This line really caught my attention in Jobnik!. I agree with it 100% that it's easier to hate than forgive. Actually, I was just in Madison for Halloween and I'd say this situation applies:
My friend was dressed as a Flying Spaghetti Monster. He used painted tubing, basically creating a giant necklace of foam pasta with two brown styrofoam meatballs stuck into the tubing with toothpicks and a pair of huge googly eyes. For those who appreciated the reference, this costume elicited many squeals of delight, high-fives, and generally positive feedback.
We're happily walking along and, next thing we know, a scantily clad girl in short shorts and some skimpy excuse for a "top" said, "EXCUSE me," as she gripped a meatball and ran off into the crowd. It was not playful, friendly, or flirtatious; it seemed that she was trying to destroy annihilate the entire costume. What good would this do her?
Even though it wasn't MY costume, I was really p/o-ed! That was completely unnecessary, I thought, If she doesn't like Pastafarianism, she doesn't have to look at his costume. It's Madison - there were DEFINITELY plenty of other costumes to look at.
I told my friend I wanted to go find that girl and yell at her. "I can take her," I said, noting that she was smaller than me. "No," my friend said, "it's not that big a deal."
Why do people do random vicious things to strangers? It's such a waste of energy. Anyway, I spent probably five to ten minutes of my life thinking lashon harah about this girl. Rather than just moving on with the night and being happy there was still SOME costume left, I lost life time fantasizing about this young woman choking on a meatball over dinner. Or getting served yucky raw meatballs. Or... That's not the point. I'm doing it right now.
Anyway, I STILL haven't forgiven this girl I'll probably never see again! I'd say that it really IS easier to hate than forgive.
ps: I'm not usually this vengeful. It's one thing to respond, and completely another to attack. This attack on my buddy was uncalled for.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Power of the Situation
In psychology there is something referred to as "power of the situation." It explains why people do things they normally would not under particular circumstances. A strong illustration occurred in the 1970s; it is called The Stanford Prison Experiment.
Some researchers put college males into a simulated jail, placing some as guards and others as prisoners. When prisoners did not behave according to the established standards, guards were to punish them. Ordinary young men turned into cruel bullies within a short time. It's pretty amazing - if you have the time, I'd suggest checking it out if you haven't already heard of it. Some guards would make prisoners do physical exercise as punishment, while others would abuse their power by embarrassing prisoners.
Power of the situation is also featured in Maus when a Holocaust victim helps the Nazis, acting as an officer, to save his own skin. I got the feeling he wasn't a bad person, he just was doing what it took to survive. In that particular camp with those particular officers, "what it took" involved putting down, punishing, or harming fellow victims. To be forced into the Holocaust, tortured and mistreated, and then to inflict that kind of abuse on others must have been at least as terrifying (if not more so) than being a victim with the majority. The guy who helped the Nazis was probably so scared he either blocked out the reality of what he was doing to his fellow humans, or disconnected from the situation completely, not even aware of the deeds he performed.
I bring up this concept because being in the Israeli army probably doesn't feel "normal" to anyone. In the beginning of Jobnik! our protagonist complains that she is bored and lonely in her office; however, she would not want someone around who could do her job better. Loneliness is a craving for social interaction and connection. Miriam sleeps with at least three different men during her service. My question is, did she do it because she really liked them, or was it the job she was assigned? If she worked in the kitchen or on a cleaning crew (with other people) instead of in an office (alone), would she still have had those affairs?
Some researchers put college males into a simulated jail, placing some as guards and others as prisoners. When prisoners did not behave according to the established standards, guards were to punish them. Ordinary young men turned into cruel bullies within a short time. It's pretty amazing - if you have the time, I'd suggest checking it out if you haven't already heard of it. Some guards would make prisoners do physical exercise as punishment, while others would abuse their power by embarrassing prisoners.
Power of the situation is also featured in Maus when a Holocaust victim helps the Nazis, acting as an officer, to save his own skin. I got the feeling he wasn't a bad person, he just was doing what it took to survive. In that particular camp with those particular officers, "what it took" involved putting down, punishing, or harming fellow victims. To be forced into the Holocaust, tortured and mistreated, and then to inflict that kind of abuse on others must have been at least as terrifying (if not more so) than being a victim with the majority. The guy who helped the Nazis was probably so scared he either blocked out the reality of what he was doing to his fellow humans, or disconnected from the situation completely, not even aware of the deeds he performed.
I bring up this concept because being in the Israeli army probably doesn't feel "normal" to anyone. In the beginning of Jobnik! our protagonist complains that she is bored and lonely in her office; however, she would not want someone around who could do her job better. Loneliness is a craving for social interaction and connection. Miriam sleeps with at least three different men during her service. My question is, did she do it because she really liked them, or was it the job she was assigned? If she worked in the kitchen or on a cleaning crew (with other people) instead of in an office (alone), would she still have had those affairs?
Friday, October 22, 2010
One more on The Rabbi's Cat
I noticed that the rabbi's relationship with the cat mirrors that of his relationship with his cousin. The rabbi is dominant over his cat; the cousin dominates over the rabbi.
Specifically, the rabbi drags the cat around as he pleases (see blog regarding imperfection) and makes the final decisions regarding the cat's interactions with his mistress (the rabbi's daughter). He chooses when the cat may see her and how he will act around her. You can hang out, but don't talk, the rabbi says. At first the cat says okay; eventually the two do whisper to each other.
The rabbi's cousin pushes the rabbi into certain "decisions." When the daughter wants to marry, the cousin is the one talking to her father. He says, let her marry, she's a great young lady! He's not a bad guy, it'll be okay. Dad says, no, she's my baby. Cousin says, say yes or I'll beat you up! Rabbi: okay. Fine.
Then the cousin proceeds - and don't just say yes. Be nice. It's a shame, because I noted a change of character in the daughter after her engagement. Perhaps it was just my imagination, but she seems more superficial. She worries about her dress and pressures her husband-to-be to buy her shoes. Is she just trying to "look more French," or is that just a cover?
Whatever it is, it made me think of the masks in the Maus series. Vladek wants to seem more Polish, wants to seem more German... so he just wears a mask. The beauty of cartoons is that we don't worry about where he acquired the mask. Did he make it out of things from the camps? No, it's just the way he talks or the subtle mannerisms that make, for example, an American an American.
My aunt and I were talking and she said that if we went to a foreign country people would spot us as Americans a mile away! I said, "What are you talking about?" And she said it's the way we walk, the confidence with which we approach strangers, our manner of talking -- that mark us as Americans.
Specifically, the rabbi drags the cat around as he pleases (see blog regarding imperfection) and makes the final decisions regarding the cat's interactions with his mistress (the rabbi's daughter). He chooses when the cat may see her and how he will act around her. You can hang out, but don't talk, the rabbi says. At first the cat says okay; eventually the two do whisper to each other.
The rabbi's cousin pushes the rabbi into certain "decisions." When the daughter wants to marry, the cousin is the one talking to her father. He says, let her marry, she's a great young lady! He's not a bad guy, it'll be okay. Dad says, no, she's my baby. Cousin says, say yes or I'll beat you up! Rabbi: okay. Fine.
Then the cousin proceeds - and don't just say yes. Be nice. It's a shame, because I noted a change of character in the daughter after her engagement. Perhaps it was just my imagination, but she seems more superficial. She worries about her dress and pressures her husband-to-be to buy her shoes. Is she just trying to "look more French," or is that just a cover?
Whatever it is, it made me think of the masks in the Maus series. Vladek wants to seem more Polish, wants to seem more German... so he just wears a mask. The beauty of cartoons is that we don't worry about where he acquired the mask. Did he make it out of things from the camps? No, it's just the way he talks or the subtle mannerisms that make, for example, an American an American.
My aunt and I were talking and she said that if we went to a foreign country people would spot us as Americans a mile away! I said, "What are you talking about?" And she said it's the way we walk, the confidence with which we approach strangers, our manner of talking -- that mark us as Americans.
Did you say, "tree climbing goats?"
Yes, yes I did.
I was reading The Rabbi's Cat and on page 68 there is a reference I did not understand. Being originally from Wisconsin, I've never seen this kind of thing before.
Here's a bit of context from page 68:
"[My master] doesn't even care about things that used to make us laugh. Like the goats climbing up the acacia trees to graze. Before, he would say, "Look, a goat tree. When they're ripe, the fruits will fall."
Is this a real thing? I started googling and soon I found out - it's real!
Look!
another link...
...and one more for you.
Does anyone else think this is crazy?
I was reading The Rabbi's Cat and on page 68 there is a reference I did not understand. Being originally from Wisconsin, I've never seen this kind of thing before.
Here's a bit of context from page 68:
"[My master] doesn't even care about things that used to make us laugh. Like the goats climbing up the acacia trees to graze. Before, he would say, "Look, a goat tree. When they're ripe, the fruits will fall."
Is this a real thing? I started googling and soon I found out - it's real!
Look!
another link...
...and one more for you.
Does anyone else think this is crazy?
Faulty Math? I like to think it works.
In Maus II Spiegelman appears. He is being interviewed about his work, slowly shrinking into a child. It's a very gradual transition; I suddenly went, Hey, that's a small kid in a big chair! He is overwhelmed by all the press and people. Acknowledging that the author had to select what panes to include and which ones not to include, it was neat to hear outside feedback from a character who is not associated with any of Artie's other family members OR the Holocaust. It also shows that even Spiegelman turns to others for words of wisdom. While he may be brilliant, he is still a mere mortal. He is not a perfect being.
We also see this in Spiegelman's interactions with his father on multiple occasions. We like Artie and sympathize with him, but he does not make himself seem flawless or godlike. His character is almost constantly smoking (I think he spills ash on the carpet once), he can be critical of his dad, and he tends to make his father feel like his son is pushing him away. A scene that made me giggle was when Mala left, and the father called Artie and his cousin to come and stay with him. He wants them to stay all summer, but they only plan to stay for a couple of days. Vladek unpacks all of Artie's clothes into the dresser, and he's always saying things like, (I'm paraphrasing, bear with me) "It's so great that you're spending the summer with me! We're going to have a great time together!" Artie always says that they're leaving soon, but it's an ongoing dispute.
The Rabbi's Cat similarly shows both good and "not ideal" facets of each persona. The Rabbi contradicts himself quite often when it comes to the issue of permitting his cat to have a bar mitzvah. He saya the cat has to be a good Jew, and then he continues to treat him like a cat. The rabbi decides that the cat will be a bad influence on his daughter, and that the cat will stay with him. The accompanying picture is the rabbi walking, holding the cat by the scruff of his neck and dragging him along (pg. 9). At first I thought of a woman carrying a clutch... then a hobo bag... then football players carrying a football. I wanted to give you a decent visual, and then I found this. I can't believe someone actually invented this! It seemed an appropriate comparison.
The cat and the rabbi go to the two-up rabbi, who is also imperfect. The two-up rabbi says at first that God made man in His image, and then that "God" is a word. The rabbi's rabbi thinks the cat ought to be drowned. On page 13, the cat says: "And I tell the rabbi's rabbi that I am God, who has taken the appearance of a cat in order to test him. I tell him that...he was as dogmatic and obtuse with me as some Christians are with Jews." He begs forgiveness, and the cat essentially goes, I'm just a cat. The fact that the rabbi would follow someone so gullible in the first place saddens me. Icing on the cake, a guy who wants to drown a cat. Drowning the cat is the same as the cat eating the parrot.
The cat says that God is a reassuring myth the two-up rabbi uses to assure himself he is not a lonely old man. The cat reminds him that people outlive cats, so the cat will never be alone. On page 19: "And I can tell that my master's a bit angry with me. He's your master and you love him and I just proved to you that he's not all-knowing. You're even realizing that, for all the deference you feel for him, this master is less intelligent than you are. So you have no master, but you don't want to admit that...because you don't want to end up old and alone and without anyone to turn to..." The way this graphic novel is written, the cat is a pretty developed character, as far as cats go. Like all cats, he has personality and a secret life. He watches and observes, stating bluntly what he sees. The cat figure here serves as a slap-in-the-face dose of reality, delivered whether or not solicited. He also has some attitude, and, of course, is not perfect himself.
The good thing is, though, that none of these characters ever claim to be perfect. Some might argue that the cat said he was God, and that God is perfect, but I'm arguing with the cat on this one: What God?
No existence = no flaws. No existence = no perfection. No existence = no existence.
On page
We also see this in Spiegelman's interactions with his father on multiple occasions. We like Artie and sympathize with him, but he does not make himself seem flawless or godlike. His character is almost constantly smoking (I think he spills ash on the carpet once), he can be critical of his dad, and he tends to make his father feel like his son is pushing him away. A scene that made me giggle was when Mala left, and the father called Artie and his cousin to come and stay with him. He wants them to stay all summer, but they only plan to stay for a couple of days. Vladek unpacks all of Artie's clothes into the dresser, and he's always saying things like, (I'm paraphrasing, bear with me) "It's so great that you're spending the summer with me! We're going to have a great time together!" Artie always says that they're leaving soon, but it's an ongoing dispute.
The Rabbi's Cat similarly shows both good and "not ideal" facets of each persona. The Rabbi contradicts himself quite often when it comes to the issue of permitting his cat to have a bar mitzvah. He saya the cat has to be a good Jew, and then he continues to treat him like a cat. The rabbi decides that the cat will be a bad influence on his daughter, and that the cat will stay with him. The accompanying picture is the rabbi walking, holding the cat by the scruff of his neck and dragging him along (pg. 9). At first I thought of a woman carrying a clutch... then a hobo bag... then football players carrying a football. I wanted to give you a decent visual, and then I found this. I can't believe someone actually invented this! It seemed an appropriate comparison.
The cat and the rabbi go to the two-up rabbi, who is also imperfect. The two-up rabbi says at first that God made man in His image, and then that "God" is a word. The rabbi's rabbi thinks the cat ought to be drowned. On page 13, the cat says: "And I tell the rabbi's rabbi that I am God, who has taken the appearance of a cat in order to test him. I tell him that...he was as dogmatic and obtuse with me as some Christians are with Jews." He begs forgiveness, and the cat essentially goes, I'm just a cat. The fact that the rabbi would follow someone so gullible in the first place saddens me. Icing on the cake, a guy who wants to drown a cat. Drowning the cat is the same as the cat eating the parrot.
The cat says that God is a reassuring myth the two-up rabbi uses to assure himself he is not a lonely old man. The cat reminds him that people outlive cats, so the cat will never be alone. On page 19: "And I can tell that my master's a bit angry with me. He's your master and you love him and I just proved to you that he's not all-knowing. You're even realizing that, for all the deference you feel for him, this master is less intelligent than you are. So you have no master, but you don't want to admit that...because you don't want to end up old and alone and without anyone to turn to..." The way this graphic novel is written, the cat is a pretty developed character, as far as cats go. Like all cats, he has personality and a secret life. He watches and observes, stating bluntly what he sees. The cat figure here serves as a slap-in-the-face dose of reality, delivered whether or not solicited. He also has some attitude, and, of course, is not perfect himself.
The good thing is, though, that none of these characters ever claim to be perfect. Some might argue that the cat said he was God, and that God is perfect, but I'm arguing with the cat on this one: What God?
No existence = no flaws. No existence = no perfection. No existence = no existence.
On page
Saturday, October 16, 2010
On kashrut
Hey, I just realized that in my previous post I mentioned that Poles are drawn as pigs in Maus II. According to the laws of kashrut, or keeping kosher, Jews are not supposed to eat any form of pig meat. No pulled pork sandwiches in summer, no bacon in the morning, no sliced deli ham for lunch...
Not all branches of Judaism require that its members keep kosher; as far as I've seen, it seems to be primarily Orthodox and Conservative Jews. Kashrut also says that Jews cannot eat shellfish, bottom-feeders (like catfish), and it has specifications as far as the killing of permitted animals. There is a more detailed description at this website.
Then there is the wordplay people use: That's not kosher! While it can be a joke, it can also be someone genuinely scolding someone else. Don't do that, it's not kosher! Or when playing a game, and someone breaks the rules, you can call them out with that expression.
What I'm getting at is, by portraying the Polish as pigs, is Spiegelman (the author, not the character) hinting at a personal dislike for either Polish people or Poland the country? Or, is he simply saying that Jews in the Holocaust somehow clashed with Poles in the Holocaust?
Not all branches of Judaism require that its members keep kosher; as far as I've seen, it seems to be primarily Orthodox and Conservative Jews. Kashrut also says that Jews cannot eat shellfish, bottom-feeders (like catfish), and it has specifications as far as the killing of permitted animals. There is a more detailed description at this website.
Then there is the wordplay people use: That's not kosher! While it can be a joke, it can also be someone genuinely scolding someone else. Don't do that, it's not kosher! Or when playing a game, and someone breaks the rules, you can call them out with that expression.
What I'm getting at is, by portraying the Polish as pigs, is Spiegelman (the author, not the character) hinting at a personal dislike for either Polish people or Poland the country? Or, is he simply saying that Jews in the Holocaust somehow clashed with Poles in the Holocaust?
Zac, you're going in my blog.
In Maus II an Israeli (a mouse) asks Spiegelman what animal he would use to depict Israelis.
Poles were pigs, Americans were dogs, Nazis were cats, Jews were mice, French were frogs, and so forth.
Spiegelman replies that he would use "a porcupine?"
This made me smile, because there is a stereotype of Israelis being like sabras. A sabra is prickly on the outside, but juicy and sweet on the inside. I've met at least a handful of Israelis myself, and I don't think this applies to all Israelis. While stereotypes are often based on truth, there are always some people who don't fit them... and some people who fit them perfectly.
Anyway, to use a porcupine is like a pun on the sabra stereotype.
Just now, my boyfriend's room mmate was eating Nerds candy and gave me the empty box, saying, "feed your imagination." It was EMPTY. What kind of guy is this? Hard to say.
"Do I look like a garbage?" I asked him. You know what he said? He said, "Well, I figured you're more... adept... at cleaning up messes." Implied: because you're a woman.
Frustrated, I continued blogging. This is perfect, I thought, I'm writing about stereotypes right now! What about spic and span men, though? There are definitely at least a couple guys that are much cleaner than me. Why are women so targeted in modern society? Better yet, why have women been targeted throughout history?
Poles were pigs, Americans were dogs, Nazis were cats, Jews were mice, French were frogs, and so forth.
Spiegelman replies that he would use "a porcupine?"
This made me smile, because there is a stereotype of Israelis being like sabras. A sabra is prickly on the outside, but juicy and sweet on the inside. I've met at least a handful of Israelis myself, and I don't think this applies to all Israelis. While stereotypes are often based on truth, there are always some people who don't fit them... and some people who fit them perfectly.
Anyway, to use a porcupine is like a pun on the sabra stereotype.
Just now, my boyfriend's room mmate was eating Nerds candy and gave me the empty box, saying, "feed your imagination." It was EMPTY. What kind of guy is this? Hard to say.
"Do I look like a garbage?" I asked him. You know what he said? He said, "Well, I figured you're more... adept... at cleaning up messes." Implied: because you're a woman.
Frustrated, I continued blogging. This is perfect, I thought, I'm writing about stereotypes right now! What about spic and span men, though? There are definitely at least a couple guys that are much cleaner than me. Why are women so targeted in modern society? Better yet, why have women been targeted throughout history?
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Vladek's character development
Maus II has been a very interesting read thus far.
Structurally speaking, it's well designed because although the story does contain some intense material, it is punctuated with Vladek "now."
Vladek "now" is a completely different person from Vladek "then," and it's neat to see how Vladek has changed over the course of time. We can see differences over the years, but the gradual character development is more subtle. For example, young Vladek uses the nasty situation as a networking opportunity to aid his survival. He meets all the right people, working in good conditions teaching English, fixing shoes, and working on roofs. As a result, he is paid in food and praise. He gets bread and sausage, extra soup... and as a hoarder, he always has and uses resources. Vladek charms some young women with chocolate from the Red Cross care packages. On the crowded train, he hooks a blanket to the ceiling which ultimately saves his life. He trades a gold watch, and even knows the trading equation of available goods.
One portion of bread equals three cigarettes; two hundred cigarettes equals one bottle of vodka. To get his wife transfered into a specific area, it will cost at least a bottle of vodka; and Vladek DOES achieve the transfer! He's a Holocaust hero!
Present-day Vladek saves EVERYTHING. He makes reference to a tea bag drying from this morning. He has a near-empty box of cereal he himself cannot consume due to his diet. There's an entire scene in which Vladek fulfills the "Jewish mother" stereotype. He says, Artie, Francoise, how about some cereal?
-No, thanks, pop, I'm not hungry.
-Francoise?
-No thanks.
-It's okay, I'll pack it up to go for you.
-DAD! We don't WANT it!
-How about some of this fruit cake?
-We're not hungry!
-Ok, honey, I'll pack it with the cereal!
The whole forcefeeding thing honestly roots from Jewish moms trying to fatten their daughters up for Jewish men to make sure they have plenty of nutrients and calories to raise A BUNCH OF JEWISH BABIES.
All the Jewish holidays eventually end in eating, drinking, and introducing relatives to friends. Yentl, meet Efrayim. Did you have enough wine? Yes? Well, have some more anyway. Then you can get together and MAKE JEWISH BABIES.
Are we seeing a theme here?
Structurally speaking, it's well designed because although the story does contain some intense material, it is punctuated with Vladek "now."
Vladek "now" is a completely different person from Vladek "then," and it's neat to see how Vladek has changed over the course of time. We can see differences over the years, but the gradual character development is more subtle. For example, young Vladek uses the nasty situation as a networking opportunity to aid his survival. He meets all the right people, working in good conditions teaching English, fixing shoes, and working on roofs. As a result, he is paid in food and praise. He gets bread and sausage, extra soup... and as a hoarder, he always has and uses resources. Vladek charms some young women with chocolate from the Red Cross care packages. On the crowded train, he hooks a blanket to the ceiling which ultimately saves his life. He trades a gold watch, and even knows the trading equation of available goods.
One portion of bread equals three cigarettes; two hundred cigarettes equals one bottle of vodka. To get his wife transfered into a specific area, it will cost at least a bottle of vodka; and Vladek DOES achieve the transfer! He's a Holocaust hero!
Present-day Vladek saves EVERYTHING. He makes reference to a tea bag drying from this morning. He has a near-empty box of cereal he himself cannot consume due to his diet. There's an entire scene in which Vladek fulfills the "Jewish mother" stereotype. He says, Artie, Francoise, how about some cereal?
-No, thanks, pop, I'm not hungry.
-Francoise?
-No thanks.
-It's okay, I'll pack it up to go for you.
-DAD! We don't WANT it!
-How about some of this fruit cake?
-We're not hungry!
-Ok, honey, I'll pack it with the cereal!
The whole forcefeeding thing honestly roots from Jewish moms trying to fatten their daughters up for Jewish men to make sure they have plenty of nutrients and calories to raise A BUNCH OF JEWISH BABIES.
All the Jewish holidays eventually end in eating, drinking, and introducing relatives to friends. Yentl, meet Efrayim. Did you have enough wine? Yes? Well, have some more anyway. Then you can get together and MAKE JEWISH BABIES.
Are we seeing a theme here?
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
On leaving bad relationships
In Maus I Vladik checks his date's pill bottles to make sure she isn't crazy. During his second marriage neither party is truly satisfied. While Vladik always saves money, Mala, his wife, always spends money. When she asks for money or suggests, for example, that they hire a professional to fix the roof (rather than allowing her aging spouse to do it himself = bad idea), he complains that she spends too much money on unimportant things.
Throughout the graphic novel Vladik and Mala complain incessantly about each other to Vladik's son Artie. Eventually Artie says that maybe they ought to go to couple's therapy. Vladik says NO! and keeps complaining about his wife.
We (Americans) see a lot of this in sitcoms, books, movies... But growing up, I was under the impression that marriage is supposed to be fun. Stereotypes are often based on truth: something happens all the time, we make fun of it. It's human nature.
What I'm asking is, why do people with relationships that reflect that of Vladik and Mala stay together?
I have a few ideas, but input is never a bad thing.
Idea #1: Fear of being alone
People are afraid of being alone. Leaving someone is hard because it's, one, hard to lose somebody socially, but also because, two, there often is NOT a new partner right away. And even if there is, the new person is not the old one. When a break-up occurs, it's for a reason, so ideally the new partner is not the same as the old; but the heart still aches for the "original" partner, even if it was an unhealthy relationship.
Idea #2: Fear of change
Change is sometimes a scary thing. When a relationship is icky, eventually it becomes evident that something is off. Maybe the spark is gone. Maybe somebody is a hard core druggie. Whatever it may be, leaving routine can lead to a period of disorder. The new situation will OBVIOUSLY be DIFFERENT from the new situation. If they're lucky, it will be better; but no one knows until they try.
Idea #3: Environmental excuses
Environmental excuses, like financial security. If the man works but also is a not-nice person, and the woman is a housewife, perhaps she is reluctant to leave due to fear of the unknown. Will she ever find a job? Will it be a fun job? Will she win the lottery? Will she go broke buying lottery tickets?
Another environmental excuse is kids. "We're staying together for the kids." Yet another is political. If the president and his wife are unhappy and they break up, it will be all over the media. If they keep it out of the media and stay quiet, faking happiness for the public, they still have a private life. Is unhappiness in this situation worth the trade off?
Throughout the graphic novel Vladik and Mala complain incessantly about each other to Vladik's son Artie. Eventually Artie says that maybe they ought to go to couple's therapy. Vladik says NO! and keeps complaining about his wife.
We (Americans) see a lot of this in sitcoms, books, movies... But growing up, I was under the impression that marriage is supposed to be fun. Stereotypes are often based on truth: something happens all the time, we make fun of it. It's human nature.
What I'm asking is, why do people with relationships that reflect that of Vladik and Mala stay together?
I have a few ideas, but input is never a bad thing.
Idea #1: Fear of being alone
People are afraid of being alone. Leaving someone is hard because it's, one, hard to lose somebody socially, but also because, two, there often is NOT a new partner right away. And even if there is, the new person is not the old one. When a break-up occurs, it's for a reason, so ideally the new partner is not the same as the old; but the heart still aches for the "original" partner, even if it was an unhealthy relationship.
Idea #2: Fear of change
Change is sometimes a scary thing. When a relationship is icky, eventually it becomes evident that something is off. Maybe the spark is gone. Maybe somebody is a hard core druggie. Whatever it may be, leaving routine can lead to a period of disorder. The new situation will OBVIOUSLY be DIFFERENT from the new situation. If they're lucky, it will be better; but no one knows until they try.
Idea #3: Environmental excuses
Environmental excuses, like financial security. If the man works but also is a not-nice person, and the woman is a housewife, perhaps she is reluctant to leave due to fear of the unknown. Will she ever find a job? Will it be a fun job? Will she win the lottery? Will she go broke buying lottery tickets?
Another environmental excuse is kids. "We're staying together for the kids." Yet another is political. If the president and his wife are unhappy and they break up, it will be all over the media. If they keep it out of the media and stay quiet, faking happiness for the public, they still have a private life. Is unhappiness in this situation worth the trade off?
Saturday, October 2, 2010
"[Bryan] Singer explicitly draws parallels between the Holocausts survived... and chapters from U.S. history that resulted from mass hysteria and fear of groups allegedly posing a threat to the American way of life." -Lawrence Baron, X-Men as J Men
One interpretation- mass hysteria and fear lead to negative events. Baron cited the Holocaust, but I'd like to reference a few other instances.
Yes, the Holocaust works; Jews, gypsies, gay people, and other groups targeted by Hitler were "different" from people he grew up seeing. Hitler was German. He wanted to be an art student. Perhaps he found people with blond hair and blue eyes the most attractive and genuinely believed that he was doing a service to future generations in eliminating "unattractive" members of society (and non-German ones). Was this an early attempt at genetic engineering?
Did Hitler feel threatened by anyone who did not fit his mold? We were too scary, so he tried to kill us? It's amazing that a single person can have such influence over a group just by instilling fear.
The show The Twilight Zone uses fear to do some odd things. The neighbors are all meeting together. A new family has just moved in, and did not attend the meeting. The new family has an "unsightly" fence. Suddenly, no cars, phones, or electronics work. Of course, the new additions are suspect. Not eight minutes into the episode, one man says, "I'll get my gun." Later a guy says, "We should make a perimiter! ...Get weapons!" Someone responds, "We don't even know if we're under attack!" slowly, surely... everyone kills each other. Their house has power and a working car. Obviously, they must be terrorists. "Are you one of us? Or one of THEM?" A mob forms (with tiki torches and shovels and gasoline) and the group sets fire to the house! The episode ends: "it isn't enough for a sole voice of reason to exist. In this time of uncertainty we're so sure that villians lurk around every corner that we will create them ourselves if we can't find them. For while fear may keep us vigilant, it's also fear that tears us apart." I'd give you a link, but the show is so bad that I won't encourage you to watch it. Please don't go out of your way; it's twenty minutes of your life you won't get back.
The new neighbors never even had faces! They never came out of the house or talked to the group. Someone went in the house and talked to the newcomers. He returned with a positive report, which merited an angry response to the effect of, Why are you defending them? You must be a terrorist too!
This mob mentality, fear, and lack of all the facts makes bad things happen!
I want to discuss one final example. September 29, 2010 at Rutgers University some college students planted a hidden camera in Tyler Clementi's room. He was filmed having sex with another male; as a result, he committed suicide. My boyfriend's mom, Chris, was telling me about it, so I found a small news blurb on Google /blurb. What a cruel thing to do! Chris brought up a good point, though: If Tyler wasn't there, someone else would have been the target. She said bullying has nothing to do with the victim: it's about the bully.
So the question becomes: If somebody had killed Hitler before the Holocaust, would it still have happened? Are there infinite bullies and victims?
One interpretation- mass hysteria and fear lead to negative events. Baron cited the Holocaust, but I'd like to reference a few other instances.
Yes, the Holocaust works; Jews, gypsies, gay people, and other groups targeted by Hitler were "different" from people he grew up seeing. Hitler was German. He wanted to be an art student. Perhaps he found people with blond hair and blue eyes the most attractive and genuinely believed that he was doing a service to future generations in eliminating "unattractive" members of society (and non-German ones). Was this an early attempt at genetic engineering?
Did Hitler feel threatened by anyone who did not fit his mold? We were too scary, so he tried to kill us? It's amazing that a single person can have such influence over a group just by instilling fear.
The show The Twilight Zone uses fear to do some odd things. The neighbors are all meeting together. A new family has just moved in, and did not attend the meeting. The new family has an "unsightly" fence. Suddenly, no cars, phones, or electronics work. Of course, the new additions are suspect. Not eight minutes into the episode, one man says, "I'll get my gun." Later a guy says, "We should make a perimiter! ...Get weapons!" Someone responds, "We don't even know if we're under attack!" slowly, surely... everyone kills each other. Their house has power and a working car. Obviously, they must be terrorists. "Are you one of us? Or one of THEM?" A mob forms (with tiki torches and shovels and gasoline) and the group sets fire to the house! The episode ends: "it isn't enough for a sole voice of reason to exist. In this time of uncertainty we're so sure that villians lurk around every corner that we will create them ourselves if we can't find them. For while fear may keep us vigilant, it's also fear that tears us apart." I'd give you a link, but the show is so bad that I won't encourage you to watch it. Please don't go out of your way; it's twenty minutes of your life you won't get back.
The new neighbors never even had faces! They never came out of the house or talked to the group. Someone went in the house and talked to the newcomers. He returned with a positive report, which merited an angry response to the effect of, Why are you defending them? You must be a terrorist too!
This mob mentality, fear, and lack of all the facts makes bad things happen!
I want to discuss one final example. September 29, 2010 at Rutgers University some college students planted a hidden camera in Tyler Clementi's room. He was filmed having sex with another male; as a result, he committed suicide. My boyfriend's mom, Chris, was telling me about it, so I found a small news blurb on Google /blurb. What a cruel thing to do! Chris brought up a good point, though: If Tyler wasn't there, someone else would have been the target. She said bullying has nothing to do with the victim: it's about the bully.
So the question becomes: If somebody had killed Hitler before the Holocaust, would it still have happened? Are there infinite bullies and victims?
Friday, October 1, 2010
Sitting and talking with friends, someone said, "You'd have to be crazy to be elected!" Hey, a blog topic!
She's absolutely right; that's why crazy people ::coughsarahpalincough:: get into politics in the first place. On a religious note, the Jews chose God to control the crowd, and God chose the Jews to carry out 's* will. To be elected one must possess certain factors that appeal to enough people to be voted into a leadership position.
One of my favorite examples for everything: Hitler. Not only was Hitler charismatic, he was confident, loud, and had set standards regarding how the public ought to act and respond to him. He had a vision. A goal. He went out and tried to get what he wanted: a bunch of "perfect" blond-haired, blue-eyed German people making blond-haired, blue-eyed, straight, terrifyingly violent German babies.
Similarly, God chose the Jews, according to midrash (essentially Jewish folklore, say MEED-raash), after approaching various ethnic groups to be 's followers. The Jews agreed to monotheism (as opposed to polytheism). More detail in this link: rabbi citation
My mom and I were once talking about using God the concept as a means of maintaining social order. "God" is omniscient AND invisible (equals infinite power); watch what you say, everyone! The group leaders said, we know what God wants. If you don't obey, there will be TERRIBLE CONSEQUENCES!
In the rabbi link, Rabbi Shraga Simmons says that God and the people chose each other; thus, not only are Jews crazy- so is God.
* "'s" is referring to the gender neutrality of God. "Invented pronouns" are a real thing that avoid using sex in referring to an individual. Because there are numerous disagreements about God's gender, I chose not to choose. Here are a couple links for those interested:
yay! a chart --> scroll down for an easy-to-read chart
second link --> (and here's one more for you... enjoy... or say, "huh?")
She's absolutely right; that's why crazy people ::coughsarahpalincough:: get into politics in the first place. On a religious note, the Jews chose God to control the crowd, and God chose the Jews to carry out 's* will. To be elected one must possess certain factors that appeal to enough people to be voted into a leadership position.
One of my favorite examples for everything: Hitler. Not only was Hitler charismatic, he was confident, loud, and had set standards regarding how the public ought to act and respond to him. He had a vision. A goal. He went out and tried to get what he wanted: a bunch of "perfect" blond-haired, blue-eyed German people making blond-haired, blue-eyed, straight, terrifyingly violent German babies.
Similarly, God chose the Jews, according to midrash (essentially Jewish folklore, say MEED-raash), after approaching various ethnic groups to be 's followers. The Jews agreed to monotheism (as opposed to polytheism). More detail in this link: rabbi citation
My mom and I were once talking about using God the concept as a means of maintaining social order. "God" is omniscient AND invisible (equals infinite power); watch what you say, everyone! The group leaders said, we know what God wants. If you don't obey, there will be TERRIBLE CONSEQUENCES!
In the rabbi link, Rabbi Shraga Simmons says that God and the people chose each other; thus, not only are Jews crazy- so is God.
* "'s" is referring to the gender neutrality of God. "Invented pronouns" are a real thing that avoid using sex in referring to an individual. Because there are numerous disagreements about God's gender, I chose not to choose. Here are a couple links for those interested:
yay! a chart --> scroll down for an easy-to-read chart
second link --> (and here's one more for you... enjoy... or say, "huh?")
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)