There was once a time when I engaged in excessive self-empathy and thought to myself, “There’s got be more to life than this,” but now I just see that thinking as being a waste of valuable time. What could I have changed? Given my “nature,” not a whole lot; maybe I would have had sense enough not to do this or do that, but that would only have meant that I stayed in one rut a little longer. One thing I regret is that the things that helped me get through life—the Internet as we know it today where I am allowed to do what I was "trained" to do in college on a blog, and the current video disc formats—only came around relatively later in life than I would have liked.
On the other hand, I have been around long enough to be able to recognize the difference between what was and what is, and frankly I don’t think things are “better” today, at least “culturally.” Give me a good, old-fashioned political thriller from the Seventies over those self-obsessed “politically” and gender-correct films of today. I read that when Taylor Swift shows up at Lumen Field this summer, seating will go anywhere from $400 to $1200. Are you effing kidding me? She can’t dance, she can’t really sing that good, and her hookless “hits” wouldn’t have scratched the Hot 100 back in the day. Swift has never released a concert video, so her fans have to fork over their hard-earned money to see this greedy faker "live." But she does look “good” in her Nordic blonde white womanish way, and her fans apparently like being vicariously connected to her success in this vapid time of ours.
But it doesn’t matter; I don’t like listening to any “contemporary” music, and I think maybe one percent of my fairly large video disc collection dates from 2000. And I’m always finding new “discoveries” anyways. I once thought that the Velvet Underground was a band just too out in left field to like, but that was because of John Cale’s out-there musical tastes. When he left the band, they went with a “softer” sound, albeit still with Lou Reed’s R-rated lyrical sensibility. My “discovery”—after watching the documentary about the band released by the Criterion Collection—was that their last album, Loaded, is a great pop-rock record front-to-back, but it apparently “confused” the few who were who fans of the band’s earlier “sound,” and it was ignored by the generality because of prior assumptions about the band being on the fringes.
What else? Oh, Jesus, isn’t it a bore when people whine about their success? Keira Knightley recently complained that her path to international stardom (I guess) via the Pirates of the Caribbean films was actually “bad” for her, because turned her into a “sex symbol,” and that’s just not politically-correct in this day and age. Well, let me just say that I don’t think Keira is “sexy” at all. OK, she has a nice face, but the sight of skin-and-bones that we might recall from old WWII newsreels of concentration camp survivors tends to make me feel a little nauseous:
This reminds me of
anyone I see in Seattle’s Capitol Hill who is wearing plaster on their face and
skirts that reveal legs that are skin (almost) literally hugging bone: there’s a 90 percent chance
that it is some guy in drag. Not working for me at any age.
Meanwhile ThatUmbrellaGuy commented on this video a few days ago...
..where .Amber Heard diehard and fanatical feminist barrister Charlotte Proudman and “normal” feminist businessperson Amy Anzel had a go of it on GB News in the UK over actor Hugh Grant’s allegedly “unchivalrous” behavior toward a so-called red carpet interviewer at the recent Oscar ceremony, where we saw a completely vapid individual asking vapid questions of Grant, which he apparently wasn’t in the mood to help her not look like an idiot.
The interview was being commented on afterwards, like is Grant "anti-woman" or just "rude." On this GBN segment, the female co-anchor was also a self-proclaimed “feminist” and typically annoying, arrogant and self-righteous, while the male anchor was clearly uncomfortable and stayed mostly silent to stay out of cancel culture territory while two feminist guests “debated” whether "chivalry" is “dead" and if it even matters.
While Anzel claimed that she appreciated it when a man did nice things like openning doors for or putting coats on a woman, Proudman was all over the place; did she think “chivalry” was a “good” thing or not? First she asserted it was “dead,” and then she suggests "chivalry" is "benevolent sexism." She goes on to say that men should be giving women equal treatment. WTH does that mean? That we all should be rude to each other? People like Proudman are rude, disrespectful and hateful, so should men just be “feminists” just like her, meaning being assholes?
You want to know what “disrespectful” is? Asking stupid questions on television and expecting someone else to bail you out. Who are you most excited to see? This guy has been in the business for 40 years, why would he be particularly “excited” in seeing anyone, especially the new crop of Barbies and Kens who are swell-heads with no personality? What are you wearing tonight? Just my suit. Who is your tailor? I don’t remember. Shout out to your tailor. How do feel being in such an “amazing” film like Glass Onion? Wasn’t it such “fun”? I only had a brief cameo appearance (didn’t you notice, you moron?). Thank you, nice talking to you (why did you make me look like a moron on TV for?).
Grant was accused of “speaking down” at the interviewer not because she was an idiot but because she was a woman. Someone in a comments section mentioned that a few years ago Jennifer Lawrence responded to similar questioning in the same way—except that when she did it, it was “funny.” But oh no, if you are a man you can’t do anything that can be perceived as “disrespectful” to a woman, or you will be called a "sexist" or misogynist. In this time of “equality,” that means you have to lower yourself to level of vapidness you are confronted with so that you are both “equal.” Wait a minute—wasn’t that what Grant was doing?
You know what's happening here? Men on one hand might be doing something like holding a door open just to be "nice" or "polite," because if they don't, they are accused of being "rude." On the other hand, if they do open a door for a woman, they are guilty of "benevolent sexism." So what are they supposed to do? This is just one of many possible activities where thanks to radical feminist terminology, men are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. We can surmise that most women are not "offended" if a man does some polite gesture, but it is feminist control of the media that tells them that they are just being "sexist."
I really have to wonder what the “problem” is with people like Proudman. Does she have some secret “issues,” like Kat Tenbarge? Hey, fair is fair. In 2015 The Daily Mail called her out for hypocrisy when she called a male barrister “sexist” for calling her “stunning,” or whatever…
…call her what you will back then, but the Mail pointed out that she used terms like “hot stuff” and “oooo la-la” to describe men pictured on Facebook. So it's "OK" to "objectify" men? Do I care what she calls these men? What for? I just hate self-righteous hypocrites. Here is Proudman today on the GBN segment, and I don’t know what she’s been doing since 2015, but we can forgive her if she is self-conscious about her eating habits (or not, who cares):
I’m sure Proudman is more self-conscious about her looks than I am about mine; there is nothing I can do about mine, although I suspect that Proudman could have done something about hers if she wasn’t spending so much time being an arrogant, hypocritical twit defending abusers and liars like Heard.
Anyways, life is too short for this “feeling good about bad” BS. Feminists like Proudman seem to think that men are supposed to give up so much until there is nothing left for them to keep; these people will never be "satisfied." Not everyone is going to be a “superstar,” and most of those who think they are really are not. People like Proudman are “important” insofar as they are occasionally amusing to talk about, but you just move on, just like you do any ship passing in night who you will never know or care about knowing, and vice-versa. Most of us just have to go do whatever allows us to amiably pass whatever time we have left.
No comments:
Post a Comment