piranha: red origami crane (Default)
i am curious. there seems to be a glut of television sitcoms in which very pretty women are married to unprepossessing (and that's putting it kindly) men. it's not all that uncommon in movies either, and now that i've started to watch anime i see some of it there as well.

but the reverse: ugly woman hooks up with hot (and nice) guy -- so uncommon that i can't think of an example off the top of my hat. and i don't mean "ugly" as jeaneane garofalo in the truth about cats and dogs; that's hollywood-ugly -- somebody who actually thinks JG ugly is flying blind. i'm talking the equivalent of those unprepossessing husbands, somebody commonly perceived as not the greatest catch in the looks department. and yes, i know "ugly" seems to ever so frequently translate to "fat", and i hate it. but since fat is commonly perceived as ugly, any tv show or movie or anime that portrays the ugly girl as fat counts for the purpose of this post.

so, does anyone have examples?
piranha: red origami crane (Default)
interesting discussion over at [livejournal.com profile] matociquala's. check it out. i am just pulling my main comment across.

As a woman in modern society, I have to understand the male perspective if I am going to succeed in navigating society. They, on the other hand, have the luxury of making a parlor game of wondering "what women want," and so forth--because they are not forced to understand the dominant (and external) paradigm.

hm. ya know, i buy this for ethnic, religious, sexual/gender minorities, but not entirely for the big gender divide. here's why: caucasians in the US don't have to care and know what people of colour want and go through. they can live their entire lives without giving a second thought to the experience of non-whites, and without actually interacting on a meaningful level with anyone who's of a clearly different skin colour.

on the other hand, what women want is still quite important to most men, and much more than a parlor game. they grow up having a mother, having sisters. if they're heterosexual, they have to interact with women not only for sex, but also to be married to, and start a family with. men cannot go through life completely oblivious to women's experiences.

women are not actually a minority, they're all around men. and that changes the dynamic you're describing.

they really don't understand that what a single black mother of three with no high school education wants is to go to bed at night not worrying that her kids are hungry or coming down with something

this is also about class in addition to sex and ethnicity, isn't it? and possibly more about class than about the other groupings. the guys and gals who run the country have no more of a clue what it's like for a young black man in harlem who's trying to provide for his family either. in fact i am surprised you left class out of your list.
piranha: red origami crane (Default)
i'm pulling this from the comments because i was unclear enough to not want to continue there.

several things:

i know from reading right-wing blogs that the things bill named are all possible motivations for continuing to support this sitting president. while the approval ratings for bush set me thinking about this, it's not really the focus for what i've been pondering.

frex, somebody who voted for X because zie can't conceive of a person from the other party doing enough for the country should theoretically answer differently to "is X doing well" as opposed to "do you support X". i can believe a president is making lots of bad decisions, but yet could still be a better choice than all the others; when i am asked whether i'm satisfied with zir decisions i'll still say "no". but lots of people don't seem to do that. it's kinda hard to follow though, what with polls all wording questions in different ways.

i am interested in this phenomenon beyond the specific instance of bush (or nixon, who sunk a bit lower than bush now, but still had more than a quarter of the voters behind him) -- such as what people reported in the comments to james' entry: that roughly 25% of people voted for those whom they knew nothing about. approval ratings in the US apparently never sink much below 20%, but they do so in canada and other countries -- what's the difference?

snippy suggested there was money for polls (there is? where? this is the first i've ever heard of it.) and asked whether it'd be so hard to question people about their actual motivations. i do think it'd be pretty hard; writing good polls is more difficult than it might at first appear. i learned about that when evaluating prototype test experiences at ETS -- *gah*; that was excruciating. i sometimes think it'd be more informative to just ask people open-ended questions and codify them afterwards, but it's not like that is easy. and open-ended questions discriminate against people who don't express themselves well verbally -- and those might be precisely the sorts of people i'd want to hear from. hilzoy wrote a long post about clear thinking which i still want to mine (but not link to because it's again more bush-centred than what i'm pondering).

to really do this well, one has to conduct a controlled experiment from start to finish -- run a fictitious candidate, let people vote, and question the voters afterwards as to their motivations. it'd be a nice sociology project; but way too much effort for a regular person. and i think this sort of thing has to have been done several times over; political scientists would want to know about this in a big way. i continue to hope for links from the lazyweb. :)


piranha: red origami crane (Default)
renaissance poisson

July 2015

   123 4

Most Popular Tags

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags


RSS Atom