Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Women and men have more in common than you'd think at first glance. There is often talk about how men are constantly trying to compare penis size by making everything into a competition but I've recently noticed that women compete with each other as well. Though men may talk themselves up or use physical force to up their genital size in each other's presence, women use words to describe what is going on in their lives as a way of saying "I've got something better than you do" or by fishing for compliments.

The ones who fish for compliments do so to pump up their own self-esteem. This "Queen of Wands" comic from October 4th, 2004 gives an idea of how the fishing thing works. And fishing for compliments usually works no matter if the fisher is surrounded by men or women. In the movie "Mean Girls" there is one scene where the character of Regina George is saying how she thinks she is fat and there is a slight pause when she has to stare angrily at her friends until they stammer back that she's not fat at all. I've noticed that the women who hang around with groups of guys (the women who aren't there to be "one of the boys") are usually the kind who fish and almost all of the time they are successful with the bait. Perhaps the fish are blind?

As for the other sort of female competition, it can range from significant others to pets. The group of girls I've met at work all have this underlying competitive edge going and sometimes it rubs off on me. If one girl mentions something about her significant other it seems that the surrounding women must all have their input as well, even if the something said is negative. An example would be that my one friend, Amber, was locked out of her house one night a couple weeks ago because her boyfriend went out drinking after a funeral and didn't come home to unlock the door like he said he would (there's another story about why she didn't have her own key but it's not relevant here) and she was pissed off at him because he didn't even call her to let her know where he was so she was stuck sitting in her car until 3am. After she told that story a few of the other girls felt the need to jump in with "well one time my boyfriend did this..." Why? It jus enters this never-ending ring of comparing boyfriend stories with each other to figure out whose boyfriend is the dumbest or the sweetest, depending on what the opening topic was.

The above competition also happens with pets. I will admit to happily participating in this one as my baby boy is one of my favourite topics to gab about. Amber and I have started some weird new trend of bringing in pictures of our respective pets. She's got a picture of her two cats, Tiger & Boots, in her wallet and yesterday I brought in photos of Delta, Truffle and Mister Pfeffer.

**Breaking News**: I literally just found out that a guy I went to highschool with and was good friends with (though now we've drifted) is going to be a father to a real life human baby. His girlfriend is due in January. He'll be the first out of my friends to take an official step into adulthood. Too bad he's going to be dropping out of school in order to support this thing. Knowing someone personally who is going to be a parent in a few months is scary. Too scary.

*stupid link of the day* Who Should I Cheer For?: in case you can't make up your mind on who to root for in the FIFA World Cup this website may be able to help you out JeN's mind ejaculated @ 12:14 p.m. | | permalink
Thursday, June 08, 2006

"Two become one" has never been a concept I've understood nor been particularily attracted to. The idea of becoming a single entity with my supposed significant other terrifies me. Why would you ever want to give up your sense of self just because you are involved with someone else? The world is romanticized and society hypes up the notion of there being one specific person out there for all of us. Personally, I find that very doubtful. If it is true, it is doubtful that any of us will ever meet our "One" simply due to restrictions of location, finances and beliefs. I mean, your "soul mate" could be of one religion while you are of another and even though the two of you would be perfect together it will never happen. Or it could also be that the one person put on this planet for you is straight while you are gay. Maybe your "soul mate" has died in a freak accident and you'll never ever meet them. Perhaps the other person has been born into royalty and you are just an average bob and you'll never get a chance to be with them anyway. I put too much thought into this.

Couples who suddenly lose all sense of themselves as two separate entities scare me. One thing that sticks out in my mind was at the wedding I attended last summer where, during the ceremony, the bride and groom had two candles lit which represented themselves as individuals. Using their individual candles together, they lit one big candle which was to signify their union as a couple into marriage. The amusing part was that after the "union" candle was lit, the bride and groom each blew out their individual candles. Entering into a relationship does not mean you snuff out all that you were prior to the relationship.

It's the couples, usually women, who lose all sense of themselves as independent people who bother me the most. Many of them never even realize that their way of thinking of themselves has changed until someone points it out to them. Language forms itself around your way of thinking of certain things, which is one good reason why there is such pressure to speak in a politically correct manner, such as using the term "police officer" instead of "police man" because women can be police officers too. When members of couples stop using the term "I" to refer to an opinion that they themselves hold I become worried. When the term "we" begins to immerse itself in the couple's language more so than the term "I" it becomes apparent that the members of the couple have stopped thinking of themselves as two individual people and now think of themselves solely as a single unit.

There are many cases where using the term "we" is acceptable, such as when you and your SO accompany each other to a place. "I'm sorry I couldn't call you back last night but we went to see a late movie." There are times when using the term "we" is worrying, such as when a woman starts to guide all her opinions on what both she and her SO think. "We didn't like that restaurant... We love walks in the park... We've decided to get this... We aren't interested in that." It becomes tiresome and irritating to ask an individual's thoughts only to have a "we" type of response. If someone wanted to know what both you and your SO thought then they would ask the both of you but if someone asks what you thought of something and you reply with "we thought"... *sigh*

I have seen many a person, usually female, succumb to the loss of individuality that accompanies a romantic relationship. It saddens me that some people I know don't feel whole unless they are romantically involved with someone else. A significant other does not fill a void in your life. There is no one who exists solely as your other half. You should be a whole independent person on your own and if someone happens along who complements you wonderfully then so be it. You are 100% complete as a single person.

My vow has been to never ditch a friend for a guy. To never exclude a friend because I am dating someone. To never make my friends uncomfortable to be around me when I am with a significant other. I do not want to partake in any sort of couple-y behaviour in public that sickens me upon seeing other people do it. My latest vow, that I made Andrea witness to last week, has been to never become one of those "we" people. When in doubt, I will use "he and I" in order to retain the concept of two individuals who choose to be together. I will retain my sense of self. Call me extreme or whatever you want. This is just the way my mind works.

*stupid link of the day* Barbie Intolerance Collection: imagine the reaction of some parents if Mattel was to release these dolls

JeN's mind ejaculated @ 11:21 a.m. | | permalink
Friday, June 02, 2006

Both "the Davinci Code" and "X3: the Last Stand" have now been ingested by me. I feel all caught up with pop culture now. I haven't gotten around to seeing movie version of Dan Brown's book but I'm sure I will when it comes out on video. Books are always better than their movie adaptation anyway. I only know one person who went to see the movie and they haven't read the book yet. Of course, getting to attend an advance screening for free is a pretty good reason to see almost any movie.

I thought the book was alright. It was enough to hold my interest for its 500-page length although it isn't really my type of genre to start with. I think it would have kept me more interested had I perhaps gotten a hold of the illustrated version so I could see the images of the paintings that were referenced in the novel. A few of the paintings I had a vague image of floating in my head while most of the others I'm not sure if I've even heard of before, like the "Madonna of the Rocks" one. After finishing the book I had to look up the art online. It was an interesting novel and while I don't find it hard to believe that it is all fiction, I can see why the Catholic church is having a hissy fit over the popularity of the movie. I mean, if something was released about me saying that I was a tyrant who murdered people to keep evidence of my demise under wraps, I'd be a little ticked too, even if that something claimed to be fiction.

"X-Men 3" is confusing for me. I can't decide whether I liked it or not. I read a few reviews after seeing it and one reviewer wrote something I agree with. He said the parts of the movie were better than the whole. There were some scenes/storylines that were really good but when you smushed everything together into a two-hour film you start to lose a lot of the good stuff. I think it was too much information in too short a time. All these new mutants were introduced, like Angel (pre-Archangel), and then not really mentioned ever again. Also my darling Nightcrawler was nowhere to be seen even though if you had watched "X2" then you'd know that the movie ended with no hint of him leaving Professor X and his team. After doing a little searching I found out that you'll have to play "X-Men: the Official Game" in order to find out what happened to him.

Now, onto more ranting about the movie but this next paragraph may include spoilers. You have been warned!

Prior to X3 being filmed it was rumoured that the third movie was going to be the last installment of X-Men on the big screen. Now it seems that both Hugh Jackman and Sir Ian McKellen are hinting at a fourth movie. There is supposed to be a Wolverine prequel that will be filmed though. How exactly is a fourth movie supposed to be created when the writers went and killed everybody? Jean is dead, Cyclops is allegedly dead, Xavier is being resurrected by Moira somehow, pretty much all the Brotherhood mutants are gone, and Rogue, Magneto and all the other unnamed mutants who got "The Cure" possibly have no powers left (note: "possibly" not "probably"). I know the comics are laced with metaphors like mutant = homosexual with the whole "cure" thing but I am ignoring that for now.

If you're gonna start on the whole "Phoenix Saga" bit then either do it right or find a new storyline. Jean doesn't have a split personality thing going on just because Xavier had to rein in her power. Jean was corrupted by an outside force, but she chose to assume that power in order to attempt a greater good. This storyline is very well known by X-Men fans so why did the movie people try to take only a fraction of it and twist it into something they could fit into a two hour film? Was it because they didn't want to turn an action movie into a sci-fi movie? They should have picked a different plotline then. Because of the way Dark Jean is done in the movie, she cannot come back as she did in the comic books. It makes me want to hit my head against the desk repeatedly. Also, why is Jean mentioned as an Omega-level mutant but Iceman is not?

Also, that Leech kid who can get rid of mutant's powers has got to have his power's effects re-written into the movie. If all his power does (supposedly) is eliminate mutant powers then why does Hank McCoy's hand turn human in his presence? Being big, blue, and furry is not one of Hank's powers. His power lies in his superhuman strength and agility, not in his looks. As for Juggernaut, he is not a mutant. He acquired his juggernaut power through the energy of an ancient gem in a lost temple, the mystical energy of Cyttorak. Because his power is not a mutant ability, film Leech should have had no effect on him whatsoever. What isn't mentioned in the movie is that Leech has the ability to dampen (not eliminate) power "in other living beings with superhuman abilities, mutant or otherwise." And why did the filmmakers make Leech look human? He shouldn't.

Yeah, I'm really picky. If you're going to attempt something you might as well get it right. I do have more ranting to do but I think three paragraphs is enough.
/X3 spoilers

And that's enough for today...

*stupid link of the day* Derek Abbott's Animal Noise Page: ever wondered how the different animal sounds are translated by humans in different languages?

JeN's mind ejaculated @ 11:47 a.m. | | permalink