‘Media Influences’ Category
Men are studs? Women are whores? Um… no.
July 7th, 2009
Read the rest of this entry »
Society has long dictated that men should be “studs” while remaining “happily married”. This oxymoronical viewpoint is apparently spoken from the same side of the mouth that says: “A man is “okay” in the eyes of society if he’s a playboy (whose main goal is to be loved and chased by women—and he scores), but any woman who sleeps with—or even just pursues—multiple partners is a slut, a whore, a tramp (and called a “bitch” by the men she doesn’t choose to sleep with). Obviously, men concoct these views; men that, if they had their way, would have women lie down as whores, and rise in their post-coital afterglow as virgins.
Metrosexual? No. Evolved Man.
June 10th, 2009
This afternoon, I was putting together a desk when a co-worker came up to me and said, “Hey Charles. How’s the desk-building coming. Are you being beaten by your metrosexuality?” On the surface, it’s kinda funny… but WTF? Because I’m dressed a certain way, does that make me 1/2 a man?
Metrosexual. This media-infused term has spawned TV shows, books, and endless articles about “men embracing their feminine side”. <groan>
The term originated in an article by Mark Simpson in the early 1990’s, but it wasn’t until Simpson’s 2002 article aptly titled, “Meet the Metrosexual” hit Salon.com that the term entered the mainstream. But I can’t agree with the widely-held definition.Even longtime sports broadcaster and Marin Independent Journal writer Barry Tompkins got in on the action a few months ago:
Read the rest of this entry »
Proposition 8 (uh… WTF? again?)
May 26th, 2009
This morning, the California Supreme Court voted 6-to-1 to uphold the voter-approved ban on gay marriage. Call me naive, misguided, or liberal, but I don’t understand what even drove this initiative. Even the way the proposition was presented to the voters was a marketing initiative. (Yes on 8 was ANTI-Gay Marriage… but saying “yes” to something is subconsciously a positive thing—no matter what stance you have on an issue). Moreover, we live in an era of prenuptial agreements, a 50% divorce rate before the fifth wedding anniversary, and celebrities running to Vegas on a whim to marry their friends as “a joke”. Give this, why are some people claiming we are protecting “the tradition” or the “sanctity of marriage”?
The California Supreme Court further stated that Californians have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution. Of course I agree; the will of the population should prevail (Anyone who cares about a true democracy would also agree). However, most of the Yes on 8 advertising dollars were traced back to the Mormon Church (headquartered in Utah)… so does this really reflect the desires of the California population, or are the agendas of other states organizations lending themselves to propaganda-led initiatives?
In truth, this entire situation smacks of the miscegenation laws that banned interracial marriage in the 1800’s… laws that were repealed in 1948 by the California Supreme Court (Perez vs. Sharp), as they violated the 14th Amendment and thus were unconstitutional.
With the challenges present in today’s world—economy, crime, working poor, national debt, struggling children, global threats ad nauseum—aren’t their better things to tackle/fix than who marries whom? In my experience, if you can travel through this life and find one person that you love, trust and respect—regardless of their gender—than you are lucky. Gay or straight—who cares? I’m not radically Liberal or uber-Conservative… I’m just being logical. Besides, I have yet to be awakened at 7:30am on a Sunday morning by frantic knocking on my door and then, as I open it, greeted by two men on ten-speed bicycles asking me to convert to Gaydom.
To each their own… and more power to those than find love and companionship in this cynical, judgmental world.