Fueling our future

I've always followed our world's energy needs with great interest. It started out less about the cost issues associated with our oil dependency and more about ecological impact. But as I learned more, I realized that we have a lot of reasons as a country to move away from our current energy policy. Also, the fact that oil is practically our sole provider for so many crucial aspects of our civilization seems like a setup for a future disaster. Since I was young, we've been hammered with the fact that fossil fuels are a limited resource. So why isn't this addressed with the upmost urgency? This is a problem we cannot simply buy our way out of. Within the next two generations, the world's oil reserves would almost surely be depleted. What then?

We cannot avoid this problem and think that it will simply resolve itself. The BP oil disaster in the Gulf has only reinforced the suspicion that we can't rely on big business to work this problem out for us. The opposite in fact. They will continue to feed our oil addiction for as long as possible and maximize their profits. As supply diminishes and demand skyrockets, companies only look to gain more. Why would they bother introducing any ideas or technology to undercut their dominance?

We as a whole need to take the lead to drive policies, push technology and alter our habits. This is my attempt to galvanize my own thoughts on the situation and what can be done.

REDUCE CONSUMPTION

A daunting task considering the development of China and other nations who's energy needs will surely increase as time goes on. In the United States though, we have established infrastructures that can allow us to, at least individually, keep us from using more fuel than needed. Simple things such as turning off lights and appliances when not in use, commuting to work or using mass transit would drastically undercut our energy consumption.

Suburbanization has pushed people further away from their places of work, increasing commute times and thus fuel usage. Advancement of communications technology such as teleconferencing, and company policies allowing for working offsite could help reduce the need to commute to the office everyday.

INCREASE FUEL EFFICIENCY

Car mileage per gallon is the first thought that comes to mind. In the 1970s during the Mideast Oil Embargo on the U.S., gasoline was in scarce supply and for the first time created awareness of the fragility of our country's dependency on oil. President Carter responded by introducing radical policies that included investigating alternative fuels and increasing standards on fuel efficiency in vehicles.

Unfortunately most of the proposals he set in motion were systematically shut down by the next administration. Had his policies been followed to fruition, automakers would've been pushed to continually increase the fuel efficiency at a rate of 2% per year! Instead, the car industry has been allowed to sit on technology for the past 40 years at a nearly constant rate of 15 - 25 mpg.

This is when I become frustrated with policies driven by the pocketbooks of corporations. I'm not a anti-big business zealot or a conspiracy theorist, but it's hard to ignore the meddling hands of corporate self-interest in these situations. There's a reason why so much of this information has been difficult to uncover on the internet and why policies are so impossible to push through in government. Keeping the public in the dark and feeding us their side of the story allows them to keep doing what they're doing.

Dramatic change will only come from the public. Even researching these issues has been tough since it's hard to determine if the sources are unbiased (towards either side). The only thing to do is to keep reading as much as possible and decide for oneself.

Another way to address fuel efficiency is to rethink our country's electrical grid. Our aging grid creates uneven distribution, haphazard architecture and electrical waste. Remapped systems and better conductive materials could increase efficiency of output without drastic rethinking of the power sources.

ALTERNATIVE FUEL SOURCES

However we proceed, whichever source of power we draw from, the only clear thing is that we cannot rely on fossil fuels anymore. Renewable and sustainable should be key credos of any future policy. Surprisingly, many of the technological innovations necessary may already be out there.

The diesel engine was originally meant to run on biofuel. Convoluted agriculture policies put forth by the government, while not directed at stunting the biofuel diesel engine, effectively caused the makers to switch to petrol fuel. Amazingly unbeknownst to most people, the modern diesel engine will run on biofuel gasoline without ANY modification. The result is higher fuel efficiency than a normal gas engine and none of the polluting emissions. And no direct reliance on fossil fuels.

Biofuel is an attractive solution because it can come from used material. Grease from fast food fryers can be utilized into biofuel. Weed crops such as switchgrass can also be a source, which is beneficial for not competing with the needs of usage such as other crops like corn. Also, weed crops grow in less than ideal environments that are usually considered unfarmable, again avoiding any competition for valuable farming land.

Another source of biofuel that is being developed is algae. The benefits include eating up large amounts of carbon dioxide from our air, requiring less space to grow, the ability to grow from our own waste and sewage, and not emitting carbon dioxide when burned.

Megaflora is also a new alternative that is being studied. These are engineered trees that grow to full size within three years, and when cut down can regrow from the cut stump back into a full tree again.

Before proclaiming biofuel as the savior to our problems, I want to do further research to see what possible offsetting issues come along with them. The methods are definitely new but promising as well. Virgin Airlines has been one of the many proponents of the emerging technology, even flying over the Atlantic on biodiesel to prove it's viability.

Ethanol has been the subject of many debates as a possible alternative to oil. Enough has been written and can be easily found on the web so I won't repeat it all here. But I know that one of the complaints is that corn is a food crop that could be problematic if we also being to rely on it for fuel consumption.

My thinking here is that this could be an opportunity to move America away from its corn addiction (food-wise anyway). Much has been made of how our food industry is creating many unhealthy and fat people with so many additives, primarily corn. There are enough books and documentary films out there to start convincing people to not eat so much food with corn additives so the movement already has traction.

I know why America supports corn as much as it does. After all, it's still a vital way to make a living for many farmers. Our government heavily subsidizes corn so that it becomes integral to much of our food. But the fact is that our corn growers actually overproduce the crop and sell it to other countries. We don't grow so much corn out of dietary need, but to keep the influential farm states in business.

Take a look at another food staple: salt, which has been the crux of more than one civilization. Salt was virtually the only way to preserve meat historically and thus was of vital importance to living. The Salt Industry in America had a tight grip on governmental policy, much like oil and corn do today. It was only after the development of the electrical grid and refrigeration technology that we needn't rely on salt as we did, which resulted in its loss of influence on our politicians.

Similarly, the corn industry is a powerful lobbying influencer that could be tough to circumvent. However, our energy needs could provide an elegant solution that solves our food industry problem with corn without having to fight the corn industry or try to strip it of its power.

An indirect solution, such as a technological innovation, may be the only way to effectively fight against such powerful opponents. I just have no idea what that innovation would be for our oil addiction. What is clear to me is that our technological creativity is not the problem. It's the restriction of policy and the greed that drives it. (See General Motors and the EV1.)

Again, it is upon us (the public and the consumer) to force the change. Only after hearing the outcry of the public will politicians make the necessary changes. In Germany, biofuel is subsidized to be cheaper than gasoline, thus making it easier for consumers to move towards alternative fuels. In Sweden, renewable fuel sources are untaxed in an effort to move towards complete petroleum freedom.

Other energy alternatives that have always been on the table are wind and solar. These are possibly the most ideal solutions, in theory. Completely natural and renewable, they require virtually no effort on our part to generate. The only problem, which has always been the problem, is that we are unable to get high yields of energy from these sources. Until we revolutionize the method of capturing this energy, they will always be relegated as marginal sources. One other problem with the current setup is that each requires rather large equipment to collect wind or sunlight. Any future technology needs to be space efficient as well. Imagine if we had a car with one small solar panel instead of having every inch of its surface covered. Or if we had a personal windmill the size of our satellite tv dishes on our roof instead of the giant field monoliths.

TRUE INNOVATION

As ingenius as we humans have been with how we get our energy (the grease biofuel still impresses me), it's amazing to me that everything still boils down to us burning something to turn generators to produce energy. It seems to rudimentary and antiquated that I'm surprised that we haven't found another way to get electricity. Isn't there any other way than to create steam to push turbines to create static electricity??

Even our modern cars use gasoline because it creates an explosion when lit which causes air pressure to push a piston in the engine.

I criticize our collective inability to create other methods but I don't really have any substantial solutions either. I'm not that smart. I can throw out wild ideas but have no idea how they work or how to repurpose them for our energy needs.

What about plant photosynthesis? Plants are able to capture sunlight and use it as energy. They definitely aren't using steam turbines. Can we somehow synthesize or replicate how they do it? Or is there a way to use plants directly and tap into their energy generating ability?

The human body uses electricity to carry signals. How are our bodies generating those sparks? Can we copy that somehow? I'm not suggesting we get all Matrix-y and insert tubes into people or anything. I'm just saying we always get our inspiration from nature and it seems to me that we haven't really felt the need to push our energy creation solutions beyond what they already are.

---

So those are my thoughts. No fool-proof or total solutions. I suspect the real answer lies in an amalgamation of methods rather than one magic answer. I still have faith in our current President to push for energy independence and technological innovation. But I also know that he is mired in our current polarized political system and can't do it alone. He's been focused on a lot of issues, like universal health care, but with the BP disaster and the resulting public dissatisfaction with oil companies, it'd be a wasted opportunity if he didn't channel some of the public attention into innovative policy.

Role Call : Fractured Man

Related Posts

Part 1 : Primer

Part 2 : Evolution of Man(liness)

Part 3 : Modern Man

Part 4 : Post-Modern Man

The current shift in social gender behavior further proves that we are an unpredictable species. I would've never fathomed such formulations as possibilities. I also think that we're still in the middle of this era which also makes it harder to examine with an unskewed perspective.

The scales began tipping from male dominated to equal and then to female dominated. In this brave new world, men resisted and reacted in various ways. Some fought to hold onto what they could, others embraced the new system. Demands on men to be more sensitive and sympathetic also made it okay to be not so macho. Historically, it was unpopular to be wimpy and non-athletic. But in today's era, it was not only accepted but fashionable. The rise of the metrosexual gave empowerment to those who saw the typical jocks and hunks as brutish and unsophisticated.

Not every guy embraced this new persona. My trips back to Texas would result in a lot of scoffing about "sissy metrosexuals". The reaction was to get bigger SUVs and buy fishing boats. Yet like in any war of escalation, overt signs of hetero-manliness was seen as a sign of repressed homosexuality. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The only way to go along unscathed was to remain neutral.

Post-Modernism created a battlefield for sexual dominance. Coming out of that period, men took an interesting stance: they embraced the role of the lesser. As mentioned previously, women fought for more respectable representation in society. Thus in media, the women grew more intelligent and ambitious. Yet possibly due to our base human values, they had to stay beautiful. The most transparent (and ridiculous) case had to be the casting of Denise Richards as a nuclear physicist in the James Bond movie, The World is Not Enough. I don't want to promote the idea that beauty and brains are incompatible in a woman, but Richards as an actor lacked the skill and gravitas to pull of a cerebral heavyweight.

Possibly to emphasize the ascension of females, the guys in the shows became more buffoonish. Early pioneers included Home Improvement and Malcolm in the Middle. Even Homer Simpson began to evolve (or devolve) as time progressed, to reflect this change in social attitudes. The show creators laughingly admit that Homer's IQ dropped as the seasons went on. Gone were the days of The Cosby Show when both adults could be competent equals. One had to be the butt of the jokes.

Though creator Matt Groening has said that he believes that audiences love an idiot, which means Homer's stupidity isn't exactly rooted in gender role upheavals. His theory has merit. Throughout television history, bumbling males have proven popular with watchers, even up to today with characters like David Brent from The Office. The psychology behind this approach reasons that people don't want to feel inferior to the characters they watch, so enjoy watching morons as long as they're basically good-hearted in the end.

True to this, virtually every character on The Simpsons takes a dip in intelligence. But why then do Marge and Lisa remain intact for the most part throughout the show's span? Are we less inclined as a society to find it comfortable to laugh at an idiotic Lisa as opposed to an idiotic Bart?

So women were smarter, savvier and still sexy. But men grew fatter, uglier and dumber. A pair that became comedy gold in recent history. So predominate, it became the default set-up for any show. You couldn't land on a channel and not see a fit starlet sitting on the couch next to a beer-bellied oaf.

My initial reaction was to wonder, "Is this what we're expected to be as guys?" But my second thought was to ask, "Is this what women are expecting to get from guys?" Are women being conditioned to have low expectations towards men?

It's almost as if the men, losing the tide of battle, turned around and said "Women want to be superior? They think we're not as good as them? Fine, we can do that."

Somehow men were promoted to think that they can envision themselves with brainiac supermodels while not having the same expectations of themselves. And women, fighting so hard to gain respect somehow got the tables turned on them.

It became acceptable for men to revel in their nerdiness. Video games and comic books would instantly sink one's social standing when I was in high school. Yet today, it's cool. A guy can embrace his geekdom and the hot girls will still come running. The video game channel G4 punctuates this with the former-model turned host, Olivia Munn. Moral of the story? Hot chicks gravitate towards guys, no matter how geeky.

The theme of a nerdy, emotionally-stunted manchild was crafted to perfection in Will Ferrell, and virtually every Judd Apatow movie. The guys were immature and awkward but women loved them anyway. I'm not discounting the attractive power of humor in a man, but is it the same when the sides are flipped? Are men as conditioned to accept less than perfection in women?

Mel in Flight of the Conchords is nerdy and passionate about her likes, but is also portrayed as a little insane. In practically every teen movie, the nerdy girl is just a suppressed princess waiting for a guy to help her discover her true nature. In American Pie, Alyson Hannigan's sweet yet dull band nerd is actually a sexual deviant in disguise. In She's All That, Rachel Leigh Cook plays an antisocial misfit who just needs the right guy and a makeover. Take note, girls: remove your glasses and you can be prom queen.

And guys? That prom queen will ultimately see you for your inner beauty. No need to quit the chess club.

I'll admit that media's portrayal of men isn't so rigid. Rock stars will always be wild, bad boys, despite the occasional Weezer or Vampire Weekend saying it's okay to rock out in glasses and sweater-vests. And Hollywood will always find a pretty boy for girls to fawn over (current iteration: Edward Pattinson).

But is that enough? Yeah, handsome men are still portrayed in media but they're virtually never paired off with anyone less radiant than a Julia Roberts or a Catherine Zeta Jones. Is Brad Pitt ever in a tryst with a fat, unattractive girl?

Where is the equality? Guys are conditioned to think "Well, I can't look like George Clooney. But it's also okay if I look like Kevin James because I'll still get the hot girl."

I'm sure there's evidence counter to this theory. I like to think that Karen O of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs is a great role model for impressionable girls. Here's someone who doesn't fit our society's guidelines of beauty. But she is 100% comfortable in her own skin and has such high sense of self that she doesn't find it necessary to conform to a more accepted public opinion. She has an unusual fashion sense but flaunts it with such genuine joy that one can't help but respect her and find her sexy because of it. Still, she's a rock star and isn't that sexy to begin with?

Dove recently put out an ad campaign to promote real women with real curves as beautiful, bucking the trend of Victoria's Secret waif yet buxom idols. An admirable effort, yet it was still rife with controversy. Apparently, the "real women" weren't as real as they were touted to be.

Despite these efforts, the overall trend is for women to have high expectations of themselves, yet low qualifications of the men they should seek. And men are told to think the same.

The Apatow movie, Knocked Up took this awareness and attempted to subvert it. "Hey you look like Katherine Heigl. Why wouldn't you be disgusted to be with someone who looks like Seth Rogen?" Yet the story ended up conforming by having her fall in love with the guy anyway. Stereotypical behavior is acknowledged but preserved.

What this film indicates that we as a society are becoming increasingly self-aware. We know what's happening.

There are occasional references back to the Post-Modernism resistance, yet in a more subversive way. Old Spice's recent campaign, "Smell Like a Real Man" carries the same message as some of the older ads. But the effect is purely for over-the-top, humorous effect.

Another example of this awareness is the AMC show, MadMen. Harkening back to the 60's, social trends are accentuated by the stark contrast of today's standards. But that show is so rich with material that I'll refrain from delving into it to possibly save it for a more in-depth examination in the future.

Where do we go from here? Judging from the twists and turns that I've already observed, it won't be easily predicted. One certainty is that we won't be able to go back to the clearly defined roles of the past. Our gender boundaries continue to fracture and blur. We constantly have to reassess what we consider to be manly or womanly. As information continues to proliferate our lives and our ability to project ourselves becomes more ubiquitous, we more frequently re-assimilate ourselves and our self-perceptions.

In Freudian terminology, we could apply my proposed categorizations as elements of an overall social psyche. Modern was the Superego, aiming for perfection and harmony. Post-Modern was the Id, reacting as brutal instinctual force trying to preserve the primal roles. And the Current era is the Ego, trying to reconcile a balance between the two.

Personally, I don't mind subverting the old values of what a man is, but I also don't want to lose a sense of manliness. In a woman, I want an intelligent, confident person who still wants to feel sexy. What's so hard about that, right?

Role Call : Post-Modern Man

Related Posts

Part 1 : Primer

Part 2 : Evolution of Man(liness)

Part 3 : Modern Man

Part 5 : Fractured Man

An interesting phenomenon began to occur out of the Modern era: women became the experts. At least in the form of media and advertising. Whether it was to appeal to feminism or to appear politically correct or for other reasons, Father Knows Best gave way to Mother Knows Best. Countless commercials featuring comparative products would feature a man who chose the subpar product and was suffering in result, and a woman who picked the featured product and was continuing blissfully on with her life. Cough medicine, food products, household cleaners, the scenario was always the same. Women were savvy and men were clueless.

A shift in power was clearly occurring.

I'm still debating if the emergence of the Spice Girls adds to any validity to this trend. The constant "Girl Power" shouting probably had some effect but it's hard to look past the shameless corporate manipulation. Although in conjunction with the explosion of boy bands such as N'Sync and the Backstreet Boys, the entertainment industry obviously regarded young women as a powerful new demographic that demonstrated surprising purchasing power.

Then again, boy bands were nothing new. New Kids on the Block and arguably The Jackson 5 proved that teenage girls were a worthy target market.

What effect did this have on young guys? If my experience during the New Kids phenomenon revealed anything, it's that every boy hated these bands. How was a pre-pubescent dork ever going to compare to Donnie Wahlberg or Justin Timberlake? One couldn't even fake an interest in the bands to gain some commonality with a girl, since it would be a traitorous gesture towards fellow guy classmates. Or worse one would be perceived as kind of girly by the actual girls one was trying to be near.

Friends was in many ways the seminal 90's show. Three women, three men living modern lifestyles in a modern New York City. Women would talk openly about sex, even among the men. The women were beautiful and liberated. One was a free spirit, one left her fiance to pursue her own path, one would start her own business.

Yet the men were not as progressively portrayed. One was a three-time divorcee who got strangely creepy over the years, one was completely incompetent towards women, one was good looking but a total idiot. All three were relatively emasculated, safe men who posed no threat or excitement towards women at all. Even Joey, the "womanizer", was at the core a sensitive, teddy bearish softie. Here, men were stripped of all edge and power. Bad boys were not accepted in this world vision, just the boy scouts. The women could be adventurous and promiscuous, and come back to relay their stories to non-threatening boys who would comfort and accept them for who they were.

Sex and the City took the attitude further by turning men into fetishized objects. Now, women were the sexual conquerors, and men were just a by-product of the story. The ultimate male trophy for the show's heroine was Mr. Big, a true object that wasn't even graced with a proper name until the end of the series when he had succumbed.

Imagine the outrage if the show were about four men and their sexual exploits.

Men, losing their throne of power for the first time, did the only thing they could do: revolt and fight back. Cue The Man Show.

I'd already touched on the films Fight Club and American Beauty which played roles in highlighting the reaction towards men's plight. What is poignant for me is that both films resisted the urge to cleanly resolve the conflict. As if to say that even the men who were fighting back already understood that things would never go back to the way they were.

Tyler Durden's fight clubs and their attempts at throwing off the shackles of modern materialism resulted in nothing but more chaos and even more restraints. It sought to prove that maybe another woman wasn't the answer, but neither was just another man.

Interestingly, Fight Club, like SATC, utilized the lack of a name for its main male protagonist, possibly alluding to a similar loss of humanity. But I believe the purpose was more about the conflict of the id and ego, where the ego was so marginalized in the psychological battle that he ceased to exist as an equal identity.

Similarly, American Beauty began with the main character externalizing all of his troubles. His job was oppressive, his wife hated him, his daughter was a mystery. It wasn't until he realized that he still had the ability to control his own destiny. The final moment of solace came when he accepted the fact that he could reconnect with his daughter by simply trying to reach out to her. Then he died.

I won't rehash The Man Show perspective, but the trend of reasserted manliness prevailed in many areas, including advertising. Miller Lite's Manlaws campaign featured guys being guys and providing guidance on how to be a real man, implying that the male gender had forgotten what it was like to be masculine.

The reemergence of the sexist behavior and overt machoism was initially surprising to me. We had seemingly come a long way towards enlightenment and were almost regressing. But it's also understandable behavior to observe one group that was traditionally in a seat of power, see that authority wrestled away and be resistant with the change.

In the end, there would be no drastic revolutions, just more evolution. And as Post-Modernism gave way to a new dynamic, which I have yet to be able to adequately classify, there are some very shocking and surprising after-effects.

Role Call : Modern Man

Related Posts

Part 1 : Primer

Part 2 : Evolution of Man(liness)

Part 4 : Post-Modern Man

Part 5 : Fractured Man

The Modern era of gender roles could mostly likely be traced back to the feminist movement in the U.S. in the 1950s. The first instance of feminist activism was much longer ago and focused the basic rights of women such as suffrage and seem to be indisputable today, whereas the more recent battles focus on cultural issues that are still defining who we are as a society, which is what I want to explore.

Women carved out a level playing field (at least in theory) which in turn shifted our value system in several ways. Although I grew up in areas in the South where sexism (as well as racism) was not shy about showing its face still, I think the groundwork was established. My generation was raised thinking that sexual equality was a natural law.

A balance of power also resulted in an altered family paradigm, which overthrew the idea of a single, unquestioned decision maker in the house. Divorce became more socially acceptable, especially since women were able to go out and support themselves in the workforce. Dysfunction and the fracturing of parental role modeling ensued. (I'm not wanting to give the impression that I'm blaming the breakdown of the nuclear family on feminists. While not the only element, I think it's a strong factor and I'm only devoting these explorations to limited topics. Political upheavals, the aftermath of the war, technological advancement, the discovering or creation of psychological issues were all contributors but won't be touched on in depth here.)

Nonetheless, men had met their match. Just as smart and just as capable. Logic and rational thinking prevailed. No one was inherently better than another, sexually or racially. A true utopia.

Probably the purest form of this was depicted in The Cosby Show. A family unit without any hint of dysfunction. The parents were happily married without any serious power struggles. Each had equal footing in familial authority. Also important was the fact that the wife, Claire, was professionally successful. Cliff was a doctor, but Claire was a lawyer: an occupation that was just as highly regarded. There's no way she'd be caught housecleaning and waiting obediently for her husband to come home and fix him a drink. If anything, a case could be made for Cliff to be more closely associated with the child-rearing role, as his job was a maternity doctor.

I was raised watching this show and it had a vital impact on the shaping of my values. It was also influential to see role models of my formative years siding with women on issues that society was still struggling with. Kurt Cobain sang about rape from the point of view of the victim in Polly. Eddie Vedder feverishly scrawling "PRO-CHOICE" on his arm during a televised performance. I can't tell you what an effect this had on me and hopefully many young people.

My father was the most important element in what kind of man I wanted to become. An attentive dad and a loving husband. He never yelled at or hit my mom. He would joke that she was the boss in the family, but he never showed any genuine signs of inadequacy towards shared leadership in the family environment. A follower of sports and a lover of cars and tools, yet never felt threatened when discussing gardening or accompanying my mom shopping. A truly balanced man in my opinion.

As usual, nothing ever goes one way for too long and we'll see how the pendulum swings as Modernism gives way to Post-Modernism.

I also want to touch on the fact that there are of course always countercultures and underlying constants that exist. I'm talking about sexism that men will probably always exert, probably in the form of beer commercials, until the end of civilization. Whether its Playboy magazine (or to a lesser extent Maxim) or AXE Commercials, their steadfast hold to their value systems will always mask the changes and upheavals that occur elsewhere.

Role Call : The Evolution of Man(liness)

Related Posts

Part 1 : Primer

Part 3 : Modern Man

Part 4 : Post-Modern Man

Part 5 : Fractured Man

Recently, I went on a trip with several friends to a house on the edge of Chesapeake Bay. We barbecued, drank, swam and generally lounged around. Two friends (female) observed that I was reading a book and asked what I was reading. I replied that it was a Virginia Woolf novel and the responses were raised eyebrows and "Wow... a very feminist author."

I was left wondering why there is a stigma for a guy to read a feminist novel, especially if it's not thrust upon him by a girlfriend or a college class. Can I not read a book of poetry by Sylvia Plath and not get crooked glances from people in passing? Can I not admit to being interested in fashion? What if I counter-balance it by saying I'm just as interested in sports? Is it wrong if I have more female friends than guy friends?

Why do we seem to have predisposed notions of what it means to be a man or a woman? And what are those boundaries? How are they formulated and do they have any logical merit?

When I say I used to live in an apartment with three other guys, I get "Oooooooh". But when I expound with the fact that we were all very clean and enjoyed cooking, I get a "Whoa!"

I know there's been countless studies and focus on women, feminism, their roles in society, and justifiably so. I, personally, believe in total gender equality and that women deserve the same respect and rights as men. But I also get that underneath that generality, there are infinite nuances and contradictory values (some self-inflicted) that compose each gender. I don't discount the plight of women, but am just also equally interested in the roles of men and how they've evolved. We may not have had the same sizable obstacles as women, but I feel that men today struggle just as much to discern their identity in society as the "fairer" sex.

That interest was sparked in a college class years ago. Strangely enough in an Introduction to Graphic Design class.

The Man Show had just recently debuted on Comedy Central and was creating plenty of controversy with it's overt sexist subject matter, beer guzzling audience, and costume-wearing female dancers.

I understand the use of satire and that the show's creators probably had their tongues in their cheeks most of the time. But let's not forget that the effect can be lost on much of the public. I don't think many guys were viewing Girls Jumping on Trampolines and appreciating the irony. Some of the time (or most of the time), people will take things at face value. Hell, even today there are people who see Stephen Colbert as the Champion of the Conservative Class.

So my professor kicked off a debate by asking all the guys in the class if they thought today's men were too overt in celebrating their masculinity, citing The Man Show as evidence.

During the discussion, my contention was that the opposite view could be made: that today's men were feeling as if they'd lost their manhood. I referenced the movie, Fight Club which had also just recently been released. In this story, men had lost a sense of empowerment in the world of Martha Stewart and IKEA and were desperately trying to regain something, anything.

Brad Pitt's character stated "We're a generation of men raised by women", meaning that we as a gender have lost our identity.

I also think that the movie (and the book) Fight Club is about much more than men being men, addressing issues such as nihilism or group-think behavior, but in the context of our debate, I still thought it had a valid counterpoint.

Another film at the time, American Beauty also played with the theme of lost masculinity in today's concept of family. Kevin Spacey's character started off thoroughly drained of any vitality and strength. Throughout the film, he begins to reawaken to his potential and break through the restraints that society had gradually imposed upon him.

I also find it interesting that both films focus on fighting back for masculinity and do not resolve in a completely happy note. Unless you count being shot in the head a suitable solution. (Um... spoiler alert by the way.)

I don't recall the debate ending with any seismic revelations. Mostly the girls in the class held on to their denouncement of The Man Show as "disgusting" and "offensive". But something stuck with me from that discussion. I became more conscious of gender roles, especially those subtly imposed on us by media.

My most basic breakdown of the male evolution could be this:

• Primal: man's role as the hunter/gather, providing for himself and his family
• Tradition: social relationships become more complex, though the family unit still operates with the male as the main provider, thus endowing him with the role of the main authority. Otherwise known as the Father Knows Best scenario.
• Modern: social paradigms continue to gain intricacies and complexity. Most notably, women become more empowered and accepted as equals. Male is no longer necessarily the sole or main breadwinner in the family.
• Post-Modern: reactionary response to the Modern state, wherein the male attempts to reclaim the sense of manliness and seat of power. Unapologetic towards overtly male values manifest (i.e. The Man Show, Maxim Magazine, etc.)
• Current: media saturation causes social fragmentation and blurring of defining roles. Men embrace roles that were once deemed negative, such as the manchild (i.e. Will Ferrell in every one of his movies) or the metrosexual.

I realize that I'm shoehorning a lot of human history into some categories, particularly the first two. Thousands of years of human interaction probably deserve more nuanced defining than "Traditional". But again, this is an examination from my own limited perceptions which will be why I devote much more focus on the last few categories.

I believe the evolution of these roles can be rooted in Maslow's hierarchy of needs. I think that when you take into account how each individual person strives to achieve the stages (at different times and varied success) as well as family units combining their pyramids of needs, stages become blurred, demonstrating how complexities formulate.

The proliferation of media, to me, has been a huge factor in the determination of gender roles. Especially in the U.S., where celebrities are worshipped. Right or wrong, we as a society depend largely on them to help us determine our own self-perceptions.

That's not to discount other factors, such as regional influence. How different is someone's perception growing up in West Texas than another's from New York City? Or the family as a guide to who a person could be? How does a child raised by a single mother develop a sense of masculinity?

I believe that all these factors influence each other. I grew up in a two income household, so my baby sitter was usually the television. Thus media was a major way I shaped my self-perception. Yet my mother as a working professional also led me to establish very strong values in treating women as capable equals. Then again, for either cultural or regional reason, she as the woman was expected to cook and clean the dishes every night; a very antiquated notion of the female role. Family impacts Media impacts Region and back again.

It's easy to see how one's definition of gender roles can become convoluted and confusing.

I definitely want to spend more time in the latter categories: Modern, Post Modern, and Current, but will hold off and let this overly long post conclude.

Role Call : Primer

Related Posts

Part 2 : Evolution of Man(liness)

Part 3 : Modern Man

Part 4 : Post-Modern Man

Part 5 : Fractured Man

I'm reviving this blog at bit and hijacking it for a new purpose. More of an experiment, really. In an effort to better understand myself and my thinking, I want to explore one's role in modern society by focusing on different aspects, whether it's gender, race, religion, socio-economic, etc. As this isn't a meticulously researched study, I won't tout this as anything but my own observations and contemplations, some of which will be formulated or evolved as I write.

Since this won't be objective, it may help to know where my perspective will generally be coming from. I'm in my thirties, somewhat liberal, college educated. A male, a minority, raised in a relatively non-dysfunctional household.

I consider myself fairly progressive and open-minded on issues such as gender equality, homosexuality, race and politics.

I don't pretend to be an expert in issues beyond my own experience so while I'll try to cover topics such as feminism, poverty, etc., I will probably just stick mostly to what I know.

"New York, I Love You", I like you but I don't love you

Perhaps it's not fair that I judge this film. I feel so close to the source material for the movie that it's hard to not have preconceived notions of what it should be. Then again, maybe that's why I feel as if I know what I'm talking about.

Like "Paris, je t'aime","New York, I Love You" is a collection of short films based on and in the city of New York. Or should I say Manhattan because only one of the segments is set in one of the other boroughs. And the people worth showing seem to almost exclusively be rich, white people.

To me, that's one of the crippling flaws of the movie. New York is a city swathed in diversity, not just racially, but also economically and ideologically. But here we see a gentrified Asian (who happens to be a hooker) or another Asian girl who only serves to be fetishized by a white guy.

Whereas the Paris installment was wonderfully diverse in its subject matter and approach, this film rarely strays out of it's comfort zone. It's as if the filmmakers were drawing inspiration not out of the city but of what they've seen on "Sex and the City".

The actors and directors all seemed too self-aware. Thus the effort at creating random, chance encounters comes off as contrived. Hayden Christensen's character pick-pocketing Andy Garcia's character only to court Andy's girlfriend resulting in the two guys pick-pocketing each other again was too intricate and perfect of a mobius strip to not have been written out to happen exactly that way.

Another scene that had me rolling my eyes was when two smokers outside of a restaurant interact when the beautiful woman looks over to the disinterested man and kicks off a conversation with "You know what I love about New York?"

Uuuuuugh! When does a conversation like that happen except in a movie touting what it loves about New York?

The one segment that really worked for me was of the elderly couple in Coney Island. Their bickering and banter rang true to me, and it was refreshing to see a setting not in the middle of Manhattan.

The short that attempts to subvert the predefined roles is the Natalie Portman directed story about a Hispanic male nanny and his little girl. Another effort at cross pollination of races also involves Portman but the effect is dulled by the overly dramatic and sappy revelation.

But these highlights were too little and too late.

During the film, I kept waiting to see parts of the city that I consider to be the genuine fabric of the New York experience. Where were the Bronx, Queens, Staten Island, or even Harlem! Where were the street vendors and subway performers? When has a cabbie ever expressed any interest in your profession? Where were the masses of hipsters crowded in a pizza parlor at 4am? Where were the Puerto Ricans playing dominoes outside their buildings? Where were the insane bike messengers? Where were the restaurants where each table was speaking a different language than the next? I even missed the Park Slope stroller brigades. Where was the freaking Brooklyn Bridge???

In the end, the film to me was a good attempt and a safe, fuzzy view of a small slice of the city. But it failed to dispel any preconceived ideas or convey any genuine experience of New York.

Wrong is the new right

My instincts are all wrong. That's what I've learned these last few weeks.

Due to my newly limited financial income, I decided to go to a new, cheaper place for a haircut. It's always a fearful leap of faith for a glasses-wearer because you just have to put your trust in the stylist while you stare into your blurry reflection.

The end result was a way shorter haircut that I had anticipated or was comfortable with.

The thing is, I've been getting a lot more compliments on my new haircut than I'd ever gotten before. Now maybe my friends are just being deceptively nice.

Or maybe the decisions or instincts I've had about my hair have been wrong. It makes me wonder if I've been making bad decisions for other things in my life. Like George Costanza, what if every thing I've ever chosen was the opposite of what I should've done?

Blah Blah Blog

Whew. So much happens in a month, which is probably reflected in the neglect of this blog. Turning 30, getting laid off... These things tend to hog my time.

I contemplated 30 as a pivotal point, including deliberating over abandoning this blog that I’ve kept for several years. It’s seen me through a lot, but at the same time, I considered whether or not it would feel appropriate to help me “move onwards” by letting it go, like my 20’s.

The fact of it is that this was always intended to be a personal forum and not exactly something to broadcast to others. Yet something happened over time; the blog became much less anonymous and therefore less personal. In reviewing the past few posts, I had definitely steered away from personal issues and more towards just tidbits of news and entertainment. I still feel that it’s a valuable mode of expression for me, since I enjoy how it allows me to formulate more complete opinions about the music and whatnot I get exposed to. But I miss the journal aspect of it. I had forgotten much of the older content so was pleasantly surprised to rediscover what is probably my favorite post of the blog: Toy Story.

I haven’t figured out definitively the fate of this blog. I may let it fizzle out, or it may live on as the less personal review site.

For now, there seems to be a backlog of music, movies and such that I want to just unload out of my mind so that’s what the next few posts will feature.

Examined Life

The IFC Center is currently showing a documentary showcase of several modern philosophers called Examined Life.

Filmmaker Astra Taylor does a good job of adding kinetic energy to the stream of (essentially) lectures by putting each subject in a public area, mostly around New York. Topics of philosophy touch on consumerism and ecology, but the threads are mainly connected by the idea of meaning (or lack thereof) in existence and the individual’s connection with society.

Although certain theories such as Social Contract are alluded to, Taylor manages to steer clear of getting mired in a historical survey of philosophical thought. That frees her to let the subjects focus on their own modern ideas.

The film succeeds in keeping the speakers focused, without diverging on too many tangents. While it shows that the filmmaker has the skill to converge it all into a tight film, it’s hard not to feel like there wasn’t enough meat to the exploration. Each person had 10 minutes to get across their entire philosophy, when it's easy to see how they could’ve gone on for hours and hours. Thus Examined Life comes across as an overview of ideas, without being able to really explore the depths or details of those ideas. I suppose that’s not a knock on the film but more an observation on the limitation of the format. Taylor herself admitted to the amount that had to get cut out.

Afterwards, my friend wondered aloud if the people in films just talked endlessly about philosophy. My guess would be yes, but I took issue with some of the subtle allegations in the film that there is no middle ground in between being a deep thinking, cerebral citizen of the world and the mindless, uncaring, consumerist automaton.

While waiting for the showtime, my friend and I were drinking beers talking about plans for our next pub crawl. Is that not okay? Do we have to be dissecting the nature of man every hour of every day? I love philosophy and examining our nature, which is why I thoroughly enjoyed this film, but I don’t feel compelled to have to do that exclusively. I take enjoyment in mindless, stupid things as much as deep, thought provoking matters. I think it’s in our nature to have those dichotomies and juxtapositions.

One of the topics that I enjoyed the most was Cornel West speaking that there is no definitive goal or meaning in life, and what that means for our concept of “failure”. And while each philosopher had his or her own concept of “meaning”, whether there is one or not, they seemed to agree that we are social creatures who have an intrinsic need to interact.

As an only child who has always had strong loner tendencies, it made me wonder about my own views towards the nature of society. I’ve come to whole-heartedly believe that we need that interaction and contact to live “meaningfully”. Living in New York City, I can’t help but be constantly exposed to people. I wondered what my inclination are towards people I meet or strangers on the street. Do I automatically have trust and respect in those I don't even know?

Several of the companies I’ve worked for have a philosophy of making sure you do your work on the assumption that other people are lazy, slow, incorrect or dumb. Expect that clients will not give you the correct information, or predict that the printer will be late in fulfilling the order. That inherent mistrust for others seemed awkward for me. Although there were instances which proved that theory true, I have a feeling that those negative, paranoid thoughts had much to do with my unhappiness at those jobs.

My thoughts also led me to my parents, who more than anyone I’ve ever known, believe that the default inclination of human beings is to be good. They put trust and faith in people to points which make me uneasy. Yet my mom will still clutch her purse with a deathgrip at restaurants, even upscale ones. It reminded me again of our often contradictory thinking.

Not sure where I was going with the end of this post, but the film got some of those mental gears turning, which is the point of the film, and why I enjoyed it so much.

But Coraline in 3-D was also pretty awesome.

Addicted to drug(shows)

I’m deeply entrenched in HBO’s The Wire. I’ve just finished the third season which isn’t too bad since I started a few months ago. I’ve been trying to plow through the series as quickly as possible, which isn’t to say I’m not enjoying the story. In actuality, the show is as engrossing and impressive as the accolades would have you believe.

It’s just that I feel as if my free time is scarce as it is. I haven’t even tried to add up how much time five seasons of an hour-long show is consuming out of my life, and it’s probably best not to know.

Also, I learned my lesson with The Sopranos which I watched at a leisurely pace of years in between episodes. Needless to say I was lost as to what was happening several times. “Wait, I thought that chick was whacked last season!” “When did that guy get made??”

Last week, I noticed that one of my roommates had purchased the first season of Weeds and left it in the living room for us roommates to watch. Naturally, I need another television show to occupy my time. After viewing a few episodes, I noticed how jarring it was to go from one drug show, The Wire to another, whose tone and viewpoint was in such contrast. The Wire is all about an unflinching depiction of the misery and corruption within the ecosphere of drugs, where even the good guys are flawed and capable of evil things. Weeds goes about drugs in a much more saccharine and light-hearted way. Addicts are friendly, successful family guys; rival dealers “threaten” each other by dinging cars with pennies; and the drug suppliers offer fresh baked cookies.

I find the contrasts enthralling. I noticed a similar relationship in movies like The Matrix which treat guns in a nonchalant manner. Throughout the movie, bullets are whizzing by, guns are whipped out and discarded, people are blown to bits, and we the viewers watch with giddy amazement. Then, a movie like American Beauty will feature a single gun, fired once, and the gravitas of it deeply affects all of the characters in the story. It’s amazing how people are able to take similar subjects and wield them in drastically different ways.


Back to The Wire, which benefitted from my trip back to my parents’ house for the holidays. I was able to sit through a pile of episodes in those few days. My parents even sat down to see what the buzz was all about. My dad, having missed out on the first 25 episodes was completely lost. Through him, I realized that over the course of the series, the character roster had grown to easily over 20 and plot threads dated back to the very first episode. The Wire is definitely not a show you can just casually watch, which while is more demanding on the viewer, also results in richer payoffs in the story.

My mom’s reaction was much more interesting. She pointed out how everyone is bad, and the whole story is so bleak. Why would people want to watch such a depressing show? Why don’t people like happy stories that make them feel good? I sort of laughed it off, but she has a point. Why are we so much more interested in drama and conflict? Shakespearean tragedies, unrequited love, depictions of war... We can’t get enough.

I’m thinking, who wants to watch happy people in love? Everyone hates seeing people like that. Look at all the shows that got dull and unpopular after their leads got together (also known as the Moonlighting effect, or for us younger people maybe the X-files effect). The only show that seems to be capable of bucking that trend is The Office, and even then, it’s being treated very gingerly and Jim and Pam have been pushed to the background much more than in previous seasons.

Still, I don’t think we’re always just focused on the bad, horrible things. There are plenty of happy, feel-good love stories out there. I consider myself a romantic most of the times. But damned if I don’t enjoy a good story of suffering. The Godfather and it’s epic demise of Michael Corleone’s soul? So great.

For now, I’m trying to end the run of The Wire soon. I’m expecting amazing things. Terrible, awful things. But amazing nonetheless.

Troubled in paradise

I can’t think of anything more welcome in the cold New York winters than an escape towards sandy beaches down south. In Cancun, I laid in the sun, ate a ton of food, snorkled in clear blue waters and even swam with motha f*#king dolphins.

As nice as it was to be pampered without a care in the world, it was hard for me to shake an uneasiness to being waited on hand and foot. Maybe I’m just unaccustomed to the whole experience. It’s not as if the locals were giving off any hostile hints. In fact, they were the most attentive and friendly service people I’d ever experienced. But I kept having flashes of the humans in Wall-E which were too absorbed in their own recreating to notice anything around them. They were carted around from place to place and any desire was within arms reach. I would wonder if that’s what I was during this vacation.

Okay, so it was still enjoyable and I wasn’t exactly complaining while sipping down piña coladas on the beach. I work hard and rarely indulge in fancy restaurants. Shouldn’t I be able to live luxuriously on a vacation?

It didn’t help that I was in Cancun, which felt more like an American franchise than an authentic foreign location. Everything seemed tailored to what white people think Mexican culture should be rather than what it probably is in reality. What rare Mexican food I found was atrocious, giving the abysmal New York Mexican joints a run for their money.

As nice as it all was, I was surprised to feel so relieved to see the Manhattan skyline again through the airplane window. I’d never considered myself a true New Yorker but now realize that I’m more rooted in this great city than I knew.

Of course all that good feeling and love towards everything has dissipated almost entirely after a few rides on the crowded F train.

Sub-standard

Great. Looks like the MTA is headed for rougher waters. That means more headaches for Brooklyn commuters like me. It’s not like they were the model of efficiency already. It seems like half the Brooklyn trains are down on the weekends for “maintenance” from which we never see any tangible improvements.

Sounds like the G line is going to be massively affected, with it running even less frequently. The rate of trains on that line already sucks and I’ve had many miserable late night/early morning waits on the platform. It’s practically the only access to other areas of Brooklyn for me, and now they’re going to make it that much more inconvenient and obsolete. Awesome.

They’re also projecting cutbacks on staff, making me wonder how much worse can it possibly get? Stations seem under staffed as it is, and let’s face it, who is impressed by the cleaning staff already?

This whole organization reeks of mismanagement, with operations hanging by a thread while seemingly hemorrhaging money.

Oh, and coupled with these cutbacks, we’ll probably see another fare hike in the near future.

Great news to start off the day.

(image snagged off Williamsburgnerd)

Chivalry ain’t dead, it’s just been stuck on the F-train

Yesterday during rush hour, a woman with two toddlers got onto the train and instantly two guys and I got up from our seats for them. When one of the boys got antsy for having to sit across the aisle from his mom, another guy gave up his seat.

It was nice to see that some guys are still gentlemen even in this jaded, self-centered metropolis. Okay, so most of the time I get to witness men sit there like jerks while women stand around them. Get on your feet, boys!

These old-fashioned gestures must be a rarity for most New Yorkers because when I hold doors open for women, they usually look shocked. Or they ignore me with suspicious looks on their faces.

Men have been giving me a bad rap. No wonder most girls look like they’re ready to pepper spray me when I make eye contact.

Beck at United Palace, 10/09/08

Beck had been on of the few major artists left on my “must-see” list that I hadn’t seen live. So when the opportunity finally came, I jumped at the tickets. Yet for some reason I found myself lackluster about the event as it came near.

I attribute it to a mixture of being preoccupied with so many other things as well as my lukewarm opinion of his latest release, Modern Guilt. I’d followed every one of his albums with anticipation since Odelay and found Beck to be a reliable source of great music.

Until Modern Guilt. The whole album lacked the spirited inventiveness and heartfelt enthusiasm normally found in his work. This collection of songs seemed like he was going through the motions. Outside of Soul of a Man, which proved that Beck can still effortlessly pull together a blues song, the album sounded generic and bland. And at just around 30 minutes, it felt as though he was just as bored with the album.

Even his summer single release, Time Bomb, showed signs that the guy might be tired. At first listen, it sounds like a fun, light-hearted romp. But when dissected, I find that it’s composed of some of the least imaginative efforts I’ve heard from him. The lyrics are mainly comprised of bits like “we got a time bomb” and “tick tick tick” and “we got a warning light”. Have Beck’s lyrics ever been this straightforward and dull?

His malaise seemed to also affect last night’s performance. The whole night seemed like an exercise of running on auto-pilot.

I’ll briefly mention that the opening act, MGMT were very disappointing. While I consider their album, Oracular Spectacular to be quite a good record, I had heard several accounts that their live show was a letdown. Those criticisms rang true with me. This was just not an act that translated well live.

Once MGMT wrapped up, Beck’s set actually started somewhat early, around 9:20. It was a surprising change of pace from the usually long lag times between sets. Yet, that promptness seemed more due to Beck wanting to get it over with rather than of any enthusiasm to perform.

I knew the concert wouldn’t live up to the previous tour’s much discussed marionette act, but figured it was Beck so it would be a fun show. Sigh.

The band raced through every song with straightforward renditions. One song would scarcely be finished before the drummer would tick off the beat for the next one. Usually during a show, you’ll hear audience members yell out requests for songs, but in this concert there wasn’t even enough of a gap between songs for anyone to get a word in.

Years ago, my first revelation to Beck was his live performance of New Pollution at the 1997 MTV Awards. I had only seen the Loser era images of him and was surprised to see a clean-cut, gray suit wearing guy who was dancing his ass off. I immediately realized that this guy was a true performer and not a flash-in-the-pan gimmick as many had written him off as. He was vibrant, entertaining and magnetic.

That was the guy I expected to see. Yet throughout the night, Beck was disappointingly stoic and stationary. Even when the band shed their instruments to stand in front of the crowd to play on mini synthesizers, Beck sang with his hands in his pockets or with his arms crossed. It all signified that he wanted this all to be over as soon as possible. And I had started to feel the same way.

Finally, 45 minutes into the show he acknowledged the audience and played a duo of slow songs from the glorious Sea Change, which was the best part of the night. I wished that I was able to catch him do an entire set of songs from that album in a more intimate setting. I think he and I would’ve preferred that scenario.

Predictably, it wasn’t a long show. Almost exactly an hour plus the obligatory encore. I give the audience credit for being excited throughout the whole night. But I for one expect more from Beck.

I don’t blame the guy if he’s feeling a bit burned out. He’s been able to churn out great album after great album on a consistent basis for years. But Beck, if you need a break to recharge, please take it!

I’m not ready to write him off yet (unlike Weezer) because his prior records, The Information and Guero were each brilliant and showed a steady upward progression for Beck. Maybe Modern Guilt is a slight misstep and anomaly. Here’s hoping. If so, I’d be willing to see him again in concert.

Addendum: I wasn’t able to find the New Pollution performance online so this other one will have to do as a demonstration of Beck’s past awesomeness...

Wailin’ on Palin

Tonight is the VP debate, and while I was initially salivating at the prospect of Biden tearing Palin apart, I now have a lot of apprehension. Biden’s job is going to be tougher than many expect. History of gaffes aside, he has to tread carefully lest he gets labeled as a sexist and garners sympathy for Palin, of whom people have such low expectations that it’ll be considered a victory if she just manages to string a few sentences together.

Which may be a challenge for her. Palin couldn’t even answer Katie Couric’s request to name one newspaper or publication that she reads to keep up with current affairs. All week, I’ve been sending links around of the cringe-worthy Couric interviews where she rivals Bush for sound-bite worthy idiocy.

I’ve been so vocal against Palin that a friend commented that I must “really hate the bitch”. I don’t actually. She has different views from me, and I couldn’t care less. It’s more that I feel offended by the Republican party’s assumption on our collective intelligence. THIS is what they chose to put in front of us and say she’s good enough to lead us.

I’ve realized that even I have been caught up in the circus that the Palin nomination has created. After seeing how many newspaper headlines have been swallowed up by Palin, is it outside the realm of possibility to consider that this was a calculated move by McCain in order to divert our attention from the relevant issues? Dare I give the seemingly bumbling, self-destructive campaign that much credit? Biden’s given over 100 interviews since his nomination and we don’t hear jack about him. I get more email links of Palin’s beauty pageant videos than any concerning economic policy.

If this tactic was calculated (and marverick-y?), it’s equally a dangerous and baffling one. I doubt that the McCain group did this all on purpose though. The bungling interviews are the biggest indicator that none of this was part of any overall strategy.

So what are the possible scenarios here? A. They didn’t put any thought into Palin, but she’s a woman which would get the Hillary votes. B. They knew what an idiot she was but knew that the media and population would be so diverted by insignificant details like pregnant daughters that they could slip into the White House without exposing political inadequacies. C. They actually think that she’s a qualified, viable candidate to be a heartbeat away from the Commander in Chief.

All of those likelihoods leave me feeling insulted. Come on, America! I’m begging you to pull your head out of your asses! Look past the lipstick!!!

The tale of how I try not to be naked (and attempt to look good doing it)

This blog has been my forum to cover a wide scope of interests, mainly music, art, politics and random ranting. But one aspect that I’ve inadvertently avoided is fashion.

I know there are countless sites, blogs, and telephone book sized magazines on the subject, though I’ve noticed that there are not so many for men. And even less for men with my tastes.

Over the past few years, my interest and awareness towards what I wear has grown considerably. Today is a far cry from my who-the-fuck-cares-about-fashion t-shirt and jeans days in high school. Okay, I still wear t-shirts and jeans, but I pay more attention to the quality and fit of those items, which makes a significant difference. Deciding what to wear used to be such an inconvenience for me so I stayed with the basics. Nowadays I’m feeling more adventurous and confident in a personal style.

The downside for me is that men’s fashion just doesn’t seem to have the variety and resources of women’s wear. In my opinion, there’s virtually no middle ground between the cheap crap at Old Navy and the unobtainable awesomeness of designer wear.

I’ll flip through a men’s magazine and review their fashion sections. Yeah, these guys all look great in their suits but A. I don’t really want to be wearing suits everyday no matter how pimping and B. even the pocket squares shown are in the $100s and I can barely afford rent.

So this is an attempt to use the awesome power of my blog to help me pool my knowledge and findings into some focused strategy, not unlike how I use it to formulate coherent opinions on music and art.

Since I’m still a fledgling trying to develop a fashion sense, it’ll be baby steps along the way. I’ll try to avoid the really obvious stuff that all men should know right off the bat, such as:

• Always wear a watch
• Earrings – terrible, terrible idea unless you're a pirate
  
• Never, ever, EVER pop your collar up (it’s a fad that you’ll someday regret even considering, like painted fingernails)
• Learn to tie a tie properly
• Shaving can be an enjoyable ritual (too bad what I have can barely be classified as facial hair)

My most pressing goal for now is to find some decent shoes. I have very particular tastes and have been looking for at least a year now. I need something versatile, semi-formal but mainly casual. I hate tips that are too pointy or too boxy. I know, I’m picky. Probably why I fall back on my Chuck Taylors so often. They go with just about everything, short of a tuxedo.

I’ve learned not to settle for anything less than what you love. I’m not opposed to paying higher prices because I want quality pieces that won’t disintegrate after a wash (looking in your direction, Old Navy). And I’ve also learned that the accoutrements make the outfit. Cheap belts, watches or (especially) shoes can render an otherwise badass outfit into a total failure.

But for now, I’ll just start off my compilation of basic knowledge with an article from GQ on how to properly roll up sleeves. I hate seeing guys who literally roll their sleeves until they look like they have giant bagels around their elbows. “Rolling” is a bad term since you’re really folding up the sleeves. Look at clothing store displays to see how it’s done.

The Eighties (were Great-ies??!)

All Songs Considered has a great podcast featuring a roundtable discussion on the merits of the 80s music. Granted none of the participants are fervent lovers of that era so the critique is a bit skewed. Nonetheless, they try to be unbiased in their exploration of where the 80s sits in the spectrum of validity and relevance. Okay, there is quite a bit of synth-music bashing, but who couldn’t lament all that fake drumming?

This was a particularly interesting conversation for me to hear because I find myself listening to and enjoying 80s music more than ever. I’d always noted how I loved every decade for their music except the 80s. I grew up with oldies in the house and in the car so those decades feel engrained in my DNA. My affinity for 90s is due to that being the time of my own musical awakening and discovering what I personally enjoyed. Grunge and Nirvana exposed the ridiculousness of 80s hair band rock. The music of Pearl Jam and Rage Against the Machine seemed to come from something much more genuine and earnest than the cheesy synth-pop of the decade before.

Up until recently, I’d written off the 80s as a musical void. So this podcast seems appropriate because of the current revival of 80s style in music and fashion. Lately, I’ve been surrounded by friends who are genuine fans of that music. And 80s songs just seem born for karaoke (which has been the main way I’ve learned of these songs). I’ll admit that this has allowed some 80s music into my playlists.

Still, the 80s weren’t a complete dead end for me. I grew up as a fan of Michael Jackson, although I’d abandoned his music for a decade or two, and recently rediscovered how great his early solo albums are. Madonna is someone who never really resonated with me before, probably because I’m a guy, but I now listen to her early songs with new respect and enjoyment. And it may be ridiculously strange, but I love the song “She Blinded Me with Science”. (Who can’t love a song where the word “Science” is randomly yelled out in the background?) Listening to an all-80s webcast station has reawakened my affinity for a lot of long-forgotten songs.

I see many parallels with the culture of the 80s music and what’s going on today, which makes me wonder how this decade will be viewed historically. Although with so many genres of music getting exposure these days, it’s hard to think how they can all be summed up succinctly. I can easily imagine descriptors for the previous decades, although the 90s show evidence of the fracturing of overarching themes. The first half of the 90s were pretty much dominated by Grunge/Alternative music but the second half seemed to splinter off into metal-rap, boy bands and Britney. These days seem much more difficult to categorize, probably due to the spread of viral blogging and mySpace.

Personally, I’m not sure how long my newfound pleasure of the 80s will last. The podcast commentators make some interesting observations which I think are applicable to me. While the music in during that time seemed cringe-inducing, there’s a sense of nostalgia that comes along with it as well. It’s easier for me to enjoy this music now because it can be viewed in respect to the wider scope of music. I can hear the synthesizers and the cheesiness without groaning. It’s an interesting trip, but I don’t think it’ll ever feel like home.