The Laments of Home

The ramblings of Boomers

I’m amused by the extreme nostalgia Boomers have for their youth.  I’m amused because, in their pining for a time lost, they fail to understand the irony of the supposedly better conditions of a time period that preceded their own attainment of power and influence.  And yet, stubbornness prevents them from accepting blame for the results of their decades long scorched earth policy, instead choosing to enjoy the benefits of such exploitation while mentally lapsing into the times governed by their parents, all the while accusing the younger generations of laziness and motivational want despite the rather clear historical evidence that these younger generations acquired significantly higher debt to achieve the educational requirements for comparable wages of their older coworkers, if they were fortunate to even find such a job available.

A forced audience isn’t captivated

Such attitudes especially annoyed me during my college years.  Not the professors themselves–no, they at least understood the consequences of unchecked Capitalism.  At least, that was the case in my humble Arts and Sciences education.  (Liz has a different opinion of her professors, having attended Business school, unsurprisingly.)  Rather, it was the clientele with whom I regularly interacted while working those unskilled labor jobs in the service industry to make ends meet.  The self-important 5PM rush of office jockeys, in a great hurry to acquire their expensive steak cuts and head home, in so much of a hurry that they couldn’t hang up their cell phones before trying to place an order, yet never so much in a hurry that they couldn’t complain endlessly about the service they received.  The service that, in their mind, was unquestionably declining with the youth of present day, completely unlike how they themselves treated customers in their own pre-college graduation days of employment.  I received lectures, free of charge for my own benefit no doubt, on my attitude in these instances where my thoughts weren’t perfectly hidden from my conduct.  It was one of the rare occasions that a cell phone was actually put away, and inevitably led to the lamenting monologues about the good ol’ days.

Your favorite memories of childhood were things you never let your own kids do

During these good ol’ days, kids walked to school and played unsupervised.  Kids had dangerous playgrounds and dangerous toys.  Kids had access to nature and undeveloped land.  Kids learned character through tough love and that prepared them with resilience for the workforce.

These were the general points incensed Boomer orators would espouse upon their involuntary audiences (me).  Yet with time their captive Millennial audiences could no longer be forced, since as they advanced in their careers, many no longer found themselves in the positions of entertaining Boomers under the threat of being fired.  So instead, the Boomers have taken to the internet to lament on the changing world.

After overhearing a Boomer at the hardware store commenting on the background music and how much better the music was in their day (another favorite Boomer conversational topic), I took to some internet trawling.  Topics I wouldn’t normally search for.  Modern takes on “You can’t go home again.”  A topic that turned out to be Boomer clickbait gold.  And like all clickbait–hundreds of articles with the same content.

So I offer you now, Boomers, without delving into the literary etymological origins of the phrase, the solution to your dilemma, for your benefit.  You can’t go home again because:

  1. Once you leave, it ceases to be your home.  Ergo, it doesn’t exist.  And,
  2. You destroyed it, albeit indirectly.

The point:

Meanness is the social result of an insecurity.  Every time you wax nostalgic to someone younger who didn’t experience your idolized timeframe, you are attempting to make that person feel bad (because nostalgia is itself a falsified version of events, and therefore not academically historical–not a history lesson as you seem to think it is).  You are insecure because on some level you realize that what was lost is the result of your own actions, and you can’t mentally settle that.

So roll a joint, put on some Beatles, and shut up.

–Simon

Luck X5

Luck is fine and all.  As is wealth.  But luck, wealth, and longevity?  Hell yeah.

A SIX leaf clover (zoom in on the center)

I’ll be a gold-digger’s dream when I’m old.

–Simon

Femme Credibilius

In these contemporary times it often feels as though I’m being force-fed feminism.  It is, understandably, a product of modern social/economic/technological circumstances coming into conflict with our stubbornness to change, and is, within reason, a required means to achieve true egalitarianism.  To this there is little argument.  But why then do I find it frequently so off-putting?  I am a modern man, a Millennial in fact, with rather liberal views.

To resolve the internal conflict, I decided to meditate heavily on the subject, and I believe that the anxiety is not a result of the goals themselves, but rather the execution.  I will explain via corollary, specifically through the means by which one of my generation explores our present culture: TV and video games.

Firstly though, I’ll cite the Bechdel Test, as it’s both appropriate for this topic as well as a very straightforward method by which to analyze the relevance of female characters in media.

In summary, a movie doesn’t represent women in any meaningful way unless [paraphrasing mine]:

  • The movie has to have at least two women in it,
  • who talk to each other,
  • about something other than a man.

I’ll use this as the foundation to my own test (Moorhead Test?), because in response to a sudden desire to pass the Bechdel, women are being cast at an exponential rate, many times inappropriately, with the results often patronizing if not downright jarring and unbelievable.  So I will attempt to assist the entertainment industry with their shortcomings.  Here’s my test:

A female character isn’t believable unless:

  • Her behavior is in line with the authority that the position she occupies would normally require of a man,
  • who also is in an age-appropriate position,
  • who realistically possesses the skills required for said position,
  • and whose dialog is not intentionally condescending to male characters and male viewers.

I will elaborate on these points, then provide a good and bad example for each, to show where we have succeeded and where we have horribly failed (with the assumption that you, the reader, have similar media tastes and are familiar with the referenced characters):

  • If a female character doesn’t behave in a manner that the position she occupies would require of a male counterpoint, then the question is: why is she in that position?  If we wouldn’t believe a man in that same position would act similarly, then the female casting hints at motives other than including a qualified female candidate.
  • If a female character is too young for the position she’s playing, then the casting indicates sexual motives.
  • Drawing from the first two criteria, if a female character does not or could not possess the skills normally required for the casted position, then the casting is patronizing.
  • Regarding condescending dialog–this appears, like, a lot.  I assume it’s there to stroke female viewers’ egos, they way they loved to do in 90s sitcoms.  Or, again, it’s just downright patronizing, the way we used to use the term “homemaker” to imply being a stay-at-home wife was just as rewarding as having a career and women didn’t need to pursue the latter.

Hopefully you’re following me and not looking for reasons to be angry.  The point is that properly casted female characters don’t generally even raise an eyebrow amongst the intelligentsia, but too often they are indeed miscast for what I’m assuming is simply an attempt to increase female audience size or show how “progressive” the creators are trying to be.

Here’s my examples:

Category: TV

Good

Show: The Expanse
Character: Chrisjen Avasarala
Actor: Shohreh Aghdashloo
Role: UN Deputy Undersecretary, later UN Secretary General

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bad

Show: Star Trek: The Next Generation
Character: Diana Troy
Actor: Marina Sirtis
Role: Counselor

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Failure reason: Acts annoyingly flirtatious and dresses inappropriately for a professional (despite what the above image might indicate, she spent most of the series not in a Starfleet uniform!).  Makes several amused comments about the silliness of male honor codes.

Category: Movie

Good

Movie: Terminator 2: Judgement Day
Character: Sarah Connor
Actor: Linda Hamilton
Role: Mother of John Connor/Terminator Survivor/Cyberdyne Destroyer

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bad

Move: X-Men
Character: Storm
Actor: Halle Berry
Role: X-man/teacher

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Failure reason: Acts juvenile with her short temper, and what is she teaching at that school exactly?  Why did Xavier leave her in charge?  Also: bad delivery of poorly-written dialog.

Category: Video Game

Good

Game: Halo Series
Character: Dr. Halsey
Actor: Jennifer Taylor
Role: Forerunner Tech Scientist, ONI (creator of Cortana and SPARTAN program)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bad

Game: Mass Effect
Character: Ashley Williams
Actor: Kimberly Brooks
Role: Gunnery Chief

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Failure reason: Lengthy banal backstory with no value, a clear insert for a love interest, tells stories of her sister’s bad experiences with men and her beating them up.  Alien racist, but no clear interest as to why.

I ask you then, oh content creators, can we not please consistently create believable female characters?  Ones that are professionals in their fields, and not just walking curves/love interests/man haters?  Give us a reason to believe their existence is justified in the roles they’ve been cast, and then work on their personalities and backstories?

Perhaps your problem is that you lack women on your writing staff?  Maybe hire some, but make sure they pass the Moorhead Test first.

–Simon