themselves that much? That makes me sad.
I do understand the desire to support someone's decision to come out, though. I think everyone should be able to come out in the manner of his or her own choosing when the time is right. But you and I are not therapists, counselors, or psychoanalysts. And near as I can tell, neither of us is personally involved with John Travolta, so as much as we might like to say, "Hey, John, we'll still love you if you come out (as long as you never make another movie like Battleship Earth)," I don't know that it is really our place to do that. Perhaps we are best served by mocking him for denying who he is so he can get regular thetan level readings because when one is so far removed from the subject, sometimes the only way one's voice can be heard is through mockery. And through mockery, perhaps we can help him see the contradictions in his life that need straightening out. And then, once he has come out, we can applaud him for his brave choice.
And then continue to mock him for keeping 700 copies of "Dianetics" lying around his house...
Thank you, S.B. for your question. Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
I am torn. Part of me wants to lend actor John Travolta my heartfelt support in coming out of the closet. This part is, of course, at war with the part of me that wants to mock him out for belonging to the Church of Scientology. Which part should win?
S.B.
Mockery. Mockery always wins.
See, the thing is, I'm not terribly versed in the tenants of Scientology, but from what I can tell, homosexuality is not really, um, celebrated within the Church. So if a gay man chooses to believe in Xenu over allowing himself to be who he is...well, I'm not really in a position to judge anyone, but that sounds kind of unhealthy to me. And/or, if a person feels the need to repress such an integral part of his own personality so that he will be accepted by a bunch of people who are happy to take his money as long as he insists that he likes banging women...again, I'm not one to judge. And/or if a person subscribes to a belief system that does not allow him to be who he is...I think you get my point.
Now, there are, apparently, some gay Scientologists who say L. Ron didn't really mean it when he called homosexuals "sexual perverts," "skulking coward[s]," "far from normal and extremely dangerous to society," and "quite physically ill," or that those terms were taken out of context, or that the Church has eased up on the whole homosexuality debate since L. Ron wrote "Dianetics" in 1950. But really, you have to wonder about homosexuals who find themselves drawn to a way of life that so obviously hates them. Do they hate themselves that much? That makes me sad.
I do understand the desire to support someone's decision to come out, though. I think everyone should be able to come out in the manner of his or her own choosing when the time is right. But you and I are not therapists, counselors, or psychoanalysts. And near as I can tell, neither of us is personally involved with John Travolta, so as much as we might like to say, "Hey, John, we'll still love you if you come out (as long as you never make another movie like Battleship Earth)," I don't know that it is really our place to do that. Perhaps we are best served by mocking him for denying who he is so he can get regular thetan level readings because when one is so far removed from the subject, sometimes the only way one's voice can be heard is through mockery. And through mockery, perhaps we can help him see the contradictions in his life that need straightening out. And then, once he has come out, we can applaud him for his brave choice.
And then continue to mock him for keeping 700 copies of "Dianetics" lying around his house...
Thank you, S.B. for your question. Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
"The Devil Wears Prada" - SPOILERS
L.W. asks,"Hey,
If you haven't seen the movie 'The Devil Wears Prada', then please don't read this question. I only recently saw the movie myself and enjoyed it more than I thought I would, so if you haven't seen it but plan to in the future, please stop reading now.
Dear Miss Kitty,
As Stephen Hawking once said, "the male mind is a weak tool," -- especially when it comes to understanding women. I am a guy who has somehow found myself in the middle of an argument with an old female friend and could sorely use some of your sage advice. It all began innocently enough when I finally got around to watching the film 'The Devil Wears Prada.' I enjoyed it more than I thought I would, especially the hero's journey the lead character undergoes armed only with her youthful 'courage and pluck.' What I failed to understand is why the film ends with this character getting back together with her lame boyfriend. Perhaps I failed to understand why he refused to emotionally support her for a single year working a job that would have provided her with a resume that would allow her to land any future job she chose. Instead of viewing her 'apprenticeship' as one would medical school or law school, her boyfriend and their 'friends' are shown to ridicule and undermine her at every opportunity (except when she discovers lingerie). His 'non-apology apology' at the conclusion of the film coupled with the fact that the most supportive action he ever took was feeding her leftover cheese makes it difficult for me to suspend my disbelief that this smart, charming, beautiful, hard-working woman would beg him to take her back.
So, I thought I had missed something and emailed a female friend for her take on the film. Her response:
'I have indeed seen Devil wears Prada. We used to joke about it a lot at my old job since we basically worked for the same woman. I do find it interesting that you've focused your attention on the side plot of this romance. And I don't recall her ever being subservient to him. I think the message of the story is about leading a life you chose, and that is by definition feminism. I don't think there is anything wrong with a nice boy who will cook you dinner when you've had a bad day. It's a lot better than what most gals have. She didn't stay with him because she had to and she checked out some other merchandise.
But then again, I left my high profile job for one where the money is less, but the respect is far greater. And I gave up searching for a powerful partner filled with money and excitement for a boy who listens to me, buys me ice cream and walks my dog at 4 am.'
I am now utterly confused. Is the boyfriend character in the film really a great guy and I'm just not seeing it? And why is my friend now angry with me?
L.W."
Hey, L.W. I had not previously seen the movie, but as I have promised to answer every question that is asked, I went to the video store, forked over $3.23, and watched the thing. I hadn't watched it previously because it didn't look like the kind of movie I would enjoy. And I was right.
I will say that Meryl Streep was brilliant as her character, but then, she's Meryl Friggin' Streep. And Stanley Tucci was lovely, as always, but then, he's Stanley Friggin' Tucci. So please keep in mind that nothing I say in the rest of this post is intended as a reflection on either of them. I thought they were great.
In general, though, I thought the film was crap. Sorry, the script was crap. Or maybe they just performed it crappily. Or maybe I just don't have a strong enough sense of disbelief to think that there is a world wherein this woman is considered fat and ugly. Oh no! They put a frumpy sweater on her and teased the bottom inch and a half of her hair! She's hideous! Yeah, not buyin' it. And I know that the modeling/fashion industry is really hard on the collective female self image, but I'm also not buyin' it that Ms. Hathaway is a size six. Her supposedly gorgeous coworker does not look smaller than Anne. She maybe just has smaller boobs. But she did manage to marry John Krasinsky, so good on ya, mate.
So okay, let's say that is just me and the rest of y'all are willing to buy into the plaid skirt = atrocious philosophy. Let's take a look at her relationships. She's living with a guy who has a dream of being a chef, and at the end of the film, he's moving to Boston to pursue his dreams and isn't that great? But like you observed, he begrudges her taking this annoying job at the magazine in pursuit of her dreams. Kind of a douche. And yes, she could have blown of the gala and gotten fired so she could be there for his birthday, but seriously, who is going to say to Dragon Lady boss, "I'm not going to go to this fabulous event where I get to wear amazing clothes and meet people who can further my career because my boyfriend will get pouty if I miss his birthday dinner?" Who does that? Yes, it is an option, but not an option that any career motivated-type person is going to take. Especially since we see at the beginning of the film that this is the only job she's even gotten an interview for since graduation. Has Boyfriend forgotten that if she loses her job, she also loses her paycheck? Which I'm guessing has to be a pretty decent size, considering how much she was able to turn her wardrobe around in such a short amount of time. Because really, do we honestly believe that Stanley Tucci is dressing her out of the sample closet every morning when she's too much of a cow to fit into anything they have back there in the first place? So yeah, you're right. Boyfriend is a douche. And your friend is also kind of right - we don't really see her being subservient to him, but she does come home with a cupcake and an apology which he refuses to take. I was waiting for her to scream, "I just passed up an opportunity to schmooze with the Editor-in-Chief of The New Yorker so I could bring you this sad little cupcake and you're pissed at me?" I would have. Or at least I'd like to think I would have. But yeah. He owes her an apology for being completely non-supportive of anything she does, except when she brings him free crap from work. But instead, she apologizes for REALLY NOT CHANGING AT ALL.
That's right. I said it. I don't see her change at all. Except her wardrobe. At the beginning, she's a strong, confident woman who is extraordinarily nice to everyone, whether they deserve it or not. At the end, she's a strong confident woman who is extraordinarily nice to everyone, whether they deserve it or not, who dresses better. At no point in the film does she become a conniving bitch, even though she is made to think she is. Which brings me to the next two relationships that don't make any sense in this film.
Her best friend. Otherwise known as "the only non-Caucasian person in the film." Look at how diverse we are! One second, she's in love with Ms. Hathaway's character because she just received a really expensive, impossible to find, one of a kind handbag for free. FOR FREE. And not ten seconds later, she's pissed that Ms. Hathaway "slights" her to answer a call from her boss. Who was the provider of the beautiful free bag in the first place. Hello! If she doesn't take the call from her boss, and jump every time her boss tells her to, she doesn't get all the pretty pretty swag which she then gives to you. That scene might have made more sense if as Anne was walking out the door, the friend said, "Take your stupid bag with you. I'd rather have dinner with my friend." But no, she sits clutching the bag like it's her precious, scowling at the person who just gave it to her. And then we flash to a few nights later when Anne shows up to her friend's art show. Anne's being supportive! Which none of her friends have bothered to be of her, but she's there. And the friend witnesses a kiss on the cheek between Anne and an "unknown gentleman" and all of a sudden, Anne isn't the person she knew anymore? What? They weren't making out. They were talking and he kissed her goodbye the way you'd kiss your grandmother goodbye. Hell, I'm willing to bet that 85% of the people in the fashion industry say goodbye that way. But without even letting her get a word out, bam! They're not friends anymore. No thank you for the bag, but I'm keeping it anyway.
And then, the relationship with the coworker across the corridor. Who is horrible to Anne through the entire movie. Seriously, she never does one nice thing for her. Makes fun of her to her face. Tells her to shut up and go away when she tries to make small talk. Is a selfish, self-centered bitch. And Anne, for some unknown reason, feels this devotion to her, as if she owed her something. This person has never been nice to you. There is no indication that this person will ever be nice to you. You do not have to feel guilty for doing a better job at work than she does. This is the straw that supposedly breaks her at the end of the film - she "took" the trip to Paris away from Emily. Except no, she didn't. She worked harder and proved herself to be more reliable (and less germ-ridden and less on-crutches-after-being-hit-by-a-car), and she was rewarded for that. Sure, she could have turned it down, but first of all, who would turn down a promotion for a co-worker who treats you like shit, and secondly, there was no guarantee that Emily would have gone to Paris if Anne hadn't. Meryl says that she wants to take the best team with her to Fashion Week and that no longer includes Emily. Which, to me, sounds more like Emily screwed herself out of a trip to Paris than anything sneaky and conniving that Anne did. Especially since Anne does nothing sneaky and conniving in the entire film.
And just because I have a little bit of a rant left in me, her relationship with Stanley Tucci's character. He's marvelous. The more I see of him, the more I like him. But he's not exactly welcoming of her when she joins the company. He, too, calls her fat and makes fun of her clothes. So she goes to him when she's having a bad day and needs advice? What? When did they become friends? Yes, they become friends later in the film, after she lets him play with her wardrobe, but that's kind of random and needy, don't you think? If anyone in the film had the right to be irked by her behavior, it was him. And he was not. He grew to love her and find her charming and delightful. So why don't any of her friends love her and find her charming and delightful?
And why does she take the non-supportive boyfriend back at the end of the film? Because as much as she wants to be the strong, powerful woman who knows what she wants, she is most comfortable in abusive relationships. It's the only explanation, really. It explains why she chose those friends in the first place. It explains why she didn't walk away from that job a half-dozen times. It explains why it becomes so important to her to impress Meryl. It explains why she feels some twisted loyalty to Emily. She may be a good writer, and she may be a beautiful woman. But from where I was sitting, I saw a woman who has some really screwed up ideas of what relationships are supposed to be, so it really was no surprise that after everyone has beaten her down through the entire film, she goes crawling back to her bum of a boyfriend (who she will probably leave New York for) under the guises of "this is my choice." If you really wanted to choose something good for yourself, a happy life for yourself, you would choose to get rid of all of the abusive relationships in it, not just quit your job. And she didn't even use the connections she made in the craptastic job! Not really. She interviews at the end for "The New York Mirror." She supposedly just "sold her soul" to get a credit on her resume that would take her anywhere so she "chooses" to go to Sheboygan? Really? If you can do anything, you're going to write for a paper nobody reads? Okay. Sure. This is a film about feminism and female power and choosing the life you lead. I can't wait to show this to my daughters to teach them to work extremely hard and be extremely nice so they can settle for eighth best and call it a "choice."
And I suppose I now sound like the Meryl Streep character. Oh well.
I'm sorry. I was supposed to be answering a question, but instead I'm ripping on a film. In short, no, the boyfriend is not a good guy. I was kind of sickened when she went back to him at the end. I would prefer a guy like your friend has, who would listen to me and buy me ice cream and walk my dog (if I had one). I think your friend, though, may have been equating your thoughts on the boyfriend in the film to her boyfriend in real life. Because we also need to mention the other romantic interest in the film (the guy with too much product in his hair), who is probably like the "powerful partner filled with money and excitement" that your friend gave up looking for. Which she probably took to mean you meant she wound up with the boyfriend from the film, who you were calling a douche, ergo, you were calling her boyfriend a douche. Which is why she is upset with you. Go apologize to your friend. And then go watch a good movie, where the lead character goes on a journey somewhere more interesting than to the mall.
Thank you, J.H. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
If you haven't seen the movie 'The Devil Wears Prada', then please don't read this question. I only recently saw the movie myself and enjoyed it more than I thought I would, so if you haven't seen it but plan to in the future, please stop reading now.
Dear Miss Kitty,
As Stephen Hawking once said, "the male mind is a weak tool," -- especially when it comes to understanding women. I am a guy who has somehow found myself in the middle of an argument with an old female friend and could sorely use some of your sage advice. It all began innocently enough when I finally got around to watching the film 'The Devil Wears Prada.' I enjoyed it more than I thought I would, especially the hero's journey the lead character undergoes armed only with her youthful 'courage and pluck.' What I failed to understand is why the film ends with this character getting back together with her lame boyfriend. Perhaps I failed to understand why he refused to emotionally support her for a single year working a job that would have provided her with a resume that would allow her to land any future job she chose. Instead of viewing her 'apprenticeship' as one would medical school or law school, her boyfriend and their 'friends' are shown to ridicule and undermine her at every opportunity (except when she discovers lingerie). His 'non-apology apology' at the conclusion of the film coupled with the fact that the most supportive action he ever took was feeding her leftover cheese makes it difficult for me to suspend my disbelief that this smart, charming, beautiful, hard-working woman would beg him to take her back.
So, I thought I had missed something and emailed a female friend for her take on the film. Her response:
'I have indeed seen Devil wears Prada. We used to joke about it a lot at my old job since we basically worked for the same woman. I do find it interesting that you've focused your attention on the side plot of this romance. And I don't recall her ever being subservient to him. I think the message of the story is about leading a life you chose, and that is by definition feminism. I don't think there is anything wrong with a nice boy who will cook you dinner when you've had a bad day. It's a lot better than what most gals have. She didn't stay with him because she had to and she checked out some other merchandise.
But then again, I left my high profile job for one where the money is less, but the respect is far greater. And I gave up searching for a powerful partner filled with money and excitement for a boy who listens to me, buys me ice cream and walks my dog at 4 am.'
I am now utterly confused. Is the boyfriend character in the film really a great guy and I'm just not seeing it? And why is my friend now angry with me?
L.W."
Hey, L.W. I had not previously seen the movie, but as I have promised to answer every question that is asked, I went to the video store, forked over $3.23, and watched the thing. I hadn't watched it previously because it didn't look like the kind of movie I would enjoy. And I was right.
I will say that Meryl Streep was brilliant as her character, but then, she's Meryl Friggin' Streep. And Stanley Tucci was lovely, as always, but then, he's Stanley Friggin' Tucci. So please keep in mind that nothing I say in the rest of this post is intended as a reflection on either of them. I thought they were great.
In general, though, I thought the film was crap. Sorry, the script was crap. Or maybe they just performed it crappily. Or maybe I just don't have a strong enough sense of disbelief to think that there is a world wherein this woman is considered fat and ugly. Oh no! They put a frumpy sweater on her and teased the bottom inch and a half of her hair! She's hideous! Yeah, not buyin' it. And I know that the modeling/fashion industry is really hard on the collective female self image, but I'm also not buyin' it that Ms. Hathaway is a size six. Her supposedly gorgeous coworker does not look smaller than Anne. She maybe just has smaller boobs. But she did manage to marry John Krasinsky, so good on ya, mate.
So okay, let's say that is just me and the rest of y'all are willing to buy into the plaid skirt = atrocious philosophy. Let's take a look at her relationships. She's living with a guy who has a dream of being a chef, and at the end of the film, he's moving to Boston to pursue his dreams and isn't that great? But like you observed, he begrudges her taking this annoying job at the magazine in pursuit of her dreams. Kind of a douche. And yes, she could have blown of the gala and gotten fired so she could be there for his birthday, but seriously, who is going to say to Dragon Lady boss, "I'm not going to go to this fabulous event where I get to wear amazing clothes and meet people who can further my career because my boyfriend will get pouty if I miss his birthday dinner?" Who does that? Yes, it is an option, but not an option that any career motivated-type person is going to take. Especially since we see at the beginning of the film that this is the only job she's even gotten an interview for since graduation. Has Boyfriend forgotten that if she loses her job, she also loses her paycheck? Which I'm guessing has to be a pretty decent size, considering how much she was able to turn her wardrobe around in such a short amount of time. Because really, do we honestly believe that Stanley Tucci is dressing her out of the sample closet every morning when she's too much of a cow to fit into anything they have back there in the first place? So yeah, you're right. Boyfriend is a douche. And your friend is also kind of right - we don't really see her being subservient to him, but she does come home with a cupcake and an apology which he refuses to take. I was waiting for her to scream, "I just passed up an opportunity to schmooze with the Editor-in-Chief of The New Yorker so I could bring you this sad little cupcake and you're pissed at me?" I would have. Or at least I'd like to think I would have. But yeah. He owes her an apology for being completely non-supportive of anything she does, except when she brings him free crap from work. But instead, she apologizes for REALLY NOT CHANGING AT ALL.
That's right. I said it. I don't see her change at all. Except her wardrobe. At the beginning, she's a strong, confident woman who is extraordinarily nice to everyone, whether they deserve it or not. At the end, she's a strong confident woman who is extraordinarily nice to everyone, whether they deserve it or not, who dresses better. At no point in the film does she become a conniving bitch, even though she is made to think she is. Which brings me to the next two relationships that don't make any sense in this film.
Her best friend. Otherwise known as "the only non-Caucasian person in the film." Look at how diverse we are! One second, she's in love with Ms. Hathaway's character because she just received a really expensive, impossible to find, one of a kind handbag for free. FOR FREE. And not ten seconds later, she's pissed that Ms. Hathaway "slights" her to answer a call from her boss. Who was the provider of the beautiful free bag in the first place. Hello! If she doesn't take the call from her boss, and jump every time her boss tells her to, she doesn't get all the pretty pretty swag which she then gives to you. That scene might have made more sense if as Anne was walking out the door, the friend said, "Take your stupid bag with you. I'd rather have dinner with my friend." But no, she sits clutching the bag like it's her precious, scowling at the person who just gave it to her. And then we flash to a few nights later when Anne shows up to her friend's art show. Anne's being supportive! Which none of her friends have bothered to be of her, but she's there. And the friend witnesses a kiss on the cheek between Anne and an "unknown gentleman" and all of a sudden, Anne isn't the person she knew anymore? What? They weren't making out. They were talking and he kissed her goodbye the way you'd kiss your grandmother goodbye. Hell, I'm willing to bet that 85% of the people in the fashion industry say goodbye that way. But without even letting her get a word out, bam! They're not friends anymore. No thank you for the bag, but I'm keeping it anyway.
And then, the relationship with the coworker across the corridor. Who is horrible to Anne through the entire movie. Seriously, she never does one nice thing for her. Makes fun of her to her face. Tells her to shut up and go away when she tries to make small talk. Is a selfish, self-centered bitch. And Anne, for some unknown reason, feels this devotion to her, as if she owed her something. This person has never been nice to you. There is no indication that this person will ever be nice to you. You do not have to feel guilty for doing a better job at work than she does. This is the straw that supposedly breaks her at the end of the film - she "took" the trip to Paris away from Emily. Except no, she didn't. She worked harder and proved herself to be more reliable (and less germ-ridden and less on-crutches-after-being-hit-by-a-car), and she was rewarded for that. Sure, she could have turned it down, but first of all, who would turn down a promotion for a co-worker who treats you like shit, and secondly, there was no guarantee that Emily would have gone to Paris if Anne hadn't. Meryl says that she wants to take the best team with her to Fashion Week and that no longer includes Emily. Which, to me, sounds more like Emily screwed herself out of a trip to Paris than anything sneaky and conniving that Anne did. Especially since Anne does nothing sneaky and conniving in the entire film.
And just because I have a little bit of a rant left in me, her relationship with Stanley Tucci's character. He's marvelous. The more I see of him, the more I like him. But he's not exactly welcoming of her when she joins the company. He, too, calls her fat and makes fun of her clothes. So she goes to him when she's having a bad day and needs advice? What? When did they become friends? Yes, they become friends later in the film, after she lets him play with her wardrobe, but that's kind of random and needy, don't you think? If anyone in the film had the right to be irked by her behavior, it was him. And he was not. He grew to love her and find her charming and delightful. So why don't any of her friends love her and find her charming and delightful?
And why does she take the non-supportive boyfriend back at the end of the film? Because as much as she wants to be the strong, powerful woman who knows what she wants, she is most comfortable in abusive relationships. It's the only explanation, really. It explains why she chose those friends in the first place. It explains why she didn't walk away from that job a half-dozen times. It explains why it becomes so important to her to impress Meryl. It explains why she feels some twisted loyalty to Emily. She may be a good writer, and she may be a beautiful woman. But from where I was sitting, I saw a woman who has some really screwed up ideas of what relationships are supposed to be, so it really was no surprise that after everyone has beaten her down through the entire film, she goes crawling back to her bum of a boyfriend (who she will probably leave New York for) under the guises of "this is my choice." If you really wanted to choose something good for yourself, a happy life for yourself, you would choose to get rid of all of the abusive relationships in it, not just quit your job. And she didn't even use the connections she made in the craptastic job! Not really. She interviews at the end for "The New York Mirror." She supposedly just "sold her soul" to get a credit on her resume that would take her anywhere so she "chooses" to go to Sheboygan? Really? If you can do anything, you're going to write for a paper nobody reads? Okay. Sure. This is a film about feminism and female power and choosing the life you lead. I can't wait to show this to my daughters to teach them to work extremely hard and be extremely nice so they can settle for eighth best and call it a "choice."
And I suppose I now sound like the Meryl Streep character. Oh well.
I'm sorry. I was supposed to be answering a question, but instead I'm ripping on a film. In short, no, the boyfriend is not a good guy. I was kind of sickened when she went back to him at the end. I would prefer a guy like your friend has, who would listen to me and buy me ice cream and walk my dog (if I had one). I think your friend, though, may have been equating your thoughts on the boyfriend in the film to her boyfriend in real life. Because we also need to mention the other romantic interest in the film (the guy with too much product in his hair), who is probably like the "powerful partner filled with money and excitement" that your friend gave up looking for. Which she probably took to mean you meant she wound up with the boyfriend from the film, who you were calling a douche, ergo, you were calling her boyfriend a douche. Which is why she is upset with you. Go apologize to your friend. And then go watch a good movie, where the lead character goes on a journey somewhere more interesting than to the mall.
Thank you, J.H. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
License Plates
M.C. asks, "Dear Miss Kitty
Do think that personalized license plates might have secret messages in them?"
No. I think they have very blatant messages in them. For example:
So as you can see, M.C., the world of the license plate is not quite as mysterious as one might think. Though I will say that the time I was leaving my mom's house and there was a car parked in front of mine with the license plate "TARDIS," that was a sign. A sign from god.
Thank you, M.C. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Do think that personalized license plates might have secret messages in them?"
No. I think they have very blatant messages in them. For example:
- This one says, "My wife used to drive this car, but took the other one in the divorce."
- This one says, "I'm never getting any, ever, ever again."
- This is an obvious cry for help and I wish I knew where the person lived so the next time those lovely people in orange robes come to my door, I can point them his way instead.
- I like this guy's honesty and would subscribe to his newsletter if he had one. Which he probably does. Online somewhere.
- This one is most likely a lie, though, because I'm guessing most people who are, don't want to advertise it.
So as you can see, M.C., the world of the license plate is not quite as mysterious as one might think. Though I will say that the time I was leaving my mom's house and there was a car parked in front of mine with the license plate "TARDIS," that was a sign. A sign from god.
Thank you, M.C. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Monday, December 13, 2010
Books vs. Technology
J.C. asks, "Hello great and powerful Miss Kitty
My dad's wife L. loves "reading" on her kindle. I love books, like the old fashioned analog kind, especially if borrowed from a public library. L. knows that I am suspicious of technology. (For example, I do not have a cell phone because I don't like them enough to own one.) And she knows that I would prefer not to continue destroying our planet's environment. So when she was telling us about her kindle, she mentioned that it could "...save a few trees." I nodded and smiled blankly as I am wont to do when listening to L. Later I thought that it probably takes a lot of non-renewable resources to manufacture a kindle and when its useful life is over, it will be garbage. However, I am not sure about this and I am certainly biased. I even work at a public library for heavens sake!
So my question, Miss Kitty, is this: Which is better for the world: books or a kindle for all?
-JC (not Jesus Christ)
ps. Kitty you are friggin awesome!"
Hi, J.C. Thank you! You are friggin' awesome, too, and I know this because I've met you. On several occasions. And I hope to visit again soon. I'm diggin' the "great and powerful MissKitty" thing. It almost makes me feel like I need to have a giant hologram of my head made so I can blow smoke and shoot flames in front of it, while hiding behind a flimsy curtain off to the side. You know what? If y'all want to picture me answering questions that way, go for it. That would be fun.
Though shooting flames anywhere near books would probably be a bad idea, which brings us around to books versus technology. I have to admit, I'm biased, too. I prefer books. When MTV Cribs toured Moby's place, they were shocked to find that he had books. None of the other places they had featured yet had books. Which instantly gave everyone the impression that he is smart. Which he is. And cute. And talented. But I digress. The point is, having books around makes people think you are smart. Having a Kindle around makes people think you are...um, tech-savvy?
When I go to someone's house for the first time, I love looking at what books and movies they own. I honestly think you can tell a lot about a person by what books and movies they own. These are not necessarily all of the books a person has read in his or her life, but they are the ones that said person thought highly enough of to want to own them, so maybe they can read them again someday. If someone owns a Kindle, you can't browse what books they have downloaded without it looking like a pretty severe invasion of one's privacy. This is books keeping people apart as opposed to books bringing people together - it's hard to start a conversation with, "Oh, I read 'Curious George Goes to the Zoo,' recently myself. How do you think it compares to the rest of the series?" if you don't see a copy of "Curious George Goes to the Zoo" on the bookshelf.
I can see the tree argument. Paper comes from trees, so the more books you print, the more trees you have to cut down. Except, there are billions of books that have already been printed. BILLIONS. One could probably build a very impressive collection of used books that would not involve the death of a single new tree. Not to mention the fact that the recycling industry could probably use a little help, too. Since there has been this whole "recession" thing going on, not as many people are buying things, and the recycling industry has had some trouble, well, recycling. Yes, they continue to collect paper and cardboard and plastic and aluminum, but if nobody is buying the televisions that come in boxes, the recycling industry can't reuse the cardboard they collected to make new boxes. So if we made a slight adjustment to the book publishing industry to include more post-consumer waste content in the new books being printed, we'd not only be saving trees, but saving the recycling industry and our economy as well.
And you're right about Kindles - they contain the same electronic components that our other gadgets contain which require the same manufacturing processes and materials. And I've seen ads now for the 4G Kindle, which means that people who already have one may now chuck it in favor of the newer, fancier one. And when the Kindle dies, sure you can dispose of it responsibly, but you're still disposing of it. Books don't die. The batteries don't crap out on you, and they never need to be recharged. You just have to remember to keep them away from fire and water. Which probably holds true for Kindles, as well.
So yeah, I'm with you on the book thing. They smell better, they feel better to hold, and it is much more effective to throw a book at someone as opposed to throwing a Kindle. Throwing a Kindle does probably more damage to the Kindle than to the target, whereas books can be hurled again and again and they always come back for another read.
Yay books!
Thank you, J.C. for your question (which was slightly modified to protect the innocent)! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
My dad's wife L. loves "reading" on her kindle. I love books, like the old fashioned analog kind, especially if borrowed from a public library. L. knows that I am suspicious of technology. (For example, I do not have a cell phone because I don't like them enough to own one.) And she knows that I would prefer not to continue destroying our planet's environment. So when she was telling us about her kindle, she mentioned that it could "...save a few trees." I nodded and smiled blankly as I am wont to do when listening to L. Later I thought that it probably takes a lot of non-renewable resources to manufacture a kindle and when its useful life is over, it will be garbage. However, I am not sure about this and I am certainly biased. I even work at a public library for heavens sake!
So my question, Miss Kitty, is this: Which is better for the world: books or a kindle for all?
-JC (not Jesus Christ)
ps. Kitty you are friggin awesome!"
Hi, J.C. Thank you! You are friggin' awesome, too, and I know this because I've met you. On several occasions. And I hope to visit again soon. I'm diggin' the "great and powerful MissKitty" thing. It almost makes me feel like I need to have a giant hologram of my head made so I can blow smoke and shoot flames in front of it, while hiding behind a flimsy curtain off to the side. You know what? If y'all want to picture me answering questions that way, go for it. That would be fun.
Though shooting flames anywhere near books would probably be a bad idea, which brings us around to books versus technology. I have to admit, I'm biased, too. I prefer books. When MTV Cribs toured Moby's place, they were shocked to find that he had books. None of the other places they had featured yet had books. Which instantly gave everyone the impression that he is smart. Which he is. And cute. And talented. But I digress. The point is, having books around makes people think you are smart. Having a Kindle around makes people think you are...um, tech-savvy?
When I go to someone's house for the first time, I love looking at what books and movies they own. I honestly think you can tell a lot about a person by what books and movies they own. These are not necessarily all of the books a person has read in his or her life, but they are the ones that said person thought highly enough of to want to own them, so maybe they can read them again someday. If someone owns a Kindle, you can't browse what books they have downloaded without it looking like a pretty severe invasion of one's privacy. This is books keeping people apart as opposed to books bringing people together - it's hard to start a conversation with, "Oh, I read 'Curious George Goes to the Zoo,' recently myself. How do you think it compares to the rest of the series?" if you don't see a copy of "Curious George Goes to the Zoo" on the bookshelf.
I can see the tree argument. Paper comes from trees, so the more books you print, the more trees you have to cut down. Except, there are billions of books that have already been printed. BILLIONS. One could probably build a very impressive collection of used books that would not involve the death of a single new tree. Not to mention the fact that the recycling industry could probably use a little help, too. Since there has been this whole "recession" thing going on, not as many people are buying things, and the recycling industry has had some trouble, well, recycling. Yes, they continue to collect paper and cardboard and plastic and aluminum, but if nobody is buying the televisions that come in boxes, the recycling industry can't reuse the cardboard they collected to make new boxes. So if we made a slight adjustment to the book publishing industry to include more post-consumer waste content in the new books being printed, we'd not only be saving trees, but saving the recycling industry and our economy as well.
And you're right about Kindles - they contain the same electronic components that our other gadgets contain which require the same manufacturing processes and materials. And I've seen ads now for the 4G Kindle, which means that people who already have one may now chuck it in favor of the newer, fancier one. And when the Kindle dies, sure you can dispose of it responsibly, but you're still disposing of it. Books don't die. The batteries don't crap out on you, and they never need to be recharged. You just have to remember to keep them away from fire and water. Which probably holds true for Kindles, as well.
So yeah, I'm with you on the book thing. They smell better, they feel better to hold, and it is much more effective to throw a book at someone as opposed to throwing a Kindle. Throwing a Kindle does probably more damage to the Kindle than to the target, whereas books can be hurled again and again and they always come back for another read.
Yay books!
Thank you, J.C. for your question (which was slightly modified to protect the innocent)! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Cat Training
D.H. asks, "Dear Miss Kitty,
One of my kittens is growing at an exponential rate and seems to be suffering from 'species confusion.' When she was little, my grey kitten began to perch on my shoulder to sleep as I sat in my bean bag chair -- not unlike a pirate's parrot. As she has grown and continues to grow, she continues to try to perch on my shoulder but since she no longer fits, more often than not she ends up sprawled across my chest or wrapped around my neck. My question is: how do I gently modify this behavior without rejecting her love or 'giving her a complex' about her weight?
D.H."
I have to admit, D.H., that I am at the same time very touched and very confused by what is going on in your household. I think it is adorable that your cat likes to perch on your shoulder, but I'm concerned for your posture if you spend a lot of time sitting in a bean bag chair in such a way that a cat can perch on your shoulder and then wrap itself around your neck. I'm guessing you are mostly reclined at this point? I know that seems comfy, but you're really not doing your lower back any favors. I fully expect to get a question in a few weeks about where to find a good chiropractor.
Which actually presents a rather simple solution to your problem - sit up straight. This will make it harder for your growing cat to get comfortable on your shoulder and she may instead opt for your lap (or your head, but that's usually only if they're playing "evil"). If there is no comfortable shoulder space, she will not sleep there.
I will say, too, that cats are more "trainable" than one might think, if you have the patience for it. See, she likes sleeping on you because you are warm. Your nice hot breath is probably at least part of the draw, and if you eat lots of tuna, all the more. But if you can show her that there are other comfy, warm places to sleep, and give her good reason to try them, she will eventually move away from your shoulder to the new spot.
For example, when I got my cat, he was NOT A LAP CAT. He liked attention (and still does), but would wriggle and squirm out of my lap within two seconds of me even attempting to put him there. Until one day, I picked him up, sat down, put him in my lap, and scritched his ears for as long as he would let me. The next time, I pet his ears, and scritched his face. The next time, ears, face, and the top of his head. I'm sure you can see where this is going. He eventually learned that when he sits in my lap, he gets attention. Oh, and it just happens to be warm and soft, too. Now, my lap is his favorite place in the house to sit. And all it took was a little patience and a lot of positive reinforcement.
So as you transition your cat from parrot to feline, just remember to work at her speed and to show constant, consistent affection when she behaves the way you want her to.
Good luck!
Thank you, D.H. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
One of my kittens is growing at an exponential rate and seems to be suffering from 'species confusion.' When she was little, my grey kitten began to perch on my shoulder to sleep as I sat in my bean bag chair -- not unlike a pirate's parrot. As she has grown and continues to grow, she continues to try to perch on my shoulder but since she no longer fits, more often than not she ends up sprawled across my chest or wrapped around my neck. My question is: how do I gently modify this behavior without rejecting her love or 'giving her a complex' about her weight?
D.H."
I have to admit, D.H., that I am at the same time very touched and very confused by what is going on in your household. I think it is adorable that your cat likes to perch on your shoulder, but I'm concerned for your posture if you spend a lot of time sitting in a bean bag chair in such a way that a cat can perch on your shoulder and then wrap itself around your neck. I'm guessing you are mostly reclined at this point? I know that seems comfy, but you're really not doing your lower back any favors. I fully expect to get a question in a few weeks about where to find a good chiropractor.
Which actually presents a rather simple solution to your problem - sit up straight. This will make it harder for your growing cat to get comfortable on your shoulder and she may instead opt for your lap (or your head, but that's usually only if they're playing "evil"). If there is no comfortable shoulder space, she will not sleep there.
I will say, too, that cats are more "trainable" than one might think, if you have the patience for it. See, she likes sleeping on you because you are warm. Your nice hot breath is probably at least part of the draw, and if you eat lots of tuna, all the more. But if you can show her that there are other comfy, warm places to sleep, and give her good reason to try them, she will eventually move away from your shoulder to the new spot.
For example, when I got my cat, he was NOT A LAP CAT. He liked attention (and still does), but would wriggle and squirm out of my lap within two seconds of me even attempting to put him there. Until one day, I picked him up, sat down, put him in my lap, and scritched his ears for as long as he would let me. The next time, I pet his ears, and scritched his face. The next time, ears, face, and the top of his head. I'm sure you can see where this is going. He eventually learned that when he sits in my lap, he gets attention. Oh, and it just happens to be warm and soft, too. Now, my lap is his favorite place in the house to sit. And all it took was a little patience and a lot of positive reinforcement.
So as you transition your cat from parrot to feline, just remember to work at her speed and to show constant, consistent affection when she behaves the way you want her to.
Good luck!
Thank you, D.H. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Cat Genetics
D.H. asks, "Dear Miss Kitty,
My partner and I recently got two kittens from the SPCA. Although one is a dainty all-white short-hair, her sister is a burly grey-striped long-hair with a racoon tail. They also have radically different personalities. The SPCA swears these two are siblings from the same litter, but they are nothing alike. How can this be? Was Momma 'a rolling stone' of some sort?
D.H.
Hi, D.H. Welcome to the Wonderful World of Genetics!
There are a couple of things that could be going on here. The first is that yes, the mother cat was impregnated by two or more male cats at the same time. Well, the impregnation may not have occurred at the exact same time, but she could have "gone out for Italian food" with one cat one night, and another cat the next, with all of the various seeds taking root and producing all kinds of kittens.
The second thing to remember is that in the Wonderful World of Genetics, there are things called "dominant" and "recessive" genes. Dominant genes always show up when they are present. Recessive genes only show up if there are two of them. If both parents have one dominant and one recessive gene, there is a one in four chance that the offspring will display the recessive traits. This is why in large Irish families, there is always one kid with dark brown hair.
But just look at the families around you. Take me, for example. I have strawberry blond hair, greenish eyes, and almost no nose. My brother has blond hair, blue eyes, and a decent sized nose. My mom has coloring similar to me, and my dad has dark hair and blue eyes. How did those parents create a blond son? Genetics! Hooray genetics!
Another thing to remember is that for a cat, white is a "masking" color as opposed to being a color in and of itself. If you want to think of it as something akin to albino-ism, you probably could and nobody would fault you. Unless you tell them you think that way, at which time, they may point and laugh. But what it means is that just because the cat is white doesn't mean she's not a speckled tabby at heart, so to speak.
Same goes for personality. Cats is cats. They do what they want and nobody really knows why.
Thank you, D.H. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
My partner and I recently got two kittens from the SPCA. Although one is a dainty all-white short-hair, her sister is a burly grey-striped long-hair with a racoon tail. They also have radically different personalities. The SPCA swears these two are siblings from the same litter, but they are nothing alike. How can this be? Was Momma 'a rolling stone' of some sort?
D.H.
Hi, D.H. Welcome to the Wonderful World of Genetics!
There are a couple of things that could be going on here. The first is that yes, the mother cat was impregnated by two or more male cats at the same time. Well, the impregnation may not have occurred at the exact same time, but she could have "gone out for Italian food" with one cat one night, and another cat the next, with all of the various seeds taking root and producing all kinds of kittens.
The second thing to remember is that in the Wonderful World of Genetics, there are things called "dominant" and "recessive" genes. Dominant genes always show up when they are present. Recessive genes only show up if there are two of them. If both parents have one dominant and one recessive gene, there is a one in four chance that the offspring will display the recessive traits. This is why in large Irish families, there is always one kid with dark brown hair.
But just look at the families around you. Take me, for example. I have strawberry blond hair, greenish eyes, and almost no nose. My brother has blond hair, blue eyes, and a decent sized nose. My mom has coloring similar to me, and my dad has dark hair and blue eyes. How did those parents create a blond son? Genetics! Hooray genetics!
Another thing to remember is that for a cat, white is a "masking" color as opposed to being a color in and of itself. If you want to think of it as something akin to albino-ism, you probably could and nobody would fault you. Unless you tell them you think that way, at which time, they may point and laugh. But what it means is that just because the cat is white doesn't mean she's not a speckled tabby at heart, so to speak.
Same goes for personality. Cats is cats. They do what they want and nobody really knows why.
Thank you, D.H. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Glamour
C.H. asks, "Miss Kitty,
I simply can not remain quiet about this a moment longer. I am a longtime reader of the periodical 'Glamour,' ever since my early days of pouncing on the latest issue in the late '80's as it came available each glorious month in my junior high school library. Unlike those who 'pooh-pooh' this magnificent mag for serving the misogynistic beauty industry or criticize it for merely recycling the same articles every few years or so, I am a dedicated fan. Imagine then, my shock and outrage at seeing the December 2010 issue of Glamour exclusive 'A Very Vampire Christmas: A steamy original short story from the woman behind True Blood' nestled shamelessly among such high quality fare as '9 Naughty Things Even Nice Guys Crave in Bed' and 'Dips! Drinks! Dessert! Eat all the Good Stuff and still Stay Slim!'
I simply loathe all of this 'Team Edmund/Team Franklin' vampire/werewolf fantasy nonsense. And as for gauche Jersey Girl Snookie Stackhouse and her shenanigans, the less attention paid the better as far as I'm concerned. Let popular culture stay where it is! In the gutter where it belongs! Is the print media seriously in that dire of straights that my beloved Glamour must pander and lower itself to be yet another outlet for..., for..., vampire pornography?
Is this indeed the end of times the Mayans warned us about?
C.H."
I think you're a little confused, C.H. Glamour is not the magazine people read "for the articles." That's Playboy. But beyond that, let's take a look at some of the vampire confusion that is going on in your question.
True Blood is based on The Southern Vampire Mysteries and follows the story of Sookie Stackhouse as she falls in love with a vampire named Bill Compton. In Louisana. Not New Jersey. It is based on the premise that vampires have been "outed" in our society and live somewhat in harmony with humans. "Tru Blood" is a beverage that was created for vampires to be able to survive without killing people. I've see the first couple of seasons and it's actually a decent show, if you can get over Anna Paquin's accent. Then again, I tend to like things written by Alan Ball. But the important thing to remember about this show is that being a vampire (or shape shifter or random supernatural being of another sort) isn't all that odd. It's like everyone has something going on and with vampires walking around freely (at night, anyway), it's really not that big of a deal.
The whole Edward vs. Jacob thing (sadly not Edmund vs. Franklin - who are Edmund and Franklin anyway? Are we talking some sort of Battle of the Founding Fathers? 'Cuz that would actually kind of rock) is from the Twilight series, which is the angsty tween version of the vampire story. I've not read the books nor seen the movies, so I'm basing my opinions solely on what I've seen the press and they look...angsty to me. Like the focal point of the story is always, "Is the completely gorgeous but somehow misunderstood and therefore socially ostracized teenage girl going to give herself to the 6,000 year old vampire or the really hot werewolf dude and since they both love her, can't they all just get along?" Like the Hatfields and the McCoys, but with vampires and werewolves. And teenage drama. Involving a vampire who is really not a teenager anymore. Really not. I can understand your frustration in having to deal with this series because frankly, I'm sick of it too, and I like vampire crap.
The Jersey Girl Snooki is a hot mess and needs to go away.
Now that we have that all straight, we can chat about the state of print media. Yes, it is in dire straights (not to be confused with Dire Straits). How many times a day do you go to Glamour.com instead of picking up your magazine and reading it? This is why magazines now have between 50 and 3,000 pages of ads at the beginning, before you even get to the table of contents. They need to make money somehow. But even the advertising companies are starting to pull out because it is cheaper to advertise online, so the magazines need to try to increase their readership somehow. And if that means jumping on the vampire bandwagon, be glad it is a short story from the woman behind True Blood, and not The Meaning of Christmas as it Applies to The Vampire Diaries. Because that would be truly sad.
Thank you, C.H. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
I simply can not remain quiet about this a moment longer. I am a longtime reader of the periodical 'Glamour,' ever since my early days of pouncing on the latest issue in the late '80's as it came available each glorious month in my junior high school library. Unlike those who 'pooh-pooh' this magnificent mag for serving the misogynistic beauty industry or criticize it for merely recycling the same articles every few years or so, I am a dedicated fan. Imagine then, my shock and outrage at seeing the December 2010 issue of Glamour exclusive 'A Very Vampire Christmas: A steamy original short story from the woman behind True Blood' nestled shamelessly among such high quality fare as '9 Naughty Things Even Nice Guys Crave in Bed' and 'Dips! Drinks! Dessert! Eat all the Good Stuff and still Stay Slim!'
I simply loathe all of this 'Team Edmund/Team Franklin' vampire/werewolf fantasy nonsense. And as for gauche Jersey Girl Snookie Stackhouse and her shenanigans, the less attention paid the better as far as I'm concerned. Let popular culture stay where it is! In the gutter where it belongs! Is the print media seriously in that dire of straights that my beloved Glamour must pander and lower itself to be yet another outlet for..., for..., vampire pornography?
Is this indeed the end of times the Mayans warned us about?
C.H."
I think you're a little confused, C.H. Glamour is not the magazine people read "for the articles." That's Playboy. But beyond that, let's take a look at some of the vampire confusion that is going on in your question.
True Blood is based on The Southern Vampire Mysteries and follows the story of Sookie Stackhouse as she falls in love with a vampire named Bill Compton. In Louisana. Not New Jersey. It is based on the premise that vampires have been "outed" in our society and live somewhat in harmony with humans. "Tru Blood" is a beverage that was created for vampires to be able to survive without killing people. I've see the first couple of seasons and it's actually a decent show, if you can get over Anna Paquin's accent. Then again, I tend to like things written by Alan Ball. But the important thing to remember about this show is that being a vampire (or shape shifter or random supernatural being of another sort) isn't all that odd. It's like everyone has something going on and with vampires walking around freely (at night, anyway), it's really not that big of a deal.
The whole Edward vs. Jacob thing (sadly not Edmund vs. Franklin - who are Edmund and Franklin anyway? Are we talking some sort of Battle of the Founding Fathers? 'Cuz that would actually kind of rock) is from the Twilight series, which is the angsty tween version of the vampire story. I've not read the books nor seen the movies, so I'm basing my opinions solely on what I've seen the press and they look...angsty to me. Like the focal point of the story is always, "Is the completely gorgeous but somehow misunderstood and therefore socially ostracized teenage girl going to give herself to the 6,000 year old vampire or the really hot werewolf dude and since they both love her, can't they all just get along?" Like the Hatfields and the McCoys, but with vampires and werewolves. And teenage drama. Involving a vampire who is really not a teenager anymore. Really not. I can understand your frustration in having to deal with this series because frankly, I'm sick of it too, and I like vampire crap.
The Jersey Girl Snooki is a hot mess and needs to go away.
Now that we have that all straight, we can chat about the state of print media. Yes, it is in dire straights (not to be confused with Dire Straits). How many times a day do you go to Glamour.com instead of picking up your magazine and reading it? This is why magazines now have between 50 and 3,000 pages of ads at the beginning, before you even get to the table of contents. They need to make money somehow. But even the advertising companies are starting to pull out because it is cheaper to advertise online, so the magazines need to try to increase their readership somehow. And if that means jumping on the vampire bandwagon, be glad it is a short story from the woman behind True Blood, and not The Meaning of Christmas as it Applies to The Vampire Diaries. Because that would be truly sad.
Thank you, C.H. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)