**Viewer Discretion Advised**

Serious lack of funny

Well, if I could afford Tivo, I would really like to rewind this commercial when it comes on so I could have a second chance at finding the joke.  Seriously, I miss it every time.  Those folks over at Geico must do a really good job hiding it because I’m almost convinced there actually is no joke.

Anyways, I guess the whole point of this commercial is to show you how much money you could be saving if you switched to Geico.  What confuses me is this little money stack with eyes is supposed to represent that “money which could have been saved” but since you would have already spent that money with your other insurance company, does that mean that that money stack with eyes is a ghost of your spent money?  It would have to be a ghost because if it was physically there, then that would mean you never spent that money on the other insurance company.  And if you never spent it on the other insurance company, then you just took out a stack of money for no fucking reason and glued eyes on it, not saving anything.  Mindfuck.  But that’s just looking too far into a commercial that doesn’t deserve any type of thought.  Not only is this commercial incredibly unfunny, the song played at the end is like a parasite that latches on to your brain and forces you to replay that song over and over and over until you finally manage to forget it.  And as soon as you do, another one of this fucking stupid commercials comes on.  I really don’t have anything else to say about it because my brain has suffered enough from watching them let alone talking about them.

Verdict:  Geico cavemen are funnier, and that’s not saying much

What to do when it comes on:

Mute:  Silence it.

Look away:  You’ll be sorry if you don’t

Consider this: our brains may find distractions so tempting because  they are hard-wired to find distractions rewarding or helpful–perhaps as a mechanism of protection in more primitive times?

[Scene:  Plains of the African savanna, 3.2 million years ago]

Lucy: “Hey, Ardi, com’ere — finding some good fruit under this tree.”

Ardi: “Thanks for the tip. Sure am glad we can speak face to face without distractions, aren’t you?”

Lucy: “Indeed. I just hate it when Mogthar interrupts me while I’m gathering fruit.”

Ardi: “Holy crap! A leopard! Run for it (bipedally!)”

However, being interrupted about an approaching leopard while hunting fruit is far different than being bombarded by modern stimuli. Brandon Keim of WIRED interviewed researcher Maggie Jackson about our brains and distractions…

Digital Overload Is Frying Our Brains

By Brandon Keim , February 6, 2009  |

Paying attention isn’t a simple act of self-discipline, but a cognitive ability with deep neurobiological roots — and this complex faculty, says Maggie Jackson, is being woefully undermined by how we’re living.

In Distracted: The Erosion of Attention and the Coming Dark Age, Jackson explores the effects of “our high-speed, overloaded, split-focus and even cybercentric society” on attention. It’s not a pretty picture: a never-ending stream of phone calls, e-mails, instant messages, text messages and tweets is part of an institutionalized culture of interruption, and makes it hard to concentrate and think creatively.

Of course, every modern age is troubled by its new technologies. “The telegraph might have done just as much to the psyche [of] Victorians as the Blackberry does to us,” said Jackson. “But at the same time, that doesn’t mean that nothing has changed. The question is, how do we confront our own challenges?”

Wired.com talked to Jackson about attention and its loss.

Wired.com: Is there an actual scientific basis of attention?

Maggie Jackson: In the last 30 or 40 years, scientists have made inroads into understanding its underlying mechanisms and physiology. Attention is now considered an organ system. It has its own circuitry in the brain, and there are specialized networks carrying out its different forms. Each is very specific and can be traced through neuroimaging and even some genetic research.

While there is still debate among attention scientists, most now conclude that there are three types of attention. The first is orienting — the flashlight of your mind. In the case of visual attention, it involves parts of the brain including the parietal lobe, a brain area related to sensory processing. To orient to new stimuli, two parts of the parietal lobe work with brain sections related to frontal eye fields. This is what develops in an infants’ brain, allowing them to focus on something new in their environment.

The second type of attention spans the spectrum of response states, from sleepiness to complete alertness. The third type is executive attention: planning, judgment, resolving conflicting information. The heart of this is the anterior cingulate — an ancient, tiny part of the brain that is now at the heart of our higher-order skills. It’s executive attention that lets us move us beyond our impulsive selves, to plan for the future and understand abstraction.

We are programmed to be interrupted. We get an adrenalin jolt when orienting to new stimuli: Our body actually rewards us for paying attention to the new. So in this very fast-paced world, it’s easy and tempting to always react to the new thing. But when we live in a reactive way, we minimize our capacity to pursue goals.

Wired.com: What does it mean to be distracted?

Jackson: Literally, it means to be pulled away to something secondary. There’s also an a interesting, archaic definition that fell out of favor in the 18th century: being pulled to pieces, being scattered. I think that’s a lovely term.

Our society right now is filled with lovely distractions — we have so much portable escapism and mediated fantasy — but that’s just one issue. The other is interruption — multitasking, the fragmentation of thought and time. We’re living in highly interrupted ways. Studies show that information workers now switch tasks an average of every three minutes throughout the day. Of course that’s what we have to do to live in this complicated world.

Wired.com: How do these interruptions affect us?

Jackson: This degree of interruption is correlated with stress and frustration and lowered creativity. That makes sense.
When you’re scattered and diffuse, you’re less creative. When your times of reflection are always punctured, it’s hard to go deeply into problem-solving, into relating, into thinking.

These are the problems of attention in our new world. Gadgets and technologies give us extraordinary opportunities, the potential to connect and to learn. At the same time, we’ve created a culture, and are making choices, that undermine our powers of attention. (…)

read the full article at: URL:  http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/02/attentionlost/

Movies aspiring to epics invariably begin with some sort of dramatic voiceover—10,000 BC doesn’t fail, but filmmakers might have done better to listen more closely to their own narrator: if “only time can teach us what is truth, and what is legend,” as the film begins, centuries of modern archeological research should have taught the creators of this prehistoric melodrama at least a few basic facts about early human life.  Considering the sheer number of anachronisms, my suspension of disbelief had snapped long before D’leh and his loyal “spears” arrived at the pyramidal Mountain of the Gods.

10,000 BC came out in 2008, so I realize I’m a year late on this one, but my archeology class, it seems, is behind the times—and since the film itself is set at the end of the Pleistocene, I’m not going to worry about it.  Besides, (pre)historical accuracy never gets old.

Fundamental to the plot is the long trek of D’leh, a self-doubting young man of the hunter-gatherer Yagahl, mountain-dwellers whose way of life hunting the “manak” (a not-so-subtle corruption of “mammoth” in the Yagahl’s astounding English) has become less and less sustainable.

This much, at least, could actually be plausible—megafauna such as the woolly mammoth may have begun to die out in Eurasia between 10,000 and 8,000 BCE from a combination of human hunting pressure and climate change during the glacial retreat.

But even the most extraordinary changes in environment and vegetation following on the heels of the Holocene could not account for the radical topographical diversity D’leh encounters on his journey to fulfill the prophecy surrounding “the child with the blue eyes,” his beloved Evolet.  Taking us from mountain blizzards to steaming jungles, the grasslands of North Africa and the banks of the Nile (and all this in disorientingly little time), D’leh’s odyssey makes absolutely no geographical sense.

Add to this an African tribesman’s use of chili peppers—domesticated in 6,000 BCE and not exported beyond the Americas until the voyages of Columbus in the 15^th-century—and his gift of corn and beans, similarly New World foods, and it would seem that the filmmakers expect audiences not to wonder why their silver screen Pangaea failed to break up all those 250-million years ago.

But all of this is adiophora compared to the absurd treatment of ancient Egypt in the movie’s second half.  Not only does 10,000 BC have the pyramids and Great Sphinx of Giza under construction millennia before their time, it also suggests a labor force of slaves (which, Prince of Egypt notwithstanding, is patently untrue) and domesticated mammoths (making the film’s advancement of horse domestication by 6,000 years look almost reasonable).

Most far-fetched is the identity of the mysterious ruler and commissioner of these massive projects, a so-called god whose origin is as shrouded and veiled as his face—“some say they came from the stars,” one of the Yagahl men explains, “and some say they flew across the water when their land sank into the sea,” a comment which leaves audiences to postulate either space aliens or Atlanteans as the primogenitors of the pharaohs.  (It’s things like this that bother me the most—I’m inclined to think human beings can be way more bizarre than anything conspiracy theorists could cook up.  Stranger than fiction and all that.)

If 10,000 BC captures anything of the changes in human lifestyles that began around the titular time period, it’s the profound spiritual connotations the Yagahl attach to their transition into a sedentary lifestyle.  D’leh’s entire journey represents the fulfillment of a prophecy promising new life for his people after the last hunt of the mammoth has ended—agriculture.

While I’d be shocked if evidence for a transmigration of souls as happened in the movie surfaced in Neolithic archeological sites, early temples such as the stone circles at Gobekli Tepe do suggest a less sensational spirituality.  A megalithic site predating Stonehenge by 7,000 years, the elaborately-carved stone pillars of what may be the world’s earliest temple encircle a space believed to have been used for animal sacrifice and other ritual activities by its architects—nomadic groups like the Yagahl whose religious complexity developed during this pivotal shift in social patterns.

For my part, while I’m clearly willing to throw stones at the writers and directors who signed off on so many bizarre anachronisms, I can’t entirely avoid imagining myself hurling spears alongside the hunters of 10,000 BC, at least so long as the film is rolling.

The saving grace of 10,000 BC—and the only reason a stickler for historical accuracy can still enjoy the story—is the filmmakers’ successful creation of complex characters who are as recognizably modern in their motives and emotions as any human from 2009 AD.  D’leh, far from being a two-dimensional caricature of a “primitive” man, is introspective, compassionate, and rather unfortunately tormented by self-doubt—his mental demons proving a greater challenge than the four-legged demons who ride off with Evolek.

Glaring mistakes abound in 10,000 BC, but they don’t completely blind this viewer, at least, from appreciating the sensitive treatment the film gives the Neolithic men and women we often think of as less than human.

BUBBAWORLD COMIX VOL ONE BOOK AVAILABLE

CLICK AN IMAGE TO GET A LARGER SIZE

DAWN OF TIME  UPDATES EVERY WEDNESDAY AT

BUBBAWORLD COMIX HOME PAGE

BUBBAWORLD COMIX VOL ONE BOOK AVAILABLE

CLICK AN IMAGE TO GET A LARGER SIZE

DAWN OF TIME  UPDATES EVERY WEDNESDAY AT

BUBBAWORLD COMIX HOME PAGE

We humans have created quite a few interesting things over the years. We created the wheel, the car, the internet, toilet paper and the shoe. And though we didn’t create the thumb, we’ve put it to fantastic use in holding things we make and/or sticking it into bodily orifices.

But I must say our most awkward adaptation or invention has been the invention of dating.

Dating as an invention you say?

Yes! I say.

Let’s face it; the procreation part of it got worked out ages ago. It was one of the simpler matters of creation. Even Ikea still uses it; insert tab A into slot B. Clean, simple, effective. Everyone can master it if they care to put forth a bit of effort.

But we humans invented dating. It happens nowhere else in the animal kingdom. Male Big Horn Rams charge and well… ram their heads together so loudly that it can be heard from mountain to mountain to prove that their  genes are the ones that should be passed on. Peacocks show an impressive array of feathers to lure females of the species. And the flatworm? It’s hermaphroditic so it has jousting matches with its penis. The loser is impaled and impregnated.

But with our sizable brains and opposable thumbs we sought to put rules and regulations around such things. We brought reason and accountability to the process. And we’ve either prospered or doomed our species because of it.

Think back to the cave man days. If you’re not old enough, go rent “Quest for Fire”. Man simply found a woman conveniently washing out her fur thong in the nearest river, and when she bent over to rinse them out, it was business time.

This sort of romantic endeavor required much skill and tact. You had to be in the right place at the right time. Wait in the bushes without being noticed, be fast enough to get into position, not be fought off AND finally consummate the whole deal.  If pants had been around it never would have worked.  I’m fairly sure this is what nature had in mind to some degree. Propagation of species based around opportunity and strength, ensuring the strongest survived. If you don’t believe me go to your local high school or Fortune 500 Company and watch.

But wait! Then something happened.  Meet Ogg.  Ogg realized he was too slow, but he was a fantastic hunter. He always brought home the wild boar. Ogg even had a sassy hat made of a boar’s head. But being slow of foot due to a tragic hunting accident he was always a little slow to the river. But Ogg realized something. Everyone liked to eat! Even cavewomen. Hummus wouldn’t be around for 5,000 years and wild beast was where it was at. So after one particularly stellar hunt Ogg keeps some of the choicest cuts of beast to himself. And he strolls over to a cave woman Una and the magic happens:

“Hey, Una, you like meat.”

“Yeah, too bad none of these losers around here have any.”

“Well… I’ve got some back at the cave. Why don’t you come by around 8 o’clock”

“What’s 8 o’clock?”

“When the great Sun God in the sky falls in to the arms of the River Goddess, I’m working on something called a watch too. But be there and we can talk about that too.”

“But there WILL be meat right?”

“Yeah but not a lot so come by yourself.”

And thus, the first date was scheduled. Ogg used his brain to get around his physical short comings.

Una went back to her girlfriends and told them of the rabbit, ostrich and possum they had for dinner. For a bit they were perturbed that he had held out on the village, but thought it was sweet he shared it with her.  One of her friends, Lala, thought it was especially nice and thought she would be better for Ogg than Una and made her way to his cave for left overs. And thus was born the first Maury Povich episode.

Talk of how Ogg bagged Una quickly spread throughout the settlement and other cavemen began to see if they too could lure a woman back to their cave to get busy.

Momo, who was a small and somewhat frail caveman created the first joke and used his invention of humor to lure women. The joke, in case you were wondering,was an act of slapstick comedy in which Momo slipped on a banana peel. It was the first time it had ever happened. They talked about it for years.

Tyler, an even frailer caveman was the first emo and cavewomen thought it was fantastic that he was so in touch with his emotions. Even if he did wear their furs.

And thus the cycle continued for awhile. But we being humans were never constnt with the status quo. Always seeking new and creative ways to get dates man began to invent things; wheels, teepees, igloos, castles. The man who domesticated the cow got ass for DAYS.

“Baby, check this out. Whenever we want milk or meat, we just walk outside and get it.”

“But Ray-Ray, won’t the cow kill you?”

“Nah baby, you know I got this handled. I tamed it.”

“You did what?”

“Watch this”

And with that Ray-Ray went out and got a fresh glass of milk. The woman was his. No one had seen that before. No one! Imagine the day before seeing someone do that meant instant death from a kick to the head and no insurance. Now Ray-Ray just strolls up and gets some milk, like he does it every Tuesday.  Can you imagine what his woman went back and told her friends?

“Ohhhhh giiiiiiirrrrrrrrlllll, Ray-Ray walked right up to that cow and GOT him some milk.”

“Noooo!!!!”

“Yes girl. Ray-Ray can get it every night now as long as he keeps me fed.”

And yes it is a fact that Ray-Ray did domesticate the cow.

Domestication and cultivation were taken care of so men had to find new ways to get dates. We conquered things. We became enlightened.  We fought each other. Honestly you ladies should be a little flattered that 99.999999% of human advancement has been to get you into bed. Whole civilizations created and destroyed to get you to look our way. Name me a cruel despot and I’ll name the woman he loved.

Time marched on and someone realized; “Hey, I’ve got this big hut, I’m the king, chief, warrior priest, CEO, I need to make sure my gene pool keeps going. If only there were a way to guarantee that my son gets a date with the hottest girl in town and produced an heir. Wait I’m the king! I’ll make it happen and if they don’t like it, I’ll have them killed.”

And this the blind date/arranged marriage was born.

If you think they are two different things, they aren’t. One or both people are bound to be disappointed. It’s making a relationship out of less than thin air. And depending on the stakes, it’ll be uncomfortable anywhere from 1 hour to 30 years.

It’s amazing how long this went on.  People of like status would inter-marry to ensure that their lineage continued. Money would exchange hands also, more than likely just to make sure you were as rich as you claimed to be. Im sure anthropologists may say it had more to do with land and money than geneics, but no one was marrying off the son or daughter that couldn’t have a child, more specifically a son.  In the Western World it continued up until the mid 20^th Century, and it still occurs in other cultures.

Only the poor really got to marry who they wanted for this rumored thing call love. People had heard about it but only in the fiction of William Shakespeare. They were too busy dodging the current plague and being serfs to care about love. And chances are they were too illiterate to read making even more remote they knew what love was. And before you bring up some historic star crossed couple like Caesar and Cleopatra, which was his woman on the side. He was just her baby-daddy.

And let’s be honest, it still happens to a degree although less apparent and forced. Anytime you go to a bar or club you make a statement to yourself and others about your social status. You are saying yes, I like this environment and a $10 watered down martini doesn’t phase me because I have the money to blow on such things. But that’s another blog for another day. The point being you can’t meet someone unless you’re in the same place they are.

So where were we?

Ah yes, it’s the mid 20^th Century and Hollywood had finally invented love, popcorn and the movie. Dates as we know them began to take place. Sure there was still a bit of class warfare, but personal choice was there in ways not seen since we called lean-tos home. What do I mean by class warfare? Remember when Whitney Houston married Bobby Brown? Everyone got up in arms. What was she doing with him, “lowering” herself to marry him. That’s what I mean. And while that’s the famous example, we all see it. People dating who we never would have thought in a million years would be together. But in a land of free will and love we may not like it but it really causes no scandal.

And so things went for another 20-40 years depending on what time line you want to follow, but at some point, I’ll say 1983, because I want to, things changed. All of a sudden the world got smaller. First came dating services, then video dating, and when the internet strolled up the whole thing exploded. We know had a chance to go on bad dates with people on a random basis. Whole groups of people we have never met and don’t know our friends were now available for us to be clingy with, passive aggressive with, to be jerks with! Imagine the possibilities.  I could book a ticket to Pocatello, Idaho right now and book a date for tomorrow night 20 seconds later. Can you imagine the shenanigans that would have happened if we had this technology earlier? I can’t and I have an over active imagination.

The point is, almost all of our restrictions on dating are gone. No more social disdain for dating a guy from the “wrong side of the tracks”. At least not from society at large, but definitely from your social circle. How many ITP people do you know that date OTP people? I’ve read stories of people asking what zip codes people live in. “Where do you live?” has replaced “What do you do?” as the first question of compatibility. Although with gas prices I completely buy that one.

“Baby you’re fine and all, but I can’t be drivin’ to Buckhead from East Atlanta to see you 3 times a week.”

As a mechanism for finding someone we want to procreate with and continue the species, we have turned dating on its ear. Sure the tried and true things still matter but now that we have all this choice in who we date, we are looking for ways to narrow it down.

Which may be the ironic thing in all of this; we are turning to global search services to find our next door neighbor. I really wonder how many people have used online services to meet someone only to find out later they went to the same bar all along.

For all our intelligence it looks like nature is determined to smack us in the head. 10,000 years of evolution and we’re right back where we started.  We’re now waiting for women to get caught with their metaphorical pants down by the internet and seeing who can be the fastest to click on their profile.

Photo by Flickr User Bill Gracey

MEXICO CITY — Scientists have found evidence that cavemen near the U.S.-Mexican border were butchering gomphotheres, elephant-like beasts from the Ice Age that had been believed to be nearly extinct in North America by the time humans appeared there.

Researchers from the University of Arizona and Mexico’s anthropology institute say they found the bones of two young gomphotheres — along with blades, a scraping tool and stone chips from making spear tips — at an 11,000-year-old site in Mexico’s Sonora state.

Read More…

BUBBAWORLD COMIX VOL ONE BOOK AVAILABLE

CLICK AN IMAGE TO GET A LARGER SIZE

DAWN OF TIME  UPDATES EVERY WEDNESDAY AT

BUBBAWORLD COMIX HOME PAGE

BUBBAWORLD COMIX VOL ONE BOOK AVAILABLE

CLICK AN IMAGE TO GET A LARGER SIZE

DAWN OF TIME  UPDATES EVERY WEDNESDAY AT

BUBBAWORLD COMIX HOME PAGE

BUBBAWORLD COMIX VOL ONE BOOK AVAILABLE

CLICK AN IMAGE TO GET A LARGER SIZE

DAWN OF TIME  UPDATES EVERY WEDNESDAY AT

BUBBAWORLD COMIX HOME PAGE

BUBBAWORLD COMIX VOL ONE BOOK AVAILABLE

CLICK AN IMAGE TO GET A LARGER SIZE

DAWN OF TIME  UPDATES EVERY WEDNESDAY AT

BUBBAWORLD COMIX HOME PAGE

BUBBAWORLD COMIX VOL ONE BOOK AVAILABLE

CLICK AN IMAGE TO GET A LARGER SIZE

DAWN OF TIME  UPDATES EVERY WEDNESDAY AT

BUBBAWORLD COMIX HOME PAGE

Here is one of the earliest, classic Geico “caveman” commercials.

When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth is a 1970 movie starring Victoria Vetri, set in the time of cavemen. The film was made by Britain’s Hammer Films.

Like several of Hammer’s previous films, such as One Million Years B.C. (1966), the film portrays dinosaurs and humans alongside each other. Directed and scripted by Val Guest, it was based on a treatment by J.G. Ballard, and nominated for an Oscar for its visual effects.

The special effects are considered a benchmark in stop-motion animation believability, so much so that the film is referenced in the movie Jurassic Park. Stop-motion effects were created by Jim Danforth, assisted by David W. Allen and Roger Dickens.

The landscapes (Earth during the Quaternary) were filmed in Gran Canaria and Fuerteventura (Canary Islands), in some places as Maspalomas beach, Ansite Mountain, Amurga and Caldera de Tejeda, in others. It was briefly released on DVD as an exclusive from Best Buy with a G-rating, but was later recalled because it was the uncut version and contained nudity. The original is now a collector’s item.

Trivia:

Cast:

Victoria Vetri

  Victoria Vetri … Sanna
  Robin Hawdon … Tara
  Patrick Allen … Kingsor
  Drewe Henley … Khaku
  Sean Caffrey … Kane
  Magda Konopka … Ulido
  Imogen Hassall … Ayak

Magda Konopka

“You know what they say: if you don’t like the weather in Massachusetts, wait five minutes.” A freakishly early snowfall on Sunday left many New Englanders plugging their ears so as to not be forced to listen to Massachusettsians everywhere utter this Massholian phrase in their typical Massholian tone. Meanwhile, meteorologists everywhere joined together to ask Nature just what the hell was going on. I was just happy I didn’t have to shovel.

Yes, on October 18, long before the leaves began to fall from the trees, snow began to fall from the sky. It felt a tad premature; similar to that one kid in elementary school who had a full beard, even though you were still in 6th grade. Naturally, it brings to the forefront the burning question about the validity of the global warming theory. That’s right, I called it a theory. Just like evolution, gravity, and whether or not the world is actually round, many individuals believe global warming to be the same kind of liberal whining that kept George Bush from winning the Presidency in 2008.

The Earth in 10 years

It’s an interesting notion; that perhaps the science on global warming is not in fact all that solid, especially since most scientists don’t really understand our planet on a microcosmic level, let alone the temperature fluctuations over the last 100,000 years. The EPA, in fact, notes that there are dozens of factors which influence the global temperature, ranging from volcanic eruptions and ocean currents to the Sun’s intensity and changes in the Earth’s orbit. Basically, a lot of scientists who were definitive in their belief that the Earth was heating up are, deciding, in the last few months, that they aren’t so sure anymore.

Also the Earth in 10 years

At this point it seems equally likely that we could all be living in a giant ice cube by 2020 as it is that we could be trying to survive on a massive charcoal briquette. But I suppose that’s fair, because as we all know, Science isn’t an exact science.

Remember the Duke University study in 2002 that claimed coffee has major toxic effects on the body and amplified stress in people who drank it everyday? Neither did I, that’s why I had to Google it. Many individuals took this study as proof that coffee was bad for you, at least until a 2004 Harvard University study stated that long-term consumption of coffee helped decrease the risk for type-2 diabetes.  Wait, what? So science firmly states that coffee can either kill you or keep you from getting diabetes? Yeah, pretty much.

All I’m saying is that maybe, before everyone decides whether or not humanity is going to be destroyed by giant slabs of possibly flaming ice, we place this issue in a broader spectrum than just “humans are causing the global temperature to rise.” Yes, fear gets things done. Nobody would be trying to decrease carbon emissions if politicians and scientists were claiming that the Earth could, possibly, though not definitely, in all likelihood, maybe, be warming due, in large part but not entirely, to the Industrial Revolution. Has there been a massive increase in greenhouse gas emissions in the last 150 years? Absolutely. There no reason to not at least try to minimize the garbage humanity is throwing into the ozone layer. But it’s a little egotistical of us to think that it’s the only reason the Earth is getting warmer.

I know, I know; if you think Global Warming is a hoax then you must be a conservative-crazed, polar bear-hating, seal-clubbing, Republican industrialist. Meanwhile, if you believe Global Warming is true then you must be a liberal-

And I bet you think puppies are cute too

loving, granola-eating, dolphin-humping, Democrat environmentalist. It’s really just not that simple. I love a good dolphin humping just as much as the next guy, but that doesn’t mean Global Warming is hard science. And it’s true, I hate polar bears (look at those vicious little cretins), but that doesn’t mean Global Warming is total garbage. There has to be a middle ground.

Think about it a different way: humanity has already survived major climate change. Throughout the last ice age, known as the Pleistocene epoch, Homo sapiens were thriving. In fact, we did so well that we beat out the competition of Homo neanderthalensis and began creating complex civilizations around the world. Around 10,000 years ago, as the world was beginning to warm up again during the Holocene era,

The guy who probably wrote the Bible

civilizations around the world created their creation stories, virtually all of which center around a major flood episode. So it’s a fair bet that there was, in fact, a major flood. It leaves a bit of a sour taste in a lot of people’s mouths – since it’s very likely a caveman probably gave rise to religion – but it doesn’t make it any less likely.

Humanity is an incredibly adaptable species, and the Earth is even more adaptable than we are. I realize we’re all freaked out by the fact that the world is changing around us, and that half of us may drown in the next 20 years, but trust me, both humanity and the world are going to be fine. Just because the turkeys for Thanksgiving will be frozen this year, whether hunted or store-bought, doesn’t mean there’s any reason to freak out. Besides, even if the Earth floods, like a poorly-plumbed toilet after someone eats Mexican food, and all of humanity is wiped out completely, I highly doubt the polar bears are going to miss us.

So if you stopped by yesterday, you saw a pretty heated debate both here and on the Twitter (I like adding the word “the” in front of stuff for no reason) about Morehouse’s new dress code. In summary, some supported it, some didn’t, but pretty much all the disagreement was centered around whether or not men should be allowed to wear women’s clothes on Morehouse’s campus. No one even touched the issue of sunglasses or gold grills or sagging pants or hoodies inside, so I’m going to have to infer that everyone’s fine with banning these things. After all, these are accoutrements of the underclass, and no one wants to be associated with poor blacks. It’s fine to judge and look down upon people socio-economically, as long as it doesn’t infringe upon a gay person’s right to wear the new Louboutins (sp).

But what about a straight person’s right to do the same? Aisha1908 on Twitter made the point that dressing in women’s clothes and being gay aren’t necessarily synonymous. There are straight dudes who wear women’s clothes:

Do I have a problem with the above gentlemen’s choice of haberdashery? Nope. Do I respect the right of a private institution to say, “naw, folk, you ain’t fina come to class like that.” Yup. But we’ve already hashed out that discussion.

The question that lingers in my mind is just this: Is there any room for gender roles left in our society? Am I, and the people who agree with me, a bunch of out of touch dinosaurs hellbent on maintaining a heteronormative society by brutally squashing people’s right to express themselves?

Whooo! Fuck women's rights! Yeah!

If you were wondering, from Wikipedia:

Heteronormativity is a term for a set of lifestyle norms which indicate or imply that (1.) people fall into only one of two distinct and complementary sexes (male and female) with each having certain natural roles in life, and that (2.) heterosexuality is the only normal sexual orientation, thus making sexual and marital relations appropriate only between members of the opposite sex. Consequently, a heteronormative view is one that promotes alignment of biological sex, gender identity, and gender roles to the gender binary.^[1]

Those who identify and criticize heteronormativity say that it distorts discourse by stigmatizing and marginalizing some forms of sexuality and gender, and makes certain types of self-expression more difficult when that expression violates the norm.^[1] Non-heterosexual and gender-variant people who transgress heteronormativity include homosexual, bisexual, asexual, intersex, and transgender people in addition to people who are married to or form pair-bonds with more than one partner such as polygamists or polyamorists.^{[citation needed]}

By the above definition, I’m technically not completely Heteronormative in the sense that I don’t believe that straight relationships are the only valid relationships. I know enough gay folk to know that, well, they’re gay. You can’t pray it away, suppress it, destroy it, or treat it with medicine if you wanted to. I know at least one transgendered person. And for me to say that they CAN’T or Shouldn’t be with another person of the same sex would be ludicrous to me. You’re an adult, that’s your call.

But what about the gender role part of that equation? And let’s assume we’re talking strictly about straight people, since obviously the gender roles in non-straight relationships are going to be much more complicated. Since we’re saying it’s ok for gay people to throw off the yoke of societally acceptable gender roles, should straight people be allowed to do the same? Should they want to?

Let’s look at a couple constructs in dating. The homette Kimmy Frye did a blog a while back about a “Turnaround Party” in New York. Her take:

Hmm. let’s review the key points:

• Ladies pay a stiff cover.
• Ladies are encouraged to buy the man drinks.
• Men’s turn to relax.

Ummm – No thanks, i’ll pass.

I have zero interest in meeting a man who thinks this is an awesome idea. That would give him a totally false perception of who I am.  Set all kinds of the wrong standards. I’m all about playing the role of a woman and my man being, well, a man, in all the most traditional ways.

OK, she’s not a fan. Let’s see what the commenters had to say:

2 Responses to “Turnaround Party?”

1. where they do that at? @trgriff said this on August 20, 2009 at 2:46 pm
2. I love that @trgriff commented…when I saw your “um no thanks Ill pass and I have zero interest in any man who thinks thats an awesome idea,’ I died laughing. Of course we will pass…not for me! xoxo missbridge said this on August 25, 2009 at 5:10 am

From another enlightened-esque woman, Blackie Collins:
I like men. Let me rephrase that: I like manly men. I do not like skinny jeans wearing, Zac Efron hair flipping, weird, non-prescription glasses sporting, take longer than me to get ready men. Nothing makes me feel more butch than feeling like I’m the guy in our union. And nothing makes me feel more feminine, than being with a man who is just that: a man. There’s something about broad shoulders, a nice suit or regular fitting jeans, maybe some crisp Tims, a few tattoos, those nice cuts along the abs…ok, you get it. If you’re the kind of guy who waxes his eyebrows, you’re out.

Let’s be honest, if you’re too busy at your waxing appointment, you won’t be around to protect me (and maybe you should be protecting Steve instead). I need to feel protected. I need for you to be the dominating animal in our pack. I need to know that if something goes down, you’re on it, or at least we’re in this together. Even my gays can remember they’re men when shit pops off (have you seen those guys fight!), so I know you can do it too, punchanella, punchanella.*

Jackie's real life boyfriend, Earl

Guess that vastly unscientific poll of women says no, this does not rock. But why not? I mean, over the last 30-40 years, we’ve seen a dramatic crumbling of “gender roles.” Women now have the right to equal pay (whether or not that’s fully realized), economic equality to buy what they want and start businesses, be CEO, run for President, run for Vice President, and all kinds of other stuff that I think most people agree is a good thing. I’ve had women bosses before, most of whom were just as if not more competent than male bosses I’ve had.

But let’s look at what else has happened over the past 30-40 years. Divorce rates have shot through the roof, something like 70% of black kids are now born into single parent households, black men trail black women in huge numbers in college and graduate school admittance and achievement. Are the two linked? NO idea. I’m not a sociologist, and don’t pretend to be.

But it does occur to me that if we’re going to throw out some facets of gender roles, why not throw them all out? Here are some things that would happen:

1. Men would no longer exclusively approach women. As equals, women would now also have to approach men.

2. Men would not pay for first dates. you have a job, we’d split the cost.

3. Men would no longer walk on the outside, open doors, or pull out chairs. These would be seen as an insulting infringement on a woman’s independence.

4. Men would no longer help build bookshelves, move furniture, or mow women’s grass, nor change their oil. This would be patronizing and assume women are too weak or mechanically ill-inclined to do things themselves.

5. Forget about Alimony. Leave with what you came with.

6. Men would have the option of being house husbands. It would be insulting to assume that women are somehow naturally better child-rearers than men.

7. Women should no longer expect any show of chivalry, sacrifice, or romance by men to garner their affection.

8. Engagement rings would no longer be purchased by men to propose to women. When the parties agree to enter a marriage, they would exchange watches.

9. Women would no longer be expected to be good cooks or have any household skills. Attempting to seduce a man with cooking skills would be looked down upon as an archaic celebration of oppressive gender roles.

10. Fathers will no longer tell their sons ridiculous things like “Boy, take the trash out!” or “Don’t you let your mother carry those groceries in here by herself” because these would suggest that the woman is incapable of doing manual labor and feeds into the stereotype that men should do “man’s work” or help “weak” women.

So is this a better construct than the current state of heteronormativity that so many people feel is so bad and so oppressive? Would you prefer to enjoy a freedom from gender roles, or would you just laugh if a man expected you to pick him up and pay for his meal? Discuss:

The latest asininity.

You know what I remember? I remember when Geico used to have funny commercials. The gecko thing wore thin about twenty ads ago. And it’s not just the dumb lizard. there’s also the idiotic cavemen that were never funny and definitely should have stopped after the failure of the TV show. Not to mention the whole eyeball money commercials. I find them all to be annoying and I could easily spend an hour debasing the misfires, but I won’t.

I chose this ad not just because it is current, but also because it bothers me logically. Here we have the supposed president or ceo or whatever of Geico suggesting new slogans. Never mind the obvious ripped slogans from Green Giant and Hostess, our intrepid young gecko stands by the standard slogan. The head idiot however waives it off like he’s never heard it before. It’s an impossibility for him to not know it. Stupid, but little things like that bother me.

Look, icons only work for a little while in advertising, then they need to fade into the background. How long has it been since you heard Ronald McDonald talking? It’s been awhile. He doesn’t have to say anything to sell the product anymore, because everyone knows him. On the other side the Vlassic pickle stork was silent for a time but has come back recently and it’s charming again.

Geico has a track record for quality commercials, so it’s a little disheartening to see this rut they’ve gotten into. Hopefully they’ll climb out and get back to being about funny, original ads.

The true man wants two things: danger and play. For that reason he wants woman, as the most dangerous plaything.

Friedrich Nietzsche

Every so often I will meet a woman who I am impressed with. She is put together, she is clean, she is emotionally stable, and she has a sense of humor. She has books other than foolish fiction on her shelves, she works out, her DVD collection does not include Beerfest, and her vices are within her control. On the surface it appears that she is without a tragic flaw like enriched white bread in her cupboards or Kraft mac and cheese in her pantry. Yet I find that this type of woman is almost always not attracted to me.

There is a great salon.com article about how women form love maps early on in life, that they have a certain type of man they are attracted too. I think the same is true for men to a certain degree.

Apparently smell, money, and birth control have something to do with it. Men always ask me about my size, how long I’ve been working out, etc. I always comment that I feel my size has been more a hindrance than a source of attraction. Whatever it is the women that I like want, I surely don’t have it. People have commented that I should stop indulging the ones that I don’t like; that would be like a lion not eating sleeping gazelles.

To be fair, I suppose I rarely ask any women out, and I hear that merely trying is half the battle. I prefer to see my prey wounded and bleeding before I approach. Further in the article it is indicated that the number of premarital sex partners is a good predictor of infidelity post-marriage.

Which is why I’ve decided to resort to cave age tactics of clubbing and hair dragging.

Kidding. Sort of