Happy Belated Valentine's Day, everyone!
So, everything seems right in reality TV world, at least with the beauties and the geeks. On the final episode of BATG, Nate halfway redeemed himself by urging a lot of the eliminated contestants to vote for Megan & Scooter, the other team who deserved it much more. I liked Megan the more I saw of her, she was always in good humour, joked about herself good-naturedly and really seemed to throw herself into new things and expand as a person. I don't know if Cecille is really that deluded or if the producers just told her to be so hateful to make good TV. On The Bachelor reality TV series, they always seem to have a villainess-type girl who makes it to the final 3, and BATG seems as formulaic in that sense as the other reality TV shows I've seen. Wait, is the reality TV formulaic or is it reality itself that's formulaic and TV is just imitating life?
My creative juices are stewing. I've been thinking about light and colour and space, and wish I had a large room, time, video equipment, and a few thousand (thousand?) for materials to make any installation I wanted. I'm not great with tools and building, so maybe these things will never exist in reality... I need to learn to use technology better than it uses me.
I hope Oscar Wilde was right when he said: Life imitates art far more than art imitates Life.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
What's My Sex?
Watched the new episode of the BATG tonight and was sorry to see Jennylee & Neils get eliminated. Niels got a bad break on this episode, left with no choices and a question hard enough to be on Jeopardy!, unlike the other trivia they've asked on BATG. I suspect the show's producers leave the most obscure questions for last no matter what number is left, just so they can avoid a tie.
Actually, I'm not so attached to J&N winning, but I didn't want to see Cecille advance in the game, much like how I imagine Kerry voters in the 2004 Presidential election were voting more against Bush than for Kerry. Well, at least this means Megan & Scooter should be a shoo-in next week when BATG gets the old contestants to return and judge which of the 2 final couples has grown more and deserves to win. I wouldn't want to vote for either heartless Cecille or Nate, after he stole Mario's thunder and numbers, a stunt that ultimately got Mario & Nadia eliminated last week.
I hate it when people take credit for someone else's work.
+++
Apparently my post yesterday wasn't sufficiently revealing! I got a comment asking me for the basics, like whether I am male or female. The answer to that age-old question is "Yes, yes I am."
For a more telling truth, let's play a game of maieutics... The name of the game is "What's My Sex?" and you're the next contestant!
Actually, I'm not so attached to J&N winning, but I didn't want to see Cecille advance in the game, much like how I imagine Kerry voters in the 2004 Presidential election were voting more against Bush than for Kerry. Well, at least this means Megan & Scooter should be a shoo-in next week when BATG gets the old contestants to return and judge which of the 2 final couples has grown more and deserves to win. I wouldn't want to vote for either heartless Cecille or Nate, after he stole Mario's thunder and numbers, a stunt that ultimately got Mario & Nadia eliminated last week.
I hate it when people take credit for someone else's work.
+++
Apparently my post yesterday wasn't sufficiently revealing! I got a comment asking me for the basics, like whether I am male or female. The answer to that age-old question is "Yes, yes I am."
For a more telling truth, let's play a game of maieutics... The name of the game is "What's My Sex?" and you're the next contestant!
- Do I look more female or male?
- Are my attitudes more masculine or feminine?
- Have I mentioned any details or engaged in any activities more typical of either sex?
- Do my language patterns make me more likely to be a masculine male, a feminine female, a masculine female, or a feminine male?
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Who I Am
I started blogging not too many posts ago and I got a comment here yesterday asking me, "Who are you?" There's no way I can do it all in one post, or even in a blog, but I figured I'd fill in some blanks. Seven, to be exact.
Things that grab my attention:
1. Ethics, morals, principles.
2. Sustainable living. Vegetable gardening.
3. Art and creative expression.
4. Learning about the world around us, education and critical thinking. Play. Wonder.
5. Good food, great friends, meaningful conversation.
6. Kindness and love. Giving and receiving.
7. Happy endings and beginnings.
The best compliment I ever received was when a friend told me that he thought I did what Gandhi said:
You must be the change you want to see in the world.
Things that grab my attention:
1. Ethics, morals, principles.
2. Sustainable living. Vegetable gardening.
3. Art and creative expression.
4. Learning about the world around us, education and critical thinking. Play. Wonder.
5. Good food, great friends, meaningful conversation.
6. Kindness and love. Giving and receiving.
7. Happy endings and beginnings.
The best compliment I ever received was when a friend told me that he thought I did what Gandhi said:
You must be the change you want to see in the world.
Monday, February 05, 2007
Integrity vs. Reality
On Week 5's episode of the reality TV show Beauty & The Geek, the challenge for the boys is to go to a dog park with a dog and get as many phone numbers from women as they could.
Ethical Dilemma:
You're a man in a reality TV show with a money prize if you beat out the other contestants to be the last one standing. The task is to grab a dog and go to a dog park while trying to procure the phone numbers of as many women as possible. Is it ethical to involve unsuspecting innocents in your game and lie to them in order to get more phone numbers? If you get her number and say you'll call her, is there an ethical obligation to follow up and actually call her? Men apparently do this for free all the time, but does it change the ethics of the situation that this is done as part of a reality TV contest?
Who would do better in a challenge of ethics, a beauty or a geek? It could be a properly obscure area to test them all on!
I wish the TV show itself would directly address some of the ethics, but maybe that's why I've been on Neils's blog, reading comments about some of the stuff that went on. On that episode, Neils presumably didn't get any numbers and spoke of how "dirty" the challenge made him feel. Was it just insecurity and fear of rejection, as he apparently indicated on TV? Or was it about a larger question of principle and ethics, as he implies on his blog?
At this point in this case, I'm leaning toward the former, since this is from a blog of a guy who's constantly bragging about flirting and "vibing" with beautiful women. Does he get the permission of the women he flirts with to publish their encounters on his blog? As well, he gets income from coaching other men on how to flirt with women, so there's definitely a financial interest. Does he tell the women he meets that their encounter will be publicized and used to further his career? Does he get permission to publish what they say in private to him? If it's morally questionable to use a girl and get her phone number to win a challenge unbeknownst to her, surely it's questionable to flirt with girls and publish personal conversations to gain infamy.
Mario on the show seemed to have a good ethical solution to the Phone Number Challenge. He ran around telling people something that was basically true: he was asking for phone numbers to improve his self-esteem and social skills. He didn't seem to represent to anyone that the request was anything other than an exercise, or that he intended to call them.
From what Niels has revealed on the show and his blog, there has been a lot of inconsistency that for his sake, I hope he will address, in response to reader comments. Of course, if the whole thing is indeed meant to drum up business for his work, we'll be less likely to see that kind of personal integrity and this assessment might be right on the money.
So to speak.
Ethical Dilemma:
You're a man in a reality TV show with a money prize if you beat out the other contestants to be the last one standing. The task is to grab a dog and go to a dog park while trying to procure the phone numbers of as many women as possible. Is it ethical to involve unsuspecting innocents in your game and lie to them in order to get more phone numbers? If you get her number and say you'll call her, is there an ethical obligation to follow up and actually call her? Men apparently do this for free all the time, but does it change the ethics of the situation that this is done as part of a reality TV contest?
Who would do better in a challenge of ethics, a beauty or a geek? It could be a properly obscure area to test them all on!
I wish the TV show itself would directly address some of the ethics, but maybe that's why I've been on Neils's blog, reading comments about some of the stuff that went on. On that episode, Neils presumably didn't get any numbers and spoke of how "dirty" the challenge made him feel. Was it just insecurity and fear of rejection, as he apparently indicated on TV? Or was it about a larger question of principle and ethics, as he implies on his blog?
At this point in this case, I'm leaning toward the former, since this is from a blog of a guy who's constantly bragging about flirting and "vibing" with beautiful women. Does he get the permission of the women he flirts with to publish their encounters on his blog? As well, he gets income from coaching other men on how to flirt with women, so there's definitely a financial interest. Does he tell the women he meets that their encounter will be publicized and used to further his career? Does he get permission to publish what they say in private to him? If it's morally questionable to use a girl and get her phone number to win a challenge unbeknownst to her, surely it's questionable to flirt with girls and publish personal conversations to gain infamy.
Mario on the show seemed to have a good ethical solution to the Phone Number Challenge. He ran around telling people something that was basically true: he was asking for phone numbers to improve his self-esteem and social skills. He didn't seem to represent to anyone that the request was anything other than an exercise, or that he intended to call them.
From what Niels has revealed on the show and his blog, there has been a lot of inconsistency that for his sake, I hope he will address, in response to reader comments. Of course, if the whole thing is indeed meant to drum up business for his work, we'll be less likely to see that kind of personal integrity and this assessment might be right on the money.
So to speak.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Beauty is not sublime.
I got pretty stressed out last month with work, so I've been relaxing in front of the TV more than usual this week. I caught Beauty & The Geek for the first time this week and saw a few episodes in a marathon tonight. BATG is a reality contest show along the lines of Survivor, with challenges to win and eliminations every episode, except the gimmick here is that the contestants are couples, a female "beauty" and a male "geek" who have been thrust together to cooperate as a team.
What I like about it is that a lot of the participants seem genuinely changed by the experience for the better. For the most part, I can see many of the beauties and geeks relate to each other as humans, befriending each other and getting to know the substance behind the stereotypes. In that sense, it's a nice hour of TV with flashes of optimism for humanity.
+ + +
After the BATG marathon, I surfed around on the web, curious how real the "reality" TV show was. I found the blog of Niels, one of the guys on the show, so I started browsing. One post had a comment that smacked of such sexist ignorance that I felt it warranted a response, my first comment to a stranger's personal blog ever.
Written by someone calling himself "Asian Playboy":
While it may be that educated women are statistically less likely to marry, this may be because they have higher standards for their mates, rather than because they're not chosen by men. In my experience, intelligence IS indeed rewarded in women, as well as men, by their own kind: other people of intelligence.
While I agree that there may be fewer privileges for women of ability when compared to men of comparable ability, that's very different than presuming that smart women are just waiting to be chosen by any man for marriage. Educated and intelligent women simply have fewer choices in romance because most don't cherish the idea of living with inferior men. Naturally, people with high standards have fewer potentials who meet those standards.
More than anything, it's about our choices and our willingness to take risks and go beyond our fears and self-doubts. We choose what we want, and usually we're attracted to people with the same best qualities as we have. An outwardly good-looking person who values beauty above all else may want a similarly superficial mate. An intelligent and ethical person will probably search for the same. It's a lot harder to find intelligent, ethical people in this world than good-looking ones.
"Just so what is morality but high intelligence?" - Henry James
What I like about it is that a lot of the participants seem genuinely changed by the experience for the better. For the most part, I can see many of the beauties and geeks relate to each other as humans, befriending each other and getting to know the substance behind the stereotypes. In that sense, it's a nice hour of TV with flashes of optimism for humanity.
+ + +
After the BATG marathon, I surfed around on the web, curious how real the "reality" TV show was. I found the blog of Niels, one of the guys on the show, so I started browsing. One post had a comment that smacked of such sexist ignorance that I felt it warranted a response, my first comment to a stranger's personal blog ever.
Written by someone calling himself "Asian Playboy":
"...the thing is, intelligence isn’t rewarded in a woman and can actually be a negative thing. I remember reading that, statistically the more educated and intelligent a woman is (beyond standard college level), the less likely her chances at relationships and marriage.
Ergo, the world punishes excessive displays of intelligence by women."
While it may be that educated women are statistically less likely to marry, this may be because they have higher standards for their mates, rather than because they're not chosen by men. In my experience, intelligence IS indeed rewarded in women, as well as men, by their own kind: other people of intelligence.
While I agree that there may be fewer privileges for women of ability when compared to men of comparable ability, that's very different than presuming that smart women are just waiting to be chosen by any man for marriage. Educated and intelligent women simply have fewer choices in romance because most don't cherish the idea of living with inferior men. Naturally, people with high standards have fewer potentials who meet those standards.
More than anything, it's about our choices and our willingness to take risks and go beyond our fears and self-doubts. We choose what we want, and usually we're attracted to people with the same best qualities as we have. An outwardly good-looking person who values beauty above all else may want a similarly superficial mate. An intelligent and ethical person will probably search for the same. It's a lot harder to find intelligent, ethical people in this world than good-looking ones.
"Just so what is morality but high intelligence?" - Henry James
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)