As Evelyn tells me, I must balance my more serious blogs with those on a lighter topic, namely dating. One might think in my 4+ years blogging I may have run out of insightful things to say about dating, but I seem to be constantly provided with new material.
In many discussions I've had lately, both male and female friends have complained about the passivity with which potential partners seem to approach dating. As a female, it's literally refreshing to encounter someone who blatantly expresses interest, who courts actively and pursues obviously (yes, I said court, if we're going to live in a society where gender dictates dating rules, the male at least tries to impress the female with an interesting date, initiating phone calls, etc). While some do give this breath of fresh air (and are actually more likely to achieve a first or 2nd date, mind you), the majority seem to take the passive approach: flirting but never crossing the line, interested when the girl initiates but not initiating himself, etc.
According to male friends, the female equivalent passive behavior is a lack of explicitly showing interest, general flirtatious behavior not solely directed at the guy in question, accepting of but requiring the guy's initiative on everything, etc. Sorry I can't elaborate more here, but maybe some of my readers can.
It seems to me that there are 2 likely causes: 1) the person lacks the self confidence to fully put him/herself out there, and 2) as the movie says, (s)he's just not that into you ( or maybe even (s)he could be, but could also be into others if the opportunity presented itself, and would like to leave those doors open). Yet regardless of rationale, the passive approach doesn't work. As one friend famously said, we Americans need to stop buying so many cereal boxes. If we're constantly rotating between types, we never fully evaluate any one box before it goes stale.
And since humans are not cereal boxes, the other person is unlikely to stay interested if they're not sure you are. As another friend put it, "I don't need you to know you want to marry or even enter a long term relationship with me from the first date. But I do need you to be all in for seeing where it leads. Half-assing it just doesn't cut it."
Perhaps if we worry less about rejection, show our intentions clearly, and focus more at a single option at a time, we might just find what we're looking for a little sooner. And maybe one of these days I'll start remembering that myself ;)
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Fascism and Basketball?
I love it when two of the random things I ponder in a given week can offer a different perspective of each other. A couple days ago I was listening to a How Stuff Works podcast on fascism while running. Yes, the word frequents the political vernacular all too often these days, but what does it actually mean?
If I can summarize the podcast well, fascism is the extreme right of the political spectrum, where every action is done for the good of the state. There is no real sense of individualism, the leaders form a totalitarian society and cultivate a country specific focus that often becomes synonymous with the leaders themselves. There's also usually some sort of survival of the fittest mentality with the fittest being one particular race or sect. And, of course, the need to engage in wars to conquer other, less fit, nations.
The surprising thing is, they require and get a lot of their countrymen to buy into it. This has always been one of the scariest things to me about historical fascists in general: how do the leaders convince the average citizen to hate their neighbor, to get so wrapped up in the movement that they don't question the leadership, and blindly cheer their side on in the war games currently being played?
Interestingly enough, we just started March Madness, the college basketball playoff games that keep many fans glued to the tv. Popular enough to be discussed on the major news networks, these two weeks are just one example of fans dedicating their lives to watching their team(s) play, espousing the strengths of the players and mocking the weaknesses of their opponents. Not to remove myself from this, I found it exhilarating to be apart of the excitement that is Cameron Indoor Stadium during Duke basketball, learning the cheers for our players and chants against our opponents, and badmouthing UNC at every chance I could (GTHCGTH anyone?). I even commented to some of my high school friends about how nice it was to be somewhere with actual school pride. Yet, there have been many instances where sports rivalries exploded into abusive rhetoric, raw anger, and even physical altercations.
Now, I'm no psychologist, but I can't help but think that the same sense of pride and competition we encourage blindly in sports is what fascists could tap into to support their rise to power. I mean, think of how many ordinary Germans were convinced to aid the Nazis during WWII, not from personal vendettas with Jews and others, but out of a skewed sense of German pride. What then should we make of it when we start trash-talking opponents we've never met? It's a scary parallel.
I guess it comes down to the chicken or the egg conundrum. Does athletic fanaticism slowly build our willingness to trample on arbitrary opponents? Or, if we are wired to be overly proud and subjugate others, are sports just a healthy and much preferred outlet to express these emotions (than war, e.g.)?
If I can summarize the podcast well, fascism is the extreme right of the political spectrum, where every action is done for the good of the state. There is no real sense of individualism, the leaders form a totalitarian society and cultivate a country specific focus that often becomes synonymous with the leaders themselves. There's also usually some sort of survival of the fittest mentality with the fittest being one particular race or sect. And, of course, the need to engage in wars to conquer other, less fit, nations.
The surprising thing is, they require and get a lot of their countrymen to buy into it. This has always been one of the scariest things to me about historical fascists in general: how do the leaders convince the average citizen to hate their neighbor, to get so wrapped up in the movement that they don't question the leadership, and blindly cheer their side on in the war games currently being played?
Interestingly enough, we just started March Madness, the college basketball playoff games that keep many fans glued to the tv. Popular enough to be discussed on the major news networks, these two weeks are just one example of fans dedicating their lives to watching their team(s) play, espousing the strengths of the players and mocking the weaknesses of their opponents. Not to remove myself from this, I found it exhilarating to be apart of the excitement that is Cameron Indoor Stadium during Duke basketball, learning the cheers for our players and chants against our opponents, and badmouthing UNC at every chance I could (GTHCGTH anyone?). I even commented to some of my high school friends about how nice it was to be somewhere with actual school pride. Yet, there have been many instances where sports rivalries exploded into abusive rhetoric, raw anger, and even physical altercations.
Now, I'm no psychologist, but I can't help but think that the same sense of pride and competition we encourage blindly in sports is what fascists could tap into to support their rise to power. I mean, think of how many ordinary Germans were convinced to aid the Nazis during WWII, not from personal vendettas with Jews and others, but out of a skewed sense of German pride. What then should we make of it when we start trash-talking opponents we've never met? It's a scary parallel.
I guess it comes down to the chicken or the egg conundrum. Does athletic fanaticism slowly build our willingness to trample on arbitrary opponents? Or, if we are wired to be overly proud and subjugate others, are sports just a healthy and much preferred outlet to express these emotions (than war, e.g.)?
Monday, February 08, 2010
The right to bear arms
What exactly does the 2nd amendment guarantee? The debate around the 2nd amendment has come up a lot in my social circles lately, and I think I'm one of a few that has not come to a decision about it yet. Given that I have readers on both sides of this issue, let's dive in, but with a scientific/logical approach.
Apart from regulation of who has access/what checks are done/whether guns can be hidden (to which most sane people can usually generally agree to some basic guidelines), there seem to be two main areas of disagreement that arise about the 2nd amendment.
The first is on the wording of the 2nd amendment itself. What does it mean, and what was its original context? In other words, does the 2nd amendment guarantee us the right to bear personal weapons? For starters, let's look at the actual text:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
From a purely grammatical standpoint, this amendment is messy and confusing. Does the right of the people to bear arms depend on being part of a well regulated militia? For you history buffs out there, in what context was this amendment given? And for you lawyers, do we even care about the original meaning, or just how it can be interpreted in the present day?
The second general area of disagreement is regardless of whether or not we should have the right to bear arms, does it benefit us as a society? In other words, do guns make us more safe? Here I've heard both sides shout arguments: access to guns either increases violent deaths, or acts as a deterrent to/weapon against crime. Does either side have scientific evidence to back up these claims? Has anyone done a study to show that inner city gangs have less death if they don't have access to guns, or whether they just revert to knifing each other? Or has anyone studied whether families with guns have successfully deterred/impeded would be robbers?
In short, I'm looking for solid facts and logical philosophical arguments about these 2 areas to back up some of the ardent positions a lot of you take on this issue. Do I have any takers?
Apart from regulation of who has access/what checks are done/whether guns can be hidden (to which most sane people can usually generally agree to some basic guidelines), there seem to be two main areas of disagreement that arise about the 2nd amendment.
The first is on the wording of the 2nd amendment itself. What does it mean, and what was its original context? In other words, does the 2nd amendment guarantee us the right to bear personal weapons? For starters, let's look at the actual text:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
From a purely grammatical standpoint, this amendment is messy and confusing. Does the right of the people to bear arms depend on being part of a well regulated militia? For you history buffs out there, in what context was this amendment given? And for you lawyers, do we even care about the original meaning, or just how it can be interpreted in the present day?
The second general area of disagreement is regardless of whether or not we should have the right to bear arms, does it benefit us as a society? In other words, do guns make us more safe? Here I've heard both sides shout arguments: access to guns either increases violent deaths, or acts as a deterrent to/weapon against crime. Does either side have scientific evidence to back up these claims? Has anyone done a study to show that inner city gangs have less death if they don't have access to guns, or whether they just revert to knifing each other? Or has anyone studied whether families with guns have successfully deterred/impeded would be robbers?
In short, I'm looking for solid facts and logical philosophical arguments about these 2 areas to back up some of the ardent positions a lot of you take on this issue. Do I have any takers?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
