Tag Archives: boys and girls

Dear “The Loved Ones”: High School is Hard Enough (Mitt Romney, I’m looking at you)

14 May

Some things about this trailer are perfect. The music in the first 30 seconds, the boys’ unwashed hair, the way conversations about prom happen at lockers (I got asked to prom standing at my locker wearing an old sweatshirt, and no, there wasn’t a speech prepared, there weren’t flowers or a sign, I knew he was asking me in a half-panic after his first choice had said yes to someone else during lunch).

You know what else is perfect? The fact that Holly looks about 10 years older than her boyfriend Brendan. Eighteen-year-old boys are BABIES, you guys. Are they not drinking milk? Because the hormones in milk are not doing to boys what they’re doing to girls.

And then at 1:28, fake-Lena-Dunham goes all American psycho on her crush! Watch:

THE BRITISH ACCENT. THE “SUCK IT” FINGER. THE HAMMERED TOE. The conjunctivitis eyeliner. And then, because they couldn’t resist, they threw in the girlfight in the prom dresses. Special to Adam Best of Flicksided: while I buy the Texas Chainsaw Massacre reference, I somehow really doubt this ever “meets Sixteen Candles.”

How does this end? My prom night ended when we got kicked out of the hotel room where we weren’t even drinking (and not planning to stay the night, it was just a party thrown by my date’s first choice) and went for pancakes at IHOP and then I was dropped off at a very respectable hour. No one that I was close to lost anything that night– not toenails, nor virginity, nor sense of humanity. Maybe an earring.

What’s with this prom-horror genre? Do we have such a strong sense of prom as an American rite of passage that we’re all, “If they can ruin PROM, then nothing’s sacred?”

Please.

Read on to see how I magically work this around to Mitt Romney and Barack Obama’s childhood bullying and what it means for America:  (more…)

Dear North Carolina

9 May

I address you because you’re convenient (although controversial) at this moment. This letter also applies to Colorado, where the filibuster last night had constituents crying “Shame!”; to Arizona, where lawmakers recently designated women as perpetually pregnant; to California, where Prop 8 essentially did the same thing North Carolina’s Amendment One did; to Washington, where before marriage-equality legislation even passed in February, opponents were gearing up to fight it through a ballot referendum (we’ll see it in November). Oh, the states are dividing in more ways than red and blue: how red, how blue. How safe for gay couples; how legal for them to marry; how protected for them to work. 

How unconstitutional for them to love one another.

It was already illegal for gay couples to marry in North Carolina. Passing an amendment– amendment one, the first amendment to their constitution– was just to be extra sure. In other words, North Carolina put on suspenders even though it was already wearing a belt. The only reason to strap on double protection is fear. Boot-shaking, earth-quaking fear that you might end up naked, your shame exposed in front of everyone. Or lack of education, right? No one wears two condoms unless they weren’t paying attention in health class. (We can always hope that this NC amendment is indeed a double-condom situation and will result in a complete bust and backfire.) 

So what did Amendment One do? It hurt domestic violence victims. Because unmarried partnerships (“personal relationships”) are no longer recognized as having any legal standing in North Carolina, unmarried people who find themselves in violent situations are no longer entitled to the smidgen of extra protection that domestic violence codes afforded them. Thank god. Because domestic violence victims– they were just way, way too protected. They were working that system, because it’s so glamorous and so well-tilted in their favor already. Just getting really uppity, those DV victims were. 

Even the governor was against it, urging voters to understand that this amendment does nothing except hurt North Carolina.

These are old battles from the 1960′s, being brought up by old white men who are trying to return to an America they once knew. It wasn’t better then. It won’t get better until they’re out of office, until our legislatures look like the citizenry. 

These are tired, stale conversations. We’ve had them, and we’ll keep having them as long as we need to, but it’s a waste of our time. There are other things for us to tackle.

This is why people say, “If you’re voting Republican, you haven’t been paying attention.” They mean if you’re voting Republican as a woman, or a gay person, or a person who knows women or gay people, or as a man who wants to be able to have sex without paying child support for the next 18 years, or as a man who wants his mother, sister, daughter, wife, lover to be protected if she is ever raped or faces cancer or the loss of a child, they mean if you think women and LGBTQI people are full citizens and human beings, then you cannot continue voting Republican. If you’re a good ol-fashioned Republican who’s voting on “economic policies,” you need to recognize that economic policies don’t matter as long as the politicians are making your vote about human rights.

Yes– we should be debating job creation, and laissez-faire government, and foreign policy. We should be debating health care, and family care leave, and the growing gap between the rich and the poor, and gun control laws. That’s what this election year should be about. It’s not. We should be talking about how socioeconomics are still tied to race in this country, and why women still earn $0.77 to the dollar that men earn for equal work even when all variables have been accounted for. We should be talking about why it’s condescending and misogynist that Alex Castellanos called Rachel Maddow “passionate” on TV. Yes, we should still be talking issues of racism and sexism and classism, because those conversations are not over. Those prejudices, those oppressive forces are not gone.

But we shouldn’t be fighting Roe v. Wade, we shouldn’t be fighting for access to birth control, and we should be voting on marriage-equality, not amending our state constitutions to extra-super-ban it. It’s shameful. 

It’s time for a 21st-century conversation. It’s time for national legislation. Nowhere is the need for young people in government more evident than in the fight for marriage equality and the war against women. It’s past time to move forward. Aren’t we tired yet of standing still?

MM

Dear Facebook Friends and Not-Friends (Facebook is a Goldfish Bowl)

2 May

Do single people use Facebook more than married people, or coupled people? Is it really just an elablorate dating site for those interested in (re)connecting with those they (used to) know? Do happy people or sad people use Facebook more often? Those who live in the cities with their families or without?

How many friends is too many? What’s the point of “defriending” versus “hiding” on your newsfeed? Is that person really of so little value to you that it’s not worth it to keep them, even on a virtual back burner? What if you need to contact them to ask who their dentist is?

Why am I not friends with hardly anyone I went to elementary school with? What’s the deadline on friending people who you should’ve friended in the first two years of being on FB but did not, and now it has been six or eight, and you all have survived without each other this long, but why? I would totally read your status updates. I would totally click on your wedding pictures.

I am often bored with my newsfeed; what is my resistence to expanding it? Why do people call it “cleaning house” when they go through and defriend people? How many phone numbers are in your phone that you don’t use and is it the same thing? (I say no.)

But I won’t friend people who I don’t know. If you don’t know me but you like this blog, then like the DMP Facebook page or follow me on Twitter. FB is for people whose faces I have seen, hands I have touched, people who I played duck duck goose with or more likely who tripped me on the asphalt. I check my security settings regularly. I don’t have friend groups; I don’t post anything that I’m not willing to let everyone I am friends with see. I’ve defriended someone once, when I wasn’t interested in giving that person information that could remotely clue them in to my whereabouts or even my pyschological state. You’re allowed to cut people off who are toxic. But those who are merely unnecessary at this moment? Things change. You can’t re-friend. It’s awkward. They know. Believe me. You would know, wouldn’t you.

When will we start handing out our FB contact info to strangers we meet in bars (but do we do that, anymore? or do we just FB message people we once thought we could’ve had something with?) rather than phone numbers or even emails? I’d like that. Feels safe, if clunky.

I had goldfish when I was younger. My parents tried many things to keep me from begging for a dog: goldfish, cats, newts. All of these were terrible animals. The cats were lazy, dumb, and skittish. The newts ate their own feet and released some sort of toxic smell from those little white nubs that never went away. The goldfish wouldn’t stay alive.

(more…)

Dear “Girls”

1 May

This is why I’m not writing about “Girls”: Tom and Lorenzo have got it covered in a scant 500 words.

Also I don’t have HBO.

Frank, by the way, is in the background muttering “Thank god” and “So can you stop telling me what all the articles say already?” Because I also have a compulsive need to click-click on any analysis about “Girls.”  

Speaking of Frank, I told him we were moving to Seattle when I gave notice with my rent check this morning. He got all huffy for some reason. “You can’t decide my life! You don’t know me! …I’m a sentient being in this relationship and I demand to have a say! Yada YADA YADA yada.”

When I pointed out how much closer Seattle is to his motherland (CANADA!), Frank settled down into a steady whine. At some point I think I heard the words, Romney can’t catch me there— ? And then it just sounded like he was quietly chanting hockey-hockey-hockey-hockey-hockey under his breath for about an hour.

Now he’s making my sandwich for lunch and sorting through what to keep of the kitchen supplies and talking about how he didn’t really like “Tiny Furniture” all that much, anyway: “Can’t that Lena chick smile? I don’t think she laughed once in that movie. Sure, I like her message about embracing your own body, but…life’s just not that bad, eh? Even if your girlfriend is an evil dictator.”

God he’s a sap and a romantic.

xo,

MM

Dear White House Correspondents’ Dinner

30 Apr

God, this seems like a hard gig, doesn’t it? You’ve got half an hour, the president’s writers are at least as good as yours, some of your jokes are so wonky they have to be explained to the audience made up of wonks, you’ve got to make fun of celebrities and politicians, but the fact of the matter is, the night is for the journalists….or it was supposed to be, originally.

I started wondering if there’s ever been a female host at the WHCD. There’ve been a couple: in 1993, Elayne Boosler; in 1999 Arethra Franklin provided the entertainment (one assumes she didn’t do stand-up); in 2009, Wanda Sykes. In 2005 “First Lady Laura Bush made some jokes” (from the Wikipedia article on the WHCA). 

Fun fact: the only repeat performer (as far as the chart shows) is Al Franken, in 1994 and 1996 (Conan O’Brien being the gingermeat in that particular Frankenwich).

Interestingly, this “tradition” of a comedy host is fairly new. In 1945, the first year of the dinner, they had “performers” which included Frank Sinatra. The chart then skips to 1969– was the dinner not held?– when it notes that “President Nixon personally requested the Disneyland Golden Horseshoe Revue.” (There’s got to be some good jokes in that.) It’s only in 1991 that recognizable “comedy hosts” start performing as such, and even since then, sometimes the dinner has relied on spoof videos or split the duties between more than one entertainer.

So it’s only very, very recently that there’s been a hint of rivalry between the “two” comedic performances: the president’s, whoever he (or, I hope, someday she) may be, and the host’s. And in fact, it’s only since Obama took office that this “rivalry” has gained any footing in the sense of it being a true competition. For while the quality of the jokes may be the same (as I mentioned, both obviously hire writers, and there’s no requirement that a certain number of the jokes be the speaker’s own), comedy is all in the timing…and Obama is our only President with a certain instinctual one-two count. 

Now, President Clinton has a sly-dog sense about him, and one can imagine that Presidents like Bush and even Teddy Roosevelt were fond of pranks, but Obama is somewhat known for being able to make (and take) a joke.

One likes to imagine he’s enjoying the night with that big ear-to-ear grin of his. One likes to think of Obama as being the funniest, smartest guy in the room, even when put up against paid, professional comedians who do this every night of their lives. One likes to forget that he’s President and see him as the guy on the basketball court, the best roaster at the company or family annual dinner. And that’s ok. But it isn’t true.

(more…)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 25 other followers