i got the impression, even in college, that mormons are discouraged from gaining too much learning. especially from the scriptures with all the condemnations toward the "learned". there are of course plenty of quotes to support the idea that mormons need learning, especially in current times to keep up the american-professional, capable, self-supporting, go-into-all-the-world image. but i feel like there have always been qualifiers. like, women should get an education, but not too much of an education that they think for themselves or work or even want to work outside the home. and righteous men will get an education to support themselves but definitely not become worldly or heaven forbid, think that their way is above god's way aka that there is something more, and definitely a butt load more questions, beyond the simple, superficial groupthink they are fed at church. nevermind that jesus was a scholar and all the church leaders are decorated scholars and that intelligence is the glory of god. just be careful everyone! learning too much will make you evil.
i'm cynical of religion, but i'm not trying to put down religion; after all, i am a religious person. but you have to admit that being an educated person comes with disillusionment. it comes with a need to question and halt and think and actually say that things that don't make sense don't make sense. like, even stuff you've been taught all your life as a mormon person, you might realize and say they don't make sense because they don't. and instead of getting a genuine conversation or admittance of unknowingness from the church, we are told to simmer down and stop gaining knowledge about that thing and facts are essentially ignored over the good word of the brethren.
i guess my point is--is education undermined to protect people from that disillusionment? is it in the end truly better to be intellectually clumsy, even disrespectful and potentially violent toward other human beings, and a little clueless, in order to be believing with no doubts? without wavering? i believe it's possible to be completely believing and still questioning (just take kate kelly! oh wait...) but why are we taught to be "like little children" instead of like grown adults with the ability to cultivate their own minds and characters and wade through the shit of the church? is that level of intelligence and compassion not worth it because the church doesn't believe the masses are smart enough or not trustworthy enough to be encouraged to have that journey? instead, we are all encouraged to be identical, polished, educated but not necessarily intelligent people who will carry on the good work without making waves.
is it truly better to be obedient than compassionate? so much better to see in black and white than gray that the church pretends like gray doesn't exist?
have i ever mentioned on here how much i hate it when parents give their sons biblical names on purpose? like, i know everyone has biblical names, not just mormon guys, but it still gets to me. i guess because of how obvious it is that people who really care about giving their sons biblical names don't give any shits about giving their daughters biblical names, or if they do, they run out of women's names that they like in like two seconds.
my two brothers closest to me in age have biblical names with really cool stories about how my mom felt impressed about what to name them and impressed about their purposes and missions on earth, that a titular tie to the gospel legacy would benefit and suit them. when i asked her about my name, she said she picked it because she "just liked it." which is fine. i like my name and i'm not bitter about not having a name as old as humanity, but it does bother me that men get this grand, spiritual experience with their name and that there is virtually no such treatment for women.
it probably makes me an ass, but i will go out of my way to make sure my sons don't have biblical names. i don't want my daughters to feel like they are less. and i'm not going to painstakingly give every single kid i have a strong bible name, because to me that is #sorighteous, #soblessed. so i guess that's my unwarranted judgement for the day.
my two brothers closest to me in age have biblical names with really cool stories about how my mom felt impressed about what to name them and impressed about their purposes and missions on earth, that a titular tie to the gospel legacy would benefit and suit them. when i asked her about my name, she said she picked it because she "just liked it." which is fine. i like my name and i'm not bitter about not having a name as old as humanity, but it does bother me that men get this grand, spiritual experience with their name and that there is virtually no such treatment for women.
it probably makes me an ass, but i will go out of my way to make sure my sons don't have biblical names. i don't want my daughters to feel like they are less. and i'm not going to painstakingly give every single kid i have a strong bible name, because to me that is #sorighteous, #soblessed. so i guess that's my unwarranted judgement for the day.
cw: suicide
i was having a new girl marathon by myself when my parents called to tell me my uncle, who was still young, with his youngest daughter being only a few months old, had passed away. i sobbed. i cried. i felt true grief. they told me he passed away in a car crash that afternoon while his family was out of town.
fast forward an hour or so and my parents called back. he hadn't died in a car crash, they said, he had actually taken his own life. they had decided since they first told me that the older kids were mature enough to be told the truth. (please note that i was 22--not like i was 9 or something). he had taken his life while his wife was out of state with the kids. he had had a big presentation coming up for work, and the social anxiety had gotten to him.
after i found out what had actually happened i didn't cry a tear until the funeral. i was dazed, stricken. i remember just lying in my bed and staring at the wall.
fast forward another few weeks until after the funeral (and after my wedding). turns out, my uncle had sent a text to his wife, my aunt, right before he took his life. in it, he explained to her that he had felt for a while that the church was not true, explaining some details in particular. he expressed his deep sadness and helplessness, but said he couldn't go on feeling how he felt. (this was the first time anyone had heard that he was unhappy, since he had always been very active. all of our very large family is extremely active and "happy" in the gospel, at least as far as i know, beyond myself.)
i wonder and hurt for his children; how long will they go without knowing the truth, both about how their father died and how he felt about the church? it's not my decision of what and when to tell them anything, of course, and i can respect their mom's decision, but in such turbulent times in the church it is overwhelmingly dark to cover up the true reason why their dad left us. even if my family believes he was depressed or anxious or something, being depressed or anxious doesn't convince you the church isn't true. probably no one will talk about how overwhelmed he must have felt. that he might have felt so much pressure from the church/his family that the only way he saw out was the saddest one. maybe his kids are too young and their testimonies too young to know this, but what if no one ever tells them and they find out on accident one day? how is that going to protect them?
i don't know why i'm thinking about this this morning.
fast forward an hour or so and my parents called back. he hadn't died in a car crash, they said, he had actually taken his own life. they had decided since they first told me that the older kids were mature enough to be told the truth. (please note that i was 22--not like i was 9 or something). he had taken his life while his wife was out of state with the kids. he had had a big presentation coming up for work, and the social anxiety had gotten to him.
after i found out what had actually happened i didn't cry a tear until the funeral. i was dazed, stricken. i remember just lying in my bed and staring at the wall.
fast forward another few weeks until after the funeral (and after my wedding). turns out, my uncle had sent a text to his wife, my aunt, right before he took his life. in it, he explained to her that he had felt for a while that the church was not true, explaining some details in particular. he expressed his deep sadness and helplessness, but said he couldn't go on feeling how he felt. (this was the first time anyone had heard that he was unhappy, since he had always been very active. all of our very large family is extremely active and "happy" in the gospel, at least as far as i know, beyond myself.)
i wonder and hurt for his children; how long will they go without knowing the truth, both about how their father died and how he felt about the church? it's not my decision of what and when to tell them anything, of course, and i can respect their mom's decision, but in such turbulent times in the church it is overwhelmingly dark to cover up the true reason why their dad left us. even if my family believes he was depressed or anxious or something, being depressed or anxious doesn't convince you the church isn't true. probably no one will talk about how overwhelmed he must have felt. that he might have felt so much pressure from the church/his family that the only way he saw out was the saddest one. maybe his kids are too young and their testimonies too young to know this, but what if no one ever tells them and they find out on accident one day? how is that going to protect them?
i don't know why i'm thinking about this this morning.
today i had a digital job interview with a really reputable company. that's right, when i "entered" the interview i saw the questions for 30 seconds and then it recorded my video answers.
except, it was LITERALLY two minutes long. like, there was one question with a two minute time limit. which i didn't know in advance, or else i wouldn't have stressed about it for so long, and probably would have done it a long time ago.
pack up and go home everybody. just keep the job you have or go back to school because the job search world is seriously too weird.
except, it was LITERALLY two minutes long. like, there was one question with a two minute time limit. which i didn't know in advance, or else i wouldn't have stressed about it for so long, and probably would have done it a long time ago.
pack up and go home everybody. just keep the job you have or go back to school because the job search world is seriously too weird.
manic pixie dream girl
in high school, i dreamed of being a manic pixie dream girl. actually, more of a hilary duff-manic pixie dream girl crossbreed. elizabethtown came out when i was 15, and i just crushed so hard on it. i loved it. i still own the movie, and while i'm now aware that it is generally considered to be a terrible movie, (yeah, and yeah) there will always be a special place in my heart for it since it meant so much to me in my life at that moment.
like, to be a manic pixie dream girl, you just make up your own fashion sense and make up your own style of life and make up your own humor and be quirky and THAT'S IT, everyone will love you and the 'right' people will float in and out of your life. you'll have transient but meaningful friends, meet-cute lovers, and a charming, artsy, tag line life. i thought that was the greatest. and i always felt like i had transient friends (until the CA group), meet-cute lovers (even including my husband), and a charming, artsy, tag line life. even if it was mostly private and i wasn't actually a MPDG, i was in my mind in the way that for some reason mattered to me.
to be fair, the combination of my introverted but comfortable personality and a vague MPDG dream did result in a positive: me having self confidence and a boldness to march to the beat of my own drum, which i don't regret. but what happens when you don't have a quirky or "you do you" impulse to act on? what happens when you just want "a d v e n t u r e" in your life (which, just wanting that makes you feel like a manic pixie dream girl) but nothing you can think of would be genuine or worth it or interesting?
blogs are dying. sometimes i still really want to write on my public blog. sometimes i want to "bring it back." there's a really toxic blog culture, but i never felt sucked into that. i genuinely enjoyed experimenting with my writing and throwing a bit of myself out there, especially as an introvert. it gave me a lot of personal satisfaction, an outlet to talk about difficult things in my life, and yes, it even egged me on. i was a really private person who had a way to make really private things public in a way that was healthy and stimulating for me. like, when i did interesting things i could write about them on my blog and it infused life into me. but now blogs are dying and life is different, i'm different. i feel like i need to hold my cards so close to my chest. all the things i could be saying or developing in myself stay bottled up or come out as unpleasant, angry rants here.
i'm in a funk in life and i have been for years, and at the times that i have the gumption and will power to move on and change everything i can't because i genuinely don't know what i want. and it was easier when i wanted to be a manic pixie dream girl.
like, to be a manic pixie dream girl, you just make up your own fashion sense and make up your own style of life and make up your own humor and be quirky and THAT'S IT, everyone will love you and the 'right' people will float in and out of your life. you'll have transient but meaningful friends, meet-cute lovers, and a charming, artsy, tag line life. i thought that was the greatest. and i always felt like i had transient friends (until the CA group), meet-cute lovers (even including my husband), and a charming, artsy, tag line life. even if it was mostly private and i wasn't actually a MPDG, i was in my mind in the way that for some reason mattered to me.
to be fair, the combination of my introverted but comfortable personality and a vague MPDG dream did result in a positive: me having self confidence and a boldness to march to the beat of my own drum, which i don't regret. but what happens when you don't have a quirky or "you do you" impulse to act on? what happens when you just want "a d v e n t u r e" in your life (which, just wanting that makes you feel like a manic pixie dream girl) but nothing you can think of would be genuine or worth it or interesting?
blogs are dying. sometimes i still really want to write on my public blog. sometimes i want to "bring it back." there's a really toxic blog culture, but i never felt sucked into that. i genuinely enjoyed experimenting with my writing and throwing a bit of myself out there, especially as an introvert. it gave me a lot of personal satisfaction, an outlet to talk about difficult things in my life, and yes, it even egged me on. i was a really private person who had a way to make really private things public in a way that was healthy and stimulating for me. like, when i did interesting things i could write about them on my blog and it infused life into me. but now blogs are dying and life is different, i'm different. i feel like i need to hold my cards so close to my chest. all the things i could be saying or developing in myself stay bottled up or come out as unpleasant, angry rants here.
i'm in a funk in life and i have been for years, and at the times that i have the gumption and will power to move on and change everything i can't because i genuinely don't know what i want. and it was easier when i wanted to be a manic pixie dream girl.
when my 22 year old male employee hasn't heard of/doesn't know what menopause is, you know society is failing women. i mean, this kid is considered a prime bachelor in his community, eligible to enter into a serious intimate relationship with a woman, but he has never heard of menopause? it's like that one time i had a co-worker who had to explain to her 25 year old boyfriend what a period was. she thought it was ADORBS. i thought it was a very bad sign. they broke up.
also, guys fixing their balls through their pants in public: stop. srsly just stop, and go to the bathroom. especially if it's not an easy fix and you have to dig in there. if women were always readjusting and touching their breasts in public, people would throw pissy fits. even if the sexualization isn't there for men like it is for women, it is still not okay to play with your genitals in public.
also, guys fixing their balls through their pants in public: stop. srsly just stop, and go to the bathroom. especially if it's not an easy fix and you have to dig in there. if women were always readjusting and touching their breasts in public, people would throw pissy fits. even if the sexualization isn't there for men like it is for women, it is still not okay to play with your genitals in public.
in our last work retreat--the one where i worked in the kitchen the entire time--our big wig boss decided to roll out a new culture for our division. his new, great idea was to be 'the wolfpack.' the entire idea is to have really effective teamwork, but from the beginning, this was pretty stupid to me because literally the only reason wolves wolfpack is to kill stuff. but whatever.
over time we got wolfpack pencils, bookmarks, posters--everything. but everyone still hates the wolfpack. people make fun of it and some people joke (not so jokingly) that they're getting eaten alive by the wolfpack. so big wig had a meeting with all his upper management last week to say that everyone needs to get on board with the wolfpack and the already overwhelming and ridiculous discussion about the wolfpack is only going to intensify, complete with added meetings and worksheets.
in staff meeting this morning we were talking about it and one employee that isn't usually there raised his hand and said another employee confided in him that he has a really, really hard time with and "hates" the wolfpack. this employee's grandparents lived in germany during WWII. as their grandchild, he learned to hate 'the wolfpack' because his grandfather had constantly fought for his family, for innocent people, and for his life against the germans, who called themselves the 'wolfpack' and used that mentality. my boss's response was--and i shit you not--
"well that's what made the germans so successful."
a few people brought up some other concerns about how inherently violent it is, etc., until my boss finally shut everyone down and said he thought the employees were "intelligent" enough to realize the big whig doesn't intend negative implications to the wolfpack and that we all have to get behind it.
maybe the big wig should have been intelligent enough to have some cultural and linguistic sensitivity.
asses.
over time we got wolfpack pencils, bookmarks, posters--everything. but everyone still hates the wolfpack. people make fun of it and some people joke (not so jokingly) that they're getting eaten alive by the wolfpack. so big wig had a meeting with all his upper management last week to say that everyone needs to get on board with the wolfpack and the already overwhelming and ridiculous discussion about the wolfpack is only going to intensify, complete with added meetings and worksheets.
in staff meeting this morning we were talking about it and one employee that isn't usually there raised his hand and said another employee confided in him that he has a really, really hard time with and "hates" the wolfpack. this employee's grandparents lived in germany during WWII. as their grandchild, he learned to hate 'the wolfpack' because his grandfather had constantly fought for his family, for innocent people, and for his life against the germans, who called themselves the 'wolfpack' and used that mentality. my boss's response was--and i shit you not--
"well that's what made the germans so successful."
a few people brought up some other concerns about how inherently violent it is, etc., until my boss finally shut everyone down and said he thought the employees were "intelligent" enough to realize the big whig doesn't intend negative implications to the wolfpack and that we all have to get behind it.
maybe the big wig should have been intelligent enough to have some cultural and linguistic sensitivity.
asses.
in my dreams, here is how the next three weeks will go:
day 1 (today): complete fast
day 2: water fast (no food, water is allowed)
next 19 days, for a full 3 weeks: eat vegan, plus no sugar unless it's natural (i.e. from fruit, honey)
observations after only part of day 1: food provides so many milestones throughout my days. getting to leave work and eat lunch is some of the only sanity in my work day. right now i'm getting ready to go home, and the thought of going home and just not eating anything is kind of giving me anxiety. food is how i ease in and out of the parts of my day, and how i know the time of day or tone of day. eating is often what dh and i do together. like, if we're not going to be eating together, how will we spend time together? (i'm thinking exercise and outings.)
combine this with the fact that i took facebook off just my phone, and my life is completely different in one day.
it is all very iiiinteresting.
dawn of the planet of the apes
such a beautiful movie. the greek epic of apes.
and so fucking tired and patriarchal. there's a good human father and a bad human father, and a good ape father and a bad ape father. the fathers all have a son or sons but no daughters. the good fathers (only the good fathers) have ladiez, but all the ladiez do is be so *~motherly~* and #blessed. the fathers and sons get huffy. and in the end, the good underdog alpha male has to figure out how to be a good patriarch when there is much bad men, so trials, many his people.
like, is there really no other story to tell? they couldn't have come up with ANYTHING else? ANYTHING more interesting? war is the history and probably the future of humankind, but there is not even a shadow of modernity or women? women will always just take a step back and be invisible so the men can fight it out for menz powerz? when are the stories of toni morrison, marilynne robinson, gloria naylor going to become the epics?
at least in the lion king the lionesses got to be warriors.
i am disappoint, and i'm tired of the stories of men.
and so fucking tired and patriarchal. there's a good human father and a bad human father, and a good ape father and a bad ape father. the fathers all have a son or sons but no daughters. the good fathers (only the good fathers) have ladiez, but all the ladiez do is be so *~motherly~* and #blessed. the fathers and sons get huffy. and in the end, the good underdog alpha male has to figure out how to be a good patriarch when there is much bad men, so trials, many his people.
like, is there really no other story to tell? they couldn't have come up with ANYTHING else? ANYTHING more interesting? war is the history and probably the future of humankind, but there is not even a shadow of modernity or women? women will always just take a step back and be invisible so the men can fight it out for menz powerz? when are the stories of toni morrison, marilynne robinson, gloria naylor going to become the epics?
at least in the lion king the lionesses got to be warriors.
i am disappoint, and i'm tired of the stories of men.
mook comedies
today husband and i got into a fight debate about whether or not it makes sense to call a guy a 'bitch'. i definitively say yes, and he definitively says no. which got me thinking about pretty much the entire reason for my answer: the mook, which i have been obsessed with ever since i heard about it as a teenager.
in 2001, frontline published a documentary called "the merchants of cool". in it, they coined the term "mook", which refers to the persona mtv created as the cool yet still typical teenage guy. (its counterpart, the "midriff", which is an oversexualized but somehow still innocent and sweet girl--hello mila kunis?--is always lurking nearby.) what defines a mook is "infantile, boorish behavior."
since 2001, mooks have only become more and more prevalent, even having their own special kind of mini genre of movie. “crude and sexual content” pretty much perfectly defines all of these movies. when i think about mooks, here are some actors that come to mind, and a list of the mook movies they have been in (to be fair, i only included movies i have seen):
jonah hill
paul rudd (who i loathe almost as much as i loathe adam sandler)
adam sandler
i'm not saying i 100% hate all of these movies, but these guys have almost single-handedly created this generation's lasting, unique contribution to humor: mook comedy. and everyone wonders why there is a huge debate over women being funny or not: the big, blockbusting, mook comedies, which the industry easily favors, are inherently misogynistic and leave no plausibility for female comedians. women are only supposed to be comedic props and foils. (also please note that "bridesmaids", which is usually brought up in that conversation, with its nearly all female cast, uses many of the same tactics that mook comedies do: projectile vomiting, crudeness, general ridiculousness.) (don't get me wrong, i love "bridesmaids".) this is why when my husband tells me leslie knope is literally not funny at all but andy is hilarious, i am not just punching but obliterating so many baby dolphins in my head.
it may not seem super fair to pin it just on these guys, but they are the only persistent enforcers that haven't, in my opinion, shown other/actual artistic merit. jason schwartzman gets a pass because he is tied to the fabulous wes anderson. jason segel gets a pass, maybe almost just because of "the 5 year engagement" (biased). will ferrel is also in many of these movies, but he is too old to really be a mook, and he isn't quite in the club. steve carrell also has one foot in the club (hello michael scott?), but he is also somehow not completely all in. michael cera should also be on this list, but for some reason he just hasn't been as successful, and not quite sexist enough.
these guys are always acting like teenagers, and it’s in their teens that guys are going through puberty and trying to claim their awesome, heteronormative, male privileged place in M A N H O O D. an obvious part of proving you are a man is proving you are not a woman, which makes logical sense but unfortunately is one of this generation of americans' worse offenses in misogyny.
the entire reason i even started thinking about mook comedies was because i think the mook comedians are actually the first ones who started making it okay to call guys 'bitches'. i went on imdb to find out how many times 'bitch' is said in each of these movies, but what i found was shocking. ”bitch” is usually not listed on the content advisory for these movies because there are so many other, better, more colorful words to count in these movies, and bitch is considered a “minor” and pervasive swear word. (most notably listed is usually the word c---, as in “Get Him to the Greek” when russell brand says to his dad, 'you old c---!') we should probably add "pussy" to this list, because that has become the other favorite way of putting your guy friend down when he's being anything culturally feminine: weak, emotional, timid, or any other emotion or action that fails to prove his manhood in these hilarious, vital, turbulent (sarcasm) times of adolescence.
the mook comedies keep intensifying. take for instance "the wolf of wall street". there’s a reason leo didn’t win an oscar for this movie and that’s because, hm, it’s a glorified mook comedy, even if it is trying to satirize the mook comedy and white male privilege in general. and unfortunately, the oscar voters are 76% men and, on average, over the age of 63. so they’re not as into adolescent mook comedy OR getting called out on male privilege as they are eminent people and history or legend (of the right, conservative, traditional, american, male variety).
unfortunately (or fortunately), this not-so-new but constant use of the word "bitch" by the mooks is coinciding with a move in feminism to take back the word "bitch" and in general to reject misogyny in the media, which is resulting in a convoluted, modern, pretty much non-gendered but still inherently sexist use of the word "bitch".
not all mook movies have an overwhelming, constant background and story arc of misogyny. take for instance the "jackass" movies. but mook comedy is responsible for telling guys of this generation that it's ok--actually, it's hilarious and cool!!--to be a mook and, frankly, a bitch. interesting that women can only call men bitches once men have started calling men bitches.
thanks, mook comedy, for the new use of the already poor word "pussy", for the invention of the friend zone ("if jonah hill and other fat comedians can get with smoking hot women, why can't i??"), and for, really, absolutely nothing but chaos and pain.
in 2001, frontline published a documentary called "the merchants of cool". in it, they coined the term "mook", which refers to the persona mtv created as the cool yet still typical teenage guy. (its counterpart, the "midriff", which is an oversexualized but somehow still innocent and sweet girl--hello mila kunis?--is always lurking nearby.) what defines a mook is "infantile, boorish behavior."
since 2001, mooks have only become more and more prevalent, even having their own special kind of mini genre of movie. “crude and sexual content” pretty much perfectly defines all of these movies. when i think about mooks, here are some actors that come to mind, and a list of the mook movies they have been in (to be fair, i only included movies i have seen):
jonah hill
The Wolf of Wall Streetseth rogen (one description of him onenline was, “Seth Rogen has built a career playing overgrown adolescents.” yep. this is dying to be redemptive, but it's really just not):
21 Jump Street
Get Him to the Greek
Funny People
Forgetting Sarah Marshall
Superbad
Knocked Up
The 40-Year-Old Virgin
22 Jump Street
Neighbors
Funny People
Zack and Miri Make a Porno
50/50
Pineapple Express
Step Brothers
Superbad
Knocked Up
You, Me and Dupree
The 40-Year-Old Virgin
Anchorman
paul rudd (who i loathe almost as much as i loathe adam sandler)
This Is 40
Wanderlust
I Love You, Man
Forgetting Sarah Marshall
Knocked Up
The 40-Year-Old Virgin
Anchorman
adam sandler
there are no movies listed here because adam sandler is the father of what i will call the mook comedy, and there are too many to name. i’ll go ahead and let you google “adam sandler misogynist” so you can just see what you find, but i will take time to disagree with one writer who says that as stupid as sandler is, his “brand of comedy involves no crimes against humanity.” i feel like there's only one reason the author gets to say that, and i'll let you guess what it is. (man. the author is a man.)you see, there is a crime against humanity happening in these mook comedies and that's misogyny.
i'm not saying i 100% hate all of these movies, but these guys have almost single-handedly created this generation's lasting, unique contribution to humor: mook comedy. and everyone wonders why there is a huge debate over women being funny or not: the big, blockbusting, mook comedies, which the industry easily favors, are inherently misogynistic and leave no plausibility for female comedians. women are only supposed to be comedic props and foils. (also please note that "bridesmaids", which is usually brought up in that conversation, with its nearly all female cast, uses many of the same tactics that mook comedies do: projectile vomiting, crudeness, general ridiculousness.) (don't get me wrong, i love "bridesmaids".) this is why when my husband tells me leslie knope is literally not funny at all but andy is hilarious, i am not just punching but obliterating so many baby dolphins in my head.
it may not seem super fair to pin it just on these guys, but they are the only persistent enforcers that haven't, in my opinion, shown other/actual artistic merit. jason schwartzman gets a pass because he is tied to the fabulous wes anderson. jason segel gets a pass, maybe almost just because of "the 5 year engagement" (biased). will ferrel is also in many of these movies, but he is too old to really be a mook, and he isn't quite in the club. steve carrell also has one foot in the club (hello michael scott?), but he is also somehow not completely all in. michael cera should also be on this list, but for some reason he just hasn't been as successful, and not quite sexist enough.
these guys are always acting like teenagers, and it’s in their teens that guys are going through puberty and trying to claim their awesome, heteronormative, male privileged place in M A N H O O D. an obvious part of proving you are a man is proving you are not a woman, which makes logical sense but unfortunately is one of this generation of americans' worse offenses in misogyny.
the entire reason i even started thinking about mook comedies was because i think the mook comedians are actually the first ones who started making it okay to call guys 'bitches'. i went on imdb to find out how many times 'bitch' is said in each of these movies, but what i found was shocking. ”bitch” is usually not listed on the content advisory for these movies because there are so many other, better, more colorful words to count in these movies, and bitch is considered a “minor” and pervasive swear word. (most notably listed is usually the word c---, as in “Get Him to the Greek” when russell brand says to his dad, 'you old c---!') we should probably add "pussy" to this list, because that has become the other favorite way of putting your guy friend down when he's being anything culturally feminine: weak, emotional, timid, or any other emotion or action that fails to prove his manhood in these hilarious, vital, turbulent (sarcasm) times of adolescence.
the mook comedies keep intensifying. take for instance "the wolf of wall street". there’s a reason leo didn’t win an oscar for this movie and that’s because, hm, it’s a glorified mook comedy, even if it is trying to satirize the mook comedy and white male privilege in general. and unfortunately, the oscar voters are 76% men and, on average, over the age of 63. so they’re not as into adolescent mook comedy OR getting called out on male privilege as they are eminent people and history or legend (of the right, conservative, traditional, american, male variety).
unfortunately (or fortunately), this not-so-new but constant use of the word "bitch" by the mooks is coinciding with a move in feminism to take back the word "bitch" and in general to reject misogyny in the media, which is resulting in a convoluted, modern, pretty much non-gendered but still inherently sexist use of the word "bitch".
not all mook movies have an overwhelming, constant background and story arc of misogyny. take for instance the "jackass" movies. but mook comedy is responsible for telling guys of this generation that it's ok--actually, it's hilarious and cool!!--to be a mook and, frankly, a bitch. interesting that women can only call men bitches once men have started calling men bitches.
thanks, mook comedy, for the new use of the already poor word "pussy", for the invention of the friend zone ("if jonah hill and other fat comedians can get with smoking hot women, why can't i??"), and for, really, absolutely nothing but chaos and pain.
back to work after vacation
when EVERY PERSON, even people i don't ever talk to, makes a point of asking me how my vacation went like it was super special when people take vacation all the time
when someone keeps asking me to go into more and more and more detail about what i did on my anniversary trip
when people have already gone over my head three times today because they just didn't like the (correct) answers/instructions i gave them
all the time waiting--DYING--for good news about a job i interviewed for
when someone keeps asking me to go into more and more and more detail about what i did on my anniversary trip
when people have already gone over my head three times today because they just didn't like the (correct) answers/instructions i gave them
all the time waiting--DYING--for good news about a job i interviewed for
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)