Showing posts with label disappointment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label disappointment. Show all posts

Sunday, February 6, 2011

Superbowl Party

I spent the Superbowl at a party.  In years past, I would go hang out at Paul's place.  He'd usually have a huge party and I would always have a ton of fun. 
This year, Paul didn't have a party, so I guess I didn't miss anything.  So I went over to hang with some other friends this year. 
I guess what got me was how long the game felt this year.  And, like, boring.  Usually I have a great time watching the game, but after the halftime I lost all enthusiasm. 
Mimi was there, and she mostly talked about things that we totally random.  Amanda and I giggled a little about it.  Eventually Amanda got so bored with the game that she took a nap (and missed the Steelers getting another touchdown.) 
At the same time, I was chatting with Michael about the whole Af-Pak situation, which, I hate to say it, was way more interesting to me then the game. 
We were laughing at commercials when my Dad called me.  I don't know why my Dad was calling me when the Superbowl is clearly on, but I just ignored it.  I had sent him an email yesterday. 
Amanda woke up and we chatted about how few guys were here and how weird it was to not hear the deep bass sound of the guys or the popping sound of people opening up beers. 
This girl was at the party.  Like a lot of girls, she didn't know much about football.  I can sympathize, since when I'm around boys (especially certain boys) they make me feel bad, not even about not knowing the rules, but not every little things. 
But this girl asked if a team could win by one point.  Um...yes? 
Amanda said it best when she said it was an uneventful game and there weren't any good commercials. 
More than anything, going to this party and watching this game made me miss Paul.  If I was hanging with Paul, I'd be having a ball, but mostly I was just sort of disappointed. 

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

On the Jezebel Outrage

I've been really disappointed by the response people have had to the Jezebel article on the Daily Show's woman problem. 
I should probably start off by saying that I love the Daily Show.  I started watching it when I was about thirteen or fourteen, around 2002.  And I've regularly watched the show ever since, sometimes going years without missing an episode.  At the same time, I've only recently discovered Jezebel.  Even though I don't believe in everything the blog says, I like it.  I like that it's one of the few spaces on the Internet where women are unafraid to say something particular hurts women, and that the commentators are generally funny or interested in positive solutions to these problems.
First, I was really disappointed by the letter the Daily Show's women employees penned on the subject.  The letter did several things.  First, it dismissed Jezebel completely, which was unwise, since it defends the idea that the Daily Show is dismissive of women by being dismissive of a woman's article on a woman-centric blog mostly read by women.  Then it also discussed how there were lots of women who worked for the show, then went on to list them.  This would be fine if the article was about all the people on the show.  The article specifically focused on the writers and on-air talent, and, unfortunately, nothing Jezebel said appears to be a lie, since the numbers (or lack, in this case) are public knowledge.  The letter instead looks like a fearful, rash reaction, since it didn't correctly identify the point of the article.  In not correctly speaking to the problem that Jezebel pointed out, it looks like no one at the Daily Show actually read the article, just heard someone was unhappy and carried on from there. 
It would be easy, at this point, for the Daily Show to correct this problem, though the letter really hurts things.  They could offer to do the interviews which the Jezebel author specifically asked for before the article went to print.  Or, and this would be the smart move here, invite her to spend a week or so at the show's office.  Seriously.  She could blog about her time at the Daily Show office on the Jezebel blog, and then issue a final report after she's spent her time there and had time to consider it.  If it turns out that she still stands by what she said, then the Daily Show can say they wanted to get an outsider's point of view and that they're going to make some changes (which the Jezebel author already pointed to some easy ones.)  If she comes back and says things were fine, then presto! controversy over. 
Even if the Daily Show does handle this better in the future (which, given the sorry state of that letter, I'm afraid they won't), that won't cut down on the rest of the Internet obfuscating this whole thing.  Slate published an article on it that also misses the point and then decides to castrate the blog for asking questions.  The Slate article makes it about Olivia Munn, who is discussed in the Jezebel article because she is the first woman to be hired in seven years.  Seven years.  Jezebel complained that they hired Munn because she is pretty.  She is pretty, and there would be nothing wrong with this if writers on the show hadn't commented that they thought prettier woman did better because they were pretty or if Samantha Bee, the only regular woman correspondent over the recent years hadn't mentioned they were looking for older women, which Munn doesn't qualify as.  Slate took this part of the argument and made it sound in their article like it was the only thing the Jezebel article discussed, which it didn't.  Then it discussed how Jezebel was just trying to stir up controversy, again, dismissing a woman for asking questions about women's representation in media.  Jezebel should just rest its case at this point, because, once again, they're being willfully misunderstood and then dismissed for it.  And for an article that complains about Jezebel's ads, it doesn't mention how Slate has ads as well and in no way above this.  Nor does it mention how the author of the Slate piece left Gawker media, which owns Jezebel, though it does mention she formally was employed by them.
The reactions from some groups has really disappointed me.  There are positive, easy, non-reactionary responses to these issues.  The reactions so far have failed to reach that very high mark.    

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Homecoming

This morning, it started raining hard. And I woke up and thought about how disappointing the rain was in East Lansing, and how much better it was here, under my family's roof.
I guess I really am home.
The only problem with it raining like this is that I want to crawl back into bed.

Monday, May 10, 2010

Super Extreme Mega History Heroes

Sometimes, even your teachers manage to surprise you.

This morning, I found this video waiting for me in my inbox from my feminism professor. Even though it's true that she is a huge Bronte sisters fan, this is not exactly her style. But I love it. It makes me smile.
"Girls can't write books, ha ha ha!" Lol. I love the idea of boys and girls enacting feminist narratives.
Also, brontesaurus. The only thing I'm a little bothered by is the lace on the dinosaur. I feel like it needs an old school cameo pin too.
My one disappointment when it comes to this professor was not taking her Jane Austen class last year. I think one of my seminars was at the same time, and I didn't want to give that up because I didn't know her and had no idea if she was going to teach a good class. Turns out the feminism class was awesome. I would have almost certainly enjoyed her Austen class.